MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6891549005 · doi:10.4230/lipics.ecrts.2025.2

Multi-Objective Memory Bandwidth Regulation and Cache Partitioning for Multicore Real-Time Systems

2025· article· en· W6891549005 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReal-Time Systems Scheduling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersBundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
KeywordsCacheScheduling (production processes)Knapsack problemHeuristicBandwidth (computing)BenchmarkingMulti-core processorMemory bandwidthTask (project management)Linear programming

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Memory bandwidth regulation and cache partitioning are widely used techniques for achieving predictable timing in real-time computing systems. Combined with partitioned scheduling, these methods require careful co-allocation of tasks and resources to cores, as task execution times strongly depend on available allocated resources. To address this challenge, this paper presents a 0-1 linear program for task-resource co-allocation, along with a multi-objective heuristic designed to minimize resource usage while guaranteeing schedulability under a preemptive EDF scheduling policy. Our heuristic employs a multi-layer framework, where an outer layer explores resource allocations using Pareto-pruned search, and an inner layer optimizes task allocation by solving a knapsack problem using dynamic programming. To evaluate the performance of the proposed optimization algorithm, we profile real-world benchmarks on an embedded AMD UltraScale+ ZCU102 platform, with fine-grained resource partitioning enabled by the Jailhouse hypervisor, leveraging cache set partitioning and MemGuard for memory bandwidth regulation. Experiments based on the benchmarking results show that the proposed 0-1 linear program outperforms existing mixed-integer programs by finding more optimal solutions within the same time limit. Moreover, the proposed multi-objective multi-layer heuristic performs consistently better than the state-of-the-art multi-resource-task co-allocation algorithm in terms of schedulability, resource usage, number of non-dominated solutions, and computational efficiency.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics)Same topicReal-Time Systems SchedulingFrench-language works237,207