DAMA: A Dual Arbitration Mechanism for Mixed-Criticality Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We discuss hardware resource management in mixed-criticality systems, where requestors may issue latency-critical (LTC) and non-latency-critical (NLTC) requests. LTC requests must adhere to strict latency bounds imposed by safety-critical applications, but timely servicing NLTC requests is necessary to maximize overall system performance in the average case. In this paper, we address this tradeoff for a shared memory resource by proposing DAMA, a dual arbitration mechanism that imposes an upper bound on the cumulative latency of LTC requests without unduly impacting NLTC performance. DAMA comprises a high-performance arbiter, a real-time arbiter, and a mechanism that constantly monitors the cumulative latency of requests suffered by each requestor. DAMA primarily executes in high-performance mode and only switches to real-time mode in the rare instances when its incorporated mechanism detects a violation of a task’s timing guarantee. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our arbitration scheme by adapting a predictable prefetcher that issues NLTC requests and attaching it to the L1 caches of our cores. We show both formally and experimentally that DAMA provides timing guarantees for LTC requests while processing other NLTC requests. We also demonstrate that with a negligible overhead of less than 1.5% on the cumulative latency bound of LTC requests, DAMA can achieve an equivalent average performance to a prefetcher that processes requests under a high-performance arbitration scheme.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".