Improving Multi-threaded Application Performance on Modern Chip Multiprocessors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multi-threading is one way of leveraging the increasing number of cores in today's processors to speed up applications by dividing the workload, that would otherwise be executed sequentially, across multiple threads that run in parallel. However, if one thread lags behind the rest of the threads, it will limit the overall achievable benefit from parallelization. To unlock the full potential of multi-threading such critical threads have to be predicted and optimized during runtime in a way that minimizes the difference in performance between them and the remaining threads. The large number of factors that can affect a thread's performance make critical thread prediction a very challenging task. Moreover, these factors are not completely independent of each other and can be indirectly related in ways that are difficult to model accurately. Therefore, previous works that addressed the issue of thread criticality only focused on a limited set of factors when predicting which threads are critical. However, the results presented in this thesis show that none of these factors strongly correlates to thread criticality when considered separately resulting in suboptimal thread criticality predictions. Instead of focusing on a limited set of factors, this thesis leverages machine learning to facilitate the study of a wide variety of factors that can potentially affect a thread's progress. Specifically, this thesis formulates the problem of thread criticality as a Learning-to-Rank problem. Each thread is represented by a set of runtime statistics representing the input features to the ranking model and the predicted scores reflect how critical a thread is. Using a ranking model puts more emphasis on threads' criticality scores relative to each other rather than exactly matching the criticality score for each thread. This work shows how the proposed thread criticality prediction methodology can be applied to two types of run environments. The first runs the benchmarks on a real system and uses Linux Trace Toolkit: next generation (LTTng) for data collection while the second uses Gem5 to simulate the required multi-core system. Collected results show that single features are not very accurate predictors for thread criticality compared to a model that considers several features. The obtained model performs 17% better than a single-metric based predictor in predicting threads' criticality. Finally, a case study where critical threads are prioritized by doubling the corresponding core frequency shows the potential benefit the proposed ranking model offers compared to a predictor that is based on a single feature.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".