MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7133017312

Analyzing System Performance and Automating Performance Diagnosis

2025· dissertation· W7133017312 on OpenAlexaff
Xiang Ren

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2025
Typedissertation
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware System Performance and Reliability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRoot causeDebuggingSoftwareSoftware performance testingSoftware systemRoot (linguistics)Kernel (algebra)Linux kernelRoot cause analysis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Performance makes or breaks a software system. Severe performance issues render systems unusable; even small performance degradation can be costly. Google finds that a 0.5-second delay in page load time has caused a 20% drop in repeat traffic [74]. Despite its importance, there are many obstacles to building performant systems. Modern software systems have complex performance characteristics that are difficult to understand, and users and developers still invest significant time manually diagnosing critical performance issues. The goal of my dissertation work is to help developers build performant software systems, by understanding the performance characteristics of the software systems comprehensively, and creating automated techniques to improve performance. This dissertation consists of two pieces of work, the first piece of work is a study that discovered that many of Linux’s core kernel operations had slowed down over time or had unstable performance due to new features and security guarantees being added, as well as misconfigurations. Despite unavoidable performance trade-offs, we found much of the slowdown can be improved through proactive testing, diagnosis, and optimization or avoided through custom kernel configuration. Motivated by the previous study, the second piece of work creates an automated technique—relational debugging—to diagnose the root causes of performance issues. Relational debugging is inspired by the observation that existing root cause diagnosis tools make fundamental assumptions that are broken by performance issues. Such tools only work for functional bugs that cause clear-cut failures, like crashes, when the expected performance outcome must be determined relative to input workloads. Moreover, existing tools only capture absolute root causes, e.g., broken invariants or predicates, whereas performance root causes tend to be abnormal relative occurrences of events. Based on these insights, we create the relational debugging algorithm, which caters to the “relative” characteristics of performance issues, and we implemented the algorithm with Perspect [105], which can effectively diagnose complex performance issues that human developers struggle with and existing tools are ineffective against.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.791
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.287
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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 venueTSpaceSame topicSoftware System Performance and ReliabilityFrench-language works237,207