2015
DOI: 10.1007/s11227-014-1374-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Addressing characterization methods for memory contention aware co-scheduling

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3
2
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The rest of this section presents prior efforts which identify, quantify or model the applications' performance due to shared resource contention. Slowdown based methods -De Blanche et al [12,13] propose a slowdown based characterization method to estimate the applications' slowdown when sharing the memory bus. Their sensitivity curve is obtained using synthesized memory traffic and the contentiousness is found using performance counters.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The rest of this section presents prior efforts which identify, quantify or model the applications' performance due to shared resource contention. Slowdown based methods -De Blanche et al [12,13] propose a slowdown based characterization method to estimate the applications' slowdown when sharing the memory bus. Their sensitivity curve is obtained using synthesized memory traffic and the contentiousness is found using performance counters.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Using this specific configuration to create the sensitivity curve, we maintain the same static read/write ratio and computing characteristics used by the authors in their work. Another point regarding the sensitivity curve is that [12] and [13] do not specify whether the values of the x-axis are the maximum bandwidth or the interfering bandwidth in contention. We assumed the same approach applied in our work, using the maximum bandwidth achieved during the interfering test.…”
Section: Comparison With Memgenmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Only then can it be motivated from the compute centers' point of view for an optimization of the system workload. Although different proposals exist that use prediction models for efficient co‐scheduling,() they are usually based on empirical slow‐down analyses. In contrast, we propose a scheduling scheme based on an online analysis of the applications' resource consumption.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Lee et al [7] investigated the interactions between prefetchers and on-chip networks, exploiting the synergy of these two components in multi-cores to reduce the traffic generated by the prefetchers. Blanche and Lundqvist [11] evaluated the prediction accuracy and co-scheduling performance of four state-of-the-art characterization methods for memory aware (co-) scheduling. Zhang [14] proposed a load balancing task scheduling algorithm based on weighted random and feedback mechanisms to eliminate system bottlenecks and balance loads dynamically.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As hardware moves towards integrated memory controllers and higher bandwidth, selecting prefetchers properly will play a significant role in optimizing system performance. Recent works [11][12][13][14] on the topic of performance degradation in multi-core systems focused on contention for cache space and bus bandwidth when applications share the last level cache (LLC). It is well known that many factors contribute to performance degradation when threads share an LLC.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%