Change search
Refine search result
1 - 2 of 2
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the Create feeds function.
  • 1.
    Podobas, Artur
    et al.
    KTH, School of Information and Communication Technology (ICT), Software and Computer systems, SCS.
    Brorsson, Mats
    KTH, School of Information and Communication Technology (ICT), Software and Computer systems, SCS.
    Faxén, Karl-Filip
    Swedish Institute of Computer Science.
    A comparative performance study of common and popular task-centric programming frameworks2013In: Concurrency and Computation, ISSN 1532-0626, E-ISSN 1532-0634Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    SUMMARY: Programmers today face a bewildering array of parallel programming models and tools, making it difficult to choose an appropriate one for each application. An increasingly popular programming model supporting structured parallel programming patterns in a portable and composable manner is the task-centric programming model. In this study, we compare several popular task-centric programming frameworks, including Cilk Plus, Threading Building Blocks, and various implementations of OpenMP 3.0. We have analyzed their performance on the Barcelona OpenMP Tasking Suite benchmark suite both on a 48-core AMD Opteron 6172 server and a 64-core TILEPro64 embedded many-core processor. Our results show that the OpenMP offers the highest flexibility for programmers, and this flexibility comes to a cost. Frameworks supporting only a specific and more restrictive model, such as Cilk Plus and Threading Building Blocks, are generally more efficient both in terms of performance and energy consumption. However, Intel's implementation of OpenMP tasks performs the best and closest to the specialized run-time systems.

  • 2.
    Varisteas, Georgios
    et al.
    KTH, School of Information and Communication Technology (ICT), Communication: Services and Infrastucture, Software and Computer Systems, SCS.
    Brorsson, Mats
    KTH, School of Information and Communication Technology (ICT), Communication: Services and Infrastucture, Software and Computer Systems, SCS.
    Faxén, Karl-Filip
    SICS.
    Dynamic Inter-core Scheduling in Barrelfish: avoiding contention with malleable process domains2011Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Trying to attack the problem of resource contention, created by multiple parallel applications running simultaneously, we propose a space-sharing, two-level, adaptive scheduler for the Barrelfish operating system. The first level is system-wide, existing inside the OS, and has knowledge of the available resources, while the second level is aware of the parallelism in the application. Feedback on efficiency from the second-level to the first-level, allows the latter to adaptively modify the allotment of cores (domain) thus intelligently avoiding time-sharing. In order to avoid excess inter-core communication, the first-level scheduler is designed as a distributed service, taking advantage of the message-passing nature of Barrelfish. The processor topology is partitioned so that each instance of the scheduler handles an appropriately sized subset of cores. Malleability is achieved by suspending worker-threads. Two different methodologies are introduced and explained, each ideal for different situations.

1 - 2 of 2
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf