VLDB 2026 Research / reviewers in the wild / expert
Mark T. Vandevoorde
dblp:20/2752
· DBLP profile ↗
6ranked-venue papers
3as first author
0since 2021 · last 2000
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Systems, architecture and hardware · 3 · 1 first-authorSoftware engineering, systems software and programming languages · 3 · 1 first-authorTheory of computation · 1 · 1 first-author
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
4 papers |
Performance modeling and evaluation · 89% Parallel and multicore computing · 11% | |
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
4 papers |
Operating systems · 67% Compilers and program optimization · 23% Requirements engineering and software design · 10% | |
| Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper |
Interaction techniques and input · 100% |
Topics — the 8 heaviest of 11, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Performance modeling and evaluation
profiling |
0.1 | 3 | 2000 | Efficient and Flexible Value Sampling · ASPLOS 2000 Continuous Profiling: Where Have All the Cycles Gone? · ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 1997 Continuous Profiling: Where Have All the Cycles Gone? · SOSP 1997 |
Performance modeling and evaluation › profiling
continuous profiling |
0.0 | 2 | 1997 | Continuous Profiling: Where Have All the Cycles Gone? · ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 1997 Continuous Profiling: Where Have All the Cycles Gone? · SOSP 1997 |
Performance modeling and evaluation › profiling
statistical profiling |
0.0 | 1 | 2000 | Efficient and Flexible Value Sampling · ASPLOS 2000 |
Parallel and multicore computing › parallel computing
parallel applications |
0.0 | 1 | 1996 | Parallel User Interfaces for Parallel Applications · HPDC 1996 |
Compilers and program optimization › dynamic optimization
profile-guided optimization |
0.0 | 1 | 2000 | Efficient and Flexible Value Sampling · ASPLOS 2000 |
Performance modeling and evaluation
workload characterization |
0.0 | 1 | 1997 | Continuous Profiling: Where Have All the Cycles Gone? · SOSP 1997 |
Automated reasoning and model checking › theorem proving
interactive theorem proving |
0.0 | 1 | 1996 | Parallel User Interfaces for Parallel Applications · HPDC 1996 |
Requirements engineering and software design
modularity |
0.0 | 1 | 1994 | Using Specialized Procedures and Specification-Based Analysis to Reduce the Runtime Costs of Modularity · SIGSOFT FSE 1994 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
sampling · 0.1interrupt-based profiling · 0.1or-parallelism · 0.0and-parallelism · 0.0sampling-based profiling · 0.0theorem proving · 0.0formal specification · 0.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | Efficient and Flexible Value SamplingabstractThis paper presents novel sampling-based techniques for collecting statistical profiles of register contents, data values, and other information associated with instructions, such as memory latencies. Values of interest are sampled in response to periodic interrupts. The resulting value profiles can be analyzed by programmers and optimizers to improve the performance of production uniprocessor and multiprocessor systems.Our value sampling system extends the DCPI continuous profiling infrastructure, and inherits many of its desirable properties: our value profiler has low overhead (approximately 10% slowdown); it profiles all the code in the system, including the operating system kernel; and it operates transparently, without requiring any modifications to the profiled code. Michael Burrows, Úlfar Erlingsson, Shun-Tak Leung, Mark T. Vandevoorde, Carl A. Waldspurger, Kip Walker, William E. Weihl |
ASPLOS | 4 |
| 1997 | Continuous Profiling: Where Have All the Cycles Gone?abstractArticle Continuous profiling: where have all the cycles gone? Share on Authors: Jennifer M. Anderson View Profile , Lance M. Berc View Profile , Jeffrey Dean View Profile , Sanjay Ghemawat View Profile , Monika R. Henzinger View Profile , Shun-Tak A. Leung View Profile , Richard L. Sites View Profile , Mark T. Vandevoorde View Profile , Carl A. Waldspurger View Profile , William E. Weihl View Profile Authors Info & Claims SOSP '97: Proceedings of the sixteenth ACM symposium on Operating systems principlesOctober 1997 Pages 1–14https://doi.org/10.1145/268998.266637Published:01 October 1997 175citation1,209DownloadsMetricsTotal Citations175Total Downloads1,209Last 12 Months17Last 6 weeks3 Get Citation AlertsNew Citation Alert added!This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.Manage my AlertsNew Citation Alert!Please log in to your account Save to BinderSave to BinderCreate a New BinderNameCancelCreateExport CitationPublisher SiteGet Access Jennifer-Ann M. Anderson, Lance M. Berc, Jeffrey Dean, Sanjay Ghemawat, Monika Henzinger, Shun-Tak Leung, Richard L. Sites, Mark T. Vandevoorde, Carl A. Waldspurger, William E. Weihl |
SOSP | 8 |
| 1997 | Continuous Profiling: Where Have All the Cycles Gone?abstractThis article describes the Digital Continuous Profiling Infrastructure, a sampling-based profiling system designed to run continuously on production systems. The system supports multiprocessors, works on unmodified executables, and collects profiles for entire systems, including user programs, shared libraries, and the operating system kernel. Samples are collected at a high rate (over 5200 samples/sec. per 333MHz processor), yet with low overhead (1–3% slowdown for most workloads). Analysis tools supplied with the profiling system use the sample data to produce a precise and accurate accounting, down to the level of pipeline stalls incurred by individual instructions, of where time is bring spent. When instructions incur stalls, the tools identify possible reasons, such as cache misses, branch mispredictions, and functional unit contention. The fine-grained instruction-level analysis guides users and automated optimizers to the causes of performance problems and provides important insights for fixing them. Jennifer-Ann M. Anderson, Lance M. Berc, Jeffrey Dean, Sanjay Ghemawat, Monika Henzinger, Shun-Tak Leung, Richard L. Sites, Mark T. Vandevoorde, Carl A. Waldspurger, William E. Weihl |
ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. | 8 |
| 1996 | Parallel User Interfaces for Parallel ApplicationsabstractMany parallel applications are designed to conceal parallelism from the user. We investigate a different approach where the user controls many tasks running in parallel. The idea is to let a user accomplish his goal more quickly by trying competing alternatives in parallel (or-parallelism) and by working on subgoals in parallel (and-parallelism). To help the user manage a large number of parallel tasks, the application must provide features to generate many tasks easily, to summarize the state of all tasks, to broadcast commands to related tasks, and to abort tasks that are no longer needed. A parallel interface to an application thus becomes crucial to enhance the user's productivity. We demonstrate this approach using DLP, a parallel, distributed version of the Larch Prover, an interactive theorem prover. DLP supports explicit parallelism and runs on a network of workstations. Users control DLP through a multi-window interface on a bit-map color-display. Many theorem proving problems that would otherwise take considerable user effort to solve have been done with relative ease using DLP. Mark T. Vandevoorde, Deepak Kapur |
HPDC | 1 |
| 1996 | Distributed Larch Prover (DLP): An Experiment in Parallelizing a Rewrite-Rule Based Prover
Mark T. Vandevoorde, Deepak Kapur |
RTA | 1 |
| 1994 | Using Specialized Procedures and Specification-Based Analysis to Reduce the Runtime Costs of ModularityabstractManaging tradeoffs between program structure and program efficiency is one of the most difficult problems facing software engineers. Decomposing programs into abstractions simplifies the construction and maintenance of software and results in fewer errors. However, the introduction of these abstractions often introduces significant inefficiencies.This paper describes a strategy for eliminating many of these inefficiencies. It is based upon providing alternative implementations of the same abstraction, and using information contained in formal specifications to allow a compiler to choose the appropriate one. The strategy has been implemented in a prototype compiler that incorporates theorem proving technology. Mark T. Vandevoorde, John V. Guttag |
SIGSOFT FSE | 1 |