Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Chandrashis Mazumdar

dblp:290/9331 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2021
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Systems, architecture and hardware · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021

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
1 paper
Memory systems · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Memory systems
cache management
0.512021
Dead Page and Dead Block Predictors: Cleaning TLBs and Caches Together · HPCA 2021
Memory systems › cache management
dead block prediction
0.512021
Dead Page and Dead Block Predictors: Cleaning TLBs and Caches Together · HPCA 2021
Memory systems › memory management › virtual memory › address translation
TLB
0.512021
Dead Page and Dead Block Predictors: Cleaning TLBs and Caches Together · HPCA 2021
Memory systems › memory hierarchy › cache hierarchy
last-level cache
0.112021
Dead Page and Dead Block Predictors: Cleaning TLBs and Caches Together · HPCA 2021

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

simulation · 0.5
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2021 Dead Page and Dead Block Predictors: Cleaning TLBs and Caches Together
abstract
The last level TLB (LLT) and the last level cache (LLC) play a critical role in the overall performance of memory-intensive applications. While management of LLC content has received significant attention, the same may not be true for LLT. In this work, we first explore the well-known concept of dead blocks in caches for TLBs. We find thatdeadpagesare fairly common in the LLT. Different from dead blocks in LLCs, dead pages in LLTs are most often dead-on-arrival, i.e., they produce zero hits in the TLB. We design a storage-efficient dead page predictor that works with a fraction of storage compared to typical dead block predictors. This is important since an LLT itself requires only a few KBs of storage compared to MBs in LLC. We then leverage the dead page information to guide a simple dead block predictor in LLC. This is driven by the observation that dead blocks are often concentrated within dead pages. In effect, we designed a dead page predictor and a correlating dead block predictor with a total storage overhead of only 11KB to bypass predicted dead pages and dead blocks in LLTs and LLCs, respectively. Together, these predictors help improve the IPC of a set of 14 memory-intensive workloads by 8.3%, on average.
Chandrashis Mazumdar, Prachatos Mitra, Arkaprava Basu
HPCA1