Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Zachary Purser
dblp:70/4785
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
1as 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 · 2 · 1 first-authorSoftware engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1
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
2 papers |
Processor architecture and microarchitecture · 55% Hardware reliability and fault tolerance · 46% |
Topics — the 5 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Hardware reliability and fault tolerance › redundancy
redundant execution |
0.1 | 2 | 2000 | A study of slipstream processors · MICRO 2000 Slipstream Processors: Improving both Performance and Fault Tolerance · ASPLOS 2000 |
Processor architecture and microarchitecture
speculative execution |
0.1 | 2 | 2000 | A study of slipstream processors · MICRO 2000 Slipstream Processors: Improving both Performance and Fault Tolerance · ASPLOS 2000 |
Processor architecture and microarchitecture
chip multiprocessor |
0.0 | 1 | 2000 | A study of slipstream processors · MICRO 2000 |
Hardware reliability and fault tolerance
transient fault tolerance |
0.0 | 1 | 2000 | Slipstream Processors: Improving both Performance and Fault Tolerance · ASPLOS 2000 |
Processor architecture and microarchitecture › multithreading
simultaneous multithreading |
0.0 | 2 | 2000 | A study of slipstream processors · MICRO 2000 Slipstream Processors: Improving both Performance and Fault Tolerance · ASPLOS 2000 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
value prediction · 0.0simulation · 0.0program sequencing · 0.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | Slipstream Processors: Improving both Performance and Fault ToleranceabstractProcessors execute the full dynamic instruction stream to arrive at the final output of a program, yet there exist shorter instruction streams that produce the same overall effect. We propose creating a shorter but otherwise equivalent version of the original program by removing ineffectual computation and computation related to highly-predictable control flow. The shortened program is run concurrently with the full program on a chip multiprocessor simultaneous multithreaded processor, with two key advantages:1) Improved single-program performance. The shorter program speculatively runs ahead of the full program and supplies the full program with control and data flow outcomes. The full program executes efficiently due to the communicated outcomes, at the same time validating the speculative, shorter program. The two programs combined run faster than the original program alone. Detailed simulations of an example implementation show an average improvement of 7% for the SPEC95 integer benchmarks.2) Fault tolerance. The shorter program is a subset of the full program and this partial-redundancy is transparently leveraged for detecting and recovering from transient hardware faults. Karthik Sundaramoorthy, Zachary Purser, Eric Rotenberg |
ASPLOS | 2 |
| 2000 | A study of slipstream processorsabstractA slipstream processor reduces the length of a running program by dynamically skipping computation non-essential for correct forward progress. The shortened program runs faster as a result, but it is speculative. So a second unreduced copy of the program is run concurrently with and slightly behind the reduced copy-leveraging a chip multiprocessor (CMP) or simultaneous multithreading (SMT). The short program passes its control and data flow outcomes to the fill program for checking. And as it checks the short program, the full program fetches and executes more efficiently, due to having an accurate picture of the future. Both programs are sped up: combined, they outperform conventional non-redundant execution. We study slipstreaming with the following key results. 1. A 12% average performance improvement is achieved by harnessing an otherwise unused, additional processor in a CMP. Slipstreaming using two small superscalar cores often achieves similar instructions-per-cycle as one large superscalar core, bur with a potentially faster clock and a more flexible architecture. 2. A majority of the benchmarks show significant reduction in the short program (about 50%). Slipstreaming using an 8-way SMT processor improves their performance from 10% to 20%. 3. For some benchmarks, including gcc, performance improvement is due to the short program resolving branch mispredictions in advance. Others benefit largely due to value predictions from the short program, and the effect is not always reproducible by conventional value prediction tables. 4. As execution bandwidth is increased, slipstreaming provides less of a performance advantage-unless instructions are removed in the short program before they are fetched. A simple program sequencing mechanism is developed to bypass instruction fetching. Zachary Purser, Karthik Sundaramoorthy, Eric Rotenberg |
MICRO | 1 |