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

Srikat Subramaniam

dblp:74/3929 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 1994
—ORCID · none

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

Systems, architecture and hardware · 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
1 paper
Parallel and multicore computing · 77% Electronic design automation · 23%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Parallel and multicore computing › task scheduling › process scheduling
affinity scheduling
0.011994
Affinity scheduling of unbalanced workloads · SC 1994
Parallel and multicore computing
cache affinity
0.011994
Affinity scheduling of unbalanced workloads · SC 1994
Electronic design automation › high-level synthesis
scheduling
0.011994
Affinity scheduling of unbalanced workloads · SC 1994
Parallel and multicore computing › multiprocessor system
shared-memory multiprocessor
0.011994
Affinity scheduling of unbalanced workloads · SC 1994
Parallel and multicore computing
load balancing
0.011994
Affinity scheduling of unbalanced workloads · SC 1994

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

wrapped partitioned scheduling · 0.0dynamic partitioned scheduling · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
1994 Affinity scheduling of unbalanced workloads
abstract
Scheduling in a shared memory multiprocessor is often complicated by the fact that a unit of work may be processed more efficiently on one processor than on any other, due to factors such as the presence of required data in a local cache. The unit of work is said to have an "affinity" for the given processor, in such a case. The scheduling issue that has to be considered is the tradeoff between the goals of respecting processor affinities (so as to obtain improved efficiencies in execution) and of dynamically assigning each unit of work to whichever processor happens to be, at the time, least loaded (so as to obtain better load balance and decreased processor idle times). A specific context in which the above scheduling issue arises is that of shared memory multiprocessors with large per-processor caches or cached main memories. The shared-memory programming paradigm of such machines permits the dynamic scheduling of work. The data required by a unit of work may, however, often reside mostly in the cache of one particular processor, to which that unit of work thus has affinity. In this paper, two new "affinity scheduling" algorithms are proposed for a context in which the units of work have widely varying execution times. The two proposed algorithms are: (1) dynamic partitioned affinity scheduling and (2) wrapped partitioned affinity scheduling. An experimental study of these algorithms finds them to perform well in this context.>
Srikat Subramaniam, Derek L. Eager
SC1