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

Narendra Bhandari

dblp:172/1451 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 1998
—ORCID · none

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

Systems, architecture and hardware · 1Software 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
1 paper
Memory systems · 62% GPUs and heterogeneous computing · 38%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Memory systems › memory hierarchy
cache hierarchy
0.011998
Multi-Level Texture Caching for 3D Graphics Hardware · ISCA 1998
GPUs and heterogeneous computing
graphics accelerator
0.011998
Multi-Level Texture Caching for 3D Graphics Hardware · ISCA 1998
Memory systems
cache
0.011998
Multi-Level Texture Caching for 3D Graphics Hardware · ISCA 1998
Memory systems › memory hierarchy › cache hierarchy
l2 cache
0.011998
Multi-Level Texture Caching for 3D Graphics Hardware · ISCA 1998

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

trace-driven simulation · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
1998 Multi-Level Texture Caching for 3D Graphics Hardware
abstract
Traditional graphics hardware architectures implement what we call the push architecture for texture mapping. Local memory is dedicated to the accelerator for fast local retrieval of texture during rasterization, and the application is responsible for managing this memory. The push architecture has a bandwidth advantage, but disadvantages of limited texture capacity, escalation of accelerator memory requirements (and therefore cost), and poor memory utilization. The push architecture also requires the programmer to solve the bin-packing problem of managing accelerator memory each frame. More recently graphics hardware on PC-class machines has moved to an implementation of what we call the pull architecture. Texture is stored in system memory and downloaded by the accelerator as needed. The pull architecture has advantages of texture capacity, stems the escalation of accelerator memory requirements, and has good memory utilization. It also frees the programmer from accelerator texture memory management. However, the pull architecture suffers escalating requirements for bandwidth from main memory to the accelerator. In this paper we propose multi-level texture caching to provide the accelerator with the bandwidth advantages of the push architecture combined with the capacity advantages of the pull architecture. We have studied the feasibility of 2-level caching and found the following: (1) significant re-use of texture between frames; (2) L2 caching requires significantly less memory than the push architecture; (3) L2 caching requires significantly less bandwidth from host memory than the pull architecture; (4) L2 caching enables implementation of smaller L1 caches that would otherwise bandwidth-limit accelerators on the workloads in this paper. Results suggest that an L2 cache achieves the original advantage of the pull architecture stemming the growth of local texture memory - while at the same time stemming the current explosion in demand for texture bandwidth between host memory and the accelerator.
Michael Cox, Narendra Bhandari, Michael Shantz
ISCA2