Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Zeev Sperber
dblp:270/3905
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2020
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Systems, architecture and hardware · 2Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 2
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 · 100% |
Topics — the 7 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Processor architecture and microarchitecture
branch prediction |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Auto-Predication of Critical Branches · ISCA 2020 |
Processor architecture and microarchitecture › branch prediction
hard-to-predict branch |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Auto-Predication of Critical Branches · ISCA 2020 |
Processor architecture and microarchitecture
speculation |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Auto-Predication of Critical Branches · ISCA 2020 |
Processor architecture and microarchitecture
speculative execution |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Focused Value Prediction · ISCA 2020 |
Processor architecture and microarchitecture
value prediction |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Focused Value Prediction · ISCA 2020 |
Processor architecture and microarchitecture
instruction-level parallelism |
0.1 | 1 | 2020 | Focused Value Prediction · ISCA 2020 |
Processor architecture and microarchitecture
pipelining |
0.1 | 1 | 2020 | Auto-Predication of Critical Branches · ISCA 2020 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
simulation · 0.9
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | Focused Value PredictionabstractValue Prediction was proposed to speculatively break true data dependencies, thereby allowing Out of Order (OOO) processors to achieve higher instruction level parallelism (ILP) and gain performance. State-of-the-art value predictors try to maximize the number of instructions that can be value predicted, with the belief that a higher coverage will unlock more ILP and increase performance. Unfortunately, this comes at increased complexity with implementations that require multiple different types of value predictors working in tandem, incurring substantial area and power cost.In this paper we motivate towards lower coverage, but focused, value prediction. Instead of aggressively increasing the coverage of value prediction, at the cost of higher area and power, we motivate refocusing value prediction as a mechanism to achieve an early execution of instructions that frequently create performance bottlenecks in the OOO processor. Since we do not aim for high coverage, our implementation is light-weight, needing just 1.2 KB of storage. Simulation results on 60 diverse workloads show that we deliver 3.3% performance gain over a baseline similar to the Intel Skylake processor. This performance gain increases substantially to 8.6% when we simulate a futuristic up-scaled version of Skylake. In contrast, for the same storage, state-of-the-art value predictors deliver a much lower speedup of 1.7% and 4.7% respectively. Notably, our proposal is similar to these predictors in performance, even when they are given nearly eight times the storage and have 60% more prediction coverage than our solution. Sumeet Bandishte, Jayesh Gaur, Zeev Sperber, Lihu Rappoport, Adi Yoaz, Sreenivas Subramoney |
ISCA | 3 |
| 2020 | Auto-Predication of Critical BranchesabstractAdvancements in branch predictors have allowed modern processors to aggressively speculate and gain significant performance with every generation of increasing out-of-order depth and width. Unfortunately, there are branches that are still hard-to-predict (H2P) and mis-speculation on these branches is severely limiting the performance scalability of future processors. One potential solution to mitigate this problem is to predicate branches by substituting control dependencies with data dependencies. Predication is very costly for performance as it inhibits instruction level parallelism. To overcome this limitation, prior works selectively applied predication at run-time on H2P branches that have low confidence of branch prediction. However, these schemes do not fully comprehend the delicate trade-offs involved in suppressing speculation and can suffer from performance degradation on certain workloads. Additionally, they need significant changes not just to the hardware but also to the compiler and the instruction set architecture, rendering their implementation complex and challenging.In this paper, by analyzing the fundamental trade-offs between branch prediction and predication, we propose Auto-Predication of Critical Branches (ACB) - an end-to-end hardware-based solution that intelligently disables speculation only on branches that are critical for performance. Unlike existing approaches, ACB uses a sophisticated performance monitoring mechanism to gauge the effectiveness of dynamic predication, and hence does not suffer from performance inversions. Our simulation results show that, with just 386 bytes of additional hardware and no software support, ACB delivers 8% performance gain over a baseline similar to the Skylake processor. We also show that ACB reduces pipeline flushes because of mis-speculations by 22%, thus effectively helping both power and performance. Adarsh Chauhan, Jayesh Gaur, Zeev Sperber, Franck Sala, Lihu Rappoport, Adi Yoaz, Sreenivas Subramoney |
ISCA | 3 |