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

Jake Kirkham

dblp:280/5458 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2020
—ORCID · none

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 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
Memory systems · 77% GPUs and heterogeneous computing · 23%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Memory systems › memory consistency
memory consistency model
0.412020
Foundations of empirical memory consistency testing · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2020
GPUs and heterogeneous computing › GPU memory
GPU memory model
0.112020
Foundations of empirical memory consistency testing · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2020

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

statistical analysis · 0.4mutation testing · 0.4differential testing · 0.4
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2020 Foundations of empirical memory consistency testing
abstract
Modern memory consistency models are complex, and it is difficult to reason about the relaxed behaviors that current systems allow. Programming languages, such as C and OpenCL, offer a memory model interface that developers can use to safely write concurrent applications. This abstraction provides functional portability across any platform that implements the interface, regardless of differences in the underlying systems. This powerful abstraction hinges on the ability of the system to correctly implement the interface. Many techniques for memory consistency model validation use empirical testing, which has been effective at uncovering undocumented behaviors and even finding bugs in trusted compilation schemes. Memory model testing consists of small concurrent unit tests called “litmus tests”. In these tests, certain observations, including potential bugs , are exceedingly rare, as they may only be triggered by precise interleaving of system steps in a complex processor, which is probabilistic in nature. Thus, each test must be run many times in order to provide a high level of confidence in its coverage. In this work, we rigorously investigate empirical memory model testing. In particular, we propose methodologies for navigating complex stressing routines and analyzing large numbers of testing observations. Using these insights, we can more efficiently tune stressing parameters, which can lead to higher confidence results at a faster rate. We emphasize the need for such approaches by performing a meta-study of prior work, which reveals results with low reproducibility and inefficient use of testing time. Our investigation is presented alongside empirical data. We believe that OpenCL targeting GPUs is a pragmatic choice in this domain as there exists a variety of different platforms to test, from large HPC servers to power-efficient edge devices. The tests presented in the work span 3 GPUs from 3 different vendors. We show that our methodologies are applicable across the GPUs, despite significant variances in the results. Concretely, our results show: lossless speedups of more than 5× in tuning using data peeking; a definition of portable stressing parameters which loses only 12% efficiency when generalized across our domain; a priority order of litmus tests for tuning. We stress test a conformance test suite for the OpenCL 2.0 memory model and discover a bug in Intel’s compiler. Our methods are evaluated on the other two GPUs using mutation testing. We end with recommendations for official memory model conformance tests.
Jake Kirkham, Tyler Sorensen 0001, Esin Tureci, Margaret Martonosi
Proc. ACM Program. Lang.1