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
Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert

Lance M. Berc

dblp:15/4820 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 1997
—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
2 papers
Performance modeling and evaluation · 100%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
2 papers
Operating systems · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Performance modeling and evaluation › profiling
continuous profiling		 0.021997
Continuous Profiling: Where Have All the Cycles Gone? · ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 1997
Continuous Profiling: Where Have All the Cycles Gone? · SOSP 1997
Performance modeling and evaluation
profiling		 0.021997
Continuous Profiling: Where Have All the Cycles Gone? · ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 1997
Continuous Profiling: Where Have All the Cycles Gone? · SOSP 1997
Performance modeling and evaluation
workload characterization		 0.011997
Continuous Profiling: Where Have All the Cycles Gone? · SOSP 1997

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

sampling-based profiling · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
1997 Continuous Profiling: Where Have All the Cycles Gone?
abstract
Article Continuous profiling: where have all the cycles gone? Share on Authors: Jennifer M. Anderson View Profile , Lance M. Berc View Profile , Jeffrey Dean View Profile , Sanjay Ghemawat View Profile , Monika R. Henzinger View Profile , Shun-Tak A. Leung View Profile , Richard L. Sites View Profile , Mark T. Vandevoorde View Profile , Carl A. Waldspurger View Profile , William E. Weihl View Profile Authors Info & Claims SOSP '97: Proceedings of the sixteenth ACM symposium on Operating systems principlesOctober 1997 Pages 1–14https://doi.org/10.1145/268998.266637Published:01 October 1997 175citation1,209DownloadsMetricsTotal Citations175Total Downloads1,209Last 12 Months17Last 6 weeks3 Get Citation AlertsNew Citation Alert added!This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.Manage my AlertsNew Citation Alert!Please log in to your account Save to BinderSave to BinderCreate a New BinderNameCancelCreateExport CitationPublisher SiteGet Access
Jennifer-Ann M. Anderson, Lance M. Berc, Jeffrey Dean, Sanjay Ghemawat, Monika Henzinger, Shun-Tak Leung, Richard L. Sites, Mark T. Vandevoorde, Carl A. Waldspurger, William E. Weihl
 SOSP2
1997 Continuous Profiling: Where Have All the Cycles Gone?
abstract
This article describes the Digital Continuous Profiling Infrastructure, a sampling-based profiling system designed to run continuously on production systems. The system supports multiprocessors, works on unmodified executables, and collects profiles for entire systems, including user programs, shared libraries, and the operating system kernel. Samples are collected at a high rate (over 5200 samples/sec. per 333MHz processor), yet with low overhead (1–3% slowdown for most workloads). Analysis tools supplied with the profiling system use the sample data to produce a precise and accurate accounting, down to the level of pipeline stalls incurred by individual instructions, of where time is bring spent. When instructions incur stalls, the tools identify possible reasons, such as cache misses, branch mispredictions, and functional unit contention. The fine-grained instruction-level analysis guides users and automated optimizers to the causes of performance problems and provides important insights for fixing them.
Jennifer-Ann M. Anderson, Lance M. Berc, Jeffrey Dean, Sanjay Ghemawat, Monika Henzinger, Shun-Tak Leung, Richard L. Sites, Mark T. Vandevoorde, Carl A. Waldspurger, William E. Weihl
 ACM Trans. Comput. Syst.2