Multiprogramming on multiprocessors:
Abstract: "Several studies have shown that applications may suffer significant performance degradation unless the scheduling policy minimizes the overhead due to multiprogramming. This overhead includes context switching among applications, waiting time incurred by one process due to the preemp...
Gespeichert in:
| Format: | Buch |
|---|---|
| Sprache: | English |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Rochester, NY
1991
|
| Schriftenreihe: | University of Rochester <Rochester, NY> / Department of Computer Science: Technical report
385 |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Zusammenfassung: | Abstract: "Several studies have shown that applications may suffer significant performance degradation unless the scheduling policy minimizes the overhead due to multiprogramming. This overhead includes context switching among applications, waiting time incurred by one process due to the preemption of another, and various migration costs associated with moving a process from one processor to another. Many different multiprogramming solutions have been proposed, but each has limited applicability or fails to address an important source of overhead. In addition, there has been little experimental comparison of the various solutions in the presence of applications with varying degrees of parallelism and synchronization In this paper we explore the tradeoffs between different approaches to multiprogramming a multiprocessor. We modified an existing operating system to implement three different multiprogramming options: time-slicing, coscheduling, and dynamic hardware partitions. Using these three options, we imlemented applications that vary in the degree of parallelism, and the frequency and type of synchronization. We show that in most cases coscheduling is preferable to time-slicing. We also show that although there are cases where coscheduling is beneficial, dynamic hardware partitions do no worse, and will often do better We conclude that under most circumstances, hardware partitioning is the best strategy for multiprogramming a multiprocessor, no matter how much parallelism applications employ or how frequently synchronization occurs. |
| Beschreibung: | 20 S. |
Internformat
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nam a2200000 cb4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | BV008992629 | ||
| 003 | DE-604 | ||
| 005 | 00000000000000.0 | ||
| 007 | t | ||
| 008 | 940206s1991 |||| 00||| eng d | ||
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)26188442 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)BVBBV008992629 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-604 |b ger |e rakddb | ||
| 041 | 0 | |a eng | |
| 049 | |a DE-29T | ||
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Multiprogramming on multiprocessors |c Mark Crovella ... |
| 264 | 1 | |a Rochester, NY |c 1991 | |
| 300 | |a 20 S. | ||
| 336 | |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 490 | 1 | |a University of Rochester <Rochester, NY> / Department of Computer Science: Technical report |v 385 | |
| 520 | 3 | |a Abstract: "Several studies have shown that applications may suffer significant performance degradation unless the scheduling policy minimizes the overhead due to multiprogramming. This overhead includes context switching among applications, waiting time incurred by one process due to the preemption of another, and various migration costs associated with moving a process from one processor to another. Many different multiprogramming solutions have been proposed, but each has limited applicability or fails to address an important source of overhead. In addition, there has been little experimental comparison of the various solutions in the presence of applications with varying degrees of parallelism and synchronization | |
| 520 | 3 | |a In this paper we explore the tradeoffs between different approaches to multiprogramming a multiprocessor. We modified an existing operating system to implement three different multiprogramming options: time-slicing, coscheduling, and dynamic hardware partitions. Using these three options, we imlemented applications that vary in the degree of parallelism, and the frequency and type of synchronization. We show that in most cases coscheduling is preferable to time-slicing. We also show that although there are cases where coscheduling is beneficial, dynamic hardware partitions do no worse, and will often do better | |
| 520 | 3 | |a We conclude that under most circumstances, hardware partitioning is the best strategy for multiprogramming a multiprocessor, no matter how much parallelism applications employ or how frequently synchronization occurs. | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Multiprocessors | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Multiprogramming (Electronic computers) | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Crovella, Mark |e Sonstige |4 oth | |
| 810 | 2 | |a Department of Computer Science: Technical report |t University of Rochester <Rochester, NY> |v 385 |w (DE-604)BV008902697 |9 385 | |
| 999 | |a oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-005941559 | ||
Datensatz im Suchindex
| _version_ | 1804123335096795136 |
|---|---|
| any_adam_object | |
| building | Verbundindex |
| bvnumber | BV008992629 |
| ctrlnum | (OCoLC)26188442 (DE-599)BVBBV008992629 |
| format | Book |
| fullrecord | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>02581nam a2200325 cb4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">BV008992629</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-604</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">00000000000000.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">t</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">940206s1991 |||| 00||| eng d</controlfield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)26188442</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)BVBBV008992629</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-604</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="e">rakddb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-29T</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Multiprogramming on multiprocessors</subfield><subfield code="c">Mark Crovella ...</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Rochester, NY</subfield><subfield code="c">1991</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">20 S.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="490" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">University of Rochester <Rochester, NY> / Department of Computer Science: Technical report</subfield><subfield code="v">385</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1="3" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract: "Several studies have shown that applications may suffer significant performance degradation unless the scheduling policy minimizes the overhead due to multiprogramming. This overhead includes context switching among applications, waiting time incurred by one process due to the preemption of another, and various migration costs associated with moving a process from one processor to another. Many different multiprogramming solutions have been proposed, but each has limited applicability or fails to address an important source of overhead. In addition, there has been little experimental comparison of the various solutions in the presence of applications with varying degrees of parallelism and synchronization</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1="3" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">In this paper we explore the tradeoffs between different approaches to multiprogramming a multiprocessor. We modified an existing operating system to implement three different multiprogramming options: time-slicing, coscheduling, and dynamic hardware partitions. Using these three options, we imlemented applications that vary in the degree of parallelism, and the frequency and type of synchronization. We show that in most cases coscheduling is preferable to time-slicing. We also show that although there are cases where coscheduling is beneficial, dynamic hardware partitions do no worse, and will often do better</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1="3" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">We conclude that under most circumstances, hardware partitioning is the best strategy for multiprogramming a multiprocessor, no matter how much parallelism applications employ or how frequently synchronization occurs.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Multiprocessors</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Multiprogramming (Electronic computers)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Crovella, Mark</subfield><subfield code="e">Sonstige</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="810" ind1="2" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Department of Computer Science: Technical report</subfield><subfield code="t">University of Rochester <Rochester, NY></subfield><subfield code="v">385</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-604)BV008902697</subfield><subfield code="9">385</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-005941559</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |
| id | DE-604.BV008992629 |
| illustrated | Not Illustrated |
| indexdate | 2024-07-09T17:28:08Z |
| institution | BVB |
| language | English |
| oai_aleph_id | oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-005941559 |
| oclc_num | 26188442 |
| open_access_boolean | |
| owner | DE-29T |
| owner_facet | DE-29T |
| physical | 20 S. |
| publishDate | 1991 |
| publishDateSearch | 1991 |
| publishDateSort | 1991 |
| record_format | marc |
| series2 | University of Rochester <Rochester, NY> / Department of Computer Science: Technical report |
| spelling | Multiprogramming on multiprocessors Mark Crovella ... Rochester, NY 1991 20 S. txt rdacontent n rdamedia nc rdacarrier University of Rochester <Rochester, NY> / Department of Computer Science: Technical report 385 Abstract: "Several studies have shown that applications may suffer significant performance degradation unless the scheduling policy minimizes the overhead due to multiprogramming. This overhead includes context switching among applications, waiting time incurred by one process due to the preemption of another, and various migration costs associated with moving a process from one processor to another. Many different multiprogramming solutions have been proposed, but each has limited applicability or fails to address an important source of overhead. In addition, there has been little experimental comparison of the various solutions in the presence of applications with varying degrees of parallelism and synchronization In this paper we explore the tradeoffs between different approaches to multiprogramming a multiprocessor. We modified an existing operating system to implement three different multiprogramming options: time-slicing, coscheduling, and dynamic hardware partitions. Using these three options, we imlemented applications that vary in the degree of parallelism, and the frequency and type of synchronization. We show that in most cases coscheduling is preferable to time-slicing. We also show that although there are cases where coscheduling is beneficial, dynamic hardware partitions do no worse, and will often do better We conclude that under most circumstances, hardware partitioning is the best strategy for multiprogramming a multiprocessor, no matter how much parallelism applications employ or how frequently synchronization occurs. Multiprocessors Multiprogramming (Electronic computers) Crovella, Mark Sonstige oth Department of Computer Science: Technical report University of Rochester <Rochester, NY> 385 (DE-604)BV008902697 385 |
| spellingShingle | Multiprogramming on multiprocessors Multiprocessors Multiprogramming (Electronic computers) |
| title | Multiprogramming on multiprocessors |
| title_auth | Multiprogramming on multiprocessors |
| title_exact_search | Multiprogramming on multiprocessors |
| title_full | Multiprogramming on multiprocessors Mark Crovella ... |
| title_fullStr | Multiprogramming on multiprocessors Mark Crovella ... |
| title_full_unstemmed | Multiprogramming on multiprocessors Mark Crovella ... |
| title_short | Multiprogramming on multiprocessors |
| title_sort | multiprogramming on multiprocessors |
| topic | Multiprocessors Multiprogramming (Electronic computers) |
| topic_facet | Multiprocessors Multiprogramming (Electronic computers) |
| volume_link | (DE-604)BV008902697 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT crovellamark multiprogrammingonmultiprocessors |