Patent Grant
10884812
Computing devices can utilize communication networks to exchange data. Companies and organizations operate computer networks that interconnect a number of computing devices to support operations or provide services to third parties. The computing systems can be located in a single geographic location or located in multiple, distinct geographic locations (e.g., interconnected via private or public communication networks). Specifically, hosted computing environments or data processing centers, generally referred to herein as “data centers,” may include a number of interconnected computing systems to provide computing resources to users of the data center. The data centers may be private data centers operated on behalf of an organization, or public data centers operated on behalf, or for the benefit of, the general public.
To facilitate increased utilization of data center resources, virtualization technologies allow a single physical computing device to host one or more instances of virtual machines that appear and operate as independent computing devices to users of a data center. With virtualization, the single physical computing device can create, maintain, delete, or otherwise manage virtual machines in a dynamic manner. In turn, users can request computing resources from a data center, such as single computing devices or a configuration of networked computing devices, and be provided with varying numbers of virtual machine resources.
In some scenarios, a user can request that a data center provide computing resources to execute a particular task. The task may correspond to a set of computer-executable instructions, which the data center may then execute on behalf of the user. The data center may thus further facilitate increased utilization of data center resources.
Throughout the drawings, reference numbers may be re-used to indicate correspondence between referenced elements. The drawings are provided to illustrate example embodiments described herein and are not intended to limit the scope of the disclosure.
Generally described, aspects of the present disclosure relate to an on-demand code execution system. The on-demand code execution system enables rapid execution of code, which may be supplied by users of the on-demand code execution system. More specifically, embodiments of the present disclosure relate to improving the performance of an on-demand code execution system that is implemented using various computing resources. As described in detail herein, the on-demand code execution system may provide a network-accessible service enabling users to submit or designate computer-executable code to be executed by virtual machine instances on the on-demand code execution system. Each set of code on the on-demand code execution system may define a “task,” and implement specific functionality corresponding to that task when executed on a virtual machine instance of the on-demand code execution system. Individual implementations of the task on the on-demand code execution system may be referred to as an “execution” of the task (or a “task execution”). The on-demand code execution system can further enable users to trigger execution of a task based on a variety of potential events, such as detecting new data at a network-based storage system, transmission of an application programming interface (“API”) call to the on-demand code execution system, or transmission of a specially formatted hypertext transport protocol (“HTTP”) packet to the on-demand code execution system. Thus, users may utilize the on-demand code execution system to execute any specified executable code “on-demand,” without requiring configuration or maintenance of the underlying hardware or infrastructure on which the code is executed. Further, the on-demand code execution system may be configured to execute tasks in a rapid manner (e.g., in under 100 milliseconds [ms]), thus enabling execution of tasks in “real-time” (e.g., with little or no perceptible delay to an end user).
The on-demand code execution system may instantiate virtual machine instances to execute the specified tasks on demand. The virtual machine instances may be provisioned with virtual processors or other computing resources, which provide functionality that the user-specified executable code may require during execution. For example, a virtual machine instance may be provisioned with a processor that facilitates or accelerates operations that are frequently used by neural networks. The processor may implement, for example, a particular instruction set (or an extension to an instruction set) that relates to these operations. In some embodiments, the instruction set may also be implemented by the underlying hardware processor of the physical computing device on which the virtual machine instance is instantiated. In other embodiments, the virtual machine instance may emulate a processor that implements a particular instruction set, and the virtual machine instance may be instantiated using a physical processor that does not implement the instruction set. The virtual machine instance may thus translate instructions implemented by the virtual processor into instructions that are implemented by the physical processor, with varying effects on performance or efficiency.
The on-demand code execution system may utilize a pool of computing resources to execute user-submitted code. The pool may include resources that vary in terms of functionality, and the demand for resources that implement particular functionality may exceed the available supply of those resources. For example, several user-submitted tasks may require or prefer a processor that implements a particular instruction set, but only a limited number of these processors may be available. In some embodiments, excess demand for resources that implement particular functionality may be met with resources that emulate the functionality. For example, a virtual machine instance may be instantiated that emulates the processor, as discussed above, and the on-demand code execution system may assign user-submitted tasks to the physical and virtual resources based on factors such as relative performance. For example, a first user-submitted task may be able to execute with acceptable performance on an emulated processor, while a second user-submitted task may execute very slowly or not at all. The on-demand code execution system may thus prioritize the allocation of scarce resources based on assessments of whether the functionality is required or merely desirable in order to execute a particular task, and may further prioritize based on the relative performance of different tasks, such that the tasks that benefit the most from the functionality receive it.
In some embodiments, a virtual machine instance instantiated on a fast physical processor may outperform a virtual or physical computing device that uses a slower processor, even if the slower processor provides functionality that the faster processor does not. For example, an older processor with a particular instruction set may be emulated in a virtual machine instance that is instantiated on a newer processor without the instruction set, and the performance gain realized by executing on the newer processor may more than offset the performance overhead associated with emulated the processor or instruction set. It will thus be understood that the on-demand code execution system is not limited to physical processors when determining a recommended set of computing resources, and that virtual emulation of a physical processor may provide superior performance.
As will be appreciated by one of skill in the art in light of the present disclosure, the embodiments disclosed herein improves the ability of computing systems, such as on-demand code execution systems, to execute code in an efficient manner. Moreover, the presently disclosed embodiments address technical problems inherent within computing systems; specifically, the limited nature of computing resources with which to execute code, the resource overhead associated with provisioning virtual machines to facilitate code execution, and the inefficiencies caused by provisioning functionality that is not utilized (or not provisioning functionality that would be utilized if available). These technical problems are addressed by the various technical solutions described herein, including the provisioning of an execution environment based on the functionality required by the code to be executed. Thus, the present disclosure represents an improvement on existing data processing systems and computing systems in general.
The on-demand code execution system may include a virtual machine instance manager configured to receive user code (threads, programs, etc., composed in any of a variety of programming languages) and execute the code in a highly scalable, low latency manner, without requiring user configuration of a virtual machine instance. Specifically, the virtual machine instance manager can, prior to receiving the user code and prior to receiving any information from a user regarding any particular virtual machine instance configuration, create and configure virtual machine instances according to a predetermined set of configurations, each corresponding to any one or more of a variety of run-time environments. Thereafter, the virtual machine instance manager receives user-initiated requests to execute code, and identifies a pre-configured virtual machine instance to execute the code based on configuration information associated with the request. The virtual machine instance manager can further allocate the identified virtual machine instance to execute the user's code at least partly by creating and configuring containers inside the allocated virtual machine instance, and provisioning the containers with code of the task as well as an dependency code objects. Various embodiments for implementing a virtual machine instance manager and executing user code on virtual machine instances is described in more detail in U.S. Pat. No. 9,323,556, entitled “PROGRAMMATIC EVENT DETECTION AND MESSAGE GENERATION FOR REQUESTS TO EXECUTE PROGRAM CODE,” and filed Sep. 30, 2014 (the “'556 Patent”), the entirety of which is hereby incorporated by reference.
As used herein, the term “virtual machine instance” is intended to refer to an execution of software or other executable code that emulates hardware to provide an environment or platform on which software may execute (an “execution environment”). Virtual machine instances are generally executed by hardware devices, which may differ from the physical hardware emulated by the virtual machine instance. For example, a virtual machine may emulate a first type of processor and memory while being executed on a second type of processor and memory. Thus, virtual machines can be utilized to execute software intended for a first execution environment (e.g., a first operating system) on a physical device that is executing a second execution environment (e.g., a second operating system). In some instances, hardware emulated by a virtual machine instance may be the same or similar to hardware of an underlying device. For example, a device with a first type of processor may implement a plurality of virtual machine instances, each emulating an instance of that first type of processor. Thus, virtual machine instances can be used to divide a device into a number of logical sub-devices (each referred to as a “virtual machine instance”). While virtual machine instances can generally provide a level of abstraction away from the hardware of an underlying physical device, this abstraction is not required. For example, assume a device implements a plurality of virtual machine instances, each of which emulate hardware identical to that provided by the device. Under such a scenario, each virtual machine instance may allow a software application to execute code on the underlying hardware without translation, while maintaining a logical separation between software applications running on other virtual machine instances. This process, which is generally referred to as “native execution,” may be utilized to increase the speed or performance of virtual machine instances. Other techniques that allow direct utilization of underlying hardware, such as hardware pass-through techniques, may be used as well.
While a virtual machine executing an operating system is described herein as one example of an execution environment, other execution environments are also possible. For example, tasks or other processes may be executed within a software “container,” which provides a runtime environment without itself providing virtualization of hardware. Containers may be implemented within virtual machines to provide additional security, or may be run outside of a virtual machine instance.
Although example embodiments are described herein with regard to processor instruction sets, it will be understood that the present disclosure is not limited to any particular computing resource or functionality. For example, code may be analyzed to determine that it spends a significant amount of time waiting for a storage device to read or write information, and a determination may be made to provide a higher-speed data store (e.g., a memory cache or solid state device) to facilitate more efficient execution of the code. As a further example, code or performance metrics may be analyzed to determine that providing a particular graphics processing unit (“GPU”) would facilitate execution of the user-submitted task, and the identified GPU may be provided or emulated. As a still further example, code may be analyzed to determine that it is optimized for a particular type of memory, such as non-volatile random access memory (“NVRAM”) or dynamic random access memory (“DRAM”), and the particular type of memory may be supplied. The example embodiments are thus understood to be illustrative and not limiting.
In some embodiments, a user may submit code that requires particular functionality, or code that runs more efficiently if certain functionality is provided, without being aware of the dependency. For example, the user-submitted code may make use of a third-party library, and the library may require the functionality or make extensive use of it if available. In other embodiments, the user may be aware that particular functionality is needed, but may not know whether the on-demand code execution system provides the functionality or if so whether the functionality is currently available. By implementing the embodiments described herein, the on-demand code execution system addresses these issues and allows the user to submit code without identifying the functionality it requires, and without having to specifically request that the on-demand code execution system provide the functionality.
Embodiments of the disclosure will now be described with reference to the accompanying figures, wherein like numerals refer to like elements throughout. The terminology used in the description presented herein is not intended to be interpreted in any limited or restrictive manner, simply because it is being utilized in conjunction with a detailed description of certain specific embodiments of the invention. Furthermore, embodiments of the invention may include several novel features, no single one of which is solely responsible for its desirable attributes or which is essential to practicing the inventions herein described.
The illustrative environment 100 further includes one or more network-based data storage services 108, configured to enable the on-demand code execution system 110 to store and retrieve data from one or more persistent or substantially persistent data sources. Illustratively, the network-based data storage services 108 may enable the on-demand code execution system 110 to store information corresponding to a task, such as code or metadata, to store additional code objects representing dependencies of tasks, to retrieve data to be processed during execution of a task, and to store information (e.g., results) regarding that execution. The network-based data storage services 108 may represent, for example, a relational or non-relational database. In another example, the network-based data storage services 108 may represent a network-attached storage (NAS), configured to provide access to data arranged as a file system. The network-based data storage services 108 may further enable the on-demand code execution system 110 to query for and retrieve information regarding data stored within the on-demand code execution system 110, such as by querying for a number of relevant files or records, sizes of those files or records, file or record names, file or record creation times, etc. In some instances, the network-based data storage services 108 may provide additional functionality, such as the ability to separate data into logical groups (e.g., groups associated with individual accounts, etc.). While shown as distinct from the auxiliary services 106, the network-based data storage services 108 may in some instances also represent a type of auxiliary service 106.
The user computing devices 102, auxiliary services 106, and network-based data storage services 108 may communicate with the on-demand code execution system 110 via a network 104, which may include any wired network, wireless network, or combination thereof. For example, the network 104 may be a personal area network, local area network, wide area network, over-the-air broadcast network (e.g., for radio or television), cable network, satellite network, cellular telephone network, or combination thereof. As a further example, the network 104 may be a publicly accessible network of linked networks, possibly operated by various distinct parties, such as the Internet. In some embodiments, the network 104 may be a private or semi-private network, such as a corporate or university intranet. The network 104 may include one or more wireless networks, such as a Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) network, a Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) network, a Long Term Evolution (LTE) network, or any other type of wireless network. The network 104 can use protocols and components for communicating via the Internet or any of the other aforementioned types of networks. For example, the protocols used by the network 104 may include Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), HTTP Secure (HTTPS), Message Queue Telemetry Transport (MQTT), Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP), and the like. Protocols and components for communicating via the Internet or any of the other aforementioned types of communication networks are well known to those skilled in the art and, thus, are not described in more detail herein.
The on-demand code execution system 110 is depicted in
Further, the on-demand code execution system 110 may be implemented directly in hardware or software executed by hardware devices and may, for instance, include one or more physical or virtual servers implemented on physical computer hardware configured to execute computer executable instructions for performing various features that will be described herein. The one or more servers may be geographically dispersed or geographically co-located, for instance, in one or more data centers. In some instances, the one or more servers may operate as part of a system of rapidly provisioned and released computing resources, often referred to as a “cloud computing environment.”
In the example of
In
To enable interaction with the on-demand code execution system 110, the system 110 includes one or more frontends 120, which enable interaction with the on-demand code execution system 110. In an illustrative embodiment, the frontends 120 serve as a “front door” to the other services provided by the on-demand code execution system 110, enabling users (via user computing devices 102) to provide, request execution of, and view results of computer executable code. The frontends 120 include a variety of components to enable interaction between the on-demand code execution system 110 and other computing devices. For example, each frontend 120 may include a request interface providing user computing devices 102 with the ability to upload or otherwise communication user-specified code to the on-demand code execution system 110 and to thereafter request execution of that code. In one embodiment, the request interface communicates with external computing devices (e.g., user computing devices 102, auxiliary services 106, etc.) via a graphical user interface (GUI), CLI, or API. The frontends 120 process the requests and makes sure that the requests are properly authorized. For example, the frontends 120 may determine whether the user associated with the request is authorized to access the user code specified in the request.
References to user code as used herein may refer to any program code (e.g., a program, routine, subroutine, thread, etc.) written in a specific program language. In the present disclosure, the terms “code,” “user code,” and “program code,” may be used interchangeably. Such user code may be executed to achieve a specific function, for example, in connection with a particular web application or mobile application developed by the user. As noted above, individual collections of user code (e.g., to achieve a specific function) are referred to herein as “tasks,” while specific executions of that code (including, e.g., compiling code, interpreting code, or otherwise making the code executable) are referred to as “task executions” or simply “executions.” Tasks may be written, by way of non-limiting example, in JavaScript (e.g., node.js), Java, Python, and/or Ruby (and/or another programming language). Tasks may be “triggered” for execution on the on-demand code execution system 110 in a variety of manners. In one embodiment, a user or other computing device may transmit a request to execute a task may, which can generally be referred to as “call” to execute of the task. Such calls may include the user code (or the location thereof) to be executed and one or more arguments to be used for executing the user code. For example, a call may provide the user code of a task along with the request to execute the task. In another example, a call may identify a previously uploaded task by its name or an identifier. In yet another example, code corresponding to a task may be included in a call for the task, as well as being uploaded in a separate location (e.g., storage of an auxiliary service 106 or a storage system internal to the on-demand code execution system 110) prior to the request being received by the on-demand code execution system 110. As noted above, the code for a task may reference additional code objects maintained at the on-demand code execution system 110 by use of identifiers of those code objects, such that the code objects are combined with the code of a task in an execution environment prior to execution of the task. The on-demand code execution system 110 may vary its execution strategy for a task based on where the code of the task is available at the time a call for the task is processed. A request interface of the frontend 120 may receive calls to execute tasks as Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure (HTTPS) requests from a user. Also, any information (e.g., headers and parameters) included in the HTTPS request may also be processed and utilized when executing a task. As discussed above, any other protocols, including, for example, HTTP, MQTT, and CoAP, may be used to transfer the message containing a task call to the request interface 122.
A call to execute a task may specify one or more third-party libraries (including native libraries) to be used along with the user code corresponding to the task. In one embodiment, the call may provide to the on-demand code execution system 110 a file containing the user code and any libraries (and/or identifications of storage locations thereof) corresponding to the task requested for execution. In some embodiments, the call includes metadata that indicates the program code of the task to be executed, the language in which the program code is written, the user associated with the call, and/or the computing resources (e.g., memory, etc.) to be reserved for executing the program code. For example, the program code of a task may be provided with the call, previously uploaded by the user, provided by the on-demand code execution system 110 (e.g., standard routines), and/or provided by third parties. Illustratively, code not included within a call or previously uploaded by the user may be referenced within metadata of the task by use of a URI associated with the code. In some embodiments, such resource-level constraints (e.g., how much memory is to be allocated for executing a particular user code) are specified for the particular task, and may not vary over each execution of the task. In such cases, the on-demand code execution system 110 may have access to such resource-level constraints before each individual call is received, and the individual call may not specify such resource-level constraints. In some embodiments, the call may specify other constraints such as permission data that indicates what kind of permissions or authorities that the call invokes to execute the task. Such permission data may be used by the on-demand code execution system 110 to access private resources (e.g., on a private network). In some embodiments, individual code objects may also be associated with permissions or authorizations. For example, a third party may submit a code object and designate the object as readable by only a subset of users. The on-demand code execution system 110 may include functionality to enforce these permissions or authorizations with respect to code objects.
In some embodiments, a call may specify the behavior that should be adopted for handling the call. In such embodiments, the call may include an indicator for enabling one or more execution modes in which to execute the task referenced in the call. For example, the call may include a flag or a header for indicating whether the task should be executed in a debug mode in which the debugging and/or logging output that may be generated in connection with the execution of the task is provided back to the user (e.g., via a console user interface). In such an example, the on-demand code execution system 110 may inspect the call and look for the flag or the header, and if it is present, the on-demand code execution system 110 may modify the behavior (e.g., logging facilities) of the container in which the task is executed, and cause the output data to be provided back to the user. In some embodiments, the behavior/mode indicators are added to the call by the user interface provided to the user by the on-demand code execution system 110. Other features such as source code profiling, remote debugging, etc. may also be enabled or disabled based on the indication provided in a call.
To manage requests for code execution, the frontend 120 can include an execution queue (not shown in
As noted above, tasks may be triggered for execution at the on-demand code execution system 110 based on explicit calls from user computing devices 102 (e.g., as received at the request interface). Alternatively or additionally, tasks may be triggered for execution at the on-demand code execution system 110 based on data retrieved from one or more auxiliary services 106 or network-based data storage services 108. To facilitate interaction with auxiliary services 106, the frontend 120 can include a polling interface (not shown in
In addition to tasks executed based on explicit user calls and data from auxiliary services 106, the on-demand code execution system 110 may in some instances operate to trigger execution of tasks independently. For example, the on-demand code execution system 110 may operate (based on instructions from a user) to trigger execution of a task at each of a number of specified time intervals (e.g., every 10 minutes).
The frontend 120 can further include an output interface (not shown in
In some embodiments, the on-demand code execution system 110 may include multiple frontends 120. In such embodiments, a load balancer (not shown in
To execute tasks, the on-demand code execution system 110 includes one or more worker managers 140 that manage the instances used for servicing incoming calls to execute tasks. In the example illustrated in
The containers 156A-F, virtual machine instances 154A-C, and host computing devices 150A-B may further include language runtimes, code libraries, or other supporting functions (not depicted in
Although the virtual machine instances 154A-C are described here as being assigned to a particular user, in some embodiments, an instance 154A-C may be assigned to a group of users, such that the instance is tied to the group of users and any member of the group can utilize resources on the instance. For example, the users in the same group may belong to the same security group (e.g., based on their security credentials) such that executing one member's task in a container on a particular instance after another member's task has been executed in another container on the same instance does not pose security risks. Similarly, the worker managers 140 may assign the instances and the containers according to one or more policies that dictate which requests can be executed in which containers and which instances can be assigned to which users. An example policy may specify that instances are assigned to collections of users who share the same account (e.g., account for accessing the services provided by the on-demand code execution system 110). In some embodiments, the requests associated with the same user group may share the same containers (e.g., if the user codes associated therewith are identical). In some embodiments, a task does not differentiate between the different users of the group and simply indicates the group to which the users associated with the task belong.
Once a triggering event to execute a task has been successfully processed by a frontend 120, the frontend 120 passes a request to a worker manager 140 to execute the task. In one embodiment, each frontend 120 may be associated with a corresponding worker manager 140 (e.g., a worker manager 140 co-located or geographically nearby to the frontend 120) and thus the frontend 120 may pass most or all requests to that worker manager 140. In another embodiment, a frontend 120 may include a location selector configured to determine a worker manager 140 to which to pass the execution request. In one embodiment, the location selector may determine the worker manager 140 to receive a call based on hashing the call, and distributing the call to a worker manager 140 selected based on the hashed value (e.g., via a hash ring). Various other mechanisms for distributing calls between worker managers 140 will be apparent to one of skill in the art. In accordance with embodiments of the present disclosure, the worker manager 140 can determine a host computing device 150A-B or a virtual machine instance 154A-C for executing a task in accordance with a recommendation from an emulation provisioning system 170.
The on-demand code execution system 110 further includes an emulation provisioning system 170, which implements aspects of the present disclosure including, for example, the determination of how to provide functionality that may be required for a particular task. In some embodiments, the emulation provisioning system 170 includes a code analyzer 162, which may be invoked when the user submits code via the frontend 120 to statically analyze submitted code and determine functionality that is required by the submitted code. As described in more detail below, the code analyzer 162 may analyze the user's code and identify, for example, API calls, operating system calls, function calls, or other indications of functionality that the code will require during execution. In various embodiments, the code analyzer 162 may analyze keywords, symbols, headers, directives, or other aspects of the user's code. In further embodiments, the on-demand code execution system 110 includes an execution analyzer 164, which may be invoked when the user's code is executed to analyze the performance of the executing code and the functionality that is actually utilized during execution of the code. The execution analyzer 164 may identify, for example, a portion of the source code that requires specific functionality, but is seldom or never reached during execution. In further embodiments, the emulation provisioning system 170 may include a computing resource data store 176, which may store information regarding the functionality that is provided by various host computing devices 150A-B or is emulated by various virtual machine instances 154A-C.
As shown in
While some functionalities are generally described herein with reference to an individual component of the on-demand code execution system 110, other components or a combination of components may additionally or alternatively implement such functionalities. For example, a worker manager 140 may operate to provide functionality associated with execution of user-submitted code as described herein with reference to an emulation provisioning system 170.
The memory 220 may contain computer program instructions (grouped as modules in some embodiments) that the processor 202 executes in order to implement one or more aspects of the present disclosure. The memory 220 generally includes random access memory (RAM), read only memory (ROM) and/or other persistent, auxiliary or non-transitory computer readable media. The memory 220 may store an operating system 222 that provides computer program instructions for use by the processor 202 in the general administration and operation of the emulation provisioning system 170. The memory 220 may further include computer program instructions and other information for implementing aspects of the present disclosure. For example, in one embodiment, the memory 220 includes a user interface module 224 that generates user interfaces (and/or instructions therefor) for display upon a computing device, e.g., via a navigation and/or browsing interface such as a browser or application installed on the computing device. In addition, the memory 220 may include and/or communicate with one or more data repositories (not shown), for example, to access user program codes and/or libraries.
In addition to and/or in combination with the user interface module 224, the memory 220 may include a code analyzer 172 and an execution analyzer 174 that may be executed by the processor 202. In one embodiment, the code analyzer 172 and the execution analyzer 174 individually or collectively implement various aspects of the present disclosure, e.g., analyzing code or code execution to determine needed functionality and provide that functionality efficiently, as described further below.
While the code analyzer 172 and the execution analyzer 174 are shown in
The memory 220 may further include user-submitted code 160, which may be loaded into memory in conjunction with a user-submitted request to execute a task on the on-demand code execution system 110. The code 160 may be illustratively analyzed by the code analyzer 172 to identify needed functionality, as described in more detail below. The memory 220 may further include execution performance metrics 226, which may be collected from physical or virtual machines as the code 160 is executed on these platforms, and may be analyzed by the execution analyzer 174.
In some embodiments, the emulation provisioning system 170 may further include components other than those illustrated in
At (3), the code analyzer 172 may request computing resource data from the computing resource data store 176. The computing resource data may indicate, for example, particular computing resources that are available within the on-demand code execution system 110 for executing the user-submitted code, and may further indicate the functionality associated with these computing resources, the performance of these computing resources when providing specified functionality, and other parameters or information that enable the code analyzer 172 to determine recommended computing resources. At (4), the computing resource data store 176 may provide the requested computing resource data. In some embodiments, the computing resource data store 176 may only provide data regarding available computing resources. In other embodiments, the computing resource data store 176 may provide data regarding computing resources that are unavailable (e.g., because they are currently being used to execute other user-submitted code), and the code analyzer 172 may determine whether to make these resources available by, for example, migrating other tasks.
At (5), the code analyzer 172 may determine a set of computing resources to use when executing the user-submitted code. In some embodiments, the code analyzer 172 may generate a recommendation that the worker manager 140 may optionally implement, depending on resource availability, prioritization of requested tasks, and other factors. In other embodiments, the code analyzer 172 may consider some or all of these factors when making its determination, and may determine a set of computing resources for the worker manager 140 to allocate. The code analyzer 172 may analyze instructions, operations, functions, API calls, libraries, or other aspects of the user-submitted code to identify functionality that the code may use, and may identify computing resources that provide this functionality. For example, the code analyzer 172 may analyze the user-submitted code and identify that it has been compiled for execution on a particular processor (e.g., by setting particular flags at compile time), or that it includes a library that makes frequent use of floating point arithmetic. In some embodiments, the code analyzer 172 may obtain information regarding previous executions of the user-submitted code and determine the functionality used by the code on that basis. In further embodiments, the code analyzer 172 may obtain information regarding other code submitted by the same user, and may assess whether the user's submissions frequently make use of particular functionality. The code analyzer 172 may further analyze data such as user priorities or preferences, and may analyze computing resource data to consider factors such as limited availability of particular resources (which may be expressed as a resource cost), overall demand for certain computing resources, prioritization of requests and tasks, or other considerations.
At (6), the code analyzer 172 provides the resource recommendation to the frontend 120, and at (7) the frontend 120 provides the resource recommendation and the user-submitted code to the worker manager 140. In some embodiments, the interaction at (6) may be omitted and the code analyzer 172 may provide a resource recommendation directly to the worker manager 140. In further embodiments, the interactions at (6) and (7) may be combined and the code analyzer 172 may provide both the user-submitted code and the recommendation to the worker manager 140. In still further embodiments, the worker manager 140 may carry out the interaction at (2) and request a resource recommendation from the code analyzer 172. In various embodiments, the frontend 120 or the code analyzer 172 may provide an identifier or other information that allows the worker manager 140 to obtain the user-submitted code rather than providing the user-submitted code directly.
At (8), in some embodiments, the worker manager 140 may determine the availability of resources that were recommended by the code analyzer 172. In some embodiments, the code analyzer 172 may provide a prioritized or ordered list of potential computing resources for executing the user-submitted code, and the worker manager 140 may determine a “best available” resource by comparing the prioritized list to the available resource pool. The other embodiments, the code analyzer 172 may provide scores or weighting factors for various potential computing resources (or for the relative priority of the task), and the worker manager 140 may determine a computing resource based on these factors. In further embodiments, as described above, the code analyzer 172 may consider resource availability when determining a set of computing resources, and the interaction at (8) may be omitted or may be a determination that tasks must be migrated from one resource to another to free up the resources that will be used to execute the newly submitted task.
At (9), the worker manager 140 may allocate the computing resources that will be used to execute the user-submitted code. In various embodiments, allocating the computing resources may include allocating a host computing device 150A, allocating an existing virtual machine instance (not shown in
In some embodiments, the ordering and implementation of operations described above may be modified, or these interactions may be carried out by additional or alternative elements of the on-demand code execution system 110. For example, in some embodiments, the worker manager 140 may be configured to analyze performance metrics and request a resource recommendation from the execution analyzer 174 in response to the metrics satisfying certain criteria. As a further example, code analysis may be carried out prior to receiving a request to execute user-submitted code, and the results of such analysis may be stored (e.g., in the computing resource data store 176) for later use when code execution is requested.
At (3), the execution analyzer 174 may determine recommended computing resources. Illustratively, the execution analyzer 174 may determine, based on the execution metrics, that a different set of computing resources could execute the code more efficiently. For example, the execution analyzer 174 may determine that the code is performing a number of operations that would execute more efficiently on a different computing resource (e.g., a processor that implements a particular instruction set). As a further example, the execution analyzer 174 may determine that the code is making little or no use of a computing resource, and thus may be migrated to a different computing resource without significant effect on performance. In some embodiments, the execution analyzer 174 may obtain information from the computing resource data store 176 regarding other computing resources that may be available for executing the code, and may estimate the performance of executing the code on those resources relative to the received performance metrics.
At (4), the execution analyzer 174 may store updated computing resource data to the computing resource data store 176. Illustratively, the execution analyzer 174 may store that a particular set of computing resources executed the code with a particular degree of efficiency (or inefficiency) based on the collected performance metrics, and this information may be used to refine subsequent analyses by the execution analyzer 174 or the code analyzer 172. In some embodiments, as discussed above, the execution analyzer 174 may store that the computing resources were underutilized, or that particular functionality was needed but absent, when executing the code. In some embodiments, the execution analyzer 174 may analyze the results of multiple executions of various user-submitted code to identify trends or patterns that may facilitate allocation of computing resources to the execution of user-submitted code.
At (5), in some embodiments, the execution analyzer 174 may provide an updated resource recommendation to the worker manager 140. In some embodiments, as discussed above, the execution analyzer 174 may consider factors such as resource availability and prioritization, and may instruct the worker manager 140 to migrate the user-submitted code to a different set of computing resources. In other embodiments, the execution analyzer 174 may provide a recommendation and the worker manager 140 may determine whether to implement the recommendation. In such embodiments, at (6), the worker manager 140 may determine whether computing resources or available, or can be made available, to implement the recommendation of the execution analyzer 174. In some embodiments, the worker manager 140 or the execution analyzer 174 may consider whether the estimated performance gain to be realized by migrating executing code to a different set of computing resources outweighs any costs associated with the migration, such as the transfer of execution states or costs associated with freeing up the resources. In further embodiments, the worker manager 140 or the execution analyzer 174 may aggregate or prioritize recommendations to ensure that resources are allocated efficiently overall.
At (7), the worker manager 140 may migrate execution of the user-submitted code from one set of computing resources to another. For example, the worker manager 140 may migrate execution of the code from a host computing device 150A to another host computing device 150B that implements different functionality. In various embodiments, the worker manager 140 may migrate the code execution from one physical computing device to another, from one virtual machine instance to another, from a physical computing device to a virtual machine instance (or vice versa), or combinations thereof. In some embodiments, the worker manager 140 may migrate the code execution by suspending execution on the host computing device 150A, migrating the code and state information to the host computing device 150B, and then resuming code execution on the host computing device 150B and releasing the resources on the host computing device 150A that were executing the code. In other embodiments, the worker manager 140 may migrate the code execution by terminating an in-progress execution on the host computing device 150A and starting over on the host computing device 150B. In further embodiments, the worker manager may perform a “live” migration, and may begin execution on the host computing device 150B without suspending execution on the host computing device 150A, or may execute on both devices 150A-B in parallel for a time before completing the migration. Other embodiments of migrating executing code will be understood to be within the scope of the disclosure. At (8), the host computing device 150A may suspend its execution of the user-submitted code, and at (9) the host computing device 150B (or other physical or virtual computing device) may resume execution of the code from the point at which execution was suspended.
In some embodiments, the execution analyzer 174 may determine a set of computing resources to be used when the user-submitted code is next executed, and may provide this recommendation to the code analyzer 172, worker manager 140, or store it in the computing resource data store 176. Additionally, in some embodiments, the execution analyzer 174 may make a determination or recommendation at the start of a subsequent execution of the code based on performance metrics collected during the previous execution(s), which may supplement or replace a code-based analysis for the subsequent executions.
In some embodiments, the reporting of execution metrics at (2) may be carried out continuously during execution of the user-submitted code, and the execution analyzer 174 may dynamically analyze whether the user-submitted code requires different computing resources at various points during its execution. For example, the execution analyzer 174 may determine that the user-submitted code has begun or ended a phase of execution that makes us of certain functionality, and may recommend making that functionality available or indicate the functionality is no longer required. Additionally, in some embodiments, the worker manager 140 may request that the execution analyzer 174 provide a recommendation for a particular computing resource (e.g., a computing resource that has become available), and may receive a recommendation to migrate execution of a particular user-submitted code to the resource.
At block 506, available computing resources may be identified. In some embodiments, as described above, computing resources may be identified regardless of their availability. In various embodiments, availability may be considered both in terms of availability within a particular data center (e.g., the resources are present) and availability for use (e.g., the resources are idle or can be freed). At block 508, sets of computing resources that provide the identified functionality may be identified as potential candidates for executing the user-submitted code. A set of computing resources may include, for example, various physical or virtual resources such as a processor, memory, interfaces, data stores, and the like. In some embodiments, a virtual computing resource may be associated with a particular host computing environment. For example, a virtual processor may be associated with the underlying physical processor in order to assess the performance of the virtual processor when providing the required functionality.
At block 510, a set of resources that has not yet been analyzed by this execution of the routine 500 may be selected. At block 512, the performance of this set of resources may be estimated with regard to executing the user-submitted code. The performance may be estimated, for example, based on benchmarks, metrics, previous executions, or other criteria. In various embodiments, performance estimates may be expressed in terms of numerical scores, grades, categories (e.g., high, medium, and low), or other formats that enable comparison.
At decision block 514, a determination may be made as to whether all of the candidate sets of computing resources have been analyzed by the routine 500. If not, then the routine 500 branches to block 510 and iterates through blocks 512 and 514 until all sets of computing resources have been analyzed. Once all resource sets have been analyzed, the routine 500 branches to block 516, where a recommended set of computing resources may be determined based on the performance estimates. In some embodiments, the set of computing resources having the highest estimated performance may be recommended. In other embodiments, the sets of computing resources may be associated with cost, scarcity, or other criteria that may be factored into the recommendation. For example, a scarce computing resource may be allocated only if the difference in performance relative to a widely available computing resource exceeds a threshold.
At block 518, the code may be executed using the recommended set of computing resources. In some embodiments, as described above, the recommended set of computing resources may be one factor in the allocation of computing resources, and may be weighed along with other considerations such as resource availability or cost. In other embodiments, a prioritized list of candidate computing resources may be output and may be used to determine the computing resources to use when executing the code. In further embodiments, the routine 500 may determine that a particular resource should be made available, and may identify another task (and associated user-submitted code) to migrate in order to free the particular resource based on the estimated or measured performance of various tasks that are executing on the resource to be made available.
At block 604, the performance metrics may be analyzed. In some embodiments, the performance metrics may be compared to a threshold or other criterion to assess whether the performance of the set of computing resources is satisfactory. For example, the performance metrics may be used to assess whether a number of instructions executed per clock cycle satisfies a threshold, or to assess whether code execution is completed within a time interval. In other embodiments, the performance metrics may be analyzed relative to other performance metrics, such as metrics obtained when executing the same or similar code on a different set of computing resources, metrics obtained when executing other code on the same set of computing resources, or an average or baseline performance metric.
At decision block 606, a determination may be made as to whether the relative performance of the set of computing resources when executing the user-submitted code is acceptable. If the relative performance is comparable to or better than a baseline, then the routine 600 may end without taking any measures to improve performance. In some embodiments, the routine 600 may branch to block 618 and store performance metrics or other information if the relative performance is better than average, and may use this information when making further recommendations as to which computing resources to use when executing user-submitted code for a particular task. In other embodiments, the routine 600 may branch to block 608 and consider migrating the task to other computing resources if the relative performance is higher than it needs to be. For example, the user may require that a particular task be completed within a specified amount of time, and the set of computing resources may enable completion of the task far more quickly than the user requires. The determination at decision block 606 may thus be that the task could be completed on a slower set of computing resources and still meet the user's performance requirements, and so the task should be migrated in order to free up the faster computing resources for more time-critical tasks.
If the determination at decision block 606 is that execution of the user-submitted code should be migrated to a different set of computing resources, then the routine 600 branches to block 608, where available computing resources may be identified. At block 610, the available computing resources may be analyzed to identify an alternate set of computing resources that may be used to execute the task, and at block 612 the performance of the alternate set of computing resources when executing the task may be estimated. In some embodiments, multiple sets of computing resources may be identified and analyzed, and block 612 may be carried out iteratively for each candidate set. In other embodiments, an alternate set of computing resources may be identified based on the relative performance of the current set of computing resources.
At decision block 614, a determination may be made as to whether execution of the user-submitted code should be migrated from the current set of computing resources to the alternate set of computing resources. In some embodiments, the determination may be as to whether the alternate set of computing resources would provide better performance based on the obtained and estimated performance metrics. For example, the determination may be that the alternate set of computing resources would execute more instructions per clock cycle than the current set of computing resources, and thus would lead to an improvement in performance. In other embodiments, the determination may as to whether the alternate set of computing resources provides acceptable performance based on criteria such as execution time, cost, resource utilization, or other metrics. In these embodiments, the current set of computing resources may provide higher performance than the current set of computing resources, but the other factors discussed above may lead to a determination to use the alternate set of computing resources. If the determination at decision block 614 is that the execution should not be migrated, then the routine 600 ends.
If the determination at decision block 614 is that the code execution should be migrated, then at block 616 the code execution is migrated to the alternate set of computing resources. At block 618, the obtained or estimated performance metrics may be stored to improve the accuracy of estimate or improve decision-making when initially allocating computing resources, as discussed above. The routine 600 then ends.
The blocks of the routines described above may vary in embodiments of the present disclosure. For example, in some implementations of either routine, the identification of available computing resources may be deferred or delegated to the worker manager 140, and the routine 500 or 600 may provide a recommendation that the worker manager 140 determines whether to implement, based on factors such as resource availability and the cost-benefit of migrating tasks from one set of resources to another. The routines may further include additional blocks, or the blocks of the routines may be rearranged, according to various embodiments.
It is to be understood that not necessarily all objects or advantages may be achieved in accordance with any particular embodiment described herein. Thus, for example, those skilled in the art will recognize that certain embodiments may be configured to operate in a manner that achieves or optimizes one advantage or group of advantages as taught herein without necessarily achieving other objects or advantages as may be taught or suggested herein.
All of the processes described herein may be embodied in, and fully automated via, software code modules, including one or more specific computer-executable instructions, that are executed by a computing system. The computing system may include one or more computers or processors. The code modules may be stored in any type of non-transitory computer-readable medium or other computer storage device. Some or all the methods may be embodied in specialized computer hardware.
Many other variations than those described herein will be apparent from this disclosure. For example, depending on the embodiment, certain acts, events, or functions of any of the algorithms described herein can be performed in a different sequence, can be added, merged, or left out altogether (e.g., not all described acts or events are necessary for the practice of the algorithms). Moreover, in certain embodiments, acts or events can be performed concurrently, e.g., through multi-threaded processing, interrupt processing, or multiple processors or processor cores or on other parallel architectures, rather than sequentially. In addition, different tasks or processes can be performed by different machines and/or computing systems that can function together.
The various illustrative logical blocks and modules described in connection with the embodiments disclosed herein can be implemented or performed by a machine, such as a processing unit or processor, a digital signal processor (DSP), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field programmable gate array (FPGA) or other programmable logic device, discrete gate or transistor logic, discrete hardware components, or any combination thereof designed to perform the functions described herein. A processor can be a microprocessor, but in the alternative, the processor can be a controller, microcontroller, or state machine, combinations of the same, or the like. A processor can include electrical circuitry configured to process computer-executable instructions. In another embodiment, a processor includes an FPGA or other programmable device that performs logic operations without processing computer-executable instructions. A processor can also be implemented as a combination of computing devices, e.g., a combination of a DSP and a microprocessor, a plurality of microprocessors, one or more microprocessors in conjunction with a DSP core, or any other such configuration. Although described herein primarily with respect to digital technology, a processor may also include primarily analog components. A computing environment can include any type of computer system, including, but not limited to, a computer system based on a microprocessor, a mainframe computer, a digital signal processor, a portable computing device, a device controller, or a computational engine within an appliance, to name a few.
Conditional language such as, among others, “can,” “could,” “might,” or “may,” unless specifically stated otherwise, are otherwise understood within the context as used in general to convey that certain embodiments include, while other embodiments do not include, certain features, elements and/or steps. Thus, such conditional language is not generally intended to imply that features, elements and/or steps are in any way required for one or more embodiments or that one or more embodiments necessarily include logic for deciding, with or without user input or prompting, whether these features, elements and/or steps are included or are to be performed in any particular embodiment.
Disjunctive language such as the phrase “at least one of X, Y, or Z,” unless specifically stated otherwise, is otherwise understood with the context as used in general to present that an item, term, etc., may be either X, Y, or Z, or any combination thereof (e.g., X, Y, and/or Z). Thus, such disjunctive language is not generally intended to, and should not, imply that certain embodiments require at least one of X, at least one of Y, or at least one of Z to each be present.
Any process descriptions, elements or blocks in the flow diagrams described herein and/or depicted in the attached figures should be understood as potentially representing modules, segments, or portions of code which include one or more executable instructions for implementing specific logical functions or elements in the process. Alternate implementations are included within the scope of the embodiments described herein in which elements or functions may be deleted, executed out of order from that shown, or discussed, including substantially concurrently or in reverse order, depending on the functionality involved as would be understood by those skilled in the art.
Unless otherwise explicitly stated, articles such as “a” or “an” should generally be interpreted to include one or more described items. Accordingly, phrases such as “a device configured to” are intended to include one or more recited devices. Such one or more recited devices can also be collectively configured to carry out the stated recitations. For example, “a processor configured to carry out recitations A, B, and C” can include a first processor configured to carry out recitation A working in conjunction with a second processor configured to carry out recitations B and C.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4949254 | Shorter | Aug 1990 | A |
| 5283888 | Dao et al. | Feb 1994 | A |
| 5970488 | Crowe et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
| 6385636 | Suzuki | May 2002 | B1 |
| 6463509 | Teoman et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
| 6501736 | Smolik et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
| 6523035 | Fleming et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
| 6708276 | Yarsa et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
| 7036121 | Casabona et al. | Apr 2006 | B1 |
| 7590806 | Harris et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
| 7665090 | Tormasov et al. | Feb 2010 | B1 |
| 7707579 | Rodriguez | Apr 2010 | B2 |
| 7730464 | Trowbridge | Jun 2010 | B2 |
| 7774191 | Berkowitz et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
| 7823186 | Pouliot | Oct 2010 | B2 |
| 7886021 | Scheifler et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
| 8010990 | Ferguson et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
| 8024564 | Bassani et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
| 8046765 | Cherkasova et al. | Oct 2011 | B2 |
| 8051180 | Mazzaferri et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
| 8051266 | DeVal et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
| 8065676 | Sahai et al. | Nov 2011 | B1 |
| 8065682 | Baryshnikov et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
| 8095931 | Chen et al. | Jan 2012 | B1 |
| 8127284 | Meijer et al. | Feb 2012 | B2 |
| 8146073 | Sinha | Mar 2012 | B2 |
| 8166304 | Murase et al. | Apr 2012 | B2 |
| 8171473 | Lavin | May 2012 | B2 |
| 8209695 | Pruyne et al. | Jun 2012 | B1 |
| 8219987 | Vlaovic et al. | Jul 2012 | B1 |
| 8321554 | Dickinson | Nov 2012 | B2 |
| 8321558 | Sirota et al. | Nov 2012 | B1 |
| 8336079 | Budko et al. | Dec 2012 | B2 |
| 8352608 | Keagy et al. | Jan 2013 | B1 |
| 8387075 | McCann et al. | Feb 2013 | B1 |
| 8429282 | Ahuja | Apr 2013 | B1 |
| 8448165 | Conover | May 2013 | B1 |
| 8490088 | Tang | Jul 2013 | B2 |
| 8555281 | Van Dijk et al. | Oct 2013 | B1 |
| 8566835 | Wang et al. | Oct 2013 | B2 |
| 8613070 | Borzycki et al. | Dec 2013 | B1 |
| 8631130 | Jackson | Jan 2014 | B2 |
| 8677359 | Cavage et al. | Mar 2014 | B1 |
| 8694996 | Cawlfield et al. | Apr 2014 | B2 |
| 8700768 | Benari | Apr 2014 | B2 |
| 8719415 | Sirota et al. | May 2014 | B1 |
| 8725702 | Raman et al. | May 2014 | B1 |
| 8756696 | Miller | Jun 2014 | B1 |
| 8769519 | Leitman et al. | Jul 2014 | B2 |
| 8799236 | Azari et al. | Aug 2014 | B1 |
| 8799879 | Wright et al. | Aug 2014 | B2 |
| 8806468 | Meijer et al. | Aug 2014 | B2 |
| 8819679 | Agarwal et al. | Aug 2014 | B2 |
| 8825863 | Hansson et al. | Sep 2014 | B2 |
| 8825964 | Sopka et al. | Sep 2014 | B1 |
| 8839035 | Dimitrovich et al. | Sep 2014 | B1 |
| 8850432 | Mcgrath et al. | Sep 2014 | B2 |
| 8874952 | Tameshige et al. | Oct 2014 | B2 |
| 8904008 | Calder et al. | Dec 2014 | B2 |
| 8997093 | Dimitrov | Mar 2015 | B2 |
| 9027087 | Ishaya et al. | May 2015 | B2 |
| 9038068 | Engle et al. | May 2015 | B2 |
| 9052935 | Rajaa | Jun 2015 | B1 |
| 9086897 | Oh et al. | Jul 2015 | B2 |
| 9092837 | Bala et al. | Jul 2015 | B2 |
| 9098528 | Wang | Aug 2015 | B2 |
| 9110732 | Forschmiedt et al. | Aug 2015 | B1 |
| 9110770 | Raju et al. | Aug 2015 | B1 |
| 9111037 | Nalis et al. | Aug 2015 | B1 |
| 9112813 | Jackson | Aug 2015 | B2 |
| 9141410 | Leafe et al. | Sep 2015 | B2 |
| 9146764 | Wagner | Sep 2015 | B1 |
| 9152406 | De et al. | Oct 2015 | B2 |
| 9164754 | Pohlack | Oct 2015 | B1 |
| 9183019 | Kruglick | Nov 2015 | B2 |
| 9208007 | Harper et al. | Dec 2015 | B2 |
| 9218190 | Anand et al. | Dec 2015 | B2 |
| 9223561 | Orveillon et al. | Dec 2015 | B2 |
| 9223966 | Satish et al. | Dec 2015 | B1 |
| 9250893 | Blahaerath et al. | Feb 2016 | B2 |
| 9268586 | Voccio et al. | Feb 2016 | B2 |
| 9298633 | Zhao et al. | Mar 2016 | B1 |
| 9317689 | Aissi | Apr 2016 | B2 |
| 9323556 | Wagner | Apr 2016 | B2 |
| 9361145 | Wilson et al. | Jun 2016 | B1 |
| 9413626 | Reque et al. | Aug 2016 | B2 |
| 9436555 | Dornemann et al. | Sep 2016 | B2 |
| 9461996 | Hayton et al. | Oct 2016 | B2 |
| 9471775 | Wagner et al. | Oct 2016 | B1 |
| 9483335 | Wagner et al. | Nov 2016 | B1 |
| 9489227 | Oh et al. | Nov 2016 | B2 |
| 9497136 | Ramarao et al. | Nov 2016 | B1 |
| 9501345 | Lietz et al. | Nov 2016 | B1 |
| 9514037 | Dow et al. | Dec 2016 | B1 |
| 9537788 | Reque et al. | Jan 2017 | B2 |
| 9575798 | Terayama et al. | Feb 2017 | B2 |
| 9588790 | Wagner et al. | Mar 2017 | B1 |
| 9594590 | Hsu | Mar 2017 | B2 |
| 9596350 | Dymshyts et al. | Mar 2017 | B1 |
| 9600312 | Wagner et al. | Mar 2017 | B2 |
| 9628332 | Bruno, Jr. et al. | Apr 2017 | B2 |
| 9635132 | Lin et al. | Apr 2017 | B1 |
| 9652306 | Wagner et al. | May 2017 | B1 |
| 9652617 | Evans et al. | May 2017 | B1 |
| 9654508 | Barton et al. | May 2017 | B2 |
| 9661011 | Van Horenbeeck et al. | May 2017 | B1 |
| 9678773 | Wagner et al. | Jun 2017 | B1 |
| 9678778 | Youseff | Jun 2017 | B1 |
| 9703681 | Taylor et al. | Jul 2017 | B2 |
| 9715402 | Wagner et al. | Jul 2017 | B2 |
| 9727725 | Wagner et al. | Aug 2017 | B2 |
| 9733967 | Wagner et al. | Aug 2017 | B2 |
| 9760387 | Wagner et al. | Sep 2017 | B2 |
| 9767271 | Ghose | Sep 2017 | B2 |
| 9785476 | Wagner et al. | Oct 2017 | B2 |
| 9787779 | Frank et al. | Oct 2017 | B2 |
| 9811363 | Wagner | Nov 2017 | B1 |
| 9811434 | Wagner | Nov 2017 | B1 |
| 9830175 | Wagner | Nov 2017 | B1 |
| 9830193 | Wagner et al. | Nov 2017 | B1 |
| 9830449 | Wagner | Nov 2017 | B1 |
| 9864636 | Patel et al. | Jan 2018 | B1 |
| 9910713 | Wisniewski et al. | Mar 2018 | B2 |
| 9921864 | Singaravelu et al. | Mar 2018 | B2 |
| 9928108 | Wagner et al. | Mar 2018 | B1 |
| 9929916 | Subramanian et al. | Mar 2018 | B1 |
| 9930103 | Thompson | Mar 2018 | B2 |
| 9930133 | Susarla et al. | Mar 2018 | B2 |
| 9952896 | Wagner et al. | Apr 2018 | B2 |
| 9977691 | Marriner et al. | May 2018 | B2 |
| 9979817 | Huang et al. | May 2018 | B2 |
| 10002026 | Wagner | Jun 2018 | B1 |
| 10013267 | Wagner et al. | Jul 2018 | B1 |
| 10042660 | Wagner et al. | Aug 2018 | B2 |
| 10048974 | Wagner et al. | Aug 2018 | B1 |
| 10061613 | Brooker et al. | Aug 2018 | B1 |
| 10067801 | Wagner | Sep 2018 | B1 |
| 10102040 | Marriner et al. | Oct 2018 | B2 |
| 10108443 | Wagner et al. | Oct 2018 | B2 |
| 10139876 | Lu et al. | Nov 2018 | B2 |
| 10140137 | Wagner | Nov 2018 | B2 |
| 10162672 | Wagner et al. | Dec 2018 | B2 |
| 10162688 | Wagner | Dec 2018 | B2 |
| 10203990 | Wagner et al. | Feb 2019 | B2 |
| 10248467 | Wisniewski et al. | Apr 2019 | B2 |
| 10277708 | Wagner et al. | Apr 2019 | B2 |
| 10303492 | Wagner et al. | May 2019 | B1 |
| 10353678 | Wagner | Jul 2019 | B1 |
| 10353746 | Reque et al. | Jul 2019 | B2 |
| 10365985 | Wagner | Jul 2019 | B2 |
| 10387177 | Wagner et al. | Aug 2019 | B2 |
| 10402231 | Marriner et al. | Sep 2019 | B2 |
| 10437629 | Wagner et al. | Oct 2019 | B2 |
| 10445140 | Sagar et al. | Oct 2019 | B1 |
| 10528390 | Brooker et al. | Jan 2020 | B2 |
| 10552193 | Wagner et al. | Feb 2020 | B2 |
| 10564946 | Wagner et al. | Feb 2020 | B1 |
| 10572375 | Wagner | Feb 2020 | B1 |
| 10592269 | Wagner et al. | Mar 2020 | B2 |
| 10623476 | Thompson | Apr 2020 | B2 |
| 10649749 | Brooker et al. | May 2020 | B1 |
| 10691498 | Wagner | Jun 2020 | B2 |
| 10713080 | Brooker et al. | Jul 2020 | B1 |
| 20010044817 | Asano et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
| 20020120685 | Srivastava et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020172273 | Baker et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
| 20030071842 | King et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
| 20030084434 | Ren | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030191795 | Bernardin et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20030229794 | James, II et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
| 20040003087 | Chambliss et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
| 20040044721 | Song et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
| 20040049768 | Matsuyama et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
| 20040098154 | McCarthy | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20040158551 | Santosuosso | Aug 2004 | A1 |
| 20040205493 | Simpson et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040249947 | Novaes et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20040268358 | Darling et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20050027611 | Wharton | Feb 2005 | A1 |
| 20050044301 | Vasilevsky et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
| 20050120160 | Plouffe et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050132167 | Longobardi | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050132368 | Sexton et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050149535 | Frey et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050193113 | Kokusho et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050193283 | Reinhardt et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050237948 | Wan et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
| 20050257051 | Richard | Nov 2005 | A1 |
| 20060080678 | Bailey et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060123066 | Jacobs et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060129684 | Datta | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060168174 | Gebhart et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060184669 | Vaidyanathan et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060200668 | Hybre et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
| 20060212332 | Jackson | Sep 2006 | A1 |
| 20060242647 | Kimbrel et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060248195 | Toumura et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20070033085 | Johnson | Feb 2007 | A1 |
| 20070094396 | Takano et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
| 20070130341 | Ma | Jun 2007 | A1 |
| 20070174419 | O'Connell et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20070192082 | Gaos et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070199000 | Shekhel et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070220009 | Morris et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070240160 | Paterson-Jones | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20070255604 | Seelig | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20080028409 | Cherkasova et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080052401 | Bugenhagen et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20080052725 | Stoodley et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20080082977 | Araujo et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
| 20080104247 | Venkatakrishnan et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080104608 | Hyser et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080115143 | Shimizu et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080126110 | Haeberle et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080126486 | Heist | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080127125 | Anckaert et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080147893 | Marripudi et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
| 20080189468 | Schmidt et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
| 20080195369 | Duyanovich et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
| 20080201568 | Quinn et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
| 20080201711 | Amir Husain | Aug 2008 | A1 |
| 20080209423 | Hirai | Aug 2008 | A1 |
| 20090006897 | Sarsfield | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090013153 | Hilton | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090025009 | Brunswig et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090055810 | Kondur | Feb 2009 | A1 |
| 20090055829 | Gibson | Feb 2009 | A1 |
| 20090070355 | Cadarette et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
| 20090077569 | Appleton et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
| 20090125902 | Ghosh et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
| 20090158275 | Wang et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090177860 | Zhu et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090183162 | Kindel et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090193410 | Arthursson et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090198769 | Keller et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
| 20090204960 | Ben-Yehuda et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
| 20090204964 | Foley et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
| 20090222922 | Sidiroglou et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
| 20090271472 | Scheifler et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
| 20090288084 | Astete et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
| 20090300599 | Piotrowski | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20100023940 | Iwamatsu et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100031274 | Sim-Tang | Feb 2010 | A1 |
| 20100031325 | Maigne et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
| 20100036925 | Haffner | Feb 2010 | A1 |
| 20100058342 | Machida | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100058351 | Yahagi | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100064299 | Kacin et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100070678 | Zhang et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100070725 | Prahlad et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100094816 | Groves, Jr. et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
| 20100106926 | Kandasamy et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
| 20100114825 | Siddegowda | May 2010 | A1 |
| 20100115098 | De Baer et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
| 20100122343 | Ghosh | May 2010 | A1 |
| 20100131936 | Cheriton | May 2010 | A1 |
| 20100131959 | Spiers et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
| 20100186011 | Magenheimer | Jul 2010 | A1 |
| 20100198972 | Umbehocker | Aug 2010 | A1 |
| 20100199285 | Medovich | Aug 2010 | A1 |
| 20100257116 | Mehta et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
| 20100269109 | Cartales | Oct 2010 | A1 |
| 20100312871 | Desantis et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
| 20100325727 | Neystadt et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
| 20110010722 | Matsuyama | Jan 2011 | A1 |
| 20110029970 | Arasaratnam | Feb 2011 | A1 |
| 20110029984 | Norman et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
| 20110040812 | Phillips | Feb 2011 | A1 |
| 20110055378 | Ferris et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
| 20110055396 | DeHaan | Mar 2011 | A1 |
| 20110055683 | Jiang | Mar 2011 | A1 |
| 20110078679 | Bozek et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
| 20110099204 | Thaler | Apr 2011 | A1 |
| 20110099551 | Fahrig et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
| 20110131572 | Elyashev et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
| 20110134761 | Smith | Jun 2011 | A1 |
| 20110141124 | Halls et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
| 20110153727 | Li | Jun 2011 | A1 |
| 20110153838 | Belkine et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
| 20110154353 | Theroux et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
| 20110179162 | Mayo et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
| 20110184993 | Chawla et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
| 20110225277 | Freimuth et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110231680 | Padmanabhan et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110247005 | Benedetti et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
| 20110265164 | Lucovsky | Oct 2011 | A1 |
| 20110271276 | Ashok et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
| 20110276945 | Chasman et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
| 20110314465 | Smith et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
| 20110321033 | Kelkar et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
| 20110321051 | Rastogi | Dec 2011 | A1 |
| 20120011496 | Shimamura | Jan 2012 | A1 |
| 20120011511 | Horvitz et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
| 20120016721 | Weinman | Jan 2012 | A1 |
| 20120041970 | Ghosh et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
| 20120054744 | Singh et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
| 20120072762 | Atchison et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
| 20120072914 | Ota | Mar 2012 | A1 |
| 20120079004 | Herman | Mar 2012 | A1 |
| 20120096271 | Ramarathinam et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
| 20120096468 | Chakravorty et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
| 20120102307 | Wong | Apr 2012 | A1 |
| 20120102333 | Wong | Apr 2012 | A1 |
| 20120102481 | Mani et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
| 20120102493 | Allen et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
| 20120110155 | Adlung et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120110164 | Frey et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120110570 | Jacobson et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120110588 | Bieswanger et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120131379 | Tameshige et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120144290 | Goldman et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
| 20120166624 | Suit et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
| 20120192184 | Burckart et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
| 20120197795 | Campbell et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120197958 | Nightingale et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120198442 | Kashyap et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120222038 | Katragadda et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120233464 | Miller et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
| 20120331113 | Jain et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
| 20130014101 | Ballani et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
| 20130042234 | DeLuca et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
| 20130054804 | Jana et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
| 20130054927 | Raj et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
| 20130055262 | Lubsey et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
| 20130061208 | Tsao et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
| 20130061220 | Gnanasambandam et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
| 20130067494 | Srour et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
| 20130080641 | Lui et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
| 20130097601 | Podvratnik et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130111032 | Alapati et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130111469 | B et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130124807 | Nielsen et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130132942 | Wang | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130139152 | Chang et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130139166 | Zhang et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130151648 | Luna | Jun 2013 | A1 |
| 20130152047 | Moorthi et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
| 20130179574 | Calder et al. | Jul 2013 | A1 |
| 20130179881 | Calder et al. | Jul 2013 | A1 |
| 20130179894 | Calder et al. | Jul 2013 | A1 |
| 20130179895 | Calder et al. | Jul 2013 | A1 |
| 20130185719 | Kar et al. | Jul 2013 | A1 |
| 20130185729 | Vasic et al. | Jul 2013 | A1 |
| 20130191924 | Tedesco | Jul 2013 | A1 |
| 20130198319 | Shen et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
| 20130198743 | Kruglick | Aug 2013 | A1 |
| 20130198748 | Sharp et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
| 20130198763 | Kunze et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
| 20130205092 | Roy et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
| 20130219390 | Lee et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
| 20130227097 | Yasuda et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
| 20130227534 | Ike et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
| 20130227563 | McGrath | Aug 2013 | A1 |
| 20130227641 | White et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
| 20130227710 | Barak et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
| 20130232480 | Winterfeldt et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
| 20130239125 | Iorio | Sep 2013 | A1 |
| 20130262556 | Xu et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130263117 | Konik et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130275376 | Hudlow et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130275958 | Ivanov et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130275969 | Dimitrov | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130275975 | Masuda et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130283176 | Hoole et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130290538 | Gmach et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130291087 | Kailash et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130297964 | Hegdal et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
| 20130311650 | Brandwine et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
| 20130326506 | McGrath et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
| 20130339950 | Ramarathinam et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
| 20130346470 | Obstfeld et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
| 20130346946 | Pinnix | Dec 2013 | A1 |
| 20130346964 | Nobuoka et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
| 20130346987 | Raney et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
| 20130346994 | Chen et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
| 20130347095 | Barjatiya et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
| 20140007097 | Chin et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
| 20140019523 | Heymann et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
| 20140019735 | Menon et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
| 20140019965 | Neuse et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
| 20140019966 | Neuse et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
| 20140040343 | Nickolov et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
| 20140040857 | Trinchini et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
| 20140040880 | Brownlow et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
| 20140059209 | Alnoor | Feb 2014 | A1 |
| 20140059226 | Messerli et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
| 20140059552 | Cunningham et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
| 20140068568 | Wisnovsky | Mar 2014 | A1 |
| 20140068611 | McGrath et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
| 20140081984 | Sitsky et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
| 20140082165 | Marr et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
| 20140082201 | Shankari et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
| 20140101649 | Kamble et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
| 20140108722 | Lipchuk et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
| 20140109087 | Jujare et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
| 20140109088 | Dournov et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
| 20140129667 | Ozawa | May 2014 | A1 |
| 20140130040 | Lemanski | May 2014 | A1 |
| 20140137110 | Engle et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
| 20140173614 | Konik et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
| 20140173616 | Bird et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
| 20140180862 | Certain et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
| 20140189677 | Curzi et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
| 20140201735 | Kannan et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
| 20140207912 | Thibeault | Jul 2014 | A1 |
| 20140215073 | Dow et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
| 20140229221 | Shih et al. | Aug 2014 | A1 |
| 20140245297 | Hackett | Aug 2014 | A1 |
| 20140279581 | Devereaux | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140280325 | Krishnamurthy et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140282559 | Verduzco et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140282615 | Cavage et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140282629 | Gupta et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140283045 | Brandwine et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140289286 | Gusak | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140298295 | Overbeck | Oct 2014 | A1 |
| 20140304698 | Chigurapati et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
| 20140304815 | Maeda | Oct 2014 | A1 |
| 20140317617 | O'Donnell | Oct 2014 | A1 |
| 20140344457 | Bruno, Jr. et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
| 20140344736 | Ryman et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
| 20140380085 | Rash et al. | Dec 2014 | A1 |
| 20150033241 | Jackson et al. | Jan 2015 | A1 |
| 20150039891 | Ignatchenko et al. | Feb 2015 | A1 |
| 20150040229 | Chan et al. | Feb 2015 | A1 |
| 20150046926 | Kenchammana-Hosekote et al. | Feb 2015 | A1 |
| 20150052258 | Johnson et al. | Feb 2015 | A1 |
| 20150058914 | Yadav | Feb 2015 | A1 |
| 20150067830 | Johansson et al. | Mar 2015 | A1 |
| 20150074659 | Madsen et al. | Mar 2015 | A1 |
| 20150081885 | Thomas et al. | Mar 2015 | A1 |
| 20150106805 | Melander et al. | Apr 2015 | A1 |
| 20150120928 | Gummaraju et al. | Apr 2015 | A1 |
| 20150121391 | Wang | Apr 2015 | A1 |
| 20150134626 | Theimer et al. | May 2015 | A1 |
| 20150135287 | Medeiros et al. | May 2015 | A1 |
| 20150142952 | Bragstad et al. | May 2015 | A1 |
| 20150143381 | Chin et al. | May 2015 | A1 |
| 20150178110 | Li et al. | Jun 2015 | A1 |
| 20150186129 | Apte et al. | Jul 2015 | A1 |
| 20150188775 | Van Der Walt et al. | Jul 2015 | A1 |
| 20150199218 | Wilson et al. | Jul 2015 | A1 |
| 20150205596 | Hiltegen et al. | Jul 2015 | A1 |
| 20150227598 | Hahn et al. | Aug 2015 | A1 |
| 20150235144 | Gusev et al. | Aug 2015 | A1 |
| 20150242225 | Muller et al. | Aug 2015 | A1 |
| 20150254248 | Burns et al. | Sep 2015 | A1 |
| 20150256621 | Noda et al. | Sep 2015 | A1 |
| 20150261578 | Greden et al. | Sep 2015 | A1 |
| 20150289220 | Kim et al. | Oct 2015 | A1 |
| 20150309923 | Iwata et al. | Oct 2015 | A1 |
| 20150319160 | Ferguson et al. | Nov 2015 | A1 |
| 20150324229 | Valine | Nov 2015 | A1 |
| 20150332048 | Mooring et al. | Nov 2015 | A1 |
| 20150332195 | Jue | Nov 2015 | A1 |
| 20150350701 | Lemus et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| 20150356294 | Tan et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| 20150363181 | Alberti et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| 20150370560 | Tan et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| 20150371244 | Neuse et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| 20150378762 | Saladi et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| 20150378764 | Sivasubramanian et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| 20150378765 | Singh et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| 20150379167 | Griffith et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| 20160011901 | Hurwitz et al. | Jan 2016 | A1 |
| 20160012099 | Tuatini et al. | Jan 2016 | A1 |
| 20160019536 | Ortiz et al. | Jan 2016 | A1 |
| 20160026486 | Abdallah | Jan 2016 | A1 |
| 20160048606 | Rubinstein et al. | Feb 2016 | A1 |
| 20160072727 | Leafe et al. | Mar 2016 | A1 |
| 20160077901 | Roth et al. | Mar 2016 | A1 |
| 20160098285 | Davis et al. | Apr 2016 | A1 |
| 20160100036 | Lo et al. | Apr 2016 | A1 |
| 20160117254 | Susarla et al. | Apr 2016 | A1 |
| 20160124665 | Jain et al. | May 2016 | A1 |
| 20160140180 | Park et al. | May 2016 | A1 |
| 20160191420 | Nagarajan et al. | Jun 2016 | A1 |
| 20160212007 | Alatorre et al. | Jul 2016 | A1 |
| 20160285906 | Fine et al. | Sep 2016 | A1 |
| 20160292016 | Bussard et al. | Oct 2016 | A1 |
| 20160294614 | Searle et al. | Oct 2016 | A1 |
| 20160306613 | Busi et al. | Oct 2016 | A1 |
| 20160350099 | Suparna et al. | Dec 2016 | A1 |
| 20160357536 | Firlik et al. | Dec 2016 | A1 |
| 20160364265 | Cao et al. | Dec 2016 | A1 |
| 20160371127 | Antony et al. | Dec 2016 | A1 |
| 20160371156 | Merriman | Dec 2016 | A1 |
| 20160378449 | Khazanchi et al. | Dec 2016 | A1 |
| 20160378554 | Gummaraju et al. | Dec 2016 | A1 |
| 20170041309 | Ekambaram et al. | Feb 2017 | A1 |
| 20170060615 | Thakkar et al. | Mar 2017 | A1 |
| 20170060621 | Whipple et al. | Mar 2017 | A1 |
| 20170068574 | Cherkasova et al. | Mar 2017 | A1 |
| 20170075749 | Ambichl et al. | Mar 2017 | A1 |
| 20170083381 | Cong et al. | Mar 2017 | A1 |
| 20170085447 | Chen et al. | Mar 2017 | A1 |
| 20170085591 | Ganda et al. | Mar 2017 | A1 |
| 20170093684 | Jayaraman et al. | Mar 2017 | A1 |
| 20170093920 | Ducatel et al. | Mar 2017 | A1 |
| 20170230499 | Mumick et al. | Aug 2017 | A1 |
| 20170272462 | Kraemer et al. | Sep 2017 | A1 |
| 20170286143 | Wagner et al. | Oct 2017 | A1 |
| 20170371724 | Wagner et al. | Dec 2017 | A1 |
| 20180046453 | Nair et al. | Feb 2018 | A1 |
| 20180046482 | Karve et al. | Feb 2018 | A1 |
| 20180060221 | Yim et al. | Mar 2018 | A1 |
| 20180067841 | Mahimkar | Mar 2018 | A1 |
| 20180121245 | Wagner et al. | May 2018 | A1 |
| 20180143865 | Wagner et al. | May 2018 | A1 |
| 20180239636 | Arora et al. | Aug 2018 | A1 |
| 20180253333 | Gupta | Sep 2018 | A1 |
| 20180275987 | Vandeputte | Sep 2018 | A1 |
| 20180309819 | Thompson | Oct 2018 | A1 |
| 20190072529 | Andrawes et al. | Mar 2019 | A1 |
| 20190102231 | Wagner | Apr 2019 | A1 |
| 20190108058 | Wagner et al. | Apr 2019 | A1 |
| 20190155629 | Wagner et al. | May 2019 | A1 |
| 20190171470 | Wagner | Jun 2019 | A1 |
| 20190179725 | Mital | Jun 2019 | A1 |
| 20190196884 | Wagner | Jun 2019 | A1 |
| 20190227849 | Wisniewski et al. | Jul 2019 | A1 |
| 20190384647 | Reque et al. | Dec 2019 | A1 |
| 20190391834 | Mullen et al. | Dec 2019 | A1 |
| 20190391841 | Mullen et al. | Dec 2019 | A1 |
| 20200057680 | Marriner et al. | Feb 2020 | A1 |
| 20200104198 | Hussels et al. | Apr 2020 | A1 |
| 20200104378 | Wagner et al. | Apr 2020 | A1 |
| 20200110691 | Bryant | Apr 2020 | A1 |
| 20200142724 | Wagner et al. | May 2020 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 2663052 | Nov 2013 | EP |
| 2002287974 | Oct 2002 | JP |
| 2006-107599 | Apr 2006 | JP |
| 2007-538323 | Dec 2007 | JP |
| 2010-026562 | Feb 2010 | JP |
| 2011-233146 | Nov 2011 | JP |
| 2011257847 | Dec 2011 | JP |
| 2013-156996 | Aug 2013 | JP |
| 2014-525624 | Sep 2014 | JP |
| 2017-534107 | Nov 2017 | JP |
| 2017-534967 | Nov 2017 | JP |
| 2018-503896 | Feb 2018 | JP |
| 2018-512087 | May 2018 | JP |
| 2018-536213 | Dec 2018 | JP |
| WO 2008114454 | Sep 2008 | WO |
| WO 2009137567 | Nov 2009 | WO |
| WO 2012039834 | Mar 2012 | WO |
| WO 2012050772 | Apr 2012 | WO |
| WO 2013106257 | Jul 2013 | WO |
| WO 2015078394 | Jun 2015 | WO |
| WO 2015108539 | Jul 2015 | WO |
| WO 2016053950 | Apr 2016 | WO |
| WO 2016053968 | Apr 2016 | WO |
| WO 2016053973 | Apr 2016 | WO |
| WO 2016090292 | Jun 2016 | WO |
| WO 2016126731 | Aug 2016 | WO |
| WO 2016164633 | Oct 2016 | WO |
| WO 2016164638 | Oct 2016 | WO |
| WO 2017059248 | Apr 2017 | WO |
| WO 2017112526 | Jun 2017 | WO |
| WO 2017172440 | Oct 2017 | WO |
| WO 2020005764 | Jan 2020 | WO |
| WO 2020069104 | Apr 2020 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/US2019/065365 dated Mar. 19, 2020, in 15 pages. |
| Anonymous: “Docker run reference”, Dec. 7, 2015, XP055350246, Retrieved from the Internet: URL:https://web.archive.org/web/20151207111702/https:/docs.docker.com/engine/reference/run/ [retrieved on Feb. 28, 2017]. |
| Adapter Pattern, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adapter_pattern&oldid=654971255, [retrieved May 26, 2016], 6 pages. |
| Amazon, “AWS Lambda: Developer Guide”, Retrieved from the Internet, Jun. 26, 2016, URL : http://docs.aws.amazon.com/lambda/ latest/dg/lambda-dg.pdf, 346 pages. |
| Amazon, “AWS Lambda: Developer Guide”, Retrieved from the Internet, 2019, URL : http://docs.aws.amazon.com/lambda/ latest/dg/lambda-dg.pdf, 521 pages. |
| Balazinska et al., Moirae: History-Enhanced Monitoring, Published: 2007, 12 pages. |
| Ben-Yehuda et al., “Deconstructing Amazon EC2 Spot Instance Pricing”, ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation 1.3, 2013, 15 pages. |
| Bhadani et al., Performance evaluation of web servers using central load balancing policy over virtual machines on cloud, Jan. 2010, 4 pages. |
| CodeChef ADMIN discussion web page, retrieved from https://discuss.codechef.com/t/what-are-the-memory-limit-and-stack-size-on-codechef/14159, 2019. |
| CodeChef IDE web page, Code, Compile & Run, retrieved from https://www.codechef.com/ide, 2019. |
| Czajkowski, G., and L. Daynes, Multitasking Without Compromise: A Virtual Machine Evolution 47(4a):60-73, ACM SIGPLAN Notices—Supplemental Issue, Apr. 2012. |
| Das et al., Adaptive Stream Processing using Dynamic Batch Sizing, 2014, 13 pages. |
| Deis, Container, 2014, 1 page. |
| Dombrowski, M., et al., Dynamic Monitor Allocation in the Java Virtual Machine, JTRES '13, Oct. 9-11, 2013, pp. 30-37. |
| Dynamic HTML, Wikipedia page from date Mar. 27, 2015, retrieved using the WayBackMachine, from https://web.archive.org/web/20150327215418/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_HTML, 2015, 6 pages. |
| Espadas, J., et al., A Tenant-Based Resource Allocation Model for Scaling Software-as-a-Service Applications Over Cloud Computing Infrastructures, Future Generation Computer Systems, vol. 29, pp. 273-286, 2013. |
| Han et al., Lightweight Resource Scaling for Cloud Applications, 2012, 8 pages. |
| Hoffman, Auto scaling your website with Amazon Web Services (AWS)—Part 2, Cardinalpath, Sep. 2015, 15 pages. |
| http://discuss.codechef.com discussion web page from date Nov. 11, 2012, retrieved using the WayBackMachine, from https://web.archive.org/web/20121111040051/http://discuss.codechef.com/questions/2881 /why-are-simple-java-programs-using-up-so-much-space, 2012. |
| https://www.codechef.com code error help page from Jan. 2014, retrieved from https://www.codechef.com/JAN14/status/ERROR,va123, 2014. |
| http://www.codechef.com/ide web page from date Apr. 5, 2015, retrieved using the WayBackMachine, from https://web.archive.org/web/20150405045518/http://www.codechef.com/ide, 2015. |
| Kamga et al., Extended scheduler for efficient frequency scaling in virtualized systems, Jul. 2012, 8 pages. |
| Kato, et al. “Web Service Conversion Architecture of the Web Application and Evaluation”; Research Report from Information Processing Society, Apr. 3, 2006 with Machine Translation. |
| Kazempour et al., AASH: an asymmetry-aware scheduler for hypervisors, Jul. 2010, 12 pages. |
| Kraft et al., 10 performance prediction in consolidated virtualized environments, Mar. 2011, 12 pages. |
| Krsul et al., “VMPlants: Providing and Managing Virtual Machine Execution Environments for Grid Computing”, Supercomputing, 2004. Proceedings of the ACM/IEEESC 2004 Conference Pittsburgh, PA, XP010780332, Nov. 6-12, 2004, 12 pages. |
| Meng et al., Efficient resource provisioning in compute clouds via VM multiplexing, Jun. 2010, 10 pages. |
| Merkel, “Docker: Lightweight Linux Containers for Consistent Development and Deployment”, Linux Journal, vol. 2014 Issue 239, Mar. 2014, XP055171140, 16 pages. |
| Monteil, Coupling profile and historical methods to predict execution time of parallel applications. Parallel and Cloud Computing, 2013, <hal-01228236, pp. 81-89. |
| Nakajima, J., et al., Optimizing Virtual Machines Using Hybrid Virtualization, SAC'11, Mar. 21-25, 2011, TaiChung, Taiwan, pp. 573-578. |
| Qian, H., and D. Medhi, et al., Estimating Optimal Cost of Allocating Virtualized Resources With Dynamic Demand, ITC 2011, Sep. 2011, pp. 320-321. |
| Sakamoto, et al. “Platform for Web Services using Proxy Server”; Research Report from Information Processing Society, Mar. 22, 2002, vol. 2002, No. 31. |
| Shim (computing), Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title+Shim_(computing)&oldid+654971528, [retrieved on May 26, 2016], 2 pages. |
| Stack Overflow, Creating a database connection pool, 2009, 4 pages. |
| Tan et al., Provisioning for large scale cloud computing services, Jun. 2012, 2 pages. |
| Vaghani, S.B., Virtual Machine File System, ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review 44(4):57-70, Dec. 2010. |
| Vaquero, L., et al., Dynamically Scaling Applications in the cloud, ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 41(1):45-52, Jan. 2011. |
| Wang et al., “Improving utilization through dynamic VM resource allocation in hybrid cloud environment”, Parallel and Distributed V Systems (ICPADS), IEEE, 2014. Retrieved on Feb. 14, 2019, Retrieved from the internet: URL<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7097814, 8 pages. |
| Wikipedia “API” pages from date Apr. 7, 2015, retrieved using the WayBackMachine from https://web.archive.org/web/20150407191158/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_programming_interface. |
| Wikipedia List_of_HTTP status_codes web page, retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HTTP status_codes, 2019. |
| Wikipedia Recursion web page from date Mar. 26, 2015, retrieved using the WayBackMachine, from https://web.archive.org/web/20150326230100/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursion_(computer_science), 2015. |
| Wikipedia subroutine web page, retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subroutine, 2019. |
| Wu et al., HC-Midware: A Middleware to Enable High Performance Communication System Simulation in Heterogeneous Cloud, Association for Computing Machinery, Oct. 20-22, 2017, 10 pages. |
| Yamasaki et al. “Model-based resource selection for efficient virtual cluster deployment”, Virtualization Technology in Distributed Computing, ACM, Nov. 2007, pp. 1-7. |
| Yue et al., AC 2012-4107: Using Amazon EC2 in Computer and Network Security Lab Exercises: Design, Results, and Analysis, 2012, American Society for Engineering Education 2012. |
| Zheng, C., and D. Thain, Integrating Containers into Workflows: A Case Study Using Makeflow, Work Queue, and Docker, VTDC '15, Jun. 15, 2015, Portland, Oregon, pp. 31-38. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion in PCT/US2015/052810 dated Dec. 17, 2015. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability in PCT/US2015/052810 dated Apr. 4, 2017. |
| Extended Search Report in European Application No. 15846932.0 dated May 3, 2018. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion in PCT/US2015/052838 dated Dec. 18, 2015. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability in PCT/US2015/052838 dated Apr. 4, 2017. |
| Extended Search Report in European Application No. 15847202.7 dated Sep. 9, 2018. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion in PCT/US2015/052833 dated Jan. 13, 2016. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability in PCT/US2015/052833 dated Apr. 4, 2017. |
| Extended Search Report in European Application No. 15846542.7 dated Aug. 27, 2018. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion in PCT/US2015/064071 dated Mar. 16, 2016. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability in PCT/US2015/064071 dated Jun. 6, 2017. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion in PCT/US2016/016211 dated Apr. 13, 2016. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability in PCT/US2016/016211 dated Aug. 17, 2017. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion in PCT/US2016/026514 dated Jun. 8, 2016. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability in PCT/US2016/026514 dated Oct. 10, 2017. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion in PCT/US2016/026520 dated Jul. 5, 2016. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability in PCT/US2016/026520 dated Oct. 10, 2017. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion in PCT/US2016/054774 dated Dec. 16, 2016. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability in PCT/US2016/054774 dated Apr. 3, 2018. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion in PCT/US2016/066997 dated Mar. 20, 2017. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability in PCT/US2016/066997 dated Jun. 26, 2018. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion in PCT/US/2017/023564 dated Jun. 6, 2017. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability in PCT/US/2017/023564 dated Oct. 2, 2018. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion in PCT/US2017/040054 dated Sep. 21, 2017. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability in PCT/US2017/040054 dated Jan. 1, 2019. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion in PCT/US2017/039514 dated Oct. 10, 2017. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability in PCT/US2017/039514 dated Jan. 1, 2019. |
| Extended European Search Report in application No. 17776325.7 dated Oct. 23, 2019. |
| Office Action in European Application No. 17743108.7 dated Jan. 14, 2020. |
| Tange, “GNU Parallel: The Command-Line Power Tool”, vol. 36, No. 1, Jan. 1, 1942, pp. 42-47. |
| Extended Search Report in European Application No. 19199402.9 dated Mar. 6, 2020. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20200192707 A1 | Jun 2020 | US |
