Advertisement

Dynamic Voltage and Frequency Scaling for Scientific Applications

  • Chung-Hsing Hsu
  • Ulrich Kremer
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2624)

Abstract

Dynamic voltage and frequency scaling (DVFS) of the CPU has been shown to be one of the most effective ways to reduce energy consumption of a program. This paper discusses the benefit of dynamic voltage and frequency scaling for scientific applications under different optimization levels. The reported experiments show that there are still many opportunities to apply DVFS to the highly optimized codes, and the profitability is significant across the benchmarks. It is also observed that there are performance and energy consumption tradeoffs for different optimization levels in the presence of DVFS. While in general compiling for performance will improve energy usage as well, in some cases the less successful optimization lead to higher energy savings. Finally, a comparison of the benefits of operating system support versus compiler support for DVFS is discussed.

Keywords

Total Execution Time Frequency Scaling Dynamic Voltage Dynamic Voltage Scaling Loop Transformation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    D. Brooks, V. Tiwari, and M. Martonosi. Wattch: A framework for architectural-level power analysis and optimizations. In 27th International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA), June 2000.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    T. Burd and R. Brodersen. Design issues for dynamic voltage scaling. In Proceedings of 2000 International Symposium on Low Power Electronics and Design (ISLPED’00), July 2000.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    B. Childers, H. Tang, and R. Melhem. Adapting processor supply voltage to instruction-level parallelism. In Kool Chips 2000 Workshop, December 2000.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. Desikan, D. Burger, and S. Keckler. Measuring experimental error in microprocessor simulation. In the 28th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA’01), July 2001.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    C. Ding and K. Kennedy. Improving effective bandwidth through compiler enhancement of global cache reuse. In Proceedings of International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium, April 2001.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. Ghiasi, J. Casmira, and D. Grunwald. Using IPC variation in workloads with externally specified rates to reduce power consumption. In Workshop on Complexity Effective Design, June 2000.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. Grunwald, P. Levis, K. Farkas, C. Morrey III, and M. Neufeld. Policies for dynamic clock scheduling. In Proceedings of the 4th Symposium on Operating System Design and Implementation (OSDI-2000), October 2000.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    C.-H. Hsu, U. Kremer, and M. Hsiao. Compiler-directed dynamic frequency and voltage scheduling. In Workshop on Power-Aware Computer Systems (PACS), November 2000.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    C.-H. Hsu, U. Kremer, and M. Hsiao. Compiler-directed dynamic voltage/frequency scheduling for energy reduction in microprocessors. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Low-Power Electronics and Design (ISLPED’01), August 2001.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Jimenez. Private communication.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Jimenez, J.M. Llaberia, A. Fernandez, and E. Morancho. A general algorithm for tiling the register level. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM International Conference on Supercomputing, July 1998.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. Kandemir, N. Vijaykrishnan, M.J. Irwin, and H.S. Kim. Experimental evaluation of energy behavior of iteration space tiling. In International Workshop on Languages and Compilers for Parallel Computing (LCPC), August 2000.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Kandemir, N. Vijaykrishnan, M.J. Irwin, and W. Ye. Influence of compiler optimizations on system power. In Design Automation Conference (DAC), June 2000.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    W.-F. Lin, S. K. Reinhardt, and D. Burger. Reducing DRAM latencies with an integrated memory hierarchy design. In Proc. 7th Int’l Symp. on High-Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA), January 2001.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    D. Marculescu. On the use of microarchitecture-driven dynamic voltage scaling. In Workshop on Complexity-Effective Design, June 2000.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    D. Marculescu. Profile-driven code execution for low power dissipation. In Proceedings of International Symposium on Low Power Electronics and Design (ISLPED), July 2000.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    D. Mossé, H. Aydin, B. Childers, and R. Melhem. Compiler-assisted dynamic power-aware scheduling for real-time applications. In Workshop on Compiler and Operating Systems for Low Power (COLP’00), October 2000.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    S. Muchnick. Advanced Compiler Design and Implementation. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., 1997.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. Pouwelse, K. Langendoen, and H. Sips. Dynamic voltage scaling on a low-power microprocessor. In Proceedings of the 7th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking, July 2001.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    T. Sherwood and B. Calder. Time varying behavior of programs. Technical Report UCSD-CS99-630, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of California, San Diego, August 1999.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    D. Shin, J. Kim, and S. Lee. Intra-task voltage scheduling for low-energy hard real-time applications. In To appear in IEEE Design and Test of Computers, March 2001.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Y. Song and Z. Li. New tiling techniques to improve cache temporal locality. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN’99 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI’99), pages 215–228, May 1999.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    M. Valluri and L. John. Is compiling for performance == compiling for power? In The 5th Annual Workshop on Interaction between Compilers and Computer Architectures (INTERACT-5), January 2001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chung-Hsing Hsu
    • 1
  • Ulrich Kremer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceRutgers UniversityPiscatawayUSA

Personalised recommendations