Design Space Navigation for Neighboring Power-Performance Efficient Microprocessor Configurations

  • Pedro Trancoso
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3432)


Microprocessor design is a considerably complex task. First, microprocessors include many resources that may be configured in different ways. This leads to a time consuming multi-objective optimization problem. Second, currently the designs must take into account not only performance but also power consumption thus making the optimization goal more complex. Third, different types of applications have different demands but producing several different microprocessors would not be cost effective.

This paper proposes an efficient algorithm to explore the design space: design space navigation. With this algorithm it is possible to obtain optimal configurations by starting from a baseline and “navigating” on the design space. Different configurations tailored for different applications, but derived from the same baseline, are called neighboring configurations. Experimental results show that navigation finds designs that achieve better power-performance efficiency for a fraction of the time required by other design space exploration algorithms. Also, the algorithm is used to obtain four neighboring configurations for four types of applications: multimedia, integer and floating-point scientific, and database workloads. The results showed that the navigation configuration achieves a power-performance improvement of 30% to 118% depending on the workload. Using different workloads for navigation and execution may result in a loss of efficiency of as much as 94%.


Execution Time Design Space Design Space Exploration Navigation Algorithm Exploration Algorithm 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Lefurgy, C., Rajamani, K., Rawson, F., Felter, W., Kristler, M., Keller, T.: Energy Management for Commercial Servers. IEEE Computer 36, 39–48 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brooks, D., Bose, P., Schuster, S., Jacobson, H., Kudva, P., Buyuktosunoglu, A., Wellman, J.D., Zyuban, V., Gupta, M., Cook, P.: Power-Aware Microarchitecture: Design and Modeling Challenges for Next-Generation Microprocessors. In: IEEE Micro., pp. 26–44 (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fornaciari, W., Sciuto, D., Silvano, C., Zaccaria, V.: A Design Framework to Efficiently Explore Energy-Delay Tradeoffs. In: Proceedings of the ninth international symposium on Hardware/software codesign, pp. 260–265. ACM Press, New York (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Palesi, M., Givargis, T.: Multi-Objective Design Space Exploration Using Generic Algorithms. In: Proceedings of the CODES, pp. 67–72 (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Palermo, G., Silvano, C., Valsecchi, S., Zaccaria, V.: A System-Level Methodology for Fast Multi-Objective Design Space Exploration. In: Proceedings of the GLSVLSI, pp. 92–95 (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Agosta, G., Palermo, G., Silvano, C.: Multi-Objective Co-Exploration of Source Code Transformations and Design Space Architectures for Low-Power Embedded Systems. In: Proceedings of the SAC, pp. 891–896 (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kin, J., Lee, C., Mangione-Smith, W.H., Potkonjak, M.: Power Efficient Mediaprocessors: Design Space Exploration. In: Proceedings of the DAC, pp. 321–326 (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bahar, R., Albera, G., Manne, S.: Power and Performance Tradeoffs Using Various Caching Strategies. In: Proceedings of the 1998 ISLPED, pp. 64–69. ACM Press, New York (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brooks, D., Tiwari, V., Martonosi, M.: Wattch: a Framework for Architecturallevel Power Analysis and Optimizations. In: Proceedings of the 27th ISCA, pp. 83–94 (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Conte, T., Menezes, K., Sathaye, S., Toburen, M.: System-Level Power Consumption Modeling and Trade-off Analysis Techniques for Superscalar Processor Design. IEEE Transactions on VLSI Systems 8, 129–137 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Folegnani, D., González, A.: Energy-Effective Issue Logic. In: Proceedings of the 28th ISCA, pp. 230–239 (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gonzalez, R., Horowitz, M.: Energy Dissipation in General Purpose Microprocessors. IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits 31, 1277–1284 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hicks, P., Walnock, M., Owens, R.M.: Analysis of Power Consumption in Memory Hierarchies. In: Proceedings of the ISLPED, pp. 239–242 (1997)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Huang, M., Renau, J., Yoo, S.M., Torrellas, J.: L1 Data Cache Decomposition for Energy Efficiency. In: Proceedings of the ISLPED, pp. 10–15 (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Miyoshi, A., Lefurgy, C., Hensbergen, E.V., Rajamony, R., Rajkumar, R.: Critical Power Slope: Understanding the Runtime Effects of Frequency Scaling. In: Proceedings of the Int’l Conf. on Supercomputing, pp. 35–44 (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Su, C.L., Despain, A.: Cache Design Trade-offs for Power and Performance Optimization: a Case Study. In: Proceedings of the 1995 ISLPD, pp. 63–68. ACM Press, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhou, H., Toburen, M., Rotenberg, E., Conte, T.M.: Adaptive Mode Control: A Static-Power Efficient Cache Design. In: Proceedings of the IEEE PACT, pp. 61–72 (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hughes, C., Srinivasan, J., Adve, S.: Saving Energy with Architectural and Frequency Adaptations for Multimedia Applications. In: Proceedings of the 34th Annual Int’l Symp. on Microarchitecture (MICRO-34), pp. 250–261 (2001)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Unsal, O., Ashok, R., Koren, I., Krishna, C., Moritz, C.: Cool-Cache for Hot Multimedia. In: Proceedings of the 34th Annual Int’l Symp. on Microarchitecture ( MICRO-34), pp. 274–283 (2001) Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    An, N., Sivasubramaniam, A., Vijaykrishnan, N., Kandemir, M.T., Irwin, M.J., Gurumurthi, S.: Analyzing Energy Behavior of Spatial Access Methods for Memory- Resident Data. The VLDB Journal, 411–420 (2001)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Austin, T., Larson, E., Ernst, D.: SimpleScalar: An Infrastructure for Computer System Modeling. IEEE Computer, 59–67 (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shivakumar, P., Jouppi, N.: CACTI 3.0: An Integrated Cache Timing, Power, and Area Model. Technical report, Compaq Western Research Laboratory (2001)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lee, C., Potkonjak, M., Mangione-Smith, W.: MediaBench: A Tool for Evaluating and Synthesizing Multimedia and Communicatons Systems. In: International Symposium on Microarchitecture, pp. 330–335 (1997)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Henning, J.L.: SPEC CPU2000: Measuring CPU Performance in the New Millennium. IEEE Computer 33, 28–35 (2000)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Transaction Processing Performance Council: TPC BenchmarkTM H (Decision Support), Standard Specification (1999)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Barroso, L., Gharachorloo, K., Bugnion, E.: Memory System Characterization of Commercial Workloads. In: Proceedings of the 25th ISCA, pp. 3–14 (1998) Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Team, T.T.: In-Memory Data Management for Consumer Transactions: The TimesTen Approach. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD Conference, pp. 528–529 (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pedro Trancoso
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of CyprusNicosiaCyprus

Personalised recommendations