-\documentclass[12pt]{article}
-%\documentclass[12pt,twocolumn]{article}
+\documentclass[conference]{IEEEtran}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
% \usepackage{secdot}
%\usepackage[font={footnotesize,bt}]{caption}
%\usepackage[font=scriptsize,labelfont=bf]{caption}
-\usepackage{lmodern}
-
-\usepackage{todonotes}
-\newcommand{\AG}[2][inline]{\todo[color=green!50,#1]{\sffamily\small\textbf{AG:} #2}}
+\usepackage[textsize=footnotesize]{todonotes}
+\newcommand{\AG}[2][inline]{\todo[color=green!50,#1]{\sffamily\textbf{AG:} #2}}
\begin{document}
\title{Optimal Dynamic Frequency Scaling for Energy-Performance of Parallel MPI Programs}
-\author{A. Badri \and J.-C. Charr \and R. Couturier \and A. Giersch}
+
+\author{%
+ \IEEEauthorblockN{%
+ Ahmed Badri,
+ Jean-Claude Charr,
+ Raphaël Couturier and
+ Arnaud Giersch
+ }
+ \IEEEauthorblockA{%
+ FEMTO-ST Institute\\
+ University of Franche-Comté
+ }
+}
+
\maketitle
+\AG{``Optimal'' is a bit pretentious in the title.\\
+ Complete affiliation, add an email address, etc.}
+
+\begin{abstract}
+ \AG{complete the abstract\dots}
+\end{abstract}
+
\section{Introduction}
+\label{sec.intro}
The need for computing power is still increasing and it is not expected to slow
down in the coming years. To satisfy this demand, researchers and supercomputers
constructors have been regularly increasing the number of computing cores in
-supercomputers (for example in November 2013, according to the top 500
+supercomputers (for example in November 2013, according to the TOP500
list~\cite{43}, the Tianhe-2 was the fastest supercomputer. It has more than 3
millions of cores and delivers more than 33 Tflop/s while consuming 17808
kW). This large increase in number of computing cores has led to large energy
all available scaling factors. The prediction achieved depends on some
computing time information, gathered at the beginning of the runtime. We apply
this algorithm to seven MPI benchmarks. These MPI programs are the NAS parallel
-penchmarks (NPB v3.3) developed by NASA~\cite{44}. Our experiments are executed
-using the simulator Simgrid/SMPI v3.10~\cite{45} over an homogeneous distributed
-memory architecture. Furthermore, we compare the proposed algorithm with
-Rauber's methods. The comparison's results show that our algorithm gives better
-energy-time trade off.
+benchmarks (NPB v3.3) developed by NASA~\cite{44}. Our experiments are executed
+using the simulator SimGrid/SMPI v3.10~\cite{Casanova:2008:SGF:1397760.1398183}
+over an homogeneous distributed memory architecture. Furthermore, we compare the
+proposed algorithm with Rauber's methods.
+\AG{Add citation for Rauber's methods. Moreover, Rauber was not alone to to this work (use ``Rauber et al.'', or ``Rauber and Gudula'', or \dots)}
+The comparison's results show that our
+algorithm gives better energy-time trade off.
+%
+\AG{Correctly reword the following}%
+In Section~\ref{sec.relwork} we present works from other
+authors. Then, in Sections~\ref{sec.ptasks} and~\ref{sec.energy}, we
+introduce our model. [\dots] Finally, we conclude in
+Section~\ref{sec.concl}.
\section{Related Works}
+\label{sec.relwork}
+
+\AG{Consider introducing the models (sec.~\ref{sec.ptasks},
+ maybe~\ref{sec.energy}) before related works}
In the this section some heuristics, to compute the scaling factor, are
presented and classified in two parts : offline and online methods.
intra-task algorithm to choose the DVFS setting when there are dependency points
between tasks. While in~\cite{29}, Xie et al. used breadth-first search
algorithm to do that. Their goal is saving energy with time limits. Another
-approaches gathers and stores the runtime information for each DVFS state , then
+approaches gathers and stores the runtime information for each DVFS state, then
used their methods offline to select the suitable DVFS that optimize energy-time
trade offs. As an example~\cite{8}, Rountree et al. used liner programming
algorithm, while in~\cite{38,34}, Cochran et al. used multi logistic regression
algorithm that detects the communication sections and changes the frequency
during these sections only. This approach changes the frequency many times
because an iteration may contain more than one communication section. The domain
-of analytical modeling used for choosing the optimal frequency as in ~\cite{3},
+of analytical modeling used for choosing the optimal frequency as in~\cite{3},
Rauber et al. developed an analytical mathematical model for determining the
optimal frequency scaling factor for any number of concurrent tasks, without
considering communication times. They set the slowest task to maximum frequency
\end{enumerate}
\section{Parallel Tasks Execution on Homogeneous Platform}
+\label{sec.ptasks}
A homogeneous cluster consists of identical nodes in terms of the hardware and
the software. Each node has its own memory and at least one processor which can
executed on this model can be either synchronous or asynchronous. In this paper
we consider execution of the synchronous tasks on distributed homogeneous
platform. These tasks can exchange the data via synchronous memory passing.
-\begin{figure}[h]
+\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\subfloat[Synch. Imbalanced Communications]{\includegraphics[scale=0.67]{synch_tasks}\label{fig:h1}}
\subfloat[Synch. Imbalanced Computations]{\includegraphics[scale=0.67]{compt}\label{fig:h2}}
\caption{Parallel Tasks on Homogeneous Platform}
\label{fig:homo}
-\end{figure}
+\end{figure*}
Therefore, the execution time of a task consists of the computation time and the
communication time. Moreover, the synchronous communications between tasks can
lead to idle time while tasks wait at the synchronous point for others tasks to
where $T_i$ is the execution time of process $i$.
\section{Energy Model for Homogeneous Platform}
+\label{sec.energy}
The energy consumption by the processor consists of two powers metric: the
dynamic and the static power. This general power formulation is used by many
-researchers see ~\cite{9,3,15,26}. The dynamic power of the CMOS processors
+researchers see~\cite{9,3,15,26}. The dynamic power of the CMOS processors
$P_{dyn}$ is related to the switching activity $\alpha$, load capacitance $C_L$,
the supply voltage $V$ and operational frequency $f$ respectively as follow :
\begin{equation}
\end{equation}
\section{Performance Evaluation of MPI Programs}
+\label{sec.mpip}
The performance (execution time) of the parallel MPI applications are depends on
the time of the slowest task as in figure~(\ref{fig:homo}). Normally the
execution time of the parallel program. As shown in EQ~(\ref{eq:energy}) the
energy affected by the scaling factor $S$. This factor also has a great impact
on the performance. When scaling down the frequency to the new value according
-to EQ(~\ref{eq:s}) lead to the value of the scale $S$ has inverse relation with
+to EQ~(\ref{eq:s}) lead to the value of the scale $S$ has inverse relation with
new frequency value ($S \propto \frac{1}{F_{new}}$). Also when decrease the
frequency value, the execution time increase. Then the new frequency value has
inverse relation with time ($F_{new} \propto \frac{1}{T}$). This lead to the
communication time consists of the beginning times which an MPI calls for
sending or receiving till the message is synchronously sent or received. In this
paper we predict the execution time of the program for any new scaling factor
-value. Depending on this prediction we can produce our energy-performace scaling
+value. Depending on this prediction we can produce our energy-performance scaling
method as we will show in the coming sections. In the next section we make an
investigation study for the EQ~(\ref{eq:tnew}).
\section{Performance Prediction Verification}
+\label{sec.verif}
In this section we evaluate the precision of our performance prediction methods
on the NAS benchmark. We use the EQ~(\ref{eq:tnew}) that predicts the execution
with all available scaling factors on 8 or 9 nodes to produce real execution
time values. These scaling factors are computed by dividing the maximum
frequency by the new one see EQ~(\ref{eq:s}). In all tests, we use the simulator
-Simgrid/SMPI v3.10 to run the NAS programs.
-\begin{figure}[width=\textwidth,height=\textheight,keepaspectratio]
+SimGrid/SMPI v3.10 to run the NAS programs.
+\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
- \includegraphics[scale=0.60]{cg_per.eps}
- \includegraphics[scale=0.60]{mg_pre.eps}
- \includegraphics[scale=0.60]{bt_pre.eps}
- \includegraphics[scale=0.60]{lu_pre.eps}
+ \includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{cg_per.eps}\qquad%
+ \includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{mg_pre.eps}
+ \includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{bt_pre.eps}\qquad%
+ \includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{lu_pre.eps}
\caption{Fitting Predicted to Real Execution Time}
\label{fig:pred}
-\end{figure}
+\end{figure*}
%see Figure~\ref{fig:pred}
In our cluster there are 18 available frequency states for each processor from
2.5 GHz to 800 MHz, there is 100 MHz difference between two successive
table~(\ref{table:platform}). This lead to 18 run states for each program. We
use seven MPI programs of the NAS parallel benchmarks : CG, MG, EP, FT, BT, LU
and SP. The average normalized errors between the predicted execution time and
-the real time (Simgrid time) for all programs is between 0.0032 to 0.0133. AS an
+the real time (SimGrid time) for all programs is between 0.0032 to 0.0133. AS an
example, we are present the execution times of the NAS benchmarks as in the
figure~(\ref{fig:pred}).
\section{Performance to Energy Competition}
+\label{sec.compet}
+
This section demonstrates our approach for choosing the optimal scaling
factor. This factor gives maximum energy reduction taking into account the
execution time for both computation and communication times . The relation
For solving this problem, we normalize the energy by calculating the ratio
between the consumed energy with scaled frequency and the consumed energy
without scaled frequency :
-\begin{equation}
+\begin{multline}
\label{eq:enorm}
- E_{Norm} = \frac{E_{Reduced}}{E_{Orginal}}
- = \frac{ P_{dyn} \cdot S_i^{-2} \cdot
+ E_\textit{Norm} = \frac{E_{Reduced}}{E_{Original}}\\
+ {} = \frac{ P_{dyn} \cdot S_i^{-2} \cdot
\left( T_1 + \sum_{i=2}^{N}\frac{T_i^3}{T_1^2}\right) +
P_{static} \cdot T_1 \cdot S_i \cdot N }{
P_{dyn} \cdot \left(T_1+\sum_{i=2}^{N}\frac{T_i^3}{T_1^2}\right) +
- P_{static} \cdot T_1\, \cdot N }
-\end{equation}
+ P_{static} \cdot T_1 \cdot N }
+\end{multline}
+\AG{Use \texttt{\textbackslash{}text\{xxx\}} or
+ \texttt{\textbackslash{}textit\{xxx\}} for all subscripted words in equations
+ (e.g. \mbox{\texttt{E\_\{\textbackslash{}text\{Norm\}\}}}).
+
+ Don't hesitate to define new commands :
+ \mbox{\texttt{\textbackslash{}newcommand\{\textbackslash{}ENorm\}\{E\_\{\textbackslash{}text\{Norm\}\}\}}}
+}
By the same way we can normalize the performance as follows :
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:pnorm}
= \frac{T_{Old}}{T_{\textit{Max Comp Old}} \cdot S +
T_{\textit{Max Comm Old}}}
\end{equation}
-\begin{figure}
+\begin{figure*}
\centering
- \subfloat[Converted Relation.]{\includegraphics[scale=0.70]{file.eps}\label{fig:r1}}
- \subfloat[Real Relation.]{\includegraphics[scale=0.70]{file3.eps}\label{fig:r2}}
+ \subfloat[Converted Relation.]{%
+ \includegraphics[width=.33\textwidth]{file.eps}\label{fig:r1}}%
+ \qquad%
+ \subfloat[Real Relation.]{%
+ \includegraphics[width=.33\textwidth]{file3.eps}\label{fig:r2}}
\label{fig:rel}
\caption{The Energy and Performance Relation}
-\end{figure}
+\end{figure*}
Then, we can modelize our objective function as finding the maximum distance
between the energy curve EQ~(\ref{eq:enorm}) and the inverse of performance
curve EQ~(\ref{eq:pnorm_en}) over all available scaling factors. This represent
EQ~(\ref{eq:max}). Our objective function can works with any energy model or
static power values stored in a data file. Moreover, this function works in
optimal way when the energy function has a convex form with frequency scaling
-factor as shown in ~\cite{15,3,19}. Energy measurement model is not the
+factor as shown in~\cite{15,3,19}. Energy measurement model is not the
objective of this paper and we choose Rauber's model as an example with two
reasons that mentioned before.
\section{Optimal Scaling Factor for Performance and Energy}
+\label{sec.optim}
In the previous section we described the objective function that satisfy our
goal in discovering optimal scaling factor for both performance and energy at
the same time. Therefore, we develop an energy to performance scaling algorithm
(EPSA). This algorithm is simple and has a direct way to calculate the optimal
scaling factor for both energy and performance at the same time.
-\begin{algorithm}[t]
+\begin{algorithm}[tp]
\caption{EPSA}
\label{EPSA}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State $Dist = P_{NormInv} - E_{Norm}$
\EndIf
\EndFor
- \State $ Return \; \; (S_{optimal})$
+ \State Return $S_{optimal}$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
The proposed EPSA algorithm works online during the execution time of the MPI
MPI program calls the EPSA algorithm to choose the new frequency using the
optimal scaling factor. Then the program set the new frequency to the
system. The algorithm is called just one time during the execution of the
-program. The following example shows where and when the EPSA algorithm is called
-in the MPI program :
-\begin{minipage}{\textwidth}
-\begin{lstlisting}[frame=tb]
-FOR J:=1 to Some_iterations Do
- -Computations Section.
- -Communications Section.
- IF (J==1) THEN
- -Gather all times of computation and communication
- from each node.
- -Call EPSA with these times.
- -Calculate the new frequency from optimal scale.
- -Set the new frequency to the system.
- ENDIF
-ENDFOR
-\end{lstlisting}
-\end{minipage}
+program. The DVFS algorithm~(\ref{dvfs}) shows where and when the EPSA algorithm is called
+in the MPI program.
+%\begin{minipage}{\textwidth}
+%\AG{Use the same format as for Algorithm~\ref{EPSA}}
+
+\begin{algorithm}[tp]
+ \caption{DVFS}
+ \label{dvfs}
+ \begin{algorithmic}
+ \For {$J:=1$ to $Some-Iterations \; $}
+ \State -Computations Section.
+ \State -Communications Section.
+ \If {$(J==1)$}
+ \State -Gather all times of computation and\par
+ \State communication from each node.
+ \State -Call EPSA with these times.
+ \State -Calculate the new frequency from optimal scale.
+ \State -Set the new frequency to the system.
+ \EndIf
+\EndFor
+\end{algorithmic}
+\end{algorithm}
+
After obtaining the optimal scale factor from the EPSA algorithm. The program
calculates the new frequency $F_i$ for each task proportionally to its time
value $T_i$. By substitution of the EQ~(\ref{eq:s}) in the EQ~(\ref{eq:si}), we
According to this equation all the nodes may have the same frequency value if
they have balanced workloads. Otherwise, they take different frequencies when
have imbalanced workloads. Then EQ~(\ref{eq:fi}) works in adaptive way to change
-the freguency according to the nodes workloads.
+the frequency according to the nodes workloads.
\section{Experimental Results}
+\label{sec.expe}
-The proposed ESPA algorithm was applied to seven MPI programs of the NAS
-benchmarks (EP ,CG , MG ,FT , BT, LU and SP). We work on three classes (A, B and
+The proposed EPSA algorithm was applied to seven MPI programs of the NAS
+benchmarks (EP, CG, MG, FT, BT, LU and SP). We work on three classes (A, B and
C) for each program. Each program runs on specific number of processors
proportional to the size of the class. Each class represents the problem size
ascending from the class A to C. Additionally, depending on some speed up points
for each class we run the classes A, B and C on 4, 8 or 9 and 16 nodes
-respectively. Our experiments are executed on the simulator Simgrid/SMPI
+respectively. Our experiments are executed on the simulator SimGrid/SMPI
v3.10. We design a platform file that simulates a cluster with one core per
node. This cluster is a homogeneous architecture with distributed memory. The
-detailed characteristics of our platform file are shown in
-thetable~(\ref{table:platform}). Each node in the cluster has 18 frequency
-values from 2.5 GHz to 800 MHz with 100 MHz difference between each two
-successive frequencies.
-\begin{table}[ht]
+detailed characteristics of our platform file are shown in the
+table~(\ref{table:platform}). Each node in the cluster has 18 frequency values
+from 2.5 GHz to 800 MHz with 100 MHz difference between each two successive
+frequencies.
+\begin{table}[htb]
\caption{Platform File Parameters}
% title of Table
\centering
\hline
Max & Min & Backbone & Backbone&Link &Link& Sharing \\
Freq. & Freq. & Bandwidth & Latency & Bandwidth& Latency&Policy \\ \hline
- 2.5 &800 & 2.25 GBps &5E-7 s & 1 GBps & 5E-5 s&Full \\
+ 2.5 &800 & 2.25 GBps &$5\times 10^{-7} s$& 1 GBps & $5\times 10^{-5}$ s&Full \\
GHz& MHz& & & & &Duplex \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{table:platform}
\end{table}
Depending on the EQ~(\ref{eq:energy}), we measure the energy consumption for all
the NAS MPI programs while assuming the power dynamic is equal to 20W and the
-power static is equal to 4W for all experiments. We run the proposed ESPA
+power static is equal to 4W for all experiments. We run the proposed EPSA
algorithm for all these programs. The results showed that the algorithm selected
different scaling factors for each program depending on the communication
features of the program as in the figure~(\ref{fig:nas}). This figure shows that
factors results for each program on class C. These factors give the maximum
energy saving percent and the minimum performance degradation percent in the
same time over all available scales.
-\begin{figure}[width=\textwidth,height=\textheight,keepaspectratio]
+\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
- \includegraphics[scale=0.47]{ep.eps}
- \includegraphics[scale=0.47]{cg.eps}
- \includegraphics[scale=0.47]{sp.eps}
- \includegraphics[scale=0.47]{lu.eps}
- \includegraphics[scale=0.47]{bt.eps}
- \includegraphics[scale=0.47]{ft.eps}
+ \includegraphics[width=.33\textwidth]{ep.eps}\hfill%
+ \includegraphics[width=.33\textwidth]{cg.eps}\hfill%
+ \includegraphics[width=.33\textwidth]{sp.eps}
+ \includegraphics[width=.33\textwidth]{lu.eps}\hfill%
+ \includegraphics[width=.33\textwidth]{bt.eps}\hfill%
+ \includegraphics[width=.33\textwidth]{ft.eps}
\caption{Optimal scaling factors for The NAS MPI Programs}
\label{fig:nas}
-\end{figure}
-\begin{table}[width=\textwidth,height=\textheight,keepaspectratio]
+\end{figure*}
+\begin{table}[htb]
\caption{Optimal Scaling Factors Results}
% title of Table
\centering
+ \AG{Use the same number of decimals for all numbers in a column,
+ and vertically align the numbers along the decimal points.
+ The same for all the following tables.}
\begin{tabular}{ | l | l | l |l | l | p{2cm} |}
\hline
Program & Optimal & Energy & Performance&Energy-Perf.\\
Name & Scaling Factor& Saving \%&Degradation \% &Distance \\ \hline
- CG & 1.56 &39.23 & 14.88 & 24.35\\ \hline
- MG & 1.47 &34.97&21.7& 13.27 \\ \hline
+ CG & 1.56 &39.23&14.88 &24.35\\ \hline
+ MG & 1.47 &34.97&21.70 &13.27 \\ \hline
EP & 1.04 &22.14&20.73 &1.41\\ \hline
- LU & 1.388 &35.83&22.49 &13.34\\ \hline
- BT & 1.315 &29.6&21.28 &8.32\\ \hline
- SP & 1.388 &33.48 &21.36&12.12\\ \hline
- FT & 1.47 &34.72 &19&15.72\\ \hline
+ LU & 1.38 &35.83&22.49 &13.34\\ \hline
+ BT & 1.31 &29.60&21.28 &8.32\\ \hline
+ SP & 1.38 &33.48&21.36 &12.12\\ \hline
+ FT & 1.47 &34.72&19.00 &15.72\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{table:factors results}
% is used to refer this table in the text
EPSA to selects smaller scaling factor values (inducing smaller energy savings).
\section{Comparing Results}
+\label{sec.compare}
In this section, we compare our EPSA algorithm results with Rauber's
methods~\cite{3}. He had two scenarios, the first is to reduce energy to optimal
Class A},\ref{table:compare Class B},\ref{table:compare Class C}). These
tables show the results of our EPSA and Rauber's two scenarios for all the NAS
benchmarks programs for classes A,B and C.
-\begin{table}[ht]
+\begin{table*}[p]
\caption{Comparing Results for The NAS Class A}
% title of Table
\centering
- \begin{tabular}{ | l | l | l |l | l |l| }
+ \begin{tabular}{ | l | l | l |l | l | l| }
\hline
Method&Program&Factor& Energy& Performance &Energy-Perf.\\
name &name&value& Saving \%&Degradation \% &Distance
\\ \hline
% \rowcolor[gray]{0.85}
EPSA&CG & 1.56 &37.02 & 13.88 & 23.14\\ \hline
- $Rauber_{E-P}$&CG &2.14 &42.77 & 25.27 & 17.5\\ \hline
+ $Rauber_{E-P}$&CG &2.14 &42.77 & 25.27 & 17.50\\ \hline
$Rauber_{E}$&CG &2.14 &42.77&26.46&16.31\\ \hline
EPSA&MG & 1.47 &27.66&16.82&10.84\\ \hline
$Rauber_{E-P}$&MG &2.14&34.45&31.84&2.61\\ \hline
- $Rauber_{E}$&MG &2.14&34.48&33.65&0.8 \\ \hline
+ $Rauber_{E}$&MG &2.14&34.48&33.65&0.80 \\ \hline
EPSA&EP &1.19 &25.32&20.79&4.53\\ \hline
$Rauber_{E-P}$&EP&2.05&41.45&55.67&-14.22\\ \hline
- $Rauber_{E}$&EP&2.05&42.09&57.59&-15.5\\ \hline
+ $Rauber_{E}$&EP&2.05&42.09&57.59&-15.50\\ \hline
EPSA&LU&1.56& 39.55 &19.38& 20.17\\ \hline
- $Rauber_{E-P}$&LU&2.14&45.62&27&18.62 \\ \hline
+ $Rauber_{E-P}$&LU&2.14&45.62&27.00&18.62 \\ \hline
$Rauber_{E}$&LU&2.14&45.66&33.01&12.65\\ \hline
- EPSA&BT&1.315& 29.6&20.53&9.07 \\ \hline
- $Rauber_{E-P}$&BT&2.1&45.53&49.63&-4.1\\ \hline
- $Rauber_{E}$&BT&2.1&43.93&52.86&-8.93\\ \hline
+ EPSA&BT&1.31& 29.60&20.53&9.07 \\ \hline
+ $Rauber_{E-P}$&BT&2.10&45.53&49.63&-4.10\\ \hline
+ $Rauber_{E}$&BT&2.10&43.93&52.86&-8.93\\ \hline
- EPSA&SP&1.388& 33.51&15.65&17.86 \\ \hline
- $Rauber_{E-P}$&SP&2.11&45.62&42.52&3.1\\ \hline
+ EPSA&SP&1.38& 33.51&15.65&17.86 \\ \hline
+ $Rauber_{E-P}$&SP&2.11&45.62&42.52&3.10\\ \hline
$Rauber_{E}$&SP&2.11&45.78&43.09&2.69\\ \hline
- EPSA&FT&1.25& 25&10.8&14.2 \\ \hline
- $Rauber_{E-P}$&FT&2.1&39.29&34.3&4.99 \\ \hline
- $Rauber_{E}$&FT&2.1&37.56&38.21&-0.65\\ \hline
+ EPSA&FT&1.25&25.00&10.80&14.20 \\ \hline
+ $Rauber_{E-P}$&FT&2.10&39.29&34.30&4.99 \\ \hline
+ $Rauber_{E}$&FT&2.10&37.56&38.21&-0.65\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{table:compare Class A}
% is used to refer this table in the text
-\end{table}
-\begin{table}[ht]
+\end{table*}
+\begin{table*}[p]
\caption{Comparing Results for The NAS Class B}
% title of Table
\centering
name &name&value& Saving \%&Degradation \% &Distance
\\ \hline
% \rowcolor[gray]{0.85}
- EPSA&CG & 1.66 &39.23&16.63&22.6 \\ \hline
- $Rauber_{E-P}$&CG &2.15 &45.34&27.6&17.74\\ \hline
+ EPSA&CG & 1.66 &39.23&16.63&22.60 \\ \hline
+ $Rauber_{E-P}$&CG &2.15 &45.34&27.60&17.74\\ \hline
$Rauber_{E}$&CG &2.15 &45.34&28.88&16.46\\ \hline
EPSA&MG & 1.47 &34.98&18.35&16.63\\ \hline
$Rauber_{E}$&MG &2.14&43.56&37.07&6.49 \\ \hline
EPSA&EP &1.08 &20.29&17.15&3.14 \\ \hline
- $Rauber_{E-P}$&EP&2&42.38&56.88&-14.5\\ \hline
- $Rauber_{E}$&EP&2&39.73&59.94&-20.21\\ \hline
+ $Rauber_{E-P}$&EP&2.00&42.38&56.88&-14.50\\ \hline
+ $Rauber_{E}$&EP&2.00&39.73&59.94&-20.21\\ \hline
EPSA&LU&1.47&38.57&21.34&17.23 \\ \hline
- $Rauber_{E-P}$&LU&2.1&43.62&36.51&7.11 \\ \hline
- $Rauber_{E}$&LU&2.1&43.61&38.54&5.07 \\ \hline
+ $Rauber_{E-P}$&LU&2.10&43.62&36.51&7.11 \\ \hline
+ $Rauber_{E}$&LU&2.10&43.61&38.54&5.07 \\ \hline
- EPSA&BT&1.315& 29.59&20.88&8.71\\ \hline
- $Rauber_{E-P}$&BT&2.1&44.53&53.05&-8.52\\ \hline
- $Rauber_{E}$&BT&2.1&42.93&52.806&-9.876\\ \hline
+ EPSA&BT&1.31& 29.59&20.88&8.71\\ \hline
+ $Rauber_{E-P}$&BT&2.10&44.53&53.05&-8.52\\ \hline
+ $Rauber_{E}$&BT&2.10&42.93&52.80&-9.87\\ \hline
- EPSA&SP&1.388&33.44&19.24&14.2 \\ \hline
- $Rauber_{E-P}$&SP&2.15&45.69&43.2&2.49\\ \hline
+ EPSA&SP&1.38&33.44&19.24&14.20 \\ \hline
+ $Rauber_{E-P}$&SP&2.15&45.69&43.20&2.49\\ \hline
$Rauber_{E}$&SP&2.15&45.41&44.47&0.94\\ \hline
- EPSA&FT&1.388&34.4&14.57&19.83 \\ \hline
+ EPSA&FT&1.38&34.40&14.57&19.83 \\ \hline
$Rauber_{E-P}$&FT&2.13&42.98&37.35&5.63 \\ \hline
- $Rauber_{E}$&FT&2.13&43.04&37.9&5.14\\ \hline
+ $Rauber_{E}$&FT&2.13&43.04&37.90&5.14\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{table:compare Class B}
% is used to refer this table in the text
-\end{table}
+\end{table*}
-\begin{table}[ht]
+\begin{table*}[p]
\caption{Comparing Results for The NAS Class C}
% title of Table
\centering
% \rowcolor[gray]{0.85}
EPSA&CG & 1.56 &39.23&14.88&24.35 \\ \hline
$Rauber_{E-P}$&CG &2.15 &45.36&25.89&19.47\\ \hline
- $Rauber_{E}$&CG &2.15 &45.36&26.7&18.66\\ \hline
+ $Rauber_{E}$&CG &2.15 &45.36&26.70&18.66\\ \hline
- EPSA&MG & 1.47 &34.97&21.697&13.273\\ \hline
- $Rauber_{E-P}$&MG &2.15&43.65&40.45&3.2 \\ \hline
+ EPSA&MG & 1.47 &34.97&21.69&13.27\\ \hline
+ $Rauber_{E-P}$&MG &2.15&43.65&40.45&3.20 \\ \hline
$Rauber_{E}$&MG &2.15&43.64&41.38&2.26 \\ \hline
EPSA&EP &1.04 &22.14&20.73&1.41 \\ \hline
- $Rauber_{E-P}$&EP&1.92&39.4&56.33&-16.93\\ \hline
- $Rauber_{E}$&EP&1.92&38.1&56.35&-18.25\\ \hline
+ $Rauber_{E-P}$&EP&1.92&39.40&56.33&-16.93\\ \hline
+ $Rauber_{E}$&EP&1.92&38.10&56.35&-18.25\\ \hline
- EPSA&LU&1.388&35.83&22.49&13.34 \\ \hline
- $Rauber_{E-P}$&LU&2.15&44.97&41&3.97 \\ \hline
- $Rauber_{E}$&LU&2.15&44.97&41.8&3.17 \\ \hline
+ EPSA&LU&1.38&35.83&22.49&13.34 \\ \hline
+ $Rauber_{E-P}$&LU&2.15&44.97&41.00&3.97 \\ \hline
+ $Rauber_{E}$&LU&2.15&44.97&41.80&3.17 \\ \hline
- EPSA&BT&1.315& 29.6&21.28&8.32\\ \hline
- $Rauber_{E-P}$&BT&2.13&45.6&49.84&-4.24\\ \hline
- $Rauber_{E}$&BT&2.13&44.9&55.16&-10.26\\ \hline
+ EPSA&BT&1.31& 29.60&21.28&8.32\\ \hline
+ $Rauber_{E-P}$&BT&2.13&45.60&49.84&-4.24\\ \hline
+ $Rauber_{E}$&BT&2.13&44.90&55.16&-10.26\\ \hline
- EPSA&SP&1.388&33.48&21.35&12.12\\ \hline
- $Rauber_{E-P}$&SP&2.1&45.69&43.6&2.09\\ \hline
- $Rauber_{E}$&SP&2.1&45.75&44.1&1.65\\ \hline
+ EPSA&SP&1.38&33.48&21.35&12.12\\ \hline
+ $Rauber_{E-P}$&SP&2.10&45.69&43.60&2.09\\ \hline
+ $Rauber_{E}$&SP&2.10&45.75&44.10&1.65\\ \hline
- EPSA&FT&1.47&34.72&19&15.72 \\ \hline
- $Rauber_{E-P}$&FT&2.04&39.4&37.1&2.3\\ \hline
- $Rauber_{E}$&FT&2.04&39.35&37.7&1.65\\ \hline
+ EPSA&FT&1.47&34.72&19.00&15.72 \\ \hline
+ $Rauber_{E-P}$&FT&2.04&39.40&37.10&2.30\\ \hline
+ $Rauber_{E}$&FT&2.04&39.35&37.70&1.65\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{table:compare Class C}
% is used to refer this table in the text
-\end{table}
+\end{table*}
As shown in these tables our scaling factor is not optimal for energy saving
such as Rauber's scaling factor EQ~(\ref{eq:sopt}), but it is optimal for both
the energy and the performance simultaneously. Our EPSA optimal scaling factors
paper. While the negative trade offs refers to improving energy saving (or may
be the performance) while degrading the performance (or may be the energy) more
than the first.
-\begin{figure}[width=\textwidth,height=\textheight,keepaspectratio]
+\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
- \includegraphics[scale=0.60]{compare_class_A.pdf}
- \includegraphics[scale=0.60]{compare_class_B.pdf}
- \includegraphics[scale=0.60]{compare_class_c.pdf}
- % use scale 35 for all to be in the same line
+ \includegraphics[width=.33\textwidth]{compare_class_A.pdf}
+ \includegraphics[width=.33\textwidth]{compare_class_B.pdf}
+ \includegraphics[width=.33\textwidth]{compare_class_c.pdf}
\caption{Comparing Our EPSA with Rauber's Methods}
\label{fig:compare}
\end{figure}
-\bibliographystyle{plain}
-\bibliography{my_reference}
+\section{Conclusion}
+\label{sec.concl}
+
+\AG{the conclusion needs to be written\dots{} one day}
+
+\section*{Acknowledgment}
+
+\AG{Right?}
+Computations have been performed on the supercomputer facilities of the
+Mésocentre de calcul de Franche-Comté.
+
+\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
+\bibliography{IEEEabrv,my_reference}
\end{document}
%%% Local Variables:
%%% mode: latex
%%% TeX-master: t
%%% fill-column: 80
-%%% ispell-local-dictionary: "american"
+%%%ispell-local-dictionary: "american"
%%% End:
+
+% LocalWords: Badri Charr FIXME Tianhe DVFS HPC NAS NPB SMPI Rauber's Rauber
+% LocalWords: CMOS EQ EPSA
