X-Git-Url: https://bilbo.iut-bm.univ-fcomte.fr/and/gitweb/mpi-energy.git/blobdiff_plain/070119cb552a67b5f9592ad57274fade98457d45..b2e13cc196d2e0b917988a193d737cdcb4d983ee:/paper.tex

diff --git a/paper.tex b/paper.tex
index 8d86a9d..d7ced09 100644
--- a/paper.tex
+++ b/paper.tex
@@ -9,11 +9,10 @@
 \usepackage{listings}
 \usepackage{colortbl}
 \usepackage{amsmath}
-% \usepackage{sectsty}
-% \usepackage{titlesec}
-% \usepackage{secdot}
-%\usepackage[font={footnotesize,bt}]{caption}
-%\usepackage[font=scriptsize,labelfont=bf]{caption}
+
+\usepackage[autolanguage,np]{numprint}
+\renewcommand*\npunitcommand[1]{\text{#1}}
+
 \usepackage{xspace}
 \usepackage[textsize=footnotesize]{todonotes}
 \newcommand{\AG}[2][inline]{\todo[color=green!50,#1]{\sffamily\textbf{AG:} #2}\xspace}
@@ -94,13 +93,13 @@ this algorithm to seven MPI benchmarks. These MPI programs are the NAS parallel
 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 and R\"{u}nger methods~\cite{3}.
+proposed algorithm with Rauber and RÃ¼nger methods~\cite{3}.
 The comparison's results show that our
 algorithm gives better energy-time trade off.
 
 This paper is organized as follows: Section~\ref{sec.relwork} presents the works from other authors. 
 Section~\ref{sec.ptasks} shows the execution of parallel tasks and sources of idle times. Section~\ref{sec.energy} resumes the 
-energy model of homogenous platform. Section~\ref{sec.mpip} evaluates the performance of MPI program. 
+energy model of homogeneous platform. Section~\ref{sec.mpip} evaluates the performance of MPI program.
 Section~\ref{sec.verif} verifies the performance prediction model. Section~\ref{sec.compet} presents 
 the energy-performance trade offs objective function. Section~\ref{sec.optim} demonstrates the proposed 
 energy-performance algorithm. Section~\ref{sec.expe} presents the results of our experiments. 
@@ -148,10 +147,10 @@ program can be used to save energy. In~\cite{1}, Lim et al. developed an
 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 inRauber and R\"{u}nger~\cite{3}. they
+of analytical modeling used for choosing the optimal frequency as in Rauber and RÃ¼nger~\cite{3}. they
 developed an analytical mathematical model to determine the
 optimal frequency scaling factor for any number of concurrent tasks. They set the slowest task to maximum frequency for maintaining performance.  In this paper we compare our algorithm with
-Rauber and R\"{u}nger model~\cite{3}, because their model can be used for any number of
+Rauber and RÃ¼nger model~\cite{3}, because their model can be used for any number of
 concurrent tasks for homogeneous platforms. The primary contributions of this paper are:
 \begin{enumerate}
 \item Selecting the frequency scaling factor for simultaneously optimizing energy and performance,
@@ -200,7 +199,7 @@ The energy consumption by the processor consists of two power metrics: the
 dynamic and the static power. This general power formulation is used by many
 researchers~\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 :
+the supply voltage $V$ and operational frequency $f$ respectively as follow:
 \begin{equation}
   \label{eq:pd}
   P_\textit{dyn} = \alpha \cdot C_L \cdot V^2 \cdot f
@@ -240,7 +239,7 @@ The scaling factor is equal to 1 when the frequency set is to the maximum freque
 The energy consumption model for parallel homogeneous platform  depends on the scaling factor \emph S. This factor reduces quadratically the dynamic power.  Also, this factor increases the
 static energy linearly because the execution time is increased~\cite{36}.  The
 energy model depending on the frequency scaling factor for homogeneous platform
-for any number of concurrent tasks was developed by Rauber and R\"{u}nger~\cite{3}. This model
+for any number of concurrent tasks was developed by Rauber and RÃ¼nger~\cite{3}. This model
 considers the two power metrics for measuring the energy of the parallel tasks as
 in EQ~(\ref{eq:energy}):
 
@@ -266,9 +265,9 @@ the time value $T_i$ depends on the new frequency value as in EQ~(\ref{eq:si}).
       = \frac{F_\textit{max}}{F_\textit{new}} \cdot \frac{T_1}{T_i}
 \end{equation}
 where $F$ is the number of available frequencies. In this paper we depend on
-Rauber and R\"{u}nger energy model EQ~(\ref{eq:energy}) for two reasons: (1)-this model is used
+Rauber and RÃ¼nger energy model EQ~(\ref{eq:energy}) for two reasons: (1)-this model is used
 for homogeneous platform that we work on in this paper. 2-we compare our
-algorithm with Rauber and R\"{u}nger scaling model.  Rauber and R\"{u}nger scaling factor that reduce
+algorithm with Rauber and RÃ¼nger scaling model.  Rauber and RÃ¼nger scaling factor that reduce
  energy consumption derived from the EQ~(\ref{eq:energy}). They take the
 derivation for this equation (to be minimized) and set it to zero to produce the
 scaling factor as in EQ~(\ref{eq:sopt}).
@@ -342,7 +341,7 @@ 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
 frequencies. For more details on the characteristics of the platform refer to
 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
+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
 example, we are present the execution times of the NAS benchmarks as in the
@@ -360,7 +359,7 @@ it is linear see~\cite{17}. The relation between the energy and the performance
 is not straightforward. Moreover, they are not measured using the same metric.
 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 :
+without scaled frequency:
 \begin{multline}
   \label{eq:enorm}
   E_\textit{Norm} = \frac{ E_\textit{Reduced}}{E_\textit{Original}} \\
@@ -370,7 +369,7 @@ without scaled frequency :
               P_\textit{dyn} \cdot \left(T_1+\sum_{i=2}^{N}\frac{T_i^3}{T_1^2}\right) +
               P_\textit{static} \cdot T_1 \cdot N }
 \end{multline}
-By the same way we can normalize the performance as follows :
+By the same way we can normalize the performance as follows:
 \begin{equation}
   \label{eq:pnorm}
   P_\textit{Norm} = \frac{T_\textit{New}}{T_\textit{Old}}
@@ -391,7 +390,7 @@ paper we are present a method to find the optimal scaling factor \emph S for
 optimize both energy and performance simultaneously without adding big
 overheads.  Our solution for this problem is to make the optimization process
 have the same direction. Therefore, we inverse the equation of normalize
-performance as follows :
+performance as follows:
 \begin{equation}
   \label{eq:pnorm_en}
   P^{-1}_\textit{Norm} = \frac{ T_\textit{Old}}{ T_\textit{New}}
@@ -424,7 +423,7 @@ 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
-objective of this paper and we choose Rauber and R\"{u}nger model as an example with two
+objective of this paper and we choose Rauber and RÃ¼nger model as an example with two
 reasons that mentioned before.
 
 \section{Optimal Scaling Factor for Performance and Energy}
@@ -495,7 +494,7 @@ in the MPI program.
 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
-can calculate the new frequency $F_i$ as follows :
+can calculate the new frequency $F_i$ as follows:
 \begin{equation}
   \label{eq:fi}
   F_i = \frac{F_\textit{max} \cdot T_i}{S_\textit{optimal} \cdot T_\textit{max}}
@@ -525,11 +524,11 @@ frequencies.
   \caption{Platform File Parameters}
   % title of Table
   \centering
-  \begin{tabular}{ | l | l | l |l | l |l |l |  p{2cm} |}
+  \begin{tabular}{|*{7}{l|}}
     \hline
     Max & Min & Backbone & Backbone&Link &Link& Sharing  \\
     Freq. & Freq. & Bandwidth & Latency & Bandwidth& Latency&Policy  \\ \hline
-    2.5 &800 & 2.25 GBps &$5\times 10^{-7} s$& 1 GBps & $5\times 10^{-5} s$ &Full  \\
+    \np{2.5} & \np{800} & \np[GBps]{2.25} &\np[$\mu$s]{0.5}& \np[GBps]{1} & \np[$\mu$s]{50} &Full  \\
     GHz& MHz&  & & &  &Duplex  \\\hline
   \end{tabular}
   \label{table:platform}
@@ -568,7 +567,7 @@ same time over all available scales.
   \caption{The EPSA Scaling Factors Results}
   % title of Table
   \centering
-  \begin{tabular}{ | l | l | l |l | r |}
+  \begin{tabular}{|l|*{4}{r|}}
     \hline
     Program & Optimal & Energy  & Performance&Energy-Perf.\\
     Name & Scaling Factor& Saving \%&Degradation \% &Distance  \\ \hline
@@ -595,7 +594,7 @@ 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 and R\"{u}nger
+In this section, we compare our EPSA algorithm results with Rauber and RÃ¼nger
 methods~\cite{3}. He had two scenarios, the first is to reduce energy to optimal
 level without considering the performance as in EQ~(\ref{eq:sopt}). We refer to
 this scenario as $R_{E}$. The second scenario is similar to the first
@@ -603,13 +602,13 @@ except setting the slower task to the maximum frequency (when the scale $S=1$)
 to keep the performance from degradation as mush as possible. We refer to this
 scenario as $R_{E-P}$. The comparison is made in tables~(\ref{table:compare
   Class A},\ref{table:compare Class B},\ref{table:compare Class C}). These
-tables show the results of our EPSA and Rauber and R\"{u}nger scenarios for all the NAS
+tables show the results of our EPSA and Rauber and RÃ¼nger scenarios for all the NAS
 benchmarks programs for classes A,B and C.
 \begin{table}[p]
   \caption{Comparing Results for  The NAS Class A}
   % title of Table
   \centering
-  \begin{tabular}{ | l | l | l |l | l | r|  }
+  \begin{tabular}{|l|l|*{4}{r|}}
     \hline
     Method&Program&Factor& Energy& Performance &Energy-Perf.\\
     Name &Name&Value& Saving \%&Degradation \% &Distance
@@ -650,7 +649,7 @@ benchmarks programs for classes A,B and C.
   \caption{Comparing Results for The NAS Class B}
   % title of Table
   \centering
-  \begin{tabular}{ | l | l | l |l | l |r|  }
+  \begin{tabular}{|l|l|*{4}{r|}}
     \hline
     Method&Program&Factor& Energy& Performance &Energy-Perf.\\
     Name &Name&Value& Saving \%&Degradation \% &Distance
@@ -692,7 +691,7 @@ benchmarks programs for classes A,B and C.
   \caption{Comparing Results for The NAS Class C}
   % title of Table
   \centering
-  \begin{tabular}{ | l | l | l |l | l |r|  }
+  \begin{tabular}{|l|l|*{4}{r|}}
     \hline
     Method&Program&Factor& Energy& Performance &Energy-Perf.\\
     Name &Name&Value& Saving \%&Degradation \% &Distance
@@ -733,7 +732,7 @@ 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
 has better simultaneous optimization for both the energy and the performance
-compared to Rauber and R\"{u}nger energy-performance method ($R_{E-P}$). Also, in
+compared to Rauber and RÃ¼nger energy-performance method ($R_{E-P}$). Also, in
 ($R_{E-P}$) method when setting the frequency to maximum value for the
 slower task lead to a small improvement of the performance. Also the results
 show that this method keep or improve energy saving. Because of the energy
@@ -743,7 +742,7 @@ increased.
 Figure~(\ref{fig:compare}) shows the maximum distance between the energy saving
 percent and the performance degradation percent. Therefore, this means it is the
 same resultant of our objective function EQ~(\ref{eq:max}). Our algorithm always
-gives positive energy to performance trade offs while Rauber and R\"{u}nger method
+gives positive energy to performance trade offs while Rauber and RÃ¼nger method
 ($R_{E-P}$) gives in some time negative trade offs such as in BT and
 EP. The positive trade offs with highest values lead to maximum energy savings
 concatenating with less performance degradation and this the objective of this
@@ -755,7 +754,7 @@ than the first.
   \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 and R\"{u}nger Methods}
+  \caption{Comparing Our EPSA with Rauber and RÃ¼nger Methods}
   \label{fig:compare}
 \end{figure}
 \section{Conclusion}
@@ -787,5 +786,5 @@ working on this paper.
 %%% ispell-local-dictionary: "american"
 %%% End:
 
-%  LocalWords:  Badri Charr FIXME Tianhe DVFS HPC NAS NPB SMPI Rauber's Rauber
-%  LocalWords:  CMOS EQ $$EPSA$$ Franche ComtÃ© Tflop
+%  LocalWords:  Fanfakh Charr FIXME Tianhe DVFS HPC NAS NPB SMPI Rauber's Rauber
+%  LocalWords:  CMOS EQ EPSA Franche ComtÃ© Tflop RÃ¼nger
