Arnaud Giersch
}
\IEEEauthorblockA{%
- FEMTO-ST Institute\\
- University of Franche-Comté\\
+ FEMTO-ST Institute, University of Franche-Comte\\
IUT de Belfort-Montbéliard,
19 avenue du Maréchal Juin, BP 527, 90016 Belfort cedex, France\\
% Telephone: \mbox{+33 3 84 58 77 86}, % Raphaël
consumption. However, lowering the frequency of a CPU might increase the
execution time of an application running on that processor. Therefore, the
frequency that gives the best tradeoff between the energy consumption and the
-performance of an application must be selected.
-
+performance of an application must be selected.\\
In this paper, a new online frequencies selecting algorithm for heterogeneous
platforms is presented. It selects the frequency which tries to give the best
tradeoff between energy saving and performance degradation, for each node
Therefore, the overall execution time of the program is the execution time of the slowest
task which has the highest computation time and no slack time.
- \begin{figure}[t]
+ \begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{fig/commtasks}
\caption{Parallel tasks on a heterogeneous platform}
\end{multline}
-\begin{figure}
+\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\subfloat[Homogeneous platform]{%
\includegraphics[width=.33\textwidth]{fig/homo}\label{fig:r1}}%
the difference between the faster nodes and the slower nodes is, the bigger the
maximum distance between the energy curve and the performance curve is while
the scaling factors are varying which results in bigger energy savings.
-\begin{figure}[t]
+\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{fig/start_freq}
\caption{Selecting the initial frequencies}
nodes were connected via an ethernet network with 1 Gbit/s bandwidth.
-\begin{table}[htb]
+\begin{table}[!t]
\caption{Heterogeneous nodes characteristics}
% title of Table
\centering
-\begin{table}[htb]
+\begin{table}[!t]
\caption{Running NAS benchmarks on 4 nodes }
% title of Table
\centering
\label{table:res_4n}
\end{table}
-\begin{table}[htb]
+\begin{table}[!t]
\caption{Running NAS benchmarks on 8 and 9 nodes }
% title of Table
\centering
\label{table:res_8n}
\end{table}
-\begin{table}[htb]
+\begin{table}[!t]
\caption{Running NAS benchmarks on 16 nodes }
% title of Table
\centering
\label{table:res_16n}
\end{table}
-\begin{table}[htb]
+\begin{table}[!t]
\caption{Running NAS benchmarks on 32 and 36 nodes }
% title of Table
\centering
\label{table:res_32n}
\end{table}
-\begin{table}[htb]
+\begin{table}[!t]
\caption{Running NAS benchmarks on 64 nodes }
% title of Table
\centering
\end{table}
-\begin{table}[htb]
+\begin{table}[!t]
\caption{Running NAS benchmarks on 128 and 144 nodes }
% title of Table
\centering
-\begin{figure}
+\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\subfloat[Energy saving]{%
\includegraphics[width=.33\textwidth]{fig/energy}\label{fig:energy}}%
degradation.
- \begin{table}[htb]
+ \begin{table}[!t]
\caption{The results of the 70\%-30\% power scenario}
% title of Table
\centering
-\begin{table}[htb]
+\begin{table}[!t]
\caption{The results of the 90\%-10\% power scenario}
% title of Table
\centering
\end{table}
-\begin{figure}
+\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\subfloat[Comparison between the results on 8 nodes]{%
\includegraphics[width=.33\textwidth]{fig/sen_comp}\label{fig:sen_comp}}%
-\begin{table}[h]
+\begin{table}[!t]
\caption{Comparing the proposed algorithm}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|}
-\begin{figure}[t]
+\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{fig/compare_EDP.pdf}
\caption{Tradeoff comparison for NAS benchmarks class C}
