some corrections

[mpi-energy2.git] / Heter_paper.tex

diff --git a/Heter_paper.tex b/Heter_paper.tex
index b51db3b23149cd8cad677db096cd3599cd5c0cf8..6684ee4ecc1f7f08c69858d4e1535a8e5352ea95 100644 (file)
--- a/Heter_paper.tex
+++ b/Heter_paper.tex
@@ -1045,7 +1045,24 @@ on average it is up to 17\% higher for  energy saving compared to their algorith
 
 For all benchmarks, our algorithm outperforms 
 Spiliopoulos et al. algorithm in term of energy and performance tradeoff \textcolor{red}{(on average it has up to 21\% of distance)}, see figure (\ref{fig:compare_EDP}) because it maximizes the distance between the energy saving and the performance degradation values while giving the same weight for both metrics. 
-
+\begin{table}[h]
+ \caption{Comparing the proposed algorithm}
+ \centering
+\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|}
+\hline
+\multicolumn{2}{|l|}{\multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Program \\ name\end{tabular}}} & \multicolumn{2}{l|}{Energy saving \%} & \multicolumn{2}{l|}{Perf.  degradation \%} & \multicolumn{2}{l|}{Distance} \\ \cline{3-8} 
+\multicolumn{2}{|l|}{}                                                                         & EDP             & MaxDist          & EDP            & MaxDist           & EDP          & MaxDist        \\ \hline
+\multicolumn{2}{|l|}{CG}                                                                       & 27.58           & 31.25            & 5.82           & 7.12              & 21.76        & 24.13          \\ \hline
+\multicolumn{2}{|l|}{MG}                                                                       & 29.49           & 33.78            & 3.74           & 6.41              & 25.75        & 27.37          \\ \hline
+\multicolumn{2}{|l|}{LU}                                                                       & 19.55           & 28.33            & 0.0            & 0.01              & 19.55        & 28.22          \\ \hline
+\multicolumn{2}{|l|}{EP}                                                                       & 28.40           & 27.04            & 4.29           & 0.49              & 24.11        & 26.55          \\ \hline
+\multicolumn{2}{|l|}{BT}                                                                       & 27.68           & 32.32            & 6.45           & 7.87              & 21.23        & 24.43          \\ \hline
+\multicolumn{2}{|l|}{SP}                                                                       & 20.52           & 24.73            & 5.21           & 2.78              & 15.31         & 21.95         \\ \hline
+\multicolumn{2}{|l|}{FT}                                                                       & 27.03           & 31.02            & 2.75           & 2.54              & 24.28        & 28.48           \\ \hline
+
+\end{tabular}
+\label{table:compare_EDP}
+\end{table}
 
 
 \begin{table}[htb]
@@ -1075,7 +1092,33 @@ Spiliopoulos et al. algorithm in term of energy and performance tradeoff \textco
   \label{table:compare_EDP}
 \end{table}
 
-
+\begin{table}[htb]
+  \caption{Comparing the proposed algorithm}
+  % title of Table
+  \centering
+  \begin{tabular}{|*{4}{l|}}
+    \hline
+    Program       & Energy      & Performance        & Distance\%    \\
+    name          & saving\%    & degradation\%      &              \\
+    \hline
+    CG            &3.67                &1.3                     &2.37     \\
+    \hline 
+    MG            &4.29                &2.67                    &1.62     \\
+   \hline
+    EP            &8.68                &0.01                    &8.67     \\
+   \hline
+    LU            &-1.36           &-3.8                        &2.44     \\
+    \hline
+    BT                   &4.64         &1.44                    &3.2      \\
+   \hline
+    SP                   &4.21         &-2.43                   &6.64     \\
+   \hline
+    FT            &3.99                &-0.21                   &4.2
+    \\
+\hline 
+  \end{tabular}
+  \label{table:compare_EDP}
+\end{table}
 \begin{figure}[t]
   \centering
    \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{fig/compare_EDP.pdf}