DVFS is a technique enabled
in modern processors to scale down both the voltage and the frequency of
the CPU while computing, in order to reduce the energy consumption of the processor. DVFS is
-also allowed in the GPUs to achieve the same goal. Reducing the frequency of a processor lowers its number of FLOPS and might degrade the performance of the application running on that processor, especially if it is compute bound. Therefore selecting the appropriate frequency for a processor to satisfy some objectives and while taking into account all the constraints, is not a trivial operation. Many researchers used different strategies to tackle this problem. Some of them developed online methods that compute the new frequency while executing the application, such as ~\cite{Hao_Learning.based.DVFS,Dhiman_Online.Learning.Power.Management}. Others used offline methods that might need to run the application and profile it before selecting the new frequency, such as ~\cite{Rountree_Bounding.energy.consumption.in.MPI,Cochran_Pack_and_Cap_Adaptive_DVFS}. The methods could be heuristics, exact or brute force methods that satisfy varied objectives such as energy reduction or performance. They also could be adapted to the execution's environment and the type of the application such as sequential, parallel or distributed architecture, homogeneous or heterogeneous platform, synchronous or asynchronous application, ...
+also allowed in the GPUs to achieve the same goal. Reducing the frequency of a processor lowers its number of FLOPS and might degrade the performance of the application running on that processor, especially if it is compute bound. Therefore selecting the appropriate frequency for a processor to satisfy some objectives and while taking into account all the constraints, is not a trivial operation. Many researchers used different strategies to tackle this problem. Some of them developed online methods that compute the new frequency while executing the application, such as ~\cite{Hao_Learning.based.DVFS,Spiliopoulos_Green.governors.Adaptive.DVFS}. Others used offline methods that might need to run the application and profile it before selecting the new frequency, such as ~\cite{Rountree_Bounding.energy.consumption.in.MPI,Cochran_Pack_and_Cap_Adaptive_DVFS}. The methods could be heuristics, exact or brute force methods that satisfy varied objectives such as energy reduction or performance. They also could be adapted to the execution's environment and the type of the application such as sequential, parallel or distributed architecture, homogeneous or heterogeneous platform, synchronous or asynchronous application, ...
In this paper, we are interested in reducing energy for message passing iterative synchronous applications running over heterogeneous platforms.
Some works have already been done for such platforms and they can be classified into two types of heterogeneous platforms:
To fairly compare both algorithms, the same energy and execution time models, equations (\ref{eq:energy}) and (\ref{eq:fnew}), were used for both algorithms to predict the energy consumption and the execution times. Also Spiliopoulos et al. algorithm was adapted to start the search from the
initial frequencies computed using the equation (\ref{eq:Fint}). The resulting algorithm is an exhaustive search algorithm that minimizes the EDP and has the initial frequencies values as an upper bound.
-Both algorithms were applied to the parallel NAS benchmarks to compare their efficiency. Table \ref{table:compare_EDP} presents the results of comparing the execution times and the energy consumptions for both versions of the NAS benchmarks while running the class C of each benchmark over 8 or 9 heterogeneous nodes. . The results show that our algorithm gives better energy savings than Spiliopoulos et al. algorithm,
-on average it results in 29.76\% energy saving while their algorithm returns just 25.75\%. The average of performance degradation percentage is approximately the same for both algorithms, about 4\%.
+Both algorithms were applied to the parallel NAS benchmarks to compare their efficiency. Table \ref{table:compare_EDP} presents the results of comparing the execution times and the energy consumptions for both versions of the NAS benchmarks while running the class C of each benchmark over 8 or 9 heterogeneous nodes. \textcolor{red}{The results show that our algorithm gives better energy savings than Spiliopoulos et al. algorithm,
+on average it is up to 17\% higher for energy saving compared to their algorithm. The average of performance degradation percentage using our method is higher on average by 3.82\%.}
For all benchmarks, our algorithm outperforms
-Spiliopoulos et al. algorithm in term of energy and performance tradeoff, 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}
+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}[htb]
+ \caption{Comparing the proposed algorithm}
+ % title of Table
+ \centering
+ \begin{tabular}{|*{4}{l|}}
+ \hline
+ Program & Energy & Performance & Distance\% \\
+ name & saving\% & degradation\% & \\
+ \hline
+ CG &13.31 &22.34 &10.89 \\
+ \hline
+ MG &14.55 &71.39 &6.29 \\
+ \hline
+ EP &44.4 &0.0 &44.42 \\
+ \hline
+ LU &-4.79 &-88.58 &10.12 \\
+ \hline
+ BT &16.76 &22.33 &15.07 \\
+ \hline
+ SP &20.52 &-46.64 &43.37 \\
+ \hline
+ FT &14.76 &-7.64 &17.3 \\
+\hline
+ \end{tabular}
+ \label{table:compare_EDP}
+\end{table}
\begin{figure}[t]
