X-Git-Url: https://bilbo.iut-bm.univ-fcomte.fr/and/gitweb/mpi-energy2.git/blobdiff_plain/71a2ec18276dbbb8ee0dc07e9a390d558eda81d7..82cc99317783214c1562e1d5e39076d77770ad60:/mpi-energy2-extension/Heter_paper.tex?ds=sidebyside

diff --git a/mpi-energy2-extension/Heter_paper.tex b/mpi-energy2-extension/Heter_paper.tex
index b6839ce..7c2ce1a 100644
--- a/mpi-energy2-extension/Heter_paper.tex
+++ b/mpi-energy2-extension/Heter_paper.tex
@@ -682,8 +682,7 @@ in~\cite{Zhuo_Energy.efficient.Dynamic.Task.Scheduling,Rauber_Analytical.Modelin
       \State Computations section.
       \State Communications section.
       \If {$(k=1)$}
-        \State Gather all times of computation and\newline\hspace*{3em}%
-               communication from each node.
+        \State Gather all times of computation and communication from each node.
         \State Call Algorithm \ref{HSA}.
         \State Compute the new frequencies from the\newline\hspace*{3em}%
                returned optimal scaling factors.
@@ -859,20 +858,20 @@ The benchmarks have seven different classes, S, W, A, B, C, D and E, that repres
     Name        & model       & Freq. & Freq. & Freq. & per CPU         & of one core     \\
                 &             & GHz   & GHz   & GHz   &                 &           \\
     \hline
-    Taurus      & Intel       & 2.3  & 1.2  & 0.1     & 6               & \np[W]{35} \\
-                & Xeon        &       &       &       &                 &            \\
+                & Intel       & 2.3  & 1.2  & 0.1     & 6               & \np[W]{35} \\
+    Taurus      & Xeon        &       &       &       &                 &            \\
                 & E5-2630     &       &       &       &                 &            \\         
     \hline
-    Graphene    & Intel       & 2.53  & 1.2   & 0.133 & 4               & \np[W]{23} \\
-                & Xeon        &       &       &       &                 &            \\
+                & Intel       & 2.53  & 1.2   & 0.133 & 4               & \np[W]{23} \\
+    Graphene    & Xeon        &       &       &       &                 &            \\
                 & X3440       &       &       &       &                 &            \\    
     \hline
-    Griffon     & Intel       & 2.5   & 2     & 0.5   & 4               & \np[W]{46} \\
-                & Xeon        &       &       &       &                 &            \\
+                & Intel       & 2.5   & 2     & 0.5   & 4               & \np[W]{46} \\
+    Griffon     & Xeon        &       &       &       &                 &            \\
                 & L5420       &       &       &       &                 &            \\  
     \hline
-    Graphite    & Intel       & 2     & 1.2   & 0.1   & 8               & \np[W]{35} \\
-                & Xeon        &       &       &       &                 &            \\
+                & Intel       & 2     & 1.2   & 0.1   & 8               & \np[W]{35} \\
+     Graphite   & Xeon        &       &       &       &                 &            \\
                 & E5-2650     &       &       &       &                 &            \\  
     \hline
   \end{tabular}
@@ -978,9 +977,9 @@ energy saving percentage in one site scenario when executed over 16 nodes compar
   \centering
   \subfloat[The energy consumption by the nodes wile executing the NAS benchmarks over different scenarios    
            ]{%
-    \includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{fig/eng_con_scenarios.eps}\label{fig:eng_sen}} \hspace{1cm}%
+    \includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{fig/eng_con_scenarios.eps}\label{fig:eng_sen}} \hspace{0.4cm}%
   \subfloat[The execution times of the NAS benchmarks over different scenarios]{%
-    \includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{fig/time_scenarios.eps}\label{fig:time_sen}}
+    \includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{fig/time_scenarios.eps}\label{fig:time_sen}}
   \label{fig:exp-time-energy}
   \caption{The  energy consumption and execution time of NAS  Benchmarks over different scenarios}
 \end{figure}
@@ -1004,12 +1003,12 @@ The best energy saving percentage was obtained in the one site scenario with 16
 \begin{figure}
   \centering
   \subfloat[The energy reduction while executing the NAS benchmarks over different scenarios ]{%
-    \includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{fig/eng_s.eps}\label{fig:eng_s}} \hspace{2cm}%
+    \includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{fig/eng_s.eps}\label{fig:eng_s}} \hspace{0.4cm}%
   \subfloat[The performance degradation of the NAS benchmarks over different scenarios]{%
-    \includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{fig/per_d.eps}\label{fig:per_d}}\hspace{2cm}%
+    \includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{fig/per_d.eps}\label{fig:per_d}}\hspace{0.4cm}%
     \subfloat[The tradeoff distance between the energy reduction and the performance of the NAS benchmarks  
       over different scenarios]{%
-    \includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{fig/dist.eps}\label{fig:dist}}
+    \includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{fig/dist.eps}\label{fig:dist}}
   \label{fig:exp-res}
   \caption{The experimental results of different scenarios}
 \end{figure}
@@ -1075,9 +1074,9 @@ Scenario name                          & Cluster name & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@
 \begin{figure}
   \centering
   \subfloat[Comparing the  execution times of running NAS benchmarks over one core and multicores scenarios]{%
-    \includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{fig/time.eps}\label{fig:time-mc}} \hspace{1cm}%
+    \includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{fig/time.eps}\label{fig:time-mc}} \hspace{0.4cm}%
   \subfloat[Comparing the  energy consumptions of running NAS benchmarks over one core and multi-cores scenarios]{%
-    \includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{fig/eng_con.eps}\label{fig:eng-cons-mc}}
+    \includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{fig/eng_con.eps}\label{fig:eng-cons-mc}}
     \label{fig:eng-cons}
   \caption{The energy consumptions and execution times of NAS benchmarks over one core and multi-cores per node architectures}
 \end{figure}
@@ -1115,12 +1114,12 @@ in the figure \ref{fig:dist-mc}. These  tradeoff distance between energy consump
 \begin{figure}
   \centering
     \subfloat[The energy saving of running NAS benchmarks over one core and multicores scenarios]{%
-    \includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{fig/eng_s_mc.eps}\label{fig:eng-s-mc}} \hspace{2cm}%
+    \includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{fig/eng_s_mc.eps}\label{fig:eng-s-mc}} \hspace{0.4cm}%
     \subfloat[The performance degradation of running NAS benchmarks over one core and multicores scenarios
       ]{%
-    \includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{fig/per_d_mc.eps}\label{fig:per-d-mc}}\hspace{2cm}%
+    \includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{fig/per_d_mc.eps}\label{fig:per-d-mc}}\hspace{0.4cm}%
     \subfloat[The tradeoff distance of running NAS benchmarks over one core and multicores scenarios]{%
-    \includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{fig/dist_mc.eps}\label{fig:dist-mc}}
+    \includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{fig/dist_mc.eps}\label{fig:dist-mc}}
   \label{fig:exp-res}
   \caption{The experimental results of one core and multi-cores scenarios}
 \end{figure}
@@ -1141,12 +1140,12 @@ In these experiments, the class D of the NAS parallel benchmarks are executed ov
 \begin{figure}
   \centering
   \subfloat[The energy saving percentages for the nodes executing the NAS benchmarks over the three power scenarios]{%
-    \includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{fig/eng_pow.eps}\label{fig:eng-pow}} \hspace{2cm}%
+    \includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{fig/eng_pow.eps}\label{fig:eng-pow}} \hspace{0.4cm}%
   \subfloat[The performance degradation percentages for the NAS benchmarks over the three power scenarios]{%
-    \includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{fig/per_pow.eps}\label{fig:per-pow}}\hspace{2cm}%
+    \includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{fig/per_pow.eps}\label{fig:per-pow}}\hspace{0.4cm}%
     \subfloat[The tradeoff distance between the energy reduction and the performance of the NAS benchmarks over the three power scenarios]{%
       
-    \includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{fig/dist_pow.eps}\label{fig:dist-pow}}
+    \includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{fig/dist_pow.eps}\label{fig:dist-pow}}
   \label{fig:exp-pow}
   \caption{The experimental results of different static power scenarios}
 \end{figure}
@@ -1206,11 +1205,11 @@ presented in the figures \ref{fig:edp-eng}, \ref{fig:edp-perf} and \ref{fig:edp-
 \begin{figure}
   \centering
   \subfloat[The energy reduction induced by the Maxdist method and the EDP method]{%
-    \includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{fig/edp_eng}\label{fig:edp-eng}} \hspace{2cm}%
+    \includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{fig/edp_eng}\label{fig:edp-eng}} \hspace{0.4cm}%
     \subfloat[The performance degradation induced by  the Maxdist method and the EDP method]{%
-    \includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{fig/edp_per}\label{fig:edp-perf}}\hspace{2cm}%
+    \includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{fig/edp_per}\label{fig:edp-perf}}\hspace{0.4cm}%
     \subfloat[The tradeoff distance between the energy consumption reduction and the performance for the Maxdist method and the  EDP method]{%
-    \includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{fig/edp_dist}\label{fig:edp-dist}}
+    \includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{fig/edp_dist}\label{fig:edp-dist}}
   \label{fig:edp-comparison}
   \caption{The comparison results}
 \end{figure}
