From ab7e68146cf99a45c2db5af7ecd4e5b9b671a453 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: afanfakh Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 16:36:33 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] some corrections --- Heter_paper.tex | 47 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/Heter_paper.tex b/Heter_paper.tex index b51db3b..6684ee4 100644 --- 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} -- 2.39.5