Date post: | 11-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | rodney-day |
View: | 213 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Alex Shye, Berkin Ozisikyilmaz, Arindam Mallik, Gokhan Memik, Peter A. Dinda, Robert P. Dick, and Alok N.
ChoudharyNorthwestern University, EECS
International Symposium on Computer Architecture, June 2008. Beijing, China.
Findings/Contributions1. User satisfaction is correlated to CPU performance
2. User satisfaction is non-linear, application-dependent, and user-dependent
1. We can use hardware performance counters to learn and leverage user satisfaction to optimize power consumption while maintaining satisfaction
Claim: Any optimization ultimately exists to satisfy the end userClaim: Current architectures largely ignore the individual user
22Architectural trade-offsexposed to the user
11User-centric applications
33Optimization opportunityUser variation = optimization potential
Use
r S
atis
fact
ion
Your favorite metric(IPS, throughput, etc.)
????
Performance Level
????
Performance Level
Leverage knowledgefor optimization
Leverage knowledgefor optimization Learn relationship between user
satisfaction and hardware performanceLearn relationship between user
satisfaction and hardware performance
Hardware performance counters are supported on all modern processors
Low overhead Non-intrusive
WinPAPI interface; 100Hz
For each HPC: Maximum Minimum Standard deviation Range Average
IBM Thinkpad T43p Pentium M with Intel Speedstep Supports 6 Frequencies (2.2Ghz -- 800Mhz)
Two user studies: 20 users each First to learn about user satisfaction Second to show we can leverage user satisfaction
Three multimedia/interactive applications: Java game: A first-person-shooter tank game Shockwave: A 3D shockwave animation Video: DVD-quality MPEG video
Goal: Learn relationship between
HPCs and user satisfaction
How: Randomly change
performance/frequency Collect HPCs Ask the user for their
satisfaction rating!
Compare each set of HPC values with user satisfaction ratings Collected 360 satisfaction levels (20 users, 6 frequencies, 3
applications) 45 metrics per satisfaction level
Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation Coefficient (r) -1: negative linear correlation, 1: positive linear correlation
Strong correlation: 21 of 45 metrics over .7 r value
rx, y N xy ( x)( y)
[N x2 ( x)2 ][N y2 ( y)2 ]
Combine all user data
Fit into a neural network Inputs: HPCs and user ID Output: User satisfaction
Observe relative importance factor
User more than two times more important than the second-most important factor
User satisfaction is highly user-specific!
HPCsUser ID
User Satisfaction
User satisfaction is often non-linear User satisfaction is application-specific Most importantly, user satisfaction is user-
specific
Observations: User satisfaction is non-linear User satisfaction is application dependent User satisfaction is user dependent
All three represent optimization potential!
Based on observations, we construct Individualized DVFS (iDVFS)
Dynamic voltage and frequency scaling (DVFS) effective for improving power consumption
Common DVFS schemes (i.e., Windows XP DVFS, Linux ondemand governor) are based on CPU-utilization
User-aware performance
prediction model
Predictive user-aware Dynamic
Frequency Scaling
Building correlation network based on counters stats and
user feedback
Learning/Modeling Stage
Runtime Power Management
Hardware counter states
Hardware counter states
User Satisfaction Feedback
Train per-user and per-application Small training set!
Two modifications to neural network training▪ Limit inputs (used two highest correlation HPCs)
▪ BTAC_M-average and TOT_CYC-average
▪ Repeated trainings using most accurate NN
HPCs User Satisfaction
ρ: user satisfaction tradeoff threshold αf: per frequency threshold M: maximum user satisfaction
Greedy approach Make prediction every 500ms If within user satisfaction within αfρ of M twice
in a row, decrease frequency If not, increase frequency and is αf decreased to
prevent ping-ponging between frequency
Goal: Evaluate iDVFS with real users
How: Users randomly use application with iDVFS and with Windows XP DVFS
Afterwards, users asked to rate each one Frequency logs maintained through
experiments▪ Replayed through National Instruments DAQ
for system power
iDVFS can scale frequency effectively based upon user satisfaction
In this case, we slightly decrease power compared to Windows DVFS
iDVFS significantly improves power consumption Here, CPU utilization not equal to user satisfaction
No change in user satisfaction, significant power savings
Same user satisfaction, same power savings
Red: Users gave high ratings to lower frequencies
Dashed Black: Neural network bad
Lowered user satisfaction, improved power
Blue: Gave constant ratings during training
Slight increase in ESP Benefits in energy reduction outweigh loss in
user satisfaction with ESP
We explore user satisfaction relative to actual hardware performance
Show correlation from HPCs to user satisfaction for interactive applications
Show that user satisfaction is generally non-linear, application-, and user-specific
Demonstrate an example for leveraging user satisfaction to improve power consumption over 25%
Questions?
For more information, please visit: http://www.empathicsystems.org