1 / 24

System-Wide Energy Minimization for Real-Time Tasks: Lower Bound and Approximation

System-Wide Energy Minimization for Real-Time Tasks: Lower Bound and Approximation. Xiliang Zhong and Cheng-Zhong Xu Dept. of Electrical & Computer Engg. Wayne State University Detroit, Michigan http://www.cic.eng.wayne.edu. Outline. Introduction Processor and system energy model

syshe
Download Presentation

System-Wide Energy Minimization for Real-Time Tasks: Lower Bound and Approximation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. System-Wide Energy Minimization for Real-Time Tasks: Lower Bound and Approximation Xiliang Zhong and Cheng-Zhong Xu Dept. of Electrical & Computer Engg. Wayne State University Detroit, Michigan http://www.cic.eng.wayne.edu

  2. Outline • Introduction • Processor and system energy model • Related Work • System-Wide Energy Optimization for periodic tasks • The optimal algorithm • A fully polynomial time approximation scheme • Performance Evaluation • System-Wide Energy Optimization for sporadic Tasks • Solution and evaluation • Conclusions

  3. Introduction • Mobile/Embedded devices are power critical, with limited battery capacity • Software assisted power management • Dynamic power management (DPM) • Resource shutdown after a timeout • Dynamic voltage/frequency scaling (DVS) • Processing speed designed for peak performance • Slowdown the processor voltage / speed when not fully utilized

  4. Dynamic voltage scaling (DVS) • The dynamic CPU power is , P ∝ v2f • Reducing v also reduce the maximum processors frequency • Approximately, energy per cycle∝ f2 Energy per cycle of PXA processor • Processor slowdown leads to super-linear energy savings, while linear execution time increase

  5. System-Wide Energy • Processor also has leakage power • Applications may use other components such as memory and peripheral devices • Can be in active, standby, sleep, and shutdown states • System-wide energy consumed in running a task • CPU, resource standby and active energy • Lowering CPU frequency can increase overall energy expenditure due to prolonged resource standby time of other components

  6. System-Wide Energy (cont.) • critical speed,thespeed with minimum energy per cycle • Not energy efficient using lower speed Energy per cycle of PXA processor with different standby power • Execute a task at speed no lower than its critical speed, then put the devices into low power state • A combined use of slowdown and shutdown

  7. Related Work • CPU energy minimization for periodic tasks: • Heuristics [Mejia-Alvarez’04], approximations [Chen and Kuo’05] • Few studies on system-wide energy minimization • Applications w/o deadlines • Subject to a performance loss [Choi et al.’04] • Real-time periodic tasks on CPU w/ continuous speed levels • Heuristics [Zhuo and Chakrabarti’05] • Real-time periodic tasks on CPU w/ discrete speed levels • Heuristics [Jejurikar and Gupta’04] • This work • Pseudo-polynomial algorithm for optimal solutions and polynomial approximated schemes • Applicable to both offline periodic tasks and online sporadic tasks in processors with practical discrete levels

  8. System-wide energy optimization • Periodic Tasks (Offline) • : worst case execution time under max speed • : task period and deadline • : normalized speed of task • Sporadic Tasks (Online) • Task releases have irregular intervals • Online scheduling based on uncompleted tasks, no assumption about future task releases • The objective is to minimize • overall energy consumption including CPU and all other system components while meeting deadline constraints of all the tasks

  9. Energy Minimization for PeriodicTasks • Minimization of energy consumption for n periodic tasks in a hyper-period, Feasible constraint under EDF Boundary constraint • Practical processors with discrete speed levels • The minimization is an NP-hard Multiple Choice KnapSack (MCKP) problem • There exist pseudo-polynomial solutions to MCKP with integer coefficients, not applicable in this problem

  10. An Example • Basic idea: first solve subprobs with fewer #tasks • A system with an PXA processor with 5 normalized speed [0.15 0.4 0.6 0.8 1] • System with memory, flash, and WNIC • An example real-time workload w/ 4 periodic tasks

  11. f: pruned by feasibility condtion e: pruned by energy condition (utilization, energy) Solution to task 1 • Task 1, execution time 6.4; deadline 16; utilization 0.4 • Branch on four normalized speeds [0.4 0.6 0.8 1] • State pruning • Feasibility condition: • The 1st node at speed 0.4 removed with utilization already 1 • Energy condition • Task 1 at the smallest speed (2nd , 0.6); tasks 2-4 at the max. Total Energy=7.6 (upper bound) • Task 1 at 3rd or 4th speed (0.8 or 1); tasks 2-4 at the min. The required energy exceeds 7.6. The two states can be removed

  12. Solution to the first three tasks pairs of (utilization, energy) f: pruned by feasibility condtion e: pruned by energy condition d: pruned by dominance • Dominance condition • The states (0.867, 9.107) and (0.87, 9.4) of task 3 • First one leads to smaller utilization • Any feasible schedule by the second can also be satisfied by the first • First one uses less energy; the second can be removed

  13. (utilization, energy) f: pruned by feasibility condtion e: pruned by energy condition d: pruned by dominance optimal state Maximum state number reduced to 6/4*4*3*3 = 0.4 %

  14. A fully polynomial approximation scheme (FPTAS) • State # is pseudo-polynomial in task number. • can be reduced by providing approximated solutions • Approximated with worst case perf. guarantee • An algorithm is said to be an approximation scheme if for a given in (0,1), we have • A more desirable approximation scheme (FPTAS) has a polynomial running time in both the number of tasks and the performance ratio

  15. A fully polynomial approximation scheme (cont.) • Divide the energy values into a number of groups each of size r, • Each value scaled and rounded to • Energy values in the same group are treated equally • Find the group size r, subject to a given performance bound • Energy value of each task introduces an error no larger than group size r • Accumulated errors of n tasks no larger than n*r • A lower bound of E* is when all tasks run at their critical speeds (Emin), i.e., E*≥ Emin Solving derives group size r

  16. Performance Evaluation • Simulation Settings • A system with an PXA processor • memory: standby power 0.2W, standby time 20%~60% of task execution • flash drive: 0.4W and 10%~25% • wireless interface: 1W and 5%~20% • Periodic Tasks • Randomly generated deadlines w/ utilization from 0.1~1 • Each task randomly chooses a subset of resources • Algorithms implemented • CPU-DVS, speed control for CPU energy consumption • CS-DVS, a heuristic algorithm for system-wide energy savings [Jejurikar and Gupta ISLPED2004], • OPT-P, the proposed optimal solution • Approximated scheme with perf. bounds 0.01, 0.1, 0.5

  17. Performance Evaluation (Periodic tasks) 23% 16% 8% • Proposed algorithms 23% less energy than CPU-only solutions • Energy consumption up to 16% more efficient than CS-DVS • Approximation algorithms effectively bound the performance errors

  18. Energy Minimization for SporadicTasks • Online energy minimization for all uncompleted tasks n feasible constraints under EDF boundary constraint • On a processor with discrete speed levels • Prove the problem is an instance of Multi-dimensional MCKP (NP-hard in the strong sense, any optimal solution has exponential running time)

  19. Sporadic Tasks (cont.) • Consider three tasks released at time 0 with deadlines 3, 5, 7 • Feasibility of a task (e.g. J2) is not affected by tasks finished later (tasks in a non-decreasing order of deadlines) • Satisfy one constraint (e.g. J3) at each iteration • Can be solved by a pseudo-polynomial algorithm for the optimal solution and an approximation scheme (FPTAS)

  20. Performance Evaluation (Sporadic tasks) • Experimental Settings • Varied number of tasks • Task inter-release times generated by an exponential dist. • Algorithms implemented • TV-DVS, adaptive speed scaling for CPU energy consumption on processors w/ continuous levels [Zhong and Xu RTSS2005] • DVSST, CPU energy consumption with only frequency scaling available (continuous levels) [Qadi et al. RTSS2003] • OPT-S, the proposed optimal solution • 0.1, 0.5-approximation, approximated solutions with different performance settings

  21. Energy consumption (Sporadic tasks) 56% 23% • Small task number: Energy consumption up to 56% more efficient than TVDVS and DVSST • Large task number: 23% more efficient

  22. Conclusion • System-wide energy minimization for periodictasks • pseudo-polynomial algorithm for the optimal solution • approximated solution in moderate running time with bounded performance degradation (FPTAS) • Minimization for onlinesporadic tasks • Pseudo-polynomial algorithm and an FPTAS by exploiting inherent properties of online task scheduling • On-going work • Implementation of the policies in an embedded system with PXA270 processor • Energy/Time overhead voltage and speed switches; overhead in putting a resource into low power state

  23. Thank you! System-Wide Energy Minimization for Real-Time Tasks: Lower Bound and Approximation

  24. Algorithm running time • Running time measured in a Pentium 4 machine with 2 GHz processor • OPT-P has a higher complexity than CS-DVS • Below 90 ms for systems with up to 50 tasks • All approximation algorithms require no more than 0.4 s to finish • Algorithm running time for schedules in a 10-minutes run • OPT-S has higher running time, but <1% task execution time • Comparable time for approximation algorithms with TV-DVS

More Related