ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Energy-Effectiveness of Pre-Execution and Energy-Aware P-Thread Selection
Full text PdfPdf (180 KB)
Source International Symposium on Computer Architecture archive
Proceedings of the 32nd annual international symposium on Computer Architecture table of contents
Pages: 322 - 333  
Year of Publication: 2005
ISBN ~ ISSN:1063-6897 , 0-7695-2270-X
Also published in ...
Authors
Vlad Petric  University of Pennsylvania
Amir Roth  University of Pennsylvania
Sponsor
SIGARCH: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Architecture
Publisher
IEEE Computer Society  Washington, DC, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 30,   Downloads (12 Months): 50,   Citation Count: 1
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: 10.1109/ISCA.2005.27

ABSTRACT

Pre-execution removes the microarchitectural latency of "problem" loads from a programýs critical path by redundantly executing copies of their computations in parallel with the main program. There have been several proposed pre-execution systems, a quantitative framework (PTHSEL) for analytical pre-execution thread (p-thread) selection, and even a research prototype. To date, however, the energy aspects of pre-execution have not been studied. Cycle-level performance and energy simulations on SPEC2000 integer benchmarks that suffer from L2 misses show that energy-blind pre-execution naturally has a linear latency/energy trade-off, improving performance by 13.8% while increasing energy consumption by 11.9%. To improve this trade-off, we propose two extensions to PTHSEL. First, we replace the flat cycle-for-cycle load cost model with a model based on a critical-path estimation. This extension increases p-thread efficiency in an energy-independent way. Second, we add a parameterized energy model to PTHSEL (forming PTHSEL+E) that allows it to actively select p-threads that reduce energy rather than (or in combination with) execution latency. Experiments show that PTHSEL+E manipulates pre-executionýs latency/energy more effectively. Latency targeted selection benefits from the improved load cost model: its performance improvements grow to an average of 16.4% while energy costs drop to 8.7%. ED targeted selection produces p-threads that improve performance by only 12.9%, but ED by 8.8%. Targeting p-thread selection for energy reduction, results in "energy-free" pre-execution, with average speedup of 5.4%, and a small decrease in total energy consumption (0.7%).


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

1
 
2
[2] D. Burger and T. Austin. "The SimpleScalar Tool Set, Version 2.0." Technical Report CS-TR-97-1342, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Jun. 1997.
3
4
 
5
 
6
7
 
8
9
 
10
[10] R. Gonzalez and M. Horowitz. "Energy Dissipation in General Purpose Microprocessors." IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits , 31(9), Sep. 1996.
 
11
[11] Intel Corporation. Mobile Intel Pentium 4 M-Processor Datasheet, Jun. 2003. http://www.intel.com/design/mobile/ datashts/250686.htm.
12
13
14
15
 
16
[16] A. Martin, M. Nystroem, and P. Penzes. "ET2: A Metric for Time and Energy Efficiency of Computation." Technical Report CSTR:2001.007, CalTech, 2001.
17
 
18
 
19
 
20
[20] P. Shivakumar and N. Jouppi. "CACTI 3.0: An Integrated Cache Timing, Power, and Area Model." Technical report, COMPAQ Western Research Laboratory, 2001.
 
21
[21] Y. Song and M. Dubois. "Assisted Execution." Technical Report #CENG 98-25, Department of EE-Systems, University of Southern California, Oct. 1998.
 
22
23
 
24
[24] C.-L. Yang and A. Lebeck. "Push vs. Pull." In ICS-14, May 2000.
25