MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981806722 · doi:10.1109/igcc.2012.6322289

A study of hardware performance monitoring counter selection in power modeling of computing systems

2012· article· en· W1981806722 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBenchmark (surveying)Context (archaeology)Power (physics)Set (abstract data type)Energy consumptionSelection (genetic algorithm)Reliability engineeringPower managementEvent (particle physics)Machine learningEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Power management and energy savings in high-performance computing has become an increasingly important design constraint. The foundation of many power/energy saving methods is based on power consumption models, which commonly rely on hardware performance monitoring counters (PMCs). Various events are provided by processor manufacturers to be monitored using PMCs. PMC event selection has been mainly based on architectural intuitions. However, efficient use of PMCs requires a carefully selected set of events. Therefore, a comprehensive study of PMC events with regards to power modeling is needed to understand and enhance such power models. In this paper, we study the relationship of PMC events with power consumption in the context of single-PMC and multi-PMC power models. Our OpenMP applications are from NAS Parallel Benchmark (BT, CG, LU, and SP) running on an AMD machine. We present the single-PMC selection results for each of our test applications, as well as a unified list for all four applications. Unlike other work that do not consider PMCs as each others' covariates, we present a method to select the most correlated set of PMC events for a given application. Our method finds the desired set of events with 6 times less number of executions compared to a principal component analysis (PCA) method. In addition, we have investigated variability of measurement for correlation coefficients. The 95% confidence interval of power-PMC and PMC-PMC correlation coefficients falls within 1.6% and 2.3% of their measured values, respectively. Furthermore, we study the power and PMC trends in the context of time-series and show that power estimates can be enhanced more than common regression methods. We show that the ARMAX model, a time-series candidate for real-time power estimation, can estimate system power consumption with a mean absolute error (total signal) of 0.1-0.5% in our applications.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.439
Threshold uncertainty score0.307

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it