Exploiting Process Variability in Voltage/Frequency Control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fine-grained dynamic voltage/frequency scaling (DVFS) is an important tool in managing the balance between power and performance in chip-multiprocessors. Although manufacturing process variations are giving rise to significant core-to-core variations in power and performance, traditional DVFS controllers are unaware of these variations. Exploiting the different power profiles of the cores can significantly improve energy efficiency. Process variations do not significantly affect dynamic power, so less-leaky processing units are more energy-efficient than their leakier counterparts at a given supply voltage and frequency. Taking advantage of this observation, three existing DVFS control algorithms are modified to shift work from inefficient, leaky processing units to efficient, less leaky ones, maintaining performance while reducing total power consumption. This work-shifting is carried out both between dies in a given speed bin and between voltage/frequency islands on a given die. The gains enabled by incorporating variability-awareness into the three DVFS algorithms are demonstrated on both multithreaded and multiprogrammed workloads. For a baseline 16-core design with per-core voltage/frequency islands (VFIs) and a 4×4 mesh on-chip network, the aggregate power per squared throughput (power/throughput2or P/T2) over all fabricated dies is reduced by 9.2%, 5.7%, and 7.7% for the three controllers. Chip multiprocessor designs using other VFI granularities and network topologies are also examined.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".