Fast Power and Energy Management for Future Many-Core Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Future servers will incorporate many active low-power modes for each core and for the main memory subsystem. Though these modes provide flexibility for power and/or energy management via Dynamic Voltage and Frequency Scaling (DVFS), prior work has shown that they must be managed in a coordinated manner. This requirement creates a combinatorial space of possible power mode configurations. As a result, it becomes increasingly challenging to quickly select the configuration that optimizes for both performance and power/energy efficiency. In this article, we propose a novel queuing model for working with the abundant active low-power modes in many-core systems. Based on the queuing model, we derive two fast algorithms that optimize for performance and efficiency using both CPU and memory DVFS. Our first algorithm, called FastCap, maximizes the performance of applications under a full-system power cap, while promoting fairness across applications. Our second algorithm, called FastEnergy, maximizes the full-system energy savings under predefined application performance loss bounds. Both FastCap and FastEnergy operate online and efficiently, using a small set of performance counters as input. To evaluate them, we simulate both algorithms for a many-core server running different types of workloads. Our results show that FastCap achieves better application performance and fairness than prior power capping techniques for the same power budget, whereas FastEnergy conserves more energy than prior energy management techniques for the same performance constraint. FastCap and FastEnergy together demonstrate the applicability of the queuing model for managing the abundant active low-power modes in many-core systems.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".