A load balance multi-scheduling model for OpenCL kernel tasks in an integrated cluster
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Nowadays, embedded systems are comprised of heterogeneous multi-core architectures, i.e., CPUs and GPUs. If the application is mapped to an appropriate processing core, then these architectures provide many performance benefits to applications. Typically, programmers map sequential applications to CPU and parallel applications to GPU. The task mapping becomes challenging because of the usage of evolving and complex CPU- and GPU-based architectures. This paper presents an approach to map the OpenCL application to heterogeneous multi-core architecture by determining the application suitability and processing capability. The classification is achieved by developing a machine learning-based device suitability classifier that predicts which processor has the highest computational compatibility to run OpenCL applications. In this paper, 20 distinct features are proposed that are extracted by using the developed LLVM-based static analyzer. In order to select the best subset of features, feature selection is performed by using both correlation analysis and the feature importance method. For the class imbalance problem, we use and compare synthetic minority over-sampling method with and without feature selection. Instead of hand-tuning the machine learning classifier, we use the tree-based pipeline optimization method to select the best classifier and its hyper-parameter. We then compare the optimized selected method with traditional algorithms, i.e., random forest, decision tree, Naïve Bayes and KNN. We apply our novel approach on extensively used OpenCL benchmarks, i.e., AMD and Polybench. The dataset contains 653 training and 277 testing applications. We test the classification results using four performance metrics, i.e., F -measure, precision, recall and $$R^2$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:msup> <mml:mi>R</mml:mi> <mml:mn>2</mml:mn> </mml:msup> </mml:math> . The optimized and reduced feature subset model achieved a high F -measure of 0.91 and $$R^2$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:msup> <mml:mi>R</mml:mi> <mml:mn>2</mml:mn> </mml:msup> </mml:math> of 0.76. The proposed framework automatically distributes the workload based on the application requirement and processor compatibility.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".