skip to main content
research-article

Energy-aware Scheduling of Task Graphs with Imprecise Computations and End-to-end Deadlines

Published:26 November 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Imprecise computations allow scheduling algorithms developed for energy-constrained computing devices to trade off output quality with utilization of system resources. The goal of such scheduling algorithms is to utilize imprecise computations to find a feasible schedule for a given task graph while maximizing the quality of service (QoS) and satisfying a hard deadline and an energy bound. This work presents a heuristic for scheduling tasks with potentially imprecise computations, represented with directed acyclic graphs, on multiprocessor platforms. Furthermore, it presents a mixed integer linear program formulation of the same problem, which provides the optimal reference scheduling solutions, enabling evaluation of the efficacy of the proposed heuristic. Both the heuristic and mathematical program take account of potentially imprecise inputs of tasks on their output quality. Furthermore, the presented heuristic is capable of finding feasible schedules even under tight energy budgets. Through extensive experiments, it is shown that in some cases, the proposed heuristic is capable of finding the same QoS as the ones found by MILP. Furthermore, for those task graphs that MILP outperforms the proposed heuristic, QoS values obtained with the proposed heuristic are, on average, within 1.24% of the optimal solutions while improving the runtime by a factor of 100 or so. This clearly demonstrates the advantage of the proposed heuristic over the exact solution, especially for large task graphs where solving the mathematical problem is hampered by its lengthy runtime.

References

  1. Heng Yu, Bharadwaj Veeravalli, and Yajun Ha. 2008. Dynamic scheduling of imprecise-computation tasks in maximizing QoS under energy constraints for embedded systems. In Proceedings of the Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference. IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Jane W. S. Liu, Kwei-Jay Lin, Riccardo Bettati, David Hull, and Albert Yu. 1994. Use of imprecise computation to enhance dependability of real-time systems. In Foundations of Dependable Computing. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Lei Mo, Angeliki Kritikakou, and Olivier Sentieys. 2018. Controllable QoS for imprecise computation tasks on DVFS multicores with time and energy constraints. J. Emerg. Select. Topics Circ. Syst. 8, 4 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Junlong Zhou, Jianming Yan, Tongquan Wei, Mingsong Chen, and Xiaobo Sharon Hu. 2017. Energy-adaptive scheduling of imprecise computation tasks for QoS optimization in real-time MPSoC systems. In Proceedings of the Design, Automation 8 Test in Europe Conference 8 Exhibition. IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Georgios L. Stavrinides and Helen D. Karatza. 2010. Scheduling multiple task graphs with end-to-end deadlines in distributed real-time systems utilizing imprecise computations. J. Syst. Softw. 83, 6 (2010).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. R. C. Ravindran, C. Mani Krishna, Israel Koren, and Zahava Koren. 2014. Scheduling imprecise task graphs for real-time applications. Int. J. Embedd. Syst. 6, 1 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. W.-K. Shih and Jane W.-S. Liu. 1992. On-line scheduling of imprecise computations to minimize error. In Proceedings of the Real-Time Systems Symposium. IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Jane W.-S. Liu, Kwei-Jay Lin, Wei Kuan Shih, Albert Chuang-shi Yu, Jen-Yao Chung, and Wei Zhao. 1991. Algorithms for scheduling imprecise computations. In Foundations of Real-Time Computing: Scheduling and Resource Management. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. W.-K. Shih, Jane W.-S. Liu, and J.-Y. Chung. 1989. Fast algorithms for scheduling imprecise computations. In Proceedings of the Real-Time Systems Symposium. IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Lei Mo, Angeliki Kritikakou, and Olivier Sentieys. 2019. Approximation-aware task deployment on asymmetric multicore processors. In Proceedings of the Design, Automation 8 Test in Europe Conference 8 Exhibition. IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Amirhossein Esmaili, Mahdi Nazemi, and Massoud Pedram. 2019. Modeling processor idle times in MPSoC platforms to enable integrated DPM, DVFS, and task scheduling subject to a hard deadline. In Proceedings of the Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference. ACM.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Georgios L. Stavrinides, Francisco Rodrigo Duro, Helen D. Karatza, Javier Garcia Blas, and Jesus Carretero. 2017. Different aspects of workflow scheduling in large-scale distributed systems. Simul. Model. Pract. Theor. 70 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Waqaas Munawar, Heba Khdr, Santiago Pagani, Muhammad Shafique, Jian-Jia Chen, and Jörg Henkel. 2014. Peak power management for scheduling real-time tasks on heterogeneous many-core systems. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems. IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Luis Alejandro Cortés, Petru Eles, and Zebo Peng. 2006. Quasi-static assignment of voltages and optional cycles in imprecise-computation systems with energy considerations. Trans. Very Large Scale Integ. Syst. 14, 10 (2006).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Krishnan Srinivasan and Karam S. Chatha. 2007. Integer linear programming and heuristic techniques for system-level low power scheduling on multiprocessor architectures under throughput constraints. Integ. VLSI J. 40, 3 (2007).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Cosmin Rusu, Rami Melhem, and Daniel Mossé. 2003. Maximizing rewards for real-time applications with energy constraints. ACM Trans. Embedd. Comput. Syst. 2, 4 (2003).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Hakan Aydin, Rami Melhem, Daniel Mosse, and Pedro Mejía-Alvarez. 2001. Optimal reward-based scheduling for periodic real-time tasks. IEEE Trans. Comput. 50, 2 (2001).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Jia-Ming Chen, Wan-Chen Lu, Wei-Kuan Shih, and Ming-Chung Tang. 2009. Imprecise computations with deferred optional tasks. J. Inf. Sci. Eng. 25, 1 (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. J.-Y. Chung, Jane W.-S. Liu, and K.-J. Lin. 1990. Scheduling periodic jobs that allow imprecise results. Trans. Comput. 39, 9 (1990).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Wu-chun Feng and J. W.-S. Liu. 1997. Algorithms for scheduling real-time tasks with input error and end-to-end deadlines. Trans. Softw. Eng. 23, 2 (1997).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. David Hull, Arjun Shankar, Klara Nahrstedt, and Jane W. S. Liu. 1997. An end-to-end QoS model and management architecture. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Middleware for Distributed Real-time Systems and Services. Citeseer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Georgios L. Stavrinides and Helen D. Karatza. 2012. Scheduling real-time DAGs in heterogeneous clusters by combining imprecise computations and bin packing techniques for the exploitation of schedule holes. Fut. Gen. Comput. Syst. 28, 7 (2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Yongpan Liu, Huazhong Yang, Robert P. Dick, Hui Wang, and Li Shang. 2007. Thermal vs energy optimization for DVFS-enabled processors in embedded systems. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Quality Electronic Design. IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Huang Huang, Vivek Chaturvedi, Gang Quan, Jeffrey Fan, and Meikang Qiu. 2014. Throughput maximization for periodic real-time systems under the maximal temperature constraint. Trans. Embedd. Comput. Syst. 13, 2s (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Marco E. T. Gerards, Johann L. Hurink, and Jan Kuper. 2015. On the interplay between global DVFS and scheduling tasks with precedence constraints. Trans. Comput. 64, 6 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Haluk Topcuoglu, Salim Hariri, and Min-you Wu. 2002. Performance-effective and low-complexity task scheduling for heterogeneous computing. Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst. 13, 3 (2002).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. IBM ILOG CPLEX Optimization Studio, Version 12.8. Retrieved from https://www.ibm.com/products/ilog-cplex-optimization-studio.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Gang Chen, Kai Huang, and Alois Knoll. 2014. Energy optimization for real-time multiprocessor system-on-chip with optimal DVFS and DPM combination. Trans. Embedd. Comput. Syst. 13, 3s (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Robert P. Dick, David L. Rhodes, and Wayne Wolf. 1998. TGFF: Task graphs for free. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Hardware/Software Codesign. IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Energy-aware Scheduling of Task Graphs with Imprecise Computations and End-to-end Deadlines

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in

          Full Access

          • Published in

            cover image ACM Transactions on Design Automation of Electronic Systems
            ACM Transactions on Design Automation of Electronic Systems  Volume 25, Issue 1
            January 2020
            299 pages
            ISSN:1084-4309
            EISSN:1557-7309
            DOI:10.1145/3370083
            • Editor:
            • Naehyuck Chang
            Issue’s Table of Contents

            Copyright © 2019 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 26 November 2019
            • Revised: 1 October 2019
            • Accepted: 1 October 2019
            • Received: 1 April 2019
            Published in todaes Volume 25, Issue 1

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article
            • Research
            • Refereed

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader

          HTML Format

          View this article in HTML Format .

          View HTML Format