skip to main content
10.1145/2024724.2024863acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesdacConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Dynamic effort scaling: managing the quality-efficiency tradeoff

Published:05 June 2011Publication History

ABSTRACT

Several recently proposed design techniques leverage the inherent error resilience of applications for improved efficiency (energy or performance). Hardware and software systems that are thus designed may be viewed as "scalable effort systems", since they offer the capability to modulate the effort that they expend towards computation, thereby allowing for tradeoffs between output quality and efficiency.

We propose the concept of Dynamic Effort Scaling (DES), which refers to dynamic management of the control knobs that are exposed by scalable effort systems. We argue the need for DES by observing that the degree of resilience often varies significantly across applications, across datasets, and even within a dataset. We propose a general conceptual framework for DES by formulating it as a feedback control problem, wherein the scaling mechanisms are regulated with the goal of maintaining output quality within a certain specified limit. We present an implementation of Dynamic Effort Scaling in the context of a scalable-effort processor for Support Vector Machines, and evaluate it under various application scenarios and data sets. Our results clearly demonstrate the benefits of the proposed approach --- statically setting the scaling mechanisms leads to either significant error overshoot or significant opportunities for energy savings left on the table unexploited. In contrast, DES is able to effectively regulate the output quality while maximally exploiting the time-varying resiliency in the workload.

References

  1. V. Wong and M. Horowitz. Soft error resilience of probabilistic inference applications. In Proc. SELSE, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. N. R. Shanbhag, R. A. Abdallah, R. Kumar, and D. L. Jones. Stochastic computation. In Proc. DAC, pages 859--864, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. S. T. Chakradhar and A. Raghunathan. Best-effort Computing: Re-thinking Parallel Software and Hardware. In Proc. DAC, pages 865--870, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. M. A. Breuer. Hardware that produces bounded rather than exact results. In Proc. DAC, pages 871--876, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. A. P. Chandrakasan and R. W. Brodersen, editors. Low-Power CMOS Design. Wiley-IEEE Press, 1st edition, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. L. Benini and G. DeMicheli. Dynamic Power Management: Design Techniques and CAD Tools. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, USA, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. R. Hegde and N. R. Shanbhag. Energy-efficient signal processing via algorithmic noise-tolerance. In Proc. ISLPED, pages 30--35, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Naresh Shanbhag. Reliable and energy-efficient digital signal processing. In Proc. DAC, pages 830--835, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. R. Hegde and N. R. Shanbhag. A low-power digital filter IC via soft DSP. In Proc. CICC, pages 309--312, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. G. V. Varatkar and N. R. Shanbhag. Error-resilient motion estimation architecture. IEEE Trans. VLSI Systems, 16(10):1399--1412, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Tong-Yu Hsieh, Kuen-Jong Lee, and M. A. Breuer. An error rate based test methodology to support error-tolerance. Reliability, IEEE Transactions on, 57(1):204--214, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Z. Jiang and S. K. Gupta. An ATPG for threshold testing: Obtaining acceptable yield in future processes. In Proc. ITC, pages 824--833, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. K. V. Palem. Energy aware algorithm design via probabilistic computing: From algorithms and models to Moore's law and novel (semiconductor) devices. In Proc. CASES, pages 113--116, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. K. V. Palem, N. B. Chakrapani, Z. M. Kedem, A. Lingamneni, and K. K. Muntimadugu. Sustaining Moore's law in embedded computing through probabilistic and approximate design: Retrospects and prospects. In Proc. CASES, pages 1--10, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. D. Mohapatra, G. Karakonstantis, and K. Roy. Significance driven computation: A voltage-scalable, variation-aware, quality-tuning motion estimator. In Proc. ISLPED, pages 195--200, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. V. K. Chippa, D. Mohapatra, A. Raghunathan, K. Roy, and S. T. Chakradhar. Scalable effort hardware design: Exploiting algorithmic resilience for energy efficiency. In Proc. DAC, pages 555--560, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. L. Leem, H. Cho, J. Bau, Q. A. Jacobson, and S. Mitra. ERSA: Error resilient system architecture for probabilistic applications. In Proc. DATE, pages 1560--1565, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. W. Baek and T. M. Chilimbi. Green: A framework for supporting energy-conscious programming using controlled approximation. Proc. PLDI, pages 198--209, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Y. V. Ivanov and C. J. Bleakley. Dynamic complexity scaling for real-time H.264/AVC video encoding. In Proc. MULTIMEDIA, pages 962--970, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. M. Shafique, L. Bauer, and J. Henkel. enBudget: A run-time adaptive predictive energy-budgeting scheme for energy-aware motion estimation in H.264/MPEG-4 AVC video encoder. In Proc. DATE, pages 1725--1730, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. V. N. Vapnik. The nature of statistical learning theory. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., New York, NY, USA, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Mohapatra Debabrata, Chippa Vinay, Raghunathan Anand, and Roy and Kaushik. Design of voltage scalable metafunctions for multimedia, recoginition and mining applications. In DATE, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. D. Ernst et al. Razor: A low-power pipeline based on circuit-level timing speculation. In Proc. MICRO, pages 7--18, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. K. J. Astrom and T. Hagglund, editors. PID Controllers: Theory, Design, and Tuning. ISA, 2nd edition, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. J. Park, D. Shin, N. Chang, and M. Pedram. Accurate modeling and calculation of delay and energy overheads of dynamic voltage scaling in modern high-performance microprocessors. In Proc. ISLPED, pages 419--424, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Milde. www.nec-labs.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Dynamic effort scaling: managing the quality-efficiency tradeoff

    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
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      DAC '11: Proceedings of the 48th Design Automation Conference
      June 2011
      1055 pages
      ISBN:9781450306362
      DOI:10.1145/2024724

      Copyright © 2011 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 ACM 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: 5 June 2011

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate1,770of5,499submissions,32%

      Upcoming Conference

      DAC '24
      61st ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference
      June 23 - 27, 2024
      San Francisco , CA , USA

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader