carlnues
/
paper-KeepItSimple
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Projects Releases Wiki Activity

eval: energy discussion

master
carlnues@buffalo.edu 2023-08-25 23:02:27 -04:00
parent c1245fa56e
commit bc3e39f29b
1 changed files with 12 additions and 4 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

16
sections/evaluation.tex
View File

@ -166,16 +166,24 @@ In common settings, background load does not pose a threat to the performance of
\subsection{Energy Usage}
\Cref{fig:energy_allapps} shows energy usage for the four workloads, addressing the last aspect of evaluation claims (i) and (ii).
The Facebook workload under \systemname saves significant (>10\%) energy compared to the default.
Indeed, several non-default policies also best \schedutil.
Youtube
The Facebook workload under \systemname consumes significantly less (11.5\%) energy compared to the default.
Indeed, all of the non-default policies except \texttt{performance} also best \schedutil.
Youtube under \systemname also saves energy, albeit less at a 1.6\% savings versus default.
Spotify actually costs 2.3\% more.
Note that this is Spotify running interactively.
The use case of Spotify in the Combined workload, where it is running in the background, is likely much more dominant in actual usage.
The energy consumed by the Combined workload, unsurprisingly, is significantly higher across the board than that of the individual app loads.
Here, \systemname uses 5.6\% less energy than the default.
Once again, all of the non-default policies save \texttt{performance} do too.
Common apps under common usage cases show \systemname offers notable energy savings compared to the default.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Idle Time}
We next review our findings from \Cref{sec:adaptiveApps}, that typical apps increase their offered load as CPU capacity increases.
\Cref{fig:nonidle_fb,fig:nonidle_yt,fig:nonidle_spot} illustrate the fraction of the of time the CPU spends doing work in each workload as CPU frequency increases.
\Cref{fig:nonidle_fb,fig:nonidle_yt,fig:nonidle_spot} illustrate the time fraction the CPU spends doing work in each workload as CPU frequency increases.
Recall that, assuming the amount of work stays constant in a fixed-duration workload, the time spent non-idle would show an inverse-linear relationship with the CPU frequency.
As with Facebook, both Youtube and Spotify shows a much flatter relationship, particularly on the big cores.