energy management at upper levels of system design

42
1 ESSES 2003 © 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis Energy Management at Upper Levels of System Design Carla Schlatter Ellis Systems & Architecture Milly Watt Project 2 ESSES 2003 © 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis Energy for computing is an important problem (& not just for mobile computing) Reducing heat production and fan noise Extending battery life for mobile/wireless devices Conserving energy resources (lessen environmental impact, save on electricity costs) How does software interact with or exploit low-power hardware? Milly Watt Project

Upload: others

Post on 12-Sep-2021

1 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Energy Management at Upper Levels of System Design

1

ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Energy Managementat Upper Levels

of System Design

Carla Schlatter Ellis

Systems & ArchitectureMilly Watt

Project

2ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Energy for computing is an important problem(& not just for mobile computing)– Reducing heat production and fan noise

– Extending battery life for mobile/wireless devices– Conserving energy resources (lessen

environmental impact, save on electricity costs)

How does software interact with or exploit low-power hardware?

Milly Watt Project

Page 2: Energy Management at Upper Levels of System Design

2

3ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Energy should be a “first class” resource at upper levels of system design– Focus on Architecture, OS, Networking,

Applications

HW / SW cooperation to achieve energy goals

Milly Watt Project

4ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

The Energy Saving Spectrum

• Re-examine interactions between HW and SW, particularly within the resource management functions of the Operating System

• Low levelFine grainLow-powerCircuits

Software• High levelCoarse grain

• OS, compiler orapplication

HW / SW Cooperation

• Voltage Scaling• Clock gating• Power modes:Turning off HW blocks

Hardware

Page 3: Energy Management at Upper Levels of System Design

3

5ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Lessons: Performance −> EnergyLatency techniques

• Substitute a lower-latency component– Memory Hierarchy -Caching.

• Reduce overhead on the critical path.– Maintenance daemons

(time shift)– No-copy (eliminate waste)

• Exploit Overlap for HidingLatency (HW parallelism)– Scheduling policies

Analogous techniques for Energy

• Substitute a lower-power component or mode.– Voltage scaling

• Amortize transitions in & out of high power states– Time shifting

• Reduce (not just hide) latency– Caching– No-copy (eliminate waste)

6ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

• Wednesday morning: Explicitly managing energy via the OS (ASPLOS02, USENIX03)

• Wednesday afternoon: Power-Aware memory (ASPLOS00, ISLPED01, PACS02)

• Friday morning: Display power management (FaceOff, HOTOS03)

Plan of Lectures

Page 4: Energy Management at Upper Levels of System Design

4

ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

ECOSystem:Managing Energy as a First-Class

Operating System Resource

8ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Outline• Motivation / Context• Design Issues & Challenges• Mechanisms in the ECOSystem

Framework• Prototype Implementation &

Experimental Evaluation• Exploration of Policies

Page 5: Energy Management at Upper Levels of System Design

5

9ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Energy & the OSTraditionally, the system-wide view of resources

and workload demands resides with the OS – Explicitly managing energy will require

coordination with typical resource management

Energy is not just another resource– Energy has a impact on every other resource

of a computing system – it is central. – A focus on energy provides an opportunity to

rethink OS design

10ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Traditional Influences in OS Design

Metrics

Workload

Hardware Resources

Services & APIInternal Structure

Policies / MechanismsPerformance asBandwidthand Latency.

Scientific computationsDatabase operations

Multi-user

Processor, Memory, Disks, Network

Page 6: Energy Management at Upper Levels of System Design

6

11ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Rethinking OS Design

What is the impact of changing the primary goal of the OS to energy-efficiency rather than (speed-based) performance?Affects every aspect of OS services and structure:– Interfaces needed by applications that want to affect

power consumption– Internal organization and algorithms– Resource management policies and mechanisms

12ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Rethinking OS Design

Metrics

Workload

Hardware Resources

Services & APIInternal Structure

Policies / MechanismsEnergyefficiency

Processor, Memory, Disks, Wireless networking,Mic & Speaker, Motors & Sensors, Batteries

Productivity applications,Games, Multimedia,

Web access,Personal (PDAs),

Embedded,E-Commerce.

Page 7: Energy Management at Upper Levels of System Design

7

13ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Initial Research Question

What can be done to achieve energy-related goals – by the OS – without requiring applications to change– with a whole-system perspective

e Energy Centric Operating System

14ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Related WorkEnergy-unaware OS

– Low-power hardware, energy-aware compilers, algorithm developmentServices (Chase: MUSE)

Energy-aware OS with Unaware applications– Per-device solutions (disk spindown, DVS)

Energy-aware OS with cooperating Energy-aware Applications– Flinn: Odyssey (fidelity-based), Bellosa: Coop I/O,

Nemesis OS

Page 8: Energy Management at Upper Levels of System Design

8

15ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Outline• Motivation / Context• Design Issues & Challenges• Mechanisms in the ECOSystem

Framework• Prototype Implementation &

Experimental Evaluation• Exploration of Policies

16ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

ECOSystem Themes

1. Energy can serve as a unifying concept for resource management over a diverse set of devices.

2. We provide a framework for explicit management of energy use:

– Energy accounting– Energy allocation– Scheduling of energy use

Page 9: Energy Management at Upper Levels of System Design

9

17ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

ChallengesHow to • Represent the energy resource to capture its

global impact on system? • Precisely define energy goals? • Formulate strategies that achieve those goals?

e Develop a new energy abstraction: currentcy

18ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

ChallengesHow to • Monitor system-wide energy behavior?• Attribute energy use to correct task?• Break down power costs by device?

e Perform meaningful energy accounting:Framework based on currentcy model and resource containers

Page 10: Energy Management at Upper Levels of System Design

10

19ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

ChallengesHow to • Manage the tradeoffs among devices?• Handle the competition among multiple tasks?• Reduce demand when the energy resource is

limited (when applications don’t know how)?

e Devise and enforce energy allocation and energy-aware scheduling policiesexploiting the mechanisms in our framework.

20ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

A Concrete Energy Goal: Battery Lifetime

1. Explicitly manage energy use to achieve a target battery lifetime.

• Coast-to-coast flight with your laptop• Sensors that need to operate through the night and

recharge when the sun comes up

2. If that requires reducing workload demand, use energy in proportion to task’s importance.Scenario: • Revising and rehearsing a PowerPoint presentation• Spelling and grammar checking threads• Listening to MP3s in background

Page 11: Energy Management at Upper Levels of System Design

11

21ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Battery Properties/Models

Battery models provide strategy:Battery lifetime can be determined by controlling discharge rate.Limiting availability of currentcy.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100

Battery Drain Rate (mA)

Bat

tery

Life

time

(Hou

rs)

ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Discussion: other energy-related metrics?

Page 12: Energy Management at Upper Levels of System Design

12

23ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Other Metrics

• Energy usage (by fixed task set).• Energy * Delay

(penalizes achieving energy saving by bad performance)

• Work units / joule (e.g. Mbytes/joule or MIPS/joule)

• Work per battery discharge.

24ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Time

mW

Assume fine grainbattery information –What would we see?

Smart Battery Interface –OK for coarse grain measurements

Accounting Challenges

Page 13: Energy Management at Upper Levels of System Design

13

25ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Time

mW

Associating observedmW to current program counter (sampling technique).

3 tasks: blue, green, and pink

Great for energydebugging/testingsingle task

Accounting Challenges

26ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Time

mW

Accounting Challenges

What are thevarious hardwarecomponentscontributing?

3 devices:CPU (solid)WNICdisk

Page 14: Energy Management at Upper Levels of System Design

14

27ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Time

mW

Accounting ChallengesHow to capturethese two dimensionsof the accountingproblem?

Our choice:Internal power states model/event-driven

Requires calibration

28ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Outline• Motivation / Context• Design Issues & Challenges• Mechanisms in the ECOSystem

Framework• Prototype Implementation &

Experimental Evaluation• Exploration of Policies

Page 15: Energy Management at Upper Levels of System Design

15

29ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Unified Currentcy Model

Energy accounting and allocation are expressed in a common currentcy.

Mechanism for1. Characterizing power costs of accessing

resources2. Controlling overall energy consumption3. Sharing among competing tasks

30ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Mechanisms in the Framework

Currentcy Allocation• Epoch-based allocation – periodically

distribute currentcy “allowance”Currentcy Accounting• Basic idea:

Pay as you go for resource use –no more currentcy no more service.

Page 16: Energy Management at Upper Levels of System Design

16

31ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Currentcy Flow

OS

AppApp App

1

2

1. Determine overall amount of currentcy available per energy epoch. 2. Distribute available currentcy proportionally among tasks.

32ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Currentcy Flow

OS

AppApp App

1

Dev Dev Dev

3

3. Deduct currentcy from task’s account for resource use.

2

Page 17: Energy Management at Upper Levels of System Design

17

33ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Outline• Motivation / Context• Design Issues & Challenges• Mechanisms in the ECOSystem

Framework• Prototype Implementation &

Experimental Evaluation• Exploration of Policies

34ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

ECOSystem Prototype

• Modifications to Linux on Thinkpad T20• Initially managing 3 devices: CPU, disk,

WNIC• Embedded power model:

– Calibrated by measurement– Power states of managed devices tracked

Page 18: Energy Management at Upper Levels of System Design

18

35ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

ECOSystem Prototype

Modified Linux kernel 2.4.0-test9– Interface for specifying input parameters

(target lifetime, task proportions)– New kernel thread for currentcy allocation– Simple implementation of resource containers– Simple policies for allocation, scheduling, and

accounting.

37ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

ECOSystem PrototypeIBM Thinkpad T20 laptop platform

– Power model – calibrated by measurements– 650MHz PIII CPU: 15.5W active– Orinoco 802.11b PC card:

doze 0.045W, receive 0.925W, transmit 1.425W– IBM Travelstar hard disk– Base power consumption of 13W captures

everything else and inactive states of above

Page 19: Energy Management at Upper Levels of System Design

19

38ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Hard Disk Power Model

6000 mJSpindown

6000 mJSpinup

0 mWStandby

27.5 s400 mWIdle3

2 s650 mWIdle2

0.5 s1600 mWIdle1

1.65 mJAccess

TimeoutCost

ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Discussion: How might you account for display usage in the ECOSystem framework?

Page 20: Energy Management at Upper Levels of System Design

20

40ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Device Specific Accounting Policies

• CPU: hybrid of sampling and task switch accounting

• Disk: tasks directly pay for file accesses, sharing of spinup & spindown costs.

• Network: source or destination task pays based on length of data transferred

41ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Experimental Evaluation

• Validate the embedded energy model.• Can we achieve a target battery lifetime? • Can we achieve proportional energy

usage among multiple tasks?• Assess the performance impact of

limiting energy availability.

Page 21: Energy Management at Upper Levels of System Design

21

42ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Energy Accounting

506,900 mJ(WNIC alone)

286,012 mJ810,409 mJNetRecv

338,760 mJ(disk alone)

470 mJ339,749 mJDiskW

8,521,400 mJ(max CPU)

9,094,922 mJ8,236,720 mJCompute

Back-of-envelope

PC Sampling

Currentcy Model

Application

Running three tasks concurrently for 548 seconds

43ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Achieving Target Battery Lifetime

• Using CPU intensive benchmark and varying overall allocation of currentcy, we can achieve target battery lifetime. 1.4

1.6

1.8

2

2.2

2.4

2.6

1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6

Target Battery Lifetime (Hours)

Achi

eved

Bat

tery

Life

time

(Hou

rs)

Page 22: Energy Management at Upper Levels of System Design

22

44ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Proportional Energy Allocation

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

4

70-30 60-40 50-50 40-60 30-70

Ave

Pow

er

Use

d (

W)

Ijpeg Netscape

Battery lifetime isset to 2.16 hours(unconstrainedwould be 1.3 hr) Overall allocation equivalentto an average power consumption of 5W.

45ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Proportional CPU Utilization

05

101520253035

30 40 50 60 70

Currentcy Allocation (%)

CP

U U

tiliz

atio

n (%

)

Max at 5WIjpeg

Performance ofcompute boundtask (ijpeg) scalesproportionally withcurrentcy allocation

Page 23: Energy Management at Upper Levels of System Design

23

46ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Netscape Performance Impact

05

10152025

3035

30 40 50 60 70

Currentcy Allocation (%)

Page L

oad T

ime (

s) Some applications

don’t gracefullydegrade with drastically reducedcurrentcy allocations

47ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Outline• Motivation / Context• Design Issues & Challenges• Mechanisms in the ECOSystem

Framework• Prototype Implementation &

Experimental Evaluation• Exploration of Policies

Page 24: Energy Management at Upper Levels of System Design

24

48ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

ECOSystem Themes

1. Energy can serve as a unifying concept for managing a diverse set of resources.

– We introduced the currentcy abstraction

2. A framework is needed for explicit management of energy. [ASPLOS 02]

– We developed mechanisms for currentcy accounting, currentcy allocation, and scheduling of currentcy use

3. We need policies to achieve energy goals.

49ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Previous Experiments

• Validated the embedded energy model.• Demonstrated that we can achieve a

target battery lifetime. • Demonstrated we can achieve

proportional energy usage among multiple tasks.

Page 25: Energy Management at Upper Levels of System Design

25

50ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Previous ExperimentsAlso identified performance implications of

limiting energy availability that motivate this work:

• Mismatches between user-supplied specifications and actual needs of the task

• Other devices causing a form of priority inversion

• Currentcy-starved behaviors (infeasible goals)

51ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Research Questions

• How useful is the currentcy abstraction in articulating more complex energy goals?

• How effective are the mechanisms in the framework for manipulating currentcy in implementing non-trivial policies?

• What weaknesses are exposed in the currentcy model?

Page 26: Energy Management at Upper Levels of System Design

26

52ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Manipulating Currentcy

• Overall currentcyallocation– Static vs. dynamic– How often, how

much

• Per-task allocation– How much– Handling of unused

currentcy– Deficit spending?

• Accounting– Pay-as-you-go– Bidding & pricing

games

53ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Challenges

1. To fully utilize available battery capacity within the desired battery lifetime with little or no leftover (residual) capacity.

e Devise an allocation policy that balances supply and demand among tasks.Currentcy conserving allocation.

Page 27: Energy Management at Upper Levels of System Design

27

54ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Challenges

2. To produce more robust proportional sharing by ensuring adequate spending opportunities.

e Develop CPU scheduling that considers energy expenditures on non-CPU resources.Currentcy-aware scheduling.

55ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Challenges

3. To reduce response time variability when energy is limited.

e Design a scheduling policy that controls the pace of currentcy consumption.

Page 28: Energy Management at Upper Levels of System Design

28

56ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Challenges

4. To encourage greater energy efficiency (lower average cost) for I/O accesses on power-managed disks.

e Amortize spinup and spindown costs over multiple disk requests by shaping request patterns.Buffer management and prefetching strategies.

57ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Challenges

1. To fully utilize available battery capacity within the desired battery lifetime with little or no leftover (residual) capacity.

e Devise an allocation policy that balances supply and demand among tasks.Currentcy conserving allocation.

Page 29: Energy Management at Upper Levels of System Design

29

58ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

OS

Problem: Residual Energy

Allocation Shares

Demand

Caps

Allocations do not reflect actual consumption needs

59ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

OS

Problem: Residual Energy

Allocation Shares

Demand

Caps

A task’s unspent currentcy (above a “cap”) is being thrown away to maintain steady battery discharge. e Leftover energy capacity at end of lifetime.

Page 30: Energy Management at Upper Levels of System Design

30

60ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

OS

Currentcy Conserving Allocation

Allocation Shares

Demand

Two-step policy. Each epoch:1. Adjust per-task caps to reflect observed need

• Weighted average of currentcy used in previous epochs.

Caps

61ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

OS

Currentcy Conserving Allocation

Allocation Shares

Demand

2. Redistribute overflow currentcy

Page 31: Energy Management at Upper Levels of System Design

31

62ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Currentcy Conserving AllocationExperiment

Workload:– Computationally intensive ijpeg – image encoder– Image viewer, gqview, with think time of 10

seconds and images from disk • Performance levels out at 6500mW allocation.

– Total allocation of 12W, shares of 8W for gqview (too much) and 4W for ijpeg (capable of 15.5W).

Comparing against total allocation “correction” method in original prototype.

63ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Comparison to Auto-correction• Query the smart battery

periodically• Make adjustment to the

overall currentcy each epoch to correct any error introduced by our models.

• In this test – we set the power

consumption of CPU to be 14W instead of measured 15.5W

– Run a CPU intensive benchmark w/ and w/o auto correction

Page 32: Energy Management at Upper Levels of System Design

32

64ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Currentcy Conserving AllocationResults

Currentcy ConservingTotal allocation correction

<1% remaining6.7% remaining

65ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Currentcy Conserving AllocationResults

<1% remaining capacity

A

B

total alloc

gqview alloc

ijpeg alloc

Page 33: Energy Management at Upper Levels of System Design

33

ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Discussion: Is getting the allocations “right” the key? How else could you do that?

67ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Challenges

2. To produce more robust proportional sharing by ensuring adequate spending opportunities.

e Develop CPU scheduling that considers energy expenditures on non-CPU resources.Currentcy-aware scheduling or energy-centric scheduling.

Page 34: Energy Management at Upper Levels of System Design

34

68ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Problem: Scheduling/ Allocation Interactions

• Allocation shares may be appropriately specified and consistent with demand, but the ability to spend depends on scheduling policies that control the opportunities to access resource.

• Priority Inversion – a task with small allocation but large CPU component can dominate a task with larger allocation but demands on other devices.

• Scheduling should be “aware” of currentcy expenditures throughout the system.

69ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Problem: Scheduling/ Allocation Interactions

• Traditional schedulers– Explicitly deal with CPU

time and processes on ready queue

– May implicitly compensate for time spent off ready queue

• Energy-aware– Deals with energy use

outside of CPU– Currentcy explicitly captures

progress using multiple devices

CPUenergy

diskenergy

think

gqview

Page 35: Energy Management at Upper Levels of System Design

35

70ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Energy-Centric Scheduling

• The next task to be scheduled for CPU is the one with the lowest amount of currentcy spent in this epoch relative to its share– Captures currentcy spent on any device.

• Dynamic share – weighted by the task’s static share divided by currentcy spent in last epoch.– Compensation for previous lack of spending

opportunities

71ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Energy-Centric SchedulingExperiment

• Workload: – Computationally intensive ijpeg– Image viewer, gqview, with think time of 10

seconds and disk access (700mW)• Performance levels out at 6500mW allocation.

– Given equal allocation shares, total allocation varied

• Comparing against round-robin and stride based on static share value.

Page 36: Energy Management at Upper Levels of System Design

36

72ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Energy-Centric SchedulingResults

Gqview power consumption

73ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Energy-Centric SchedulingResults

Ijpeg power consumption

Page 37: Energy Management at Upper Levels of System Design

37

74ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Energy-Centric SchedulingResults

Gqview delay

(sec

)

75ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Energy-Centric SchedulingResults

Ijpeg delay

(sec

)

Page 38: Energy Management at Upper Levels of System Design

38

76ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Challenges

3. To reduce response time variability when energy is limited.

e Design a scheduling policy that controls the pace of currentcy consumption.

77ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Self-pacing Algorithm

• Idea: Building upon our E-C Scheduler, delay a task if currentcy expenditure is ahead of schedule in an epoch.

• Notion of “appropriate progress”• Delay ifcurrentcy-spent-so-far

per-epoch budgetelapsed timeepoch length>

Page 39: Energy Management at Upper Levels of System Design

39

78ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Response Time Variation

0.64.03.3 - 5.61199Self-pacing (10s epochs)

5.83.81.0 - 33.81212Epoch length (.01s)

0.110.430.27- 0.682197Unconstrained

Std. Dev.

Ave.(s)

Delay -range (s)

Power(mW)

ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Discussion: Can we capture DVS in currentcy model

(instead of having to depend on this on-halt CPU behavior)?

Page 40: Energy Management at Upper Levels of System Design

40

80ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Challenges

4. To encourage greater energy efficiency (lower average cost) for I/O accesses on power-managed disks.

e Amortize spinup and spindown costs over multiple disk requests by shaping request patterns.Buffer management and prefetching strategies.

81ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

I/O Request Pattern Shaping

• Goal: make more bursty• Entry price for an I/O

(when disk is not already spinning) set high.

• Tasks offer “bids” from their currentcy budgets that vary over time waiting

• Bids from multiple tasks can cooperatively satisfy entry price

• Actual cost is debited from task.

• Setup: 2 disk-fetching tasks• Ave disk power:

911mW (baseline) vs. 655mW (bidding)

time

Entry

requestbrequesta

Page 41: Energy Management at Upper Levels of System Design

41

82ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Summary: Benefits of Currentcy

Currentcy abstraction • Provides a concrete representation of energy

supply and demand – allowing explicit energy/power management.

• Provides unified view of energy impact of different devices – enabling multi-device, system-wide resource management– Comparable, quantifiable, tradeoffs can be enforced

• Encourages analogies to economic models –motivating a rich set of policies.

83ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Future Work/Open Questions with ECOSystem

Using currentcy and ECOSystem to explore– More of the policy design space: other energy

goals, other objectives, other approaches to achieve these objectives

– The power of economic models based on currentcy– Application assistance by extending API– Admission control– Including more components of the system: display,

virtual memory,

Page 42: Energy Management at Upper Levels of System Design

42

ESSES 2003© 2003, Carla Schlatter Ellis

Questions?