2019
DOI: 10.1109/lca.2019.2892151
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Deep Q-Learning Approach for Dynamic Management of Heterogeneous Processors

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
22
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 44 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
1
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We ran Streamcluster from PARSEC five times each for different temperature threshold values (89°, 90°, 91°, 92°, 93°, 94°, and 95°) and for MRPI [9], Linux governor in performance mode, Linux governor in on‐demand mode and Deep Q‐Learning Dynamic Management [29]. Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…We ran Streamcluster from PARSEC five times each for different temperature threshold values (89°, 90°, 91°, 92°, 93°, 94°, and 95°) and for MRPI [9], Linux governor in performance mode, Linux governor in on‐demand mode and Deep Q‐Learning Dynamic Management [29]. Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In a different study [29], the authors propose a deep Q-learning methodology for dynamic thermal and power management. This approach takes less memory due to the reduced number of bins and hence reducing the number of rows in the Q-table.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Its major purpose is to accelerate the running speed of the algorithm. On this basis, the artificial potential field method is added (Gupta et al, 2019 ). The gravitational field is calculated as follows: Where: k is the gain coefficient, X is the current position of the mobile robot, Xg is the target position, j is the planning adjustment reward, and the relationship between reward and gravity is as follows: …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Encapsulation of applications' characteristics as a metric called bias (which is defined in Section3) enables making a relevant choice of resource configuration for minimizing energy consumption while respecting performance target [10], [12], [18]. Existing resource management approaches use offline profiling to characterize the applications at design time and use this information at run-time to avoid exhaustive search [10], [16], [21].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other approaches use on-line prediction strategies, their efficiency and accuracy depend on the amount of power-performance statistics collected over a significant period of execution time [1], [18]. Both off-line and on-line approaches are confined to extract an optimal resource configuration of a single application running in isolation [3], [10], [12], [18], and are thus not readily adaptable to multiple concurrent application scenarios. While some approaches [21], [22] consider multiple applications, those i) overlook the combination of all the existing knobs (DoP, DVFS, and core selection) in heterogeneous platforms [4], [21], [22], [26], ii) ignore dynamic workload scenarios where applications arrive and leave the system in an unknown manner, limiting their efficiency and adaptability in optimizing resource allocation, and iii) do not consider the weight of total energy consumption per application, restricting those from prioritizing among applications [1], [22], [26].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%