More Like this

1. ARC: DVFS-aware asymmetric-retention STT-RAM caches for energy-efficient multicore processors

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3357526.3357553  

   Gajaria, Dhruv ; Adegbija, Tosiron ( September 2019 , Proceedings of the International Symposium on Memory Systems (MEMSYS), 2019)

   Relaxed retention (or volatile) spin-transfer torque RAM (STT-RAM) has been widely studied as a way to reduce STT-RAM's write energy and latency overheads. Given a relaxed retention time STT-RAM level one (L1) cache, we analyze the impacts of dynamic voltage and frequency scaling (DVFS)---a common optimization in modern processors---on STT-RAM L1 cache design. Our analysis reveals that, apart from the fact that different applications may require different retention times, the clock frequency, which is typically ignored in most STT-RAM studies, may also significantly impact applications' retention time needs. Based on our findings, we propose an asymmetric-retention core (ARC) design for multicore architectures. ARC features retention time heterogeneity to specialize STT-RAM retention times to applications' needs. We also propose a runtime prediction model to determine the best core on which to run an application, based on the applications' characteristics, their retention time requirements, and available DVFS settings. Results reveal that the proposed approach can reduce the average cache energy by 20.19% and overall processor energy by 7.66%, compared to a homogeneous STT-RAM cache design. 

   more » « less
2. CPU Energy-Aware Parallel Real-Time Scheduling

   https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ECRTS.2020.2  

   Saifullah, Abusayeed ; Fahmida, Sezana ; Modekurthy, Venkata P. ; Fisher, Nathan ; Guo, Zhishan ( July 2020 , Leibniz international proceedings in informatics)

   Both energy-efficiency and real-time performance are critical requirements in many embedded systems applications such as self-driving car, robotic system, disaster response, and security/safety control. These systems entail a myriad of real-time tasks, where each task itself is a parallel task that can utilize multiple computing units at the same time. Driven by the increasing demand for parallel tasks, multi-core embedded processors are inevitably evolving to many-core. Existing work on real-time parallel tasks mostly focused on real-time scheduling without addressing energy consumption. In this paper, we address hard real-time scheduling of parallel tasks while minimizing their CPU energy consumption on multicore embedded systems. Each task is represented as a directed acyclic graph (DAG) with nodes indicating different threads of execution and edges indicating their dependencies. Our technique is to determine the execution speeds of the nodes of the DAGs to minimize the overall energy consumption while meeting all task deadlines. It incorporates a frequency optimization engine and the dynamic voltage and frequency scaling (DVFS) scheme into the classical real-time scheduling policies (both federated and global) and makes them energy-aware. The contributions of this paper thus include the first energy-aware online federated scheduling and also the first energy-aware global scheduling of DAGs. Evaluation using synthetic workload through simulation shows that our energy-aware real-time scheduling policies can achieve up to 68% energy-saving compared to classical (energy-unaware) policies. We have also performed a proof of concept system evaluation using physical hardware demonstrating the energy efficiency through our proposed approach. 

   more » « less
3. A Deep Learning-Based Real-time Seizure Detection System

   https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB50085.2020.9353623  

   Shawki, N. ; Elseify, T. ; Cap, T. ; Shah, V. ; Obeid, I. ; Picone, J. ( December 2020 , Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB))

   Obeid, Iyad Selesnick (Ed.)

   Electroencephalography (EEG) is a popular clinical monitoring tool used for diagnosing brain-related disorders such as epilepsy [1]. As monitoring EEGs in a critical-care setting is an expensive and tedious task, there is a great interest in developing real-time EEG monitoring tools to improve patient care quality and efficiency [2]. However, clinicians require automatic seizure detection tools that provide decisions with at least 75% sensitivity and less than 1 false alarm (FA) per 24 hours [3]. Some commercial tools recently claim to reach such performance levels, including the Olympic Brainz Monitor [4] and Persyst 14 [5]. In this abstract, we describe our efforts to transform a high-performance offline seizure detection system [3] into a low latency real-time or online seizure detection system. An overview of the system is shown in Figure 1. The main difference between an online versus offline system is that an online system should always be causal and has minimum latency which is often defined by domain experts. The offline system, shown in Figure 2, uses two phases of deep learning models with postprocessing [3]. The channel-based long short term memory (LSTM) model (Phase 1 or P1) processes linear frequency cepstral coefficients (LFCC) [6] features from each EEG channel separately. We use the hypotheses generated by the P1 model and create additional features that carry information about the detected events and their confidence. The P2 model uses these additional features and the LFCC features to learn the temporal and spatial aspects of the EEG signals using a hybrid convolutional neural network (CNN) and LSTM model. Finally, Phase 3 aggregates the results from both P1 and P2 before applying a final postprocessing step. The online system implements Phase 1 by taking advantage of the Linux piping mechanism, multithreading techniques, and multi-core processors. To convert Phase 1 into an online system, we divide the system into five major modules: signal preprocessor, feature extractor, event decoder, postprocessor, and visualizer. The system reads 0.1-second frames from each EEG channel and sends them to the feature extractor and the visualizer. The feature extractor generates LFCC features in real time from the streaming EEG signal. Next, the system computes seizure and background probabilities using a channel-based LSTM model and applies a postprocessor to aggregate the detected events across channels. The system then displays the EEG signal and the decisions simultaneously using a visualization module. The online system uses C++, Python, TensorFlow, and PyQtGraph in its implementation. The online system accepts streamed EEG data sampled at 250 Hz as input. The system begins processing the EEG signal by applying a TCP montage [8]. Depending on the type of the montage, the EEG signal can have either 22 or 20 channels. To enable the online operation, we send 0.1-second (25 samples) length frames from each channel of the streamed EEG signal to the feature extractor and the visualizer. Feature extraction is performed sequentially on each channel. The signal preprocessor writes the sample frames into two streams to facilitate these modules. In the first stream, the feature extractor receives the signals using stdin. In parallel, as a second stream, the visualizer shares a user-defined file with the signal preprocessor. This user-defined file holds raw signal information as a buffer for the visualizer. The signal preprocessor writes into the file while the visualizer reads from it. Reading and writing into the same file poses a challenge. The visualizer can start reading while the signal preprocessor is writing into it. To resolve this issue, we utilize a file locking mechanism in the signal preprocessor and visualizer. Each of the processes temporarily locks the file, performs its operation, releases the lock, and tries to obtain the lock after a waiting period. The file locking mechanism ensures that only one process can access the file by prohibiting other processes from reading or writing while one process is modifying the file [9]. The feature extractor uses circular buffers to save 0.3 seconds or 75 samples from each channel for extracting 0.2-second or 50-sample long center-aligned windows. The module generates 8 absolute LFCC features where the zeroth cepstral coefficient is replaced by a temporal domain energy term. For extracting the rest of the features, three pipelines are used. The differential energy feature is calculated in a 0.9-second absolute feature window with a frame size of 0.1 seconds. The difference between the maximum and minimum temporal energy terms is calculated in this range. Then, the first derivative or the delta features are calculated using another 0.9-second window. Finally, the second derivative or delta-delta features are calculated using a 0.3-second window [6]. The differential energy for the delta-delta features is not included. In total, we extract 26 features from the raw sample windows which add 1.1 seconds of delay to the system. We used the Temple University Hospital Seizure Database (TUSZ) v1.2.1 for developing the online system [10]. The statistics for this dataset are shown in Table 1. A channel-based LSTM model was trained using the features derived from the train set using the online feature extractor module. A window-based normalization technique was applied to those features. In the offline model, we scale features by normalizing using the maximum absolute value of a channel [11] before applying a sliding window approach. Since the online system has access to a limited amount of data, we normalize based on the observed window. The model uses the feature vectors with a frame size of 1 second and a window size of 7 seconds. We evaluated the model using the offline P1 postprocessor to determine the efficacy of the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique. As shown by the results of experiments 1 and 4 in Table 2, these changes give us a comparable performance to the offline model. The online event decoder module utilizes this trained model for computing probabilities for the seizure and background classes. These posteriors are then postprocessed to remove spurious detections. The online postprocessor receives and saves 8 seconds of class posteriors in a buffer for further processing. It applies multiple heuristic filters (e.g., probability threshold) to make an overall decision by combining events across the channels. These filters evaluate the average confidence, the duration of a seizure, and the channels where the seizures were observed. The postprocessor delivers the label and confidence to the visualizer. The visualizer starts to display the signal as soon as it gets access to the signal file, as shown in Figure 1 using the “Signal File” and “Visualizer” blocks. Once the visualizer receives the label and confidence for the latest epoch from the postprocessor, it overlays the decision and color codes that epoch. The visualizer uses red for seizure with the label SEIZ and green for the background class with the label BCKG. Once the streaming finishes, the system saves three files: a signal file in which the sample frames are saved in the order they were streamed, a time segmented event (TSE) file with the overall decisions and confidences, and a hypotheses (HYP) file that saves the label and confidence for each epoch. The user can plot the signal and decisions using the signal and HYP files with only the visualizer by enabling appropriate options. For comparing the performance of different stages of development, we used the test set of TUSZ v1.2.1 database. It contains 1015 EEG records of varying duration. The any-overlap performance [12] of the overall system shown in Figure 2 is 40.29% sensitivity with 5.77 FAs per 24 hours. For comparison, the previous state-of-the-art model developed on this database performed at 30.71% sensitivity with 6.77 FAs per 24 hours [3]. The individual performances of the deep learning phases are as follows: Phase 1’s (P1) performance is 39.46% sensitivity and 11.62 FAs per 24 hours, and Phase 2 detects seizures with 41.16% sensitivity and 11.69 FAs per 24 hours. We trained an LSTM model with the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique for developing the online system. Using the offline decoder and postprocessor, the model performed at 36.23% sensitivity with 9.52 FAs per 24 hours. The trained model was then evaluated with the online modules. The current performance of the overall online system is 45.80% sensitivity with 28.14 FAs per 24 hours. Table 2 summarizes the performances of these systems. The performance of the online system deviates from the offline P1 model because the online postprocessor fails to combine the events as the seizure probability fluctuates during an event. The modules in the online system add a total of 11.1 seconds of delay for processing each second of the data, as shown in Figure 3. In practice, we also count the time for loading the model and starting the visualizer block. When we consider these facts, the system consumes 15 seconds to display the first hypothesis. The system detects seizure onsets with an average latency of 15 seconds. Implementing an automatic seizure detection model in real time is not trivial. We used a variety of techniques such as the file locking mechanism, multithreading, circular buffers, real-time event decoding, and signal-decision plotting to realize the system. A video demonstrating the system is available at: https://www.isip.piconepress.com/projects/nsf_pfi_tt/resources/videos/realtime_eeg_analysis/v2.5.1/video_2.5.1.mp4. The final conference submission will include a more detailed analysis of the online performance of each module. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Research reported in this publication was most recently supported by the National Science Foundation Partnership for Innovation award number IIP-1827565 and the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Universal Research Enhancement Program (PA CURE). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official views of any of these organizations. REFERENCES [1] A. Craik, Y. He, and J. L. Contreras-Vidal, “Deep learning for electroencephalogram (EEG) classification tasks: a review,” J. Neural Eng., vol. 16, no. 3, p. 031001, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/ab0ab5. [2] A. C. Bridi, T. Q. Louro, and R. C. L. Da Silva, “Clinical Alarms in intensive care: implications of alarm fatigue for the safety of patients,” Rev. Lat. Am. Enfermagem, vol. 22, no. 6, p. 1034, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1169.3488.2513. [3] M. Golmohammadi, V. Shah, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Deep Learning Approaches for Automatic Seizure Detection from Scalp Electroencephalograms,” in Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology: Emerging Trends in Research and Applications, 1st ed., I. Obeid, I. Selesnick, and J. Picone, Eds. New York, New York, USA: Springer, 2020, pp. 233–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36844-9_8. [4] “CFM Olympic Brainz Monitor.” [Online]. Available: https://newborncare.natus.com/products-services/newborn-care-products/newborn-brain-injury/cfm-olympic-brainz-monitor. [Accessed: 17-Jul-2020]. [5] M. L. Scheuer, S. B. Wilson, A. Antony, G. Ghearing, A. Urban, and A. I. Bagic, “Seizure Detection: Interreader Agreement and Detection Algorithm Assessments Using a Large Dataset,” J. Clin. Neurophysiol., 2020. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNP.0000000000000709. [6] A. Harati, M. Golmohammadi, S. Lopez, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved EEG Event Classification Using Differential Energy,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium, 2015, pp. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB.2015.7405421. [7] V. Shah, C. Campbell, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved Spatio-Temporal Modeling in Automated Seizure Detection using Channel-Dependent Posteriors,” Neurocomputing, 2021. [8] W. Tatum, A. Husain, S. Benbadis, and P. Kaplan, Handbook of EEG Interpretation. New York City, New York, USA: Demos Medical Publishing, 2007. [9] D. P. Bovet and C. Marco, Understanding the Linux Kernel, 3rd ed. O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2005. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/understanding-the-linux/0596005652/. [10] V. Shah et al., “The Temple University Hospital Seizure Detection Corpus,” Front. Neuroinform., vol. 12, pp. 1–6, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2018.00083. [11] F. Pedregosa et al., “Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python,” J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 12, pp. 2825–2830, 2011. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1953048.2078195. [12] J. Gotman, D. Flanagan, J. Zhang, and B. Rosenblatt, “Automatic seizure detection in the newborn: Methods and initial evaluation,” Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol., vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 356–362, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-4694(97)00003-9. 

   more » « less
4. Dynamic reliability management for multi-core processor based on deep reinforcement learning

   Z. Sun, H. Zhou ; Tan, Sheldon ( July 2019 , International Conference on Synthesis, Modeling, Analysis and Simulation Methods and Applications to Circuit Design (SMACD’19))

   In this paper, we propose a new dynamic reliability management (DRM) approach with deep reinforcement learning (DRL) for multi-core processors considering device reliability effects (hard error) and transient error of signal (soft error). The proposed method is based on a recently proposed physics-based three-phase electromigration model and an exponential soft error model that considers dynamic voltage and frequency scaling (DVFS) effects. Our work has been inspired by the recent advancements in DRL for various control and game applications. Compared with the traditional Q-learning based method, DRL has better scalability, lower memory and lower computational complexity. A large class of multi-threaded applications are used as the benchmark to validate and compare the proposed dynamic reliability management methods. Experimental results show that the proposed method can significantly reduces memory footprint and computational time compared to the traditional Q-learning based method. Furthermore, we show that the DRL-based DRM method can save 53.50% more energy than the Q-learning based method and 61.29% more than the simple DVFS based method. 

   more » « less
5. Gemini: Learning to Manage CPU Power for Latency-Critical Search Engines

   https://doi.org/10.1109/MICRO50266.2020.00059  

   Zhou, Liang ; Bhuyan, Laxmi N. ; Ramakrishnan, K. K. ( October 2020 , 2020 53rd Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO))

   null (Ed.)

   Saving energy for latency-critical applications like web search can be challenging because of their strict tail latency constraints. State-of-the-art power management frameworks use Dynamic Voltage and Frequency Scaling (DVFS) and Sleep states techniques to slow down the request processing and finish the search just-in-time. However, accurately predicting the compute demand of a request can be difficult. In this paper, we present Gemini, a novel power management framework for latency- critical search engines. Gemini has two unique features to capture the per query service time variation. First, at light loads without request queuing, a two-step DVFS is used to manage the CPU power. Our two-step DVFS selects the initial CPU frequency based on the query specific service time prediction and then judiciously boosts the initial frequency at the right time to catch-up to the deadline. The determination of boosting time further relies on estimating the error in the prediction of individual query’s service time. At high loads, where there is request queuing, only the current request being executed and the critical request in the queue adopt a two-step DVFS. All the other requests in-between use the same frequency to reduce the frequency transition overhead. Second, we develop two separate neural network models, one for predicting the service time and the other for the error in the prediction. The combination of these two predictors significantly improves the power saving and tail latency results of our two-step DVFS. Gemini is implemented on the Solr search engine. Evaluations on three representative query traces show that Gemini saves 41% of the CPU power, and is better than other state-of-the-art techniques. 

   more » « less