skip to main content

Title: CPU Energy-Aware Parallel Real-Time Scheduling
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. more » 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. « less
Authors:
; ; ; ;
Award ID(s):
1724227
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10183034
Journal Name:
Leibniz international proceedings in informatics
Volume:
165
ISSN:
1868-8969
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Multiprocessor scheduling of hard real-time tasks modeled by directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) exploits the inherent parallelism presented by the model. For DAG tasks, a node represents a request to execute an object on one of the available processors. In one DAG task, there may be multiple execution requests for one object, each represented by a distinct node. These distinct execution requests offer an opportunity to reduce their combined cache overhead through coordinated scheduling of objects as threads within a parallel task. The goal of this work is to realize this opportunity by incorporating the cache-aware BUNDLE-scheduling algorithm into federated scheduling of sporadic DAG task sets.This is the first work to incorporate instruction cache sharing into federated scheduling. The result is a modification of the DAG model named the DAG with objects and threads (DAG-OT). Under the DAG-OT model, descriptions of nodes explicitly include their underlying executable object and number of threads. When possible, nodes assigned the same executable object are collapsed into a single node; joining their threads when BUNDLE-scheduled. Compared to the DAG model, the DAG-OT model with cache-aware scheduling reduces the number of cores allocated to individual tasks by approximately 20 percent in the synthetic evaluation and upmore »to 50 percent on a novel parallel computing platform implementation. By reducing the number of allocated cores, the DAG-OT model is able to schedule a subset of previously infeasible task sets.« less
  2. With the technology trend of hardware and workload consolidation for embedded systems and the rapid development of edge computing, there has been increasing interest in supporting parallel real-time tasks to better utilize the multi-core platforms while meeting the stringent real-time constraints. For parallel real-time tasks, the federated scheduling paradigm, which assigns each parallel task a set of dedicated cores, achieves good theoretical bounds by ensuring exclusive use of processing resources to reduce interferences. However, because cores share the last-level cache and memory bandwidth resources, in practice tasks may still interfere with each other despite executing on dedicated cores. Such resource interferences due to concurrent accesses can be even more severe for embedded platforms or edge servers, where the computing power and cache/memory space are limited. To tackle this issue, in this work, we present a holistic resource allocation framework for parallel real-time tasks under federated scheduling. Under our proposed framework, in addition to dedicated cores, each parallel task is also assigned with dedicated cache and memory bandwidth resources. Further, we propose a holistic resource allocation algorithm that well balances the allocation between different resources to achieve good schedulability. Additionally, we provide a full implementation of our framework by extending themore »federated scheduling system with Intel’s Cache Allocation Technology and MemGuard. Finally, we demonstrate the practicality of our proposed framework via extensive numerical evaluations and empirical experiments using real benchmark programs.« less
  3. We consider the problem of orchestrating the execution of workflow applications structured as Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs) on parallel computing platforms that are subject to fail-stop failures. The objective is to minimize expected overall execution time, or makespan. A solution to this problem consists of a schedule of the workflow tasks on the available processors and of a decision of which application data to checkpoint to stable storage, so as to mitigate the impact of processor failures. For general DAGs this problem is hopelessly intractable. In fact, given a solution, computing its expected makespan is still a difficult problem. To address this challenge, we consider a restricted class of graphs, Minimal Series-Parallel Graphs (M-SPGS). It turns out that many real-world workflow applications are naturally structured as M-SPGS. For this class of graphs, we propose a recursive list-scheduling algorithm that exploits the M-SPG structure to assign sub-graphs to individual processors, and uses dynamic programming to decide which tasks in these sub-gaphs should be checkpointed. Furthermore, it is possible to efficiently compute the expected makespan for the solution produced by this algorithm, using a first-order approximation of task weights and existing evaluation algorithms for 2-state probabilistic DAGs. We assess the performance ofmore »our algorithm for production workflow configurations, comparing it to (i) an approach in which all application data is checkpointed, which corresponds to the standard way in which most production workflows are executed today; and (ii) an approach in which no application data is checkpointed. Our results demonstrate that our algorithm strikes a good compromise between these two approaches, leading to lower checkpointing overhead than the former and to better resilience to failure than the latter.« less
  4. While energy consumption is the primary concern for the design of real-time embedded systems, fault-tolerance and quality of service (QoS) are becoming increasingly important in the development of today’s pervasive computing systems. In this work, we study the problem of energy-aware standby-sparing for weakly hard real-time embedded systems. The standby-sparing systems adopt a primary processor and a spare processor to provide fault tolerance for both permanent and transient faults. In order to reduce energy consumption for such kind of systems, we proposed two novel scheduling schemes: one for (1,1)-hard tasks and one for general (m,k)-hard tasks which require that at least m out of any k consecutive jobs of a task meet their deadlines. Through extensive evaluations, our results demonstrate that the proposed techniques significantly outperform the previous research in reducing energy consumption for both (1,1)-hard task sets and general (m,k)-hard task sets while assuring fault tolerance through standby-sparing.
  5. 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 EEGmore »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.« less