skip to main content
research-article
Public Access

ReBudget: Trading Off Efficiency vs. Fairness in Market-Based Multicore Resource Allocation via Runtime Budget Reassignment

Published:25 March 2016Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Efficiently allocating shared resources in computer systems is critical to optimizing execution. Recently, a number of market-based solutions have been proposed to attack this problem. Some of them provide provable theoretical bounds to efficiency and/or fairness losses under market equilibrium. However, they are limited to markets with potentially important constraints, such as enforcing equal budget for all players, or curve-fitting players' utility into a specific function type. Moreover, they do not generally provide an intuitive "knob" to control efficiency vs. fairness. In this paper, we introduce two new metrics, Market Utility Range (MUR) and Market Budget Range (MBR), through which we provide for the first time theoretical bounds on efficiency and fairness of market equilibria under arbitrary budget assignments. We leverage this result and propose ReBudget, an iterative budget re-assignment algorithm that can be used to control efficiency vs. fairness at run-time. We apply our algorithm to a multi-resource allocation problem in multicore chips. Our evaluation using detailed execution-driven simulations shows that our budget re-assignment technique is intuitive, effective, and efficient.

References

  1. M. Becchi and P. Crowley. Dynamic thread assignment on heterogeneous multiprocessor architectures. In Intl. Conf. on Computing Frontiers (FC), 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. N. Beckmann and D. Sanchez. Talus: A simple way to remove cliffs in cache performance. In Intl. Symp. on High Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA), 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. A. Bhattacharjee and M. Martonosi. Thread criticality predictors for dynamic performance, power, and resource management in chip multiprocessors. In Intl. Symp. on Computer Architecture (ISCA), 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. R. Bitirgen, E. Ipek, and J. F. Martínez. Coordinated management of multiple interacting resources in chip multiprocessors: A machine learning approach. In Intl. Symp. on Microarchitecture (MICRO), 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. S. J. Brams and A. D. Taylor. Fair Division: From cake-cutting to dispute resolution. Cambridge University Press, 1996.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. J. Brock, C. Ye, C. Ding, Y. Li, X. Wang, and Y. Luo. Optimal cache partition-sharing. In Intl. Conf. on Parallel Processing (ICPP), 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. D. Brooks, V. Tiwari, and M. Martonosi. Wattch: a framework for architectural-level power analysis and optimizations. In Intl. Symp. on Computer Architecture (ISCA), 2000.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. B. Calder, T. Sherwood, E. Perelman, and G. Hamerley. Simpoint. http://www.cs.ucsd.edu/ calder/simpoint/, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. A. B. Canturk Isci, C.-Y. Cher, P. Bose, and M. Martonosi. An analysis of efficient multi-core global power management policies: Maximizing performance for a given power budget. In Intl. Symp. on Microarchitecture (MICRO), 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. P. Chaparro, J. González, and A. González. Thermal-effective clustered microarchitectures. In Workshop on Temperature-Aware Computer Systems, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. J. S. Chase, D. C. Anderson, P. N. Thakar, A. M. Vahdat, and R. P. Doyle. Managing energy and server resources in hosting centers. In ACM Symp. on Operating Systems Principles (SOSP), 2001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. J. Chen and L. K. John. Predictive coordination of multiple on-chip resources for chip multiprocessors. In Intl. Conf. on Supercomputing (ICS), 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. J. Chen, L. K. John, and D. Kaseridis. Modeling program resource demand using inherent program characteristics. In Intl. Conf. on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems (Sigmetrics), 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. J. Chen, A. Nair, and L. John. Predictive heterogeneity-aware application scheduling for chip multiprocessors. IEEE Trans. on Computers, 63, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. S. Choi and D. Yeung. Learning-based SMT processor resource distribution via hill-climbing. In Intl. Symp. on Computer Architecture (ISCA), 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. E. Ebrahimi, R. Miftakhutdinov, C. Fallin, C. J. Lee, J. A. Joao, O. Mutlu, and Y. N. Patt. Parallel application memory scheduling. In Intl. Symp. on Microarchitecture (MICRO), 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. M. Feldman, K. Lai, and L. Zhang. A price-anticipating resource allocation mechanism for distributed shared clusters. In Intl. Conf. on Electronic Commerce (EC), 2005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. G. Hardin. The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162 (3859): 1243--1248, 1968.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. M. T. Inc. 2Gb DDR3 SDRAM component data sheet: MT41J256M8. http://www.micron.com/parts/dram/ddr3-sdram/mt41j256m8da-125, July 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Intel Corporation. Intel 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software Developer's Manuals. http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/architectures-software-developer-manuals.html, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. R. Johari and J. N. Tsitsiklis. Efficiency loss in a network resource allocation game. Mathematics of Operations Research, 29 (3): 407--435, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. R. Kumar, K. I. Farkas, N. P. Jouppi, P. Ranganathan, and D. M. Tullsen. Single-isa heterogeneous multi-core architectures: The potential for processor power reduction. In Intl. Symp. on Microarchitecture (MICRO), 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. K. Lai, L. Rasmusson, E. Adar, L. Zhang, and B. A. Huberman. Tycoon: An implementation of a distributed, market-based resource allocation system. Multiagent and Grid Systems, 1, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. R. Miftakhutdinov, E. Ebrahimi, and Y. N. Patt. Predicting performance impact of dvfs for realistic memory systems. In Intl. Symp. on Microarchitecture (MICRO), 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. N. Nisan, T. Roughgarden, E. Tardos, and V. V. Vazirani. Algorithmic game theory. Cambridge University Press, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. C. Papadimitriou. Algorithms, games, and the Internet. In Intl. Symp. on Theory of computing, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. M. K. Qureshi and Y. N. Patt. Utility-based cache partitioning: A low-overhead, high-performance, runtime mechanism to partition shared caches. In Intl. Symp. on Microarchitecture (MICRO), 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. J. Renau, B. Fraguela, J. Tuck, W. Liu, M. Prvulovic, L. Ceze, S. Sarangi, P. Sack, K. Strauss, and P. Montesinos. SESC simulator, January 2005. http://sesc.sourceforge.net.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. E. Rotem, A. Naveh, D. Rajwan, A. Ananthakrishnan, and E. Weissmann. Power-management architecture of the intel microarchitecture code-named sandy bridge. IEEE Micro, 32 (2): 0020--27, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. P. Shivakumar and N. P. Jouppi. CACTI 3.0: an integrated cache timing, power, and area model. Technical report, HP Western Research Labs, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. K. Skadron, M. R. Stan, K. Sankaranarayanan, W. Huang, S. Velusamy, and D. Tarjan. Temperature-aware microarchitecture: Modeling and implementation. ACM Trans. on Architecture and Code Optimization (TACO), 1 (1): 94--125, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. SPEC CPU2000. http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. SPEC CPU2006. http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. G. E. Suh, S. Devadas, and L. Rudolph. A new memory monitoring scheme for memory-aware scheduling and partitioning. In Intl. Symp. on High Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA), 2002.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. H. R. Varian. Equity, envy, and efficiency. Journal of economic theory, 9 (1): 63--91, 1974.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. R. Wang and L. Chen. Futility scaling: High-associativity cache partitioning. In Intl. Symp. on Microarchitecture (MICRO), 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. X. Wang and J. F. Martínez. XChange: A market-based approach to scalable dynamic multi-resource allocation in multicore architectures. In Intl. Symp. on High Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA), 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Y. Xie and G. H. Loh. PIPP: promotion/insertion pseudo-partitioning of multi-core shared caches. In Intl. Symp. on Computer Architecture (ISCA), 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. S. M. Zahedi and B. C. Lee. Ref: Resource elasticity fairness with sharing incentives for multiprocessors. In Intl. Conf. on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS), 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. L. Zhang. The efficiency and fairness of a fixed budget resource allocation game. In Automata, Languages and Programming, pages 485--496. Springer, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. ReBudget: Trading Off Efficiency vs. Fairness in Market-Based Multicore Resource Allocation via Runtime Budget Reassignment

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image ACM SIGPLAN Notices
        ACM SIGPLAN Notices  Volume 51, Issue 4
        ASPLOS '16
        April 2016
        774 pages
        ISSN:0362-1340
        EISSN:1558-1160
        DOI:10.1145/2954679
        • Editor:
        • Andy Gill
        Issue’s Table of Contents
        • cover image ACM Conferences
          ASPLOS '16: Proceedings of the Twenty-First International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems
          March 2016
          824 pages
          ISBN:9781450340915
          DOI:10.1145/2872362
          • General Chair:
          • Tom Conte,
          • Program Chair:
          • Yuanyuan Zhou

        Copyright © 2016 ACM

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 25 March 2016

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!