A Light-Weight Approach for Online State Classification of Self-organizing Parallel Systems

  • David Kramer
  • Rainer Buchty
  • Wolfgang Karl
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6566)


The growing complexity of future heterogeneous and parallel computing systems is addressed by Organic Computing principles, employing so-called Self-X features for autonomous adaptation and optimization. Here, one major problem is the fact that individual system components only have knowledge about their own states and is therefore lacking the global picture; as a result, each component is unable to determine whether given constraints or requirements are met, whether an optimization cycle should be triggered or not. Even worse, a local instance cannot evaluate the outcome of such optimization cycles and therefore is unable to rate whether the measures taken resulted in a global improvement or not.

In order to solve this problem, we present a novel rule-based approach for online system-state evaluation and classification. The rules used for system evaluation are derived during runtime from the information provided by a dedicated, distributed monitoring infrastructure. An important feature of this approach is its capability to self-adapt, i.e., the monitoring infrastructure can adapt the rules to react to given requirements and/or changed system behavior. The proposed method is light-weight to be efficiently employed in self-organizing parallel manycore systems.


Learning Phase Evaluation Rule Optimization Cycle Event List Performance Counter 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Auer, C., Wüchner, P., Meer, H.: The Degree of Global-State Awareness in Self-Organizing Systems. In: Spyropoulos, T., Hummel, K.A. (eds.) IWSOS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5918, pp. 125–136. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Becker, J., Brändle, K., Brinkschulte, U., Henkel, J., Karl, W., Köster, T., Wenz, M., Wörn, H.: Digital On-Demand Computing Organism for Real-Time Systems. In: Workshop Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Architecture of Computing Systems (ARCS 2006). GI-Edition Lcture Notes in Informatics (LNI), vol. P81, pp. 230–245 (March 2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buchty, R., Karl, W.: Design Aspects of Self-Organizing Heterogeneous Multi-Core Architectures. In: It Information Technology 5/2008 (Issue on Computer Architecture Challenges), pp. 293–299. Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag, Munchen (October 2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buchty, R., Kramer, D., Karl, W.: An Organic Computing Approach to Sustained Real-time Monitoring. In: Proceedings of WCC 2008/BICC. IFIP, vol. 268, pp. 151–162. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    European Network of Excellence on High-Performance Embedded Architecture and Compilation (HiPEAC). UNISIM: UNIted SIMulation Environment,
  6. 6.
    Fenlason, J., Stallman, R.: GNU gprof: The GNU Profiler (1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kluge, F., Mische, J., Uhrig, S., Ungerer, T.: Building Adaptive Embedded Systems by Monitoring and Dynamic Loading of Application Module. In: Workshop on Adaptive and Reconfigurable Embedded Systems, St. Louis, MO, USA (April 2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guthaus, M.R., Ringenberg, J.S., Ernst, D., Austin, T.M., Mudge, T., Brown, R.B.: Mibench: A free, commercially representative embedded benchmark suite. In: Proceedings of the Workload Characterization, WWC-4. 2001 IEEE International Workshop, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 3–14. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Intel. Intel Itanium Architecture Software Developer’s Manual (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Merkel, A., Bellosa, F.: Task Activity Vectors: a new Metric for Temperature-aware Scheduling. In: Eurosys 2008: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGOPS/EuroSys European Conference on Computer Systems 2008, pp. 1–12. ACM, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Müller-Schloer, C.: Organic Computing: on the Feasibility of Controlled Emergence. In: CODES+ISSS 2004: Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE/ACM/IFIP International Conference on Hardware/Software Codesign and System Synthesis, pp. 2–5. ACM, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schuck, C., Lamparth, S., Becker, J.: artNoC - A Novel Multi-Functional Router Architecture for Organic Computing. In: FPL, pp. 371–376 (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sprunt, B.: Pentium 4 Performance-monitoring Features. IEEE Micro, 72–82 (July/August 2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sprunt, B.: The Basics of Performance-monitoring Hardware. IEEE Micro, 64–71 (July/August 2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    von Renteln, A., Brinkschulte, U., Weiss, M.: Examinating Task Distribution by an Artificial Hormone System Based Middleware. In: IEEE International Symposium on Object-Oriented Real-Time Distributed Computing, pp. 119–123 (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zeppenfeld, J., Herkersdorf, A.: Autonomic Workload Management for Multi-core Processor Systems. In: International Conference on Architecture of Computing Systems, ARCS, Hannover, Germany, pp. 49–60 (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Kramer
    • 1
  • Rainer Buchty
    • 1
  • Wolfgang Karl
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Computer Science and Engineering, Chair for Computer Architecture and Parallel ProcessingKarlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)KarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations