DREAM: A Dynamic Scheduler for Dynamic Real-time Multi-model ML Workloads

December 07, 2022 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Seah Kim, Hyoukjun Kwon, Jinook Song, Jihyuck Jo, Yu-Hsin Chen, Liangzhen Lai, Vikas Chandra arXiv ID 2212.03414 Category cs.DC: Distributed Computing Cross-listed cs.LG Citations 18 Venue International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems Last Checked 3 months ago
Abstract
Emerging real-time multi-model ML (RTMM) workloads such as AR/VR and drone control involve dynamic behaviors in various granularity; task, model, and layers within a model. Such dynamic behaviors introduce new challenges to the system software in an ML system since the overall system load is not completely predictable, unlike traditional ML workloads. In addition, RTMM workloads require real-time processing, involve highly heterogeneous models, and target resource-constrained devices. Under such circumstances, developing an effective scheduler gains more importance to better utilize underlying hardware considering the unique characteristics of RTMM workloads. Therefore, we propose a new scheduler, DREAM, which effectively handles various dynamicity in RTMM workloads targeting multi-accelerator systems. DREAM quantifies the unique requirements for RTMM workloads and utilizes the quantified scores to drive scheduling decisions, considering the current system load and other inference jobs on different models and input frames. DREAM utilizes tunable parameters that provide fast and effective adaptivity to dynamic workload changes. In our evaluation of five scenarios of RTMM workload, DREAM reduces the overall UXCost, which is an equivalent metric of the energy-delay product (EDP) for RTMM defined in the paper, by 32.2% and 50.0% in the geometric mean (up to 80.8% and 97.6%) compared to state-of-the-art baselines, which shows the efficacy of our scheduling methodology.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Distributed Computing

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted