Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border4.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED!nerds-end From: glen herrmannsfeldt Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: Green Compiler ? Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 08:18:05 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 16 Sender: johnl@iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <12-12-012@comp.compilers> References: <12-12-010@comp.compilers> NNTP-Posting-Host: news.iecc.com X-Trace: leila.iecc.com 1356306961 72900 64.57.183.58 (23 Dec 2012 23:56:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@iecc.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:56:01 +0000 (UTC) Keywords: design, code Posted-Date: 23 Dec 2012 18:56:01 EST X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:796 Abid wrote: > It seems that the Power Wall is becoming a major issue, especially for High > Performance Computing. Current compilers work has two dimensional model, i.e., > all the optimization phases are targeted either towards reducing execution > time or code size. My question is: Do we need to change this model and make it > three dimensional by adding power axis in the search space? If yes, then we > have to revisit all the phases and adjust them or come up with new cost > models for these phases. It should be energy, not power. You can always reduce the power by doing the calculation slower. Energy is power times time (more generally, the integral of E(t)dt). -- glen