Energy–Performance Trade-Offs of LU Matrix Decomposition in Java Across Heterogeneous Hardware and Operating Systems
Source abstract
Abstract
The increasing core counts and architectural heterogeneity of modern processors make performance optimization insufficient if energy consumption is not simultaneously considered. By providing a novel characterization of how the interaction between hybrid architectures and system software disrupts the traditional correlation between execution speed and energy efficiency, this research study analyzes the performance–energy trade-offs of parallel LU matrix decomposition algorithms implemented in Java, focusing on the Crout and Doolittle variants. This study is conducted on four different platforms, including ARM-based, Hybrid x86, and many-core accelerators. Execution time and speedup are evaluated for varying thread counts, while energy consumption is measured externally to capture whole-system energy usage. Experimental results show that the configuration yielding the maximum speedup does not necessarily minimize energy consumption. While x86 systems showed energy savings exceeding 80% under optimal parallel configurations, the ARM-based platform required distinct thread counts to minimize energy consumption compared with maximizing speed. These findings demonstrate that energy-efficient configurations represent a distinct optimization space that often contradicts traditional performance metrics. In the era of hybrid computing, green software optimization must transition from a simplistic “race-to-sleep” paradigm toward sophisticated, architecture-aware strategies that account for the specific power profiles of heterogeneous cores to achieve truly sustainable high-performance computing.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Parallel Computing and Optimization Techniques · Big Data and Digital Economy · Cloud Computing and Resource Management
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Computer Engineering, University of Cádiz, 11003 Cádiz, Spain
Funding
European Regional Development Funds · Consejería de Universidad, Investigación e Innovación de la Junta de Andalucía · Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades · University of Cadiz
References (35)
Show source-provided references
1. Golub, G.H., and Van Loan, C.F. (2013). Matrix Computations, Johns Hopkins University Press. [4th ed.].
2. Trefethen, L.N., and Bau, D. (2022). Numerical Linear Algebra, SIAM.
3. Dongarra, J.J., Duff, I.S., Sorensen, D.C., and Van der Vorst, H.A. (1998). Numerical Linear Algebra for High-Performance Computers, SIAM.10.1137/1.9780898719611 ↗
4. Parallel programming models for heterogeneous many-cores: A comprehensive survey10.1007/s42514-020-00039-4 ↗
5. Does faster mean greener? Runtime and energy trade-offs in iOS applications with compiler optimizations
6. Reliability/performance-aware scheduling for parallel applications with energy constraints on heterogeneous computing systems10.1109/TSUSC.2022.3146138 ↗
7. A Short Method for Evaluating Determinants and Solving Systems of Linear Equations with Real or Complex Coefficients10.1109/EE.1941.6434611 ↗
8. Method employed in the solution of normal equations and the adjustment of a triangulation
9. Cholesky and the Cholesky decomposition: A commemoration by an applied statistician
10. Large Growth Factors in Gaussian Elimination with Pivoting10.1137/0610012 ↗
11. Higham, N.J. (2002). Accuracy and Stability of Numerical Algorithms, SIAM. [2nd ed.].10.1137/1.9780898718027 ↗
12. Anderson, E., Bai, Z., Bischof, C., Blackford, S., Demmel, J., Dongarra, J., Du Croz, J., Greenbaum, A., Hammarling, S., and McKenney, A. (1999). LAPACK Users’ Guide, SIAM. [3rd ed.].10.1137/1.9780898719604 ↗
13. Blackford, S., Demmel, J., Dongarra, J., Duff, I., Hammarling, S., Henry, G., Petitet, A., Stanley, K., Walker, D., and White, R. (1997). ScaLAPACK Users’ Guide, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory/University of Tennessee. Technical report.10.1137/1.9780898719642 ↗
14. Lindquist, N., Luszczek, P., and Dongarra, J. (2023, January 21–23). Using Additive Modifications in LU Factorization Instead of Pivoting. Proceedings of the 37th ACM International Conference on Supercomputing (ICS), Orlando, FL, USA.10.1145/3577193.3593731 ↗
15. Parallel Algorithms for LU Decomposition on a Shared Memory Multiprocessor10.1016/j.amc.2004.01.027 ↗
16. Abeles, P., and contributors (2025, October 02). EJML—Efficient Java Matrix Library. Available online: https://ejml.org.
17. Parallel Colt: A High-Performance Java Library for Scientific Computing and Image Processing10.1145/1824801.1824809 ↗
18. Basso, M., Rosà, A., Omini, L., and Binder, W. (2023, January 25–26). Java Vector API: Benchmarking and Performance Analysis. Proceedings of the 32nd ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Compiler Construction, Montréal, QC, Canada.10.1145/3578360.3580265 ↗
19. Scheduling multithreaded computations by work stealing10.1145/324133.324234 ↗
20. OpenMP Architecture Review Board (2026, January 01). OpenMP Application Program Interface, Version 5.0. Available online: https://www.openmp.org/specifications/.
21. Bircher, W.L., and John, L.K. (2008, January 7–12). Analysis of dynamic power management on multi-core processors. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual International Conference on Supercomputing, Island of Kos, Greece.10.1145/1375527.1375575 ↗
22. Rountree, B., Lownenthal, D.K., De Supinski, B.R., Schulz, M., Freeh, V.W., and Bletsch, T. (2009, January 8–12). Adagio: Making DVS practical for complex HPC applications. Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Supercomputing, Yorktown Heights, NY, USA.10.1145/1542275.1542340 ↗
23. Freeh, V.W., and Lowenthal, D.K. (2005, January 15–17). Using multiple energy gears in MPI programs on a power-scalable cluster. Proceedings of the Tenth ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles and Practice of Parallel Programming, Chicago, IL, USA.10.1145/1065944.1065967 ↗
24. Power challenges may end the multicore era10.1145/2408776.2408797 ↗
25. Kocot, B., Czarnul, P., and Proficz, J. (2023). Energy-Aware Scheduling for High-Performance Computing Systems: A Survey. Energies, 16.10.3390/en16020890 ↗
26. Green IT and green software10.1109/MS.2021.3102254 ↗
27. Performance-energy trade-off in modern CMPs
28. Exploring the sustainability challenges facing digitalization and internet data centers10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133633 ↗
29. Impact of edge computing paradigm on energy consumption in IoT10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.07.147 ↗
30. Analysis of Performance and Energy Efficiency of Processors with Hybrid Architecture10.35784/jcsi.6690 ↗
31. Schöne, R., Velten, M., Hackenberg, D., and Ilsche, T. (2024, January 7–11). Energy Efficiency Features of the Intel Alder Lake Architecture. Proceedings of the 15th ACM/SPEC International Conference on Performance Engineering (ICPE), London, UK.10.1145/3629526.3645040 ↗
32. On the impact of code smells on the energy consumption of mobile applications10.1016/j.infsof.2018.08.004 ↗
33. Ristov, S., and Gusev, M. (2013, January 11–13). Performance vs Cost for Windows and Linux Platforms in Windows Azure Cloud. Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE 2nd International Conference on Cloud Networking (CloudNet), San Francisco, CA, USA.10.1109/CloudNet.2013.6710581 ↗
34. Baggs, R., Delgado, H., and Bakhtiani, P. (2015, January 21–23). Performance Analysis of I/O-Intensive & CPU-Intensive Benchmarks on Windows 7, 8.1 & Ubuntu 14.04 LTS. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Electro/Information Technology (EIT), Dekalb, IL, USA.
35. Saez, J.C., and Prieto-Matias, M. (2022, January 23–24). Evaluation of the Intel thread director technology on an Alder Lake processor. Proceedings of the 13th ACM SIGOPS Asia-Pacific Workshop on Systems, APSys ’22, New York, NY, USA.10.1145/3546591.3547532 ↗