2016 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Cyber Security and Cloud Computing

Energy-Aware Optimal Task Assignment for

Mobile Heterogeneous Embedded Systems in
Cloud Computing
1

Keke Gai1 , Meikang Qiu2 , Hui Zhao3 , Meiqin Liu4

Department of Computer Science, Pace University, New York, NY 10038, USA, kg71231w@pace.edu;
2
Department of Computer Science, Pace University, New York, NY 10038, USA, mqiu@pace.edu;
3
Software School, Henan University, Kaifeng, Henan, 475000, China, zhh@henu.edu.cn
4
College of Electrical Engineering, Zhejiang University, ZJ 310027, China, liumeiqin@zju.edu.cn

less than wireless data transmission costs [9]. Simply using

cloud-based servers cannot satisfy the advanced requirement
of saving energy due to the various energy consumption
sources.
Meanwhile, contemporary Mobile Embedded Systems
(MES) have a variety of aspects of energy consumptions,
from app executions to wireless communications [10]. For
instance, smart phones can not only deliver the wireless
calls but also provide a mobile app platform. Heterogeneous
computing systems enable mobile devices to achieve a high
performance of computations, such as synchronously assigning a chain of tasks to multiple cores [11]. Nevertheless, the
energy costs go up when the large sized tasks are loaded,
which may require less energy if some tasks are ofoaded
to the clouds [12], [13]. Therefore, an optimal deterministic
mechanism of task assignments can aid the system to reduce
the total energy costs when the energy requirements are
varied between local and remote executions [14][18].

AbstractRecent quick expansions of mobile heterogeneous

embedded systems have led to a remarkable hardware upgrade
that support multiple core processors. The energy consumption
is becoming greater along with the computation capacity
grows. Cloud computing is considered one of the solutions
to mitigating energy costs. However, the simply ofoading the
computations to the remote side cannot efciently reduce the
energy consumptions when the energy costs caused by wireless
communications are greater than it is on mobile devices. In
this paper, we focus on the problem of energy wastes when
tasks are assigned to remote cloud servers or heterogeneous
core processors. Our solution aims to minimize the total energy
cost of the mobile heterogeneous embedded systems by using
an optimal task assignment to heterogeneous cores and mobile
clouds. The propose model is named as Energy-Aware Heterogeneous Resource Management Model (EA-HRM2), which is
supported by a main algorithm Optimal Heterogeneous Task
Assignment (OHTA) algorithm. Our experimental evaluations
have proved our approach is effective to save energy when
deploying heterogenous embedded systems in mobile cloud
systems.
Index TermsEnergy-aware, task assignment, heterogeneous cloud computing, NP-hard

I. I NTRODUCTION
Mobile technology has been enabling embedded systems
to become a ubiquitous existence changing peoples life in
multiple dimensions, from smart phones to mobile vehicular
systems [1], [2]. As an emerging technology, Mobile Heterogeneous Embedded Systems (MHES) is considered one
of the growing trends in the mainstream of mobile devices
that balance the high performance and cost [3], [4]. This
trend has been empowered by the rapid development of
cloud computing in recent years [5], [6]. Heavy workloads
on mobile devices are ofoaded to the cloud servers, by
which the energy consumptions are reduced [7], [8]. However, current solutions cannot solve the conicts between
the consumption of the wireless communications and the
target of saving energy when the local energy uses are

Fig. 1: The architecture of the proposed model.

Focusing on this target, we propose a novel model,
named Energy-Aware Heterogenous Resource Management
Model (EA-HRM2), in order to achieve high performance
computation capacity by using the minimized energy. Fig.
1 represents the architecture of the proposed model, by
which the tasks are dynamically assigned to heterogeneous
cores and remote processors. The task assignment targets at
minimizing the total costs.
We propose our algorithm, Optimal Heterogeneous Task
Assignment (OHTA), in order to achieve our designed goal.

M. Qiu is the corresponding author of this paper. Email address:

mqiu@pace.edu
This work has been partially supported by the projects National
Science Foundation (No. 1457506) and the Open Research Project of
the State Key Laboratory of Industrial Control Technology, Zhejiang
University, China ICT1600236 (Prof. M. Qiu).

978-1-5090-0946-6/16 $31.00 2016 IEEE

DOI 10.1109/CSCloud.2016.48

198

The algorithm aims to dynamically assign the tasks to

various cores and remote clouds. The tasks assignment
is based on the cost mapping and our proposed optimal
alternatives and adjustments. The algorithm consists of two
steps: 1) generate a sub-optimal solution, and 2) generate
an optimal solution by optimizing adjustments.
Our proposed model is an attempt of achieving high
performance MES with lower-level energy requirements.
The main contributions of this paper include:
1) We propose a novel optimal approach for minimizing
the computation energy costs for MHES in cloud
systems by intelligently assigning the tasks to cores
or remote cloud servers.
2) We propose a solution to heterogeneous task assignment problem for MES used in the cloud environment,
which is a NP-hard problem.
The rest of this paper is organized by the following
sections. A motivational example is represented in Section
II. Align with the motivational example, we explain the
mechanism and system denitions in Section III. Next,
in Section III, we illustrate the main algorithm proposed
for our model. In addition, we display and analyze partial
experimental results in Section V. Next, we represent the
detailed descriptions of our model in Section III. Finally,
we give the conclusions in Section VI.

C Table representing the energy consumptions for each task

at each model for the given example. For instance, Task 1
needs 8.95 units energy at Core 1 but only requires 3.2 units
energy at Core 3.
TABLE I: C Table: Energy consumptions for each task at
each mode for the given example.
T
C1
C2
C3
MC
1
8.95
4.56
3.2
9.75
2
7.86
6.62 4.77
10.45
3
7.88
6.31 2.61
8.24
4
6.96
6.06 3.75
4.04
5
7.05
4.55
3.7
4.96
6
7.57
5.16 3.93
3.49
7
7.58
5.42 2.57
11.98
8
8.54
4.92 2.08
11.86
9
8.98
5.05 4.53
4.91
10
8.62
5.59 4.64
6.62
11
7.06
4.23 2.21
11.48
a T : Tasks; C : Core 1; C : Core 2; C : Core 3; M C: Mobile Cloud
1
2
3
Server.
b The same notations are used in Table II, III, and IV.

Therefore, the inputs of this example include a group of

tasks from a directed acyclic task graph in Fig. 2. The output
is a task assignment that can minimize the total energy costs
of all tasks. Our solution mainly consists of three steps.
First, we group these tasks into three nodes, according to
the preceding-and succeeding relations. For example, there
are four nodes in this example, Node A, B, C, and D.
Therefore, {1} Node A, {2, 3, 4} Node B, {5, 6, 7,
8} Node C, and {9, 10, 11} Node D.

II. M OTIVATIONAL E XAMPLE

We represent a simple example to explain the basic
mechanism of our proposed scheme in this section. The
application scenario is congured as processing a few input
tasks that have preceding-and-succeeding relations. Fig. 2
represents a directed acyclic task graph representing the
given examples task path. There are 11 tasks in total, as
shown in the gure. Task 1 is the entry task and Task 9, 10,
and 11 are exit tasks.

TABLE II: G Table generated for the given example

Nodes
Node 1
Node 2

Node 3

Node 4

T
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

C1
8.95
7.86
7.88
6.96
7.05
7.57
7.58
8.54
8.98
8.62
7.06

C2
4.56
6.62
6.31
6.06
4.55
5.16
5.42
4.92
5.05
5.59
4.23

C3
3.2
4.77
2.61
3.75
3.7
3.93
2.57
2.08
4.53
4.64
2.21

MC
9.75
10.45
8.24
4.04
4.96
3.49
11.98
11.86
4.91
6.62
11.48

Second, we use greedy algorithm to produce a suboptimal solution. At each node, we alternative the available
core requiring the lowest power task by task, which also
includes the cloud-side processors. Finishing this step can
generate a G Table, which uses greedy algorithm to gain a
sub-optimal solution. Table II represents an example of G
Table in which the selected cores are bolded.
Finally, we use our proposed algorithm to generate a D
Table that is an optimal solution based on the G Table.
For reaching this goal, we make a few adjustments on G
Table by operating OHTA algorithm. Table IV represents
an adjusted G Table that shows an optimal alternative. The
adjusted core assignments are marked by *.

Fig. 2: Task graph representing the given examples task

path.
These tasks need to be processed on the given MHES in
which there are three heterogeneous cores. The execution
energy costs are varied at the different cores. Meanwhile,
the tasks can be alternatively ofoaded to the remote cloud
servers for reducing the total energy cost. We use C Table to
map tasks energy costs at various cores. Table I displays a

199

plan, P . Our target problem is how to minimize the total

energy cost by executing P .

TABLE III: Example showing the adjustment for Task 5, 6,

7, and 8 from G Table to nal assignments.
S1
T
5
6
7
8
S2
T
5
6
7
8
S3
T
5
6
7
8
a

Assignments with Costs

Assignment from G Table
C1
C2
C3
MC
7.05
4.55
3.7
4.96
7.57
5.16
3.93
3.49
7.58
5.42
2.57
11.98
8.54
4.92
2.08
11.86

Adjustment Mid-Process
C1
C2
C3
MC
7.05
4.55
3.7
4.96
7.57
5.16
3.93
3.49
7.58
5.42
2.57
11.98
8.54
4.92
2.08
11.86

Final Task Assignment
C1
C2
C3
MC
7.05
4.55
3.7
4.96
7.57
5.16
3.93
3.49
7.58
5.42
2.57
11.98
8.54
4.92
2.08
11.86

As dened in Dention 1, inputs of this problem include

a chain of tasks that are attached to a directed acyclic task
graph, represented as G = (V, E). G refers to the directed
acyclic task graph; V refers to the tasks involved in G;
E refers to the edge between tasks. Therefore, there exists
w tasks vi and every task vi belongs to V . ei (vm , vn )
E represents the proceeding-succeeding relations between
tasks. Moreover, inputs also include a CT able that maps
each tasks energy requirement at each core, represented
as C(vi ,cj ) . For remote cloud-side cores, we calculate the
energy consumption by summing up all costs caused data
transmissions, including sending out and receiving data.
The output will be a task assignment plan, marked as
a P . Our objective is to nd out the approach that can
dynamically alternative premier cores that produces the
lowest energy consumptions. The total energy cost, Ctotal ,
is a sum of all tasks energy costs. The formulation of total
cost calculation is given by Equation 1. vi (cj ) represents
the task vi cost at core cj .

Adjustment Operation Proce.

Initialize CD from G Table
C1
C2
C3
MC
3.35
0.85
0
1.26
4.08
1.67
0.44
0
2.16
0
-2.85
6.56
0
-3.62
-6.46
3.32
The Corresponding CD
C1
C2
C3
MC
0
-2.5
-3.35
-2.09
4.08
1.67
0.44
0
2.16
0
-2.85
6.56
6.46
2.84
0
9.78
C1
2.5
4.08
7.58
6.46

Final CD
C2
0
1.67
5.42
2.84

Mapping
C3
MC
-0.85
0.41
0.44
0
2.57
11.98
0
9.78

CD: cost differences. Si : Step i. (e.g.: S1 means Step 1.)

TABLE IV: D Table: developed for the optimal solution

deriving from G Table (after adjustments)

Ctotal =

w


vi (cj )

(1)

i=1

T
C1
C2
C3
MC
1
8.95
4.56
3.2
9.75
2
7.86
6.62*
4.77
10.45
Node 2
3
7.88
6.31
2.61*
8.24
4
6.96
6.06
3.75
4.04
5
7.05
4.55*
3.7
4.96
6
7.57
5.16
3.93
3.49
Node 3
7
7.58*
5.42
2.57
11.98
8
8.54
4.92
2.08*
11.86
9
8.98
5.05
4.53
4.91*
Node 4
10
8.62
5.59
4.64
6.62
11
7.06
4.23
2.21*
11.48
The task assignment plan is: Task 1 Core 3, Task 2 Core 2, Task
3 Core 3, Task 4 MC, Task 5 Core 2, Task 6 MC, Task
7 Core 1, Task 8 Core 3, Task 9 MC, Task 10 Core 2,
and Task 11 Core 3,

The challenging issue in this problem is that it is hard

to gain the optimal solution to task assignment in heterogeneous cores. A combination by traversing all situation
is usually required to compare the results for gaining the
minimum result. Section III-B gives a detailed description
about the process of gaining optimal solutions.

Nodes
Node 1

B. Energy-Aware Heterogeneous Resource Management

Model (EA-HRM2)
EA-HRM2 model consists of a few processes, including
Preprocessing Process (PP), Sub-optimal Solution Generation Process (S2GP), and Optimal Solution Generation
Process (OSGP). The crucial component is OSGP in which
adjustments will be made for producing the optimal solution
from the outputs of S2GP.

Therefore, using our scheme only needs 46.88 units

energy, which is less than 56.65 units energy that is required
by Greedy programming. Detailed descriptions are given by
the succeeding sections.
III. C ONCEPTS AND THE P ROPOSED M ODEL
We dene the system denitions and the main concepts
in this section.
A. Problem Statement and Denition
Denition 1. Energy Minimization Problem on Heterogeneous Computing (EMPHC): The inputs include
a directed acyclic task graph G=(V, E). vi V ,
ei (vm , vn ) E. Each node vi is a task. Each ei (vm , vn )
refers to the edge between nodes vm and vn showing the
task preceding-succeeding relations. Heterogeneous cores
cj . C Table, C, maps each tasks energy cost C(vi ,cj ) at
each core. C={(Vi , C(vi ,cj ) )}. Output is a task assignment

Fig. 3: Manipulative process of the Energy-Aware Heterogeneous Resource Management Model (EA-HRM2)
Fig. 3 illustrates the manipulative process of EA-HRM2
model. According to the gure, nodes will be generated

200

when the tasks are inputted, which can simplify the process
structure. Next, a C Table will be created for mapping
energy consumptions. An example of C Table is given by
Table I. Moreover, we use greedy algorithm to generate a
sub-optimal assignment solution, which is represented by a
G Table. Based on this table, we use our proposed algorithm
to accomplish a series of adjustments to eventually create an
optimal assignment solution that is a D Table. Assign this
D Table to the output Data Allocation Plan. The crucial
process of this mechanism is the adjustment operation from
the sub-optimal to the optimal solution. The detailed method
of the adjustments is given in our algorithm descriptions in
Section IV.

Algorithm IV.1 Optimal Heterogeneous Task Assignment

(OHTA) algorithm
Require: CT able, T askAssignment (Sub-optimal Assignment Plan)
Ensure: T askAssignment (Optimal Plan)
1: Input
CT able, Sub-optimal Assignment Plan
T askAssignment
2: for Task[i] do
3:
Cost taskCost[i][taskAssignment[i]]
4:
for taskCost[i][j] do
5:
taskCostDiff[i][j] taskCost[i][j] - Cost
6:
end for
7: end for
8: Swtich True
9: while Switch do
10:
for task[i] do
11:
Find the index of the minimum costs, (MinIndex),
from taskCostDiff
12:
/*The minimum cost: minCost*/
13:
if minCost < 0 then
14:
for task[j] do
15:
if taskCostDiff[j][MinIndex] == 0 then
16:
Break
17:
end if
18:
end for
19:
if taskCostDiff[i][MinIndex] + taskCostDiff[j][taskAssignment[i]] < 0 then
20:
taskAssignment[i] taskAssignment[j]
21:
/*Switch taskAssignment[i] and taskAssignment[j]*/
22:
if coreAvailable[k] && taskCost[i][k] <
taskCost[i][taskAssignment[i]] then
23:
taskAssignment[i]k
24:
end if
25:
if coreAvailable[k] && taskCost[j][k] <
taskCost[j][taskAssignment[j]] then
26:
taskAssignment[j]k
27:
end if
28:
Cost taskCost[i][taskAssignment[i]]
29:
for taskCost[i][k] do
30:
taskCostDiff[i][k] taskCost[i][k] - Cost
31:
end for
32:
Cost taskCost[j][taskAssignment[j]]
33:
for taskCost[j][k] do
34:
taskCostDiff[j][k] taskCost[j][k] - Cost
35:
end for
36:
end if
37:
end if
38:
end for
39: end while
40: Output taskAssignment

IV. A LGORITHMS
This section introduces our main algorithm used in EAHRM2 model. The algorithm is entitled as the Optimal
Heterogeneous Task Assignment (OHTA) algorithm, which
is designed to obtain the optimal solution by adjusting the
sub-optimal solution. The solution is an adoptable approach
for solving EMPHC problem.
Meanwhile, the inputs of our algorithm include a C Table
and a TaskAssignment. C Table refers to a table that maps
all energy consumptions for each task at each available
core. TaskAssignment is a sub-optimal task assignment plan
that can be gained by using Greedy algorithm [19]. This
algorithms output is new TaskAssignment, which is made by
adjusting the sub-optimal solution. Pseudo codes of OHTA
is given by Algorithm IV.1.
The main phases of our algorithm include:
1) Input CT able and T askAssignment that is a suboptimal assignment plan.
2) We generate a table, Temp, for adjustment operations
deriving from the T askAssignment. We use the assigned cores cost subtract from all task costs for the
same task and map the results into Temp.
3) For each task at each task group, we search the lowest
energy cost value. If there is a value A is less than 0, a
comparison will be given between A and another value.
Assume A is a cost of task T1 and T1 s assignment is
B. Task T2 is assigned to the core with the value C
that is as same as As corresponding core. D is the
value that is corresponding to B. We will switch the
alternative B and C if A+D<0.
4) Repeat the adjustment operations until there is no
A+D<0 situations.
5) Output the assignment plan according the nal table.
V. E XPERIMENT AND THE R ESULTS
We describe our experiment congurations in Section
V-A and illustrate a few experimental results, analyses, and
ndings in Section V-B.
A. Experimental Conguration
The experimental environment was established in our lab.
We developed a simulator that was specically designed and
operated for this experiment to simulate the cloud computing applications. The hardware setting in this experiment

201

included an HP server having an 8-core CPU, a 9 GM

memory, and the MySQL 5.7. For simulating the cloud side,
we installed a VMWare workstation and a Ubuntu 15.04
LTS Server on the VMWare workstation.
Moreover, we compared our proposed scheme, EAHRM2, with other two active algorithms, Greedy [19]
and First-in-First-Out (FIFO) algorithms. We congured
four experimental settings for assessing the performance
of the proposed model. These two settings considered two
examining aspects, including energy saving performance
and execution time. There were mainly three variables in
our experiments: the number of the input tasks (T), the costs
of the available core (C), and the number of task groups (G).
Four experimental settings are:
Setting 1: We congured 100 simulations for this
setting and each simulation consists of 6 tasks (T), 3
available cores (C), and data are grouped into 3 groups.
Setting 2: We congured 100 simulations for this
setting and each simulation consists of 11 tasks (T), 4
available cores (C), and data are grouped into 4 groups.
Setting 3: We congured 100 simulations for this
setting and each simulation consists of 20 tasks (T), 5
available cores (C), and data are grouped into 5 groups.
Setting 4: We congured 100 simulations for this
setting and each simulation consists of 100 tasks (T),
20 available cores (C), and data are grouped into 10
groups.
The following section provides some experimental results
based on the implementations of these four settings.

Fig. 4: Comparisons for the assignment plan generation time

consumptions under four settings, Setting 1-4.

B. Experimental Results
Fig. 4 represents comparisons for the task assignment
plan generation time consumptions under four settings. We
found that our proposed model required longer execution
time for generating the task assignments than Greedy and
FIFO algorithms. It was reasonable and logical that FIFO
algorithm had the shortest execution time since it needed the
least computation volumes. Greedy algorithm also requires
less computations than EA-HRM2. However, as a solution to
a NP-hard problem, our proposed schemes execution time
is in an acceptable time scope.
Fig. 5 represents comparison results of the energy-saving
among EA-HRM2, Greedy, and FIFO under Setting 1. We
selected 10 experimental results out of 100 simulations and
illustrated the results in the gure. According to the gure,
our proposed scheme had better performances in most cases
under this setting.
Fig. 6 illustrates 10 experimental results under Setting 2,
which were selected from 100 simulations. The advantage in
saving energy of our proposed scheme was still obvious. The
energy consumptions of EA-HRM2 were much lower than
FIFO in all cases. However, more energy consumptions by
using Greedy algorithm were close to our proposed scheme.
Furthermore, Fig. 7 shows a few experimental results
under Setting 4. Our scheme is still greatly superior to
FIFO. However, EA-HRM2s energy costs were slightly
lower than Greedy. The reasons of causing this situation
might be twofold. First, the optimal solutions could be

Fig. 5: 10 comparison results for the energy saving among

EA-HRM2, Greedy, and FIFO under Setting 1.

Fig. 6: 10 comparison results for the energy saving among

EA-HRM2, Greedy, and FIFO under Setting 2.

generated by Greedy algorithm in our simulations. Second,

the increased availability of cores has a positive relationship
with the chance of using Greedy algorithm to produce
optimal solutions.

202

R EFERENCES
[1] Y. Li, W. Dai, Z. Ming, and M. Qiu. Privacy protection for preventing
data over-collection in smart city. IEEE Transactions on Computers,
PP:1, 2015.
[2] K. Gai, M. Qiu, H. Zhao, L. Tao, and Z. Zong. Dynamic energy-aware
cloudlet-based mobile cloud computing model for green computing.
Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 59:4654, 2015.
[3] M. Qiu, J. Niu, L. Yang, X. Qin, S. Zhang, and B. Wang. Energyaware loop parallelism maximization for multi-core DSP architectures. In Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE/ACM Intl Conf. on Green
Computing and Communications & Intl Conf. on Cyber, Physical and
Social Computing, pages 205212. IEEE Computer Society, 2010.
[4] M. Qiu, L. Yang, Z. Shao, and E. Sha. Dynamic and leakage
energy minimization with soft real-time loop scheduling and voltage
assignment. IEEE Trans. on Very Large Scale Integration Syst.,
18(3):501504, 2010.
[5] M. Qiu, M. Zhong, J. Li, K. Gai, and Z. Zong. Phase-change
memory optimization for green cloud with genetic algorithm. IEEE
Transactions on Computers, 64(12):3528 3540, 2015.
[6] M. Qiu, Z. Ming, J. Li, J. Liu, G. Quan, and Y. Zhu. Informer homed
routing fault tolerance mechanism for wireless sensor networks.
Journal of Systems Architecture, 59(4):260270, 2013.
[7] M. Qiu, W. Gao, M. Chen, J. Niu, and L. Zhang. Energy efcient
security algorithm for power grid wide area monitoring system. IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid, 2(4):715723, 2011.
[8] M. Qiu, Z. Chen, Z. Ming, X. Qin, and J. Niu. Energy-aware data
allocation with hybrid memory for mobile cloud systems. IEEE
Systems Journal, PP:110, 2014.
[9] M. Qiu, Z. Chen, J. Niu, G. Quan, X. Qin, and L. Yang. Data allocation for hybrid memory with genetic algorithm. IEEE Transactions
on Emerging Topics in Computing, pp:111, 2015.
[10] J. Li, Z. Ming, M. Qiu, G. Quan, X. Qin, and T. Chen. Resource
allocation robustness in multi-core embedded systems with inaccurate
information. Journal of Systems Architecture, 57(9):840849, 2011.
[11] G. Wu, H. Zhang, M. Qiu, Z. Ming, J. Li, and X. Qin. A
decentralized approach for mining event correlations in distributed
system monitoring. Journal of parallel and Distributed Computing,
73(3):330340, 2013.
[12] M. Qiu, Z. Ming, J. Li, , S. Liu, B. Wang, and Z. Lu. Three-phase
time-aware energy minimization with DVFS and unrolling for chip
multiprocessors. J. of Syst. Architecture, 58(10):439445, 2012.
[13] J. Niu, Y. Gao, M. Qiu, and Z. Ming. Selecting proper wireless
network interfaces for user experience enhancement with guaranteed probability. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing,
72(12):15651575, 2012.
[14] K. Gai, Z. Du, M. Qiu, and H. Zhao. Efciency-aware workload
optimizations of heterogenous cloud computing for capacity planning
in nancial industry. In The 2nd IEEE International Conference on
Cyber Security and Cloud Computing, pages 16, New York, USA,
2015. IEEE.
[15] K. Gai and S. Li. Towards cloud computing: a literature review on
cloud computing and its development trends. In 2012 Fourth Intl
Conf. on Multimedia Information Networking and Security, pages
142146, Nanjing, China, 2012.
[16] K. Gai, M. Qiu, L. Tao, and Y. Zhu. Intrusion detection techniques
for mobile cloud computing in heterogeneous 5G. Security and
Communication Networks, pages 110, 2015.
[17] K. Gai and A. Steenkamp. A feasibility study of Platform-as-aService using cloud computing for a global service organization.
Journal of Information System Applied Research, 7:2842, 2014.
[18] K. Gai, M. Qiu, S. Jayaraman, and L. Tao. Ontology-based knowledge
representation for secure self-diagnosis in patient-centered telehealth
with cloud systems. In The 2nd IEEE International Conference on
Cyber Security and Cloud Computing, pages 98103, New York,
USA, 2015. IEEE.
[19] J. Li, M. Qiu, Z. Ming, G. Quan, X. Qin, and Z. Gu. Online
optimization for scheduling preemptable tasks on IaaS cloud systems.
Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, 72(5):666677, 2012.

Fig. 7: 10 comparison results for the energy saving among

EA-HRM2, Greedy, and FIFO under Setting 3.

Fig. 8: 10 comparison results for the energy saving among

EA-HRM2, Greedy, and FIFO under Setting 4.

In addition, Fig. 8 displays some experimental results under Setting 4. The similar situations to Setting 3 took place.
A higher-level core availability could increase the chance of
using Greedy algorithm to make optimal assignments.
In summary, our experimental evaluations had proved that
our proposed scheme had a great advantage in saving energy
due to the optimal task assignments. The plan generations
required a longer time, but the execution time was within
an acceptable range.
VI. C ONCLUSIONS
This paper focused on the issue of task mitigations by
using MHES in cloud computing and aimed to reduce
the total energy consumption by producing optimal task
assignment plans. The proposed model, EA-HRM2, was
designed to solve the energy minimization problem on heterogeneous computing that is a NP-hard problem. The main
algorithm used in this model was OHTA that was proposed
for producing optimal task assignments. Our experimental
evaluations had proved our proposed model was superior in
saving energy.

203