Organizations: School of Computer Science, Wuhan University · School of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, Wuhan University of Technology · OPPO Guangdong Mobile Communications Co., Ltd.
Dynamic Voltage and Frequency Scaling is essential for enhancing energy efficiency in mobile platforms. However, traditional heuristic-based governors are increasingly inadequate for managing the complexity of heterogeneous System-on-Chip designs and diverse application workloads. Although reinforcement learning approaches offer improved performance, their poor generalization capability and reliance on extensive retraining for each hardware and application combination leads to significant deployment costs. In this work, we observe that device and application metadata inherently encapsulate valuable knowledge for DVFS, presenting an opportunity to overcome these limitations. We formulate DVFS for heterogeneous devices and applications as a multi-task reinforcement learning problem. We introduce MetaDVFS, which is a metadata-guided framework that systematically leverages metadata to discover and transfer shared knowledge across DVFS tasks. MetaDVFS can output a set of DVFS models with significant generalization capability for various applications of heterogeneous devices. Evaluations on five Google Pixel devices running six applications show that MetaDVFS achieves up to 17% improvement in Performance-Power Ratio and up to 26% improvement in Quality of Experience. Compared to state-of-the-art methods, MetaDVFS delivers 70.8% faster adaptation and 5.8-27.6% higher performance over standalone device-application specific training, while avoiding negative transfer effects. These results establish MetaDVFS as an effective and scalable solution for DVFS deployment in heterogeneous mobile environments.
Figures & tables
Device Name
Core Count
Chipset Vendor
Process Node
CPU Topology
CPU Freq Range
GPU Freq Range
Pixel3
8
Qualcomm
10nm FinFET
4+4
300–2803MHz
257–710MHz
Pixel4
8
Qualcomm
7nm FinFET
1+3+4
300–2841MHz
180–670MHz
Pixel6
8
Google
5nm
2+2+4
300–2850MHz
151–848MHz
Pixel8
9
Google
4nm
1+4+4
324–2914MHz
151–903MHz
Pixel9
8
Google
4nm
1+3+4
357–3105MHz
151–1000MHz
TABLE I: Examples of Metadata Items in Mobile Devices
Figure 2
Name/Model
model_3
model_4
model_6
model_8
model_9
Pixel3
1.00
0.97
1.62
1.51
1.55
Pixel4
2.26
1.00
1.29
1.76
1.83
Pixel6
5.07
1.24
1.00
1.09
1.28
Pixel8
3.00
1.03
1.29
1.00
1.17
Pixel9
3.38
1.12
1.48
1.16
1.00
TABLE II: Performance Comparison of Converged Models Across Different Devices
Fig. 4: FLOPS and energy efficiency rate versus frequency.
Fig. 5: MetaDVFS Model Architecture
Fig. 6: Metadata-driven Task Definition Process: (a) Task forest initialization with individual device-application datasets, and (b) Bottom-up task combination based on metadata similarity and Q-value optimization
Fig. 7: MAML-based meta-learning process for cluster-specific adaptation
Fig. 8: Comprehensive performance evaluation across three analytical perspectives.
Fig. 9: Ablation study across three analytical perspectives.
Fig. 10: Task definition effectiveness analysis showing improvement percentages over device-application-specific training across 5 devices and 6 applications.
Fig. 11: Adaptation time comparison across device-application tasks sorted by device complexity and application difficulty. MetaDVFS achieves 70.8% faster adaptation (3.5±1.1 minutes) compared to incremental training (11.8±5.2 minutes).
Fig. 12: Sensitivity to the task size upper bound ( τ ): normalized FQE-Q value and normalized task definition time across varying maximum device-application combinations per task.
Stage
Time Cost
Data collection for all tasks
20 min (parallel)
Metadata-driven task definition
3 hours
Meta-model training per task
30 min (parallelizable)
New device-application combination adaptation
about 5 min
TABLE III: Offline Processing Pipeline Time Cost
Interval (ms)
CPU Usage (%)
Memory (MB)
20
9.5
18.2
100
5.8
18.3
500
3.1
18.1
1000
2.4
18.0
TABLE IV: Overhead Under Different Frequency Adjustment Intervals
Department of Computer Science Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA · Department of Computer Science University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA · Department of Computer Science Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA