It also sheds light on the problems that the chosen path yielded.
There are often competing and valid interests when the duty to accommodate is engaged.
For example, is it legitimate to require a Sikh employee to wear a hardhat for safety reasons, when such a request may violate his religious beliefs?
Shrinking process technologies and growing chip sizes have profound effects on process variation.
This leads to Chip Multiprocessors (CMPs) where not all cores operate at maximum frequency.
For example, in British Columbia Maritime Employers Assn. International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 500 (Dhillon Grievance), the arbitrator found that the employer was not required to allow employees to work in positions without a hard hat where one was required by policy.
In this case, the employer’s process for accommodating such employees by providing them access to other jobs (even if those jobs were preferred positions) satisfied its duty to accommodate.However, with non-uniform workload partitioning, we find that using both low and high frequency cores improves performance and reduces energy consumption over just running faster cores.Thread scheduling and workload partitioning naturally play significant roles in these improvements.Essentially, an employer must provide a workplace that recognizes the differences in a diverse society.If employees are adversely affected because of a proscribed ground, an employer must seek to “accommodate” those employees to the point of undue hardship.Finally, we show feasible methods to determine at run time whether using a heterogeneous configuration is beneficial.