Per-Platform GPIO Overhead in Hardware-Validated Edge ML Inference Timing
Akul Swami, Nikhil Chougule
- Year
- 2026
- Access
- Open access
Abstract
Edge machine learning (ML) deployments increasingly rely on per-inference timing measured by software clocks such as Python's perf_counter, but these measurements are not always validated against external hardware references on embedded Linux, and edge ML benchmarking methodologies typically do not isolate platform-dependent instrumentation overhead. This paper reports a preliminary characterization of GPIO call overhead in hardware-validated edge ML inference timing on two embedded platforms running a one-dimensional convolutional neural network (1-D CNN) arrhythmia classifier on electrocardiogram (ECG) data from the MIT-BIH Arrhythmia Database, with five classes per the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI) EC57 standard. Across $n = 10$ trials on each platform at a controlled steady-state baseline, the per-platform constant on the Jetson Orin Nano (TensorRT FP16, Jetson.GPIO) is approximately $-20\,μ$s, and on the Raspberry Pi 4 (ONNX Runtime CPU, pigpio) approximately $-86\,μ$s, yielding a cross-platform asymmetry of approximately $66\,μ$s that is large relative to commonly used uniform validation tolerances. The Jetson constant is well-approximated by direct GPIO call duration (the direct profile accounts for ~88% of the platform constant), while the Pi direct profile over-predicts the platform constant by ~19%, motivating empirical per-platform calibration in the deployed measurement context. The Pi constant is not a single sharp value but exhibits a cross-day range of approximately $6\,μ$s across the three sessions sampled, while the Jetson constant reproduces to within approximately $0.14\,μ$s. These preliminary results suggest that cross-platform edge ML timing studies may benefit from platform-aware and potentially session-aware validation gates.
Keywords
Related papers
The Organization of Behavior
D. O. Hebb
2005
Fractional Brownian Motions, Fractional Noises and Applications
Benoît B. Mandelbrot, John W. Van Ness
1968
Review of deep learning: concepts, CNN architectures, challenges, applications, future directions
Laith Alzubaidi, Jinglan Zhang, Amjad J. Humaidi +7 more
2021
A guide to deep learning in healthcare
Andre Esteva, Alexandre Robicquet, Bharath Ramsundar +7 more
2018