Automatic Nested Loop Acceleration on FPGAs Using Soft CGRA Overlay

Session 1: HLS Toolingpostprin

High-Level Design Space and Flexibility Exploration for Adaptive, Energy-Efficient WCDMA Channel Estimation Architectures

Due to the fast changing wireless communication standards coupled with strict performance constraints, the demand for flexible yet high-performance architectures is increasing. To tackle the flexibility requirement, software-defined radio (SDR) is emerging as an obvious solution, where the underlying hardware implementation is tuned via software layers to the varied standards depending on power-performance and quality requirements leading to adaptable, cognitive radio. In this paper, we conduct a case study for representatives of two complexity classes of WCDMA channel estimation algorithms and explore the effect of flexibility on energy efficiency using different implementation options. Furthermore, we propose new design guidelines for both highly specialized architectures and highly flexible architectures using high-level synthesis, to enable the required performance and flexibility to support multiple applications. Our experiments with various design points show that the resulting architectures meet the performance constraints of WCDMA and a wide range of options are offered for tuning such architectures depending on power/performance/area constraints of SDR

Description and Specialization of Coarse-grained Reconfigurable Architectures

The functionality of electronic embedded systems, such as mobile phones and digital cameras, becomes more complex at each product generation. This increasing complexity implies great challenges at the design phase of these devices, as designers have to deal with high performance and low energy requirements at a low production budget. In the last years, coarse-grained, dynamically reconfigurable computer systems have increasingly gain in importance as an alternative to cope with these challenges because they provide an optimal trade-off between flexibility-after-production and performance. Like generic purpose processors, coarse-grained reconfigurable systems can be quickly reprogrammed to perform new tasks, but they keep their performance and energy consumption near to ASIC standards. The design of coarse-grained reconfigurable processors is the main theme in this work. In the first part of this dissertation, I present a new architecture description language that was designed for the description of coarse-grained, reconfigurable systems. This language allows an efficient specification of processor arrays and the description of scalable interconnection networks. The second part of this dissertation investigates the specialization of coarse-grained reconfigurable processors towards an application domain by using custom instruction sets. This work presents methods, techniques, and tools to recognize and extract clusters of operations from a set of application. These clusters serve as patterns for the design of an optimal custom instruction set. Experiments and results are presented, which analyze and assess the impact of custom instructions on coarse-grained processor arrays.Die Funktionalität eingebetteter Systeme wie Mobiltelefone und digitale Foto-Kameras wird zunehmend umfangreicher und bürdet dem Entwurf dieser Geräte hohe Herausforderungen auf, wie z.B. hohe Ausführungsgeschwindigkeit, niedrige Herstellungskosten und geringeren Energieverbrauch. Um diese Herausforderungen zu bewältigen, gewinnen grobgranulare dynamische rekonfigurierbare Rechnersysteme schnell an Bedeutung, denn sie bieten einen optimalen trade-off zwischen Flexibilität nach der Herstellung und Performanz. Wie allgemeine Prozessoren, können grobgranulare rekonfigurierbare Systeme während der Ausführungszeit schnell umprogrammiert werden, um neue Funktionalitäten auszuführen, behalten aber immer noch eine ASIC-ähnliche Performanz und Verlustleistungsverbrauch. Der Entwurf grobgranularer rekonfigurierbarer Bausteine ist das Thema dieser Dissertation. Im ersten Teil dieser Dissertation wird eine Sprache vorgestellt, die für die Beschreibung grobgranularer rekonfigurierbarer Systeme entwickelt wurde. Diese Sprache ermöglicht eine effiziente Spezifikation von Prozessoren-Arrays und die Beschreibung skalierbarer Netzwerkverbindungen. Der zweite Teil untersucht die Anpassung grobgranularer rekonfigurierbarer Bausteine an Anwendungssätze mittels spezialisierter Befehle. Methoden werden vorgestellt zur Erkennung und Extraktion von Operationsmustern aus einem Anwendungssatz. Diese Operationsmuster dienen dann zum Entwurf eines optimalen spezialisierten Befehlsatzes. Als Ergebnisse werden die Wirkungen von spezialisierten Befehlsätzen in grobgranularen Arrays analysiert und bewertet

Area and Reconfiguration Time Minimization of the Communication Network in Regular 2D Reconfigurable Architectures

International audienceIn this paper, we introduce a constraint programming- based approach for the optimization of area and of reconfiguration time for communication networks for a class of regular 2D reconfigurable processor array architectures. For a given set of different algorithms the execution of which is supposed to be switched upon request at run-time, we provide static solutions for the optimal routing of data between processors. Here, we support also multi-casting data transfers for the first time. The routing found by our method minimizes the area or the reconfiguration time of the communication network, when switching between the execution of these algorithms. In fact, when switching, the communication network reconfiguration can be executed in just a few clock cycles. Moreover the communication network area can be minimized signifiHeidelbergcantly (62% in average)

Flip: Data-Centric Edge CGRA Accelerator

Coarse-Grained Reconfigurable Arrays (CGRA) are promising edge accelerators due to the outstanding balance in flexibility, performance, and energy efficiency. Classic CGRAs statically map compute operations onto the processing elements (PE) and route the data dependencies among the operations through the Network-on-Chip. However, CGRAs are designed for fine-grained static instruction-level parallelism and struggle to accelerate applications with dynamic and irregular data-level parallelism, such as graph processing. To address this limitation, we present Flip, a novel accelerator that enhances traditional CGRA architectures to boost the performance of graph applications. Flip retains the classic CGRA execution model while introducing a special data-centric mode for efficient graph processing. Specifically, it exploits the natural data parallelism of graph algorithms by mapping graph vertices onto processing elements (PEs) rather than the operations, and supporting dynamic routing of temporary data according to the runtime evolution of the graph frontier. Experimental results demonstrate that Flip achieves up to 36$\times$ speedup with merely 19% more area compared to classic CGRAs. Compared to state-of-the-art large-scale graph processors, Flip has similar energy efficiency and 2.2$\times$ better area efficiency at a much-reduced power/area budget

Memory hierarchy and data communication in heterogeneous reconfigurable SoCs

The miniaturization race in the hardware industry aiming at continuous increasing of transistor density on a die does not bring respective application performance improvements any more. One of the most promising alternatives is to exploit a heterogeneous nature of common applications in hardware. Supported by reconfigurable computation, which has already proved its efficiency in accelerating data intensive applications, this concept promises a breakthrough in contemporary technology development. Memory organization in such heterogeneous reconfigurable architectures becomes very critical. Two primary aspects introduce a sophisticated trade-off. On the one hand, a memory subsystem should provide well organized distributed data structure and guarantee the required data bandwidth. On the other hand, it should hide the heterogeneous hardware structure from the end-user, in order to support feasible high-level programmability of the system. This thesis work explores the heterogeneous reconfigurable hardware architectures and presents possible solutions to cope the problem of memory organization and data structure. By the example of the MORPHEUS heterogeneous platform, the discussion follows the complete design cycle, starting from decision making and justification, until hardware realization. Particular emphasis is made on the methods to support high system performance, meet application requirements, and provide a user-friendly programmer interface. As a result, the research introduces a complete heterogeneous platform enhanced with a hierarchical memory organization, which copes with its task by means of separating computation from communication, providing reconfigurable engines with computation and configuration data, and unification of heterogeneous computational devices using local storage buffers. It is distinguished from the related solutions by distributed data-flow organization, specifically engineered mechanisms to operate with data on local domains, particular communication infrastructure based on Network-on-Chip, and thorough methods to prevent computation and communication stalls. In addition, a novel advanced technique to accelerate memory access was developed and implemented

Models, Design Methods and Tools for Improved Partial Dynamic Reconfiguration

Partial dynamic reconfiguration of FPGAs has attracted high attention from both academia and industry in recent years. With this technique, the functionality of the programmable devices can be adapted at runtime to changing requirements. The approach allows designers to use FPGAs more efficiently: E. g. FPGA resources can be time-shared between different functions and the functions itself can be adapted to changing workloads at runtime. Thus partial dynamic reconfiguration enables a unique combination of software-like flexibility and hardware-like performance. Still there exists no common understanding on how to assess the overhead introduced by partial dynamic reconfiguration. This dissertation presents a new cost model for both the runtime and the memory overhead that results from partial dynamic reconfiguration. It is shown how the model can be incorporated into all stages of the design optimization for reconfigurable hardware. In particular digital circuits can be mapped onto FPGAs such that only small fractions of the hardware must be reconfigured at runtime, which saves time, memory, and energy. The design optimization is most efficient if it is applied during high level synthesis. This book describes how the cost model has been integrated into a new high level synthesis tool. The tool allows the designer to trade-off FPGA resource use versus reconfiguration overhead. It is shown that partial reconfiguration causes only small overhead if the design is optimized with regard to reconfiguration cost. A wide range of experimental results is provided that demonstrates the benefits of the applied method.:1 Introduction 1 1.1 Reconfigurable Computing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1.1 Reconfigurable System on a Chip (RSOC) . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1.2 Anatomy of an Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.1.3 RSOC Design Characteristics and Trade-offs . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1.2 Classification of Reconfigurable Architectures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1.2.1 Partial Reconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1.2.2 Runtime Reconfiguration (RTR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1.2.3 Multi-Context Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1.2.4 Fine-Grain Logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1.2.5 Coarse-Grain Logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1.3 Reconfigurable Computing Specific Design Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1.4 Overview of this Dissertation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2 Reconfigurable Computing Systems – Background 17 2.1 Examples for RSOCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2.2 Partially Reconfigurable FPGAs: Xilinx Virtex Device Family . . . . . . 20 2.2.1 Virtex-II/Virtex-II Pro Logic Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2.2.2 Reconfiguration Architecture and Reconfiguration Control . . 21 2.3 Methods for Design Entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 2.3.1 Behavioural Design Entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 2.3.2 Design Entry at Register-Transfer Level (RTL) . . . . . . . . . . 25 2.3.3 Xilinx Early Access Partial Reconfiguration Design Flow . . . . 26 2.4 Task Management in Reconfigurable Computing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 2.4.1 Online and Offline Task Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 2.4.2 Task Scheduling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 2.4.3 Task Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 2.4.4 Reconfiguration Runtime Overhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 2.5 Configuration Data Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 2.6 Evaluation of Reconfigurable Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 2.6.1 Energy Efficiency Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 2.6.2 Area Efficiency Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 2.6.3 Runtime Efficiency Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 2.7 Similarity Based Reduction of Reconfiguration Overhead . . . . . . . . 38 2.7.1 Configuration Data Generation Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 2.7.2 Device Mapping Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 2.7.3 Circuit Design Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 2.7.4 Model for Partial Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 2.8 Contributions of this Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 3 Runtime Reconfiguration Cost and Optimization Methods 47 3.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 3.2 Reconfiguration State Graph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 3.2.1 Reconfiguration Time Overhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 3.2.2 Dynamic Configuration Data Overhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 3.3 Configuration Cost at Bitstream Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 3.4 Configuration Cost at Structural Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 3.4.1 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 3.4.2 Virtual Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 3.4.3 Reconfiguration Costs in the VA Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 3.5 Allocation Functions with Minimal Reconfiguration Costs . . . . . . . 67 3.5.1 Allocation of Node Pairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 3.5.2 Direct Allocation of Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 3.5.3 Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 3.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 4 Implementation Tools for Reconfigurable Computing 95 4.1 Mapping of Netlists to FPGA Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 4.1.1 Mapping to Device Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 4.1.2 Connectivity Transformations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 4.1.3 Mapping Variants and Reconfiguration Costs . . . . . . . . . . . 100 4.1.4 Mapping of Circuit Macros . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 4.1.5 Global Interconnect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 4.1.6 Netlist Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 4.2 Mapping Aware Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 4.2.1 Generalized Node Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 4.2.2 Successive Node Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 4.2.3 Node Allocation with Ant Colony Optimization . . . . . . . . . 107 4.2.4 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 4.3 Netlist Mapping with Minimized Reconfiguration Cost . . . . . . . . . 110 4.3.1 Mapping Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 4.3.2 Mapping and Packing of Elements into Logic Blocks . . . . . . 112 4.3.3 Logic Element Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 4.3.4 Logic Element Selection for Min. Routing Reconfiguration . . 115 4.3.5 Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 4.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 5 High-Level Synthesis for Reconfigurable Computing 125 5.1 Introduction to HLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 5.1.1 HLS Tool Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 5.1.2 Realization of the Hardware Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 5.2 New Concepts for Task-based Reconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 5.2.1 Multiple Hardware Tasks in one Reconfigurable Module . . . . 132 5.2.2 Multi-Level Reconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 5.2.3 Resource Sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 5.3 Datapath Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 5.3.1 Task Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 5.3.2 Resource Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 5.3.3 Resource Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 5.3.4 Scheduling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 5.3.5 Constraints for Scheduling and Resource Binding . . . . . . . . 151 5.4 Reconfiguration Optimized Datapath Implementation . . . . . . . . . . 153 5.4.1 Effects of Scheduling and Binding on Reconfiguration Costs . 153 5.4.2 Strategies for Resource Type Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 5.4.3 Strategies for Resource Instance Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 5.5 Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 5.5.1 Summary of Binding Methods and Tool Setup . . . . . . . . . . 163 5.5.2 Cost Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 5.5.3 Implementation Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 5.5.4 Benchmark Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 5.5.5 Benchmark Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 5.5.6 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 5.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 6 Summary and Outlook 185 Bibliography 189 A Simulated Annealing 201Partielle dynamische Rekonfiguration von FPGAs hat in den letzten Jahren große Aufmerksamkeit von Wissenschaft und Industrie auf sich gezogen. Die Technik erlaubt es, die Funktionalität von progammierbaren Bausteinen zur Laufzeit an veränderte Anforderungen anzupassen. Dynamische Rekonfiguration erlaubt es Entwicklern, FPGAs effizienter einzusetzen: z.B. können Ressourcen für verschiedene Funktionen wiederverwendet werden und die Funktionen selbst können zur Laufzeit an veränderte Verarbeitungsschritte angepasst werden. Insgesamt erlaubt partielle dynamische Rekonfiguration eine einzigartige Kombination von software-artiger Flexibilität und hardware-artiger Leistungsfähigkeit. Bis heute gibt es keine Übereinkunft darüber, wie der zusätzliche Aufwand, der durch partielle dynamische Rekonfiguration verursacht wird, zu bewerten ist. Diese Dissertation führt ein neues Kostenmodell für Laufzeit und Speicherbedarf ein, welche durch partielle dynamische Rekonfiguration verursacht wird. Es wird aufgezeigt, wie das Modell in alle Ebenen der Entwurfsoptimierung für rekonfigurierbare Hardware einbezogen werden kann. Insbesondere wird gezeigt, wie digitale Schaltungen derart auf FPGAs abgebildet werden können, sodass nur wenig Ressourcen der Hardware zur Laufzeit rekonfiguriert werden müssen. Dadurch kann Zeit, Speicher und Energie eingespart werden. Die Entwurfsoptimierung ist am effektivsten, wenn sie auf der Ebene der High-Level-Synthese angewendet wird. Diese Arbeit beschreibt, wie das Kostenmodell in ein neuartiges Werkzeug für die High-Level-Synthese integriert wurde. Das Werkzeug erlaubt es, beim Entwurf die Nutzung von FPGA-Ressourcen gegen den Rekonfigurationsaufwand abzuwägen. Es wird gezeigt, dass partielle Rekonfiguration nur wenig Kosten verursacht, wenn der Entwurf bezüglich Rekonfigurationskosten optimiert wird. Eine Anzahl von Beispielen und experimentellen Ergebnissen belegt die Vorteile der angewendeten Methodik.:1 Introduction 1 1.1 Reconfigurable Computing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1.1 Reconfigurable System on a Chip (RSOC) . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1.2 Anatomy of an Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.1.3 RSOC Design Characteristics and Trade-offs . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1.2 Classification of Reconfigurable Architectures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1.2.1 Partial Reconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1.2.2 Runtime Reconfiguration (RTR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1.2.3 Multi-Context Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1.2.4 Fine-Grain Logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1.2.5 Coarse-Grain Logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1.3 Reconfigurable Computing Specific Design Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1.4 Overview of this Dissertation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2 Reconfigurable Computing Systems – Background 17 2.1 Examples for RSOCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2.2 Partially Reconfigurable FPGAs: Xilinx Virtex Device Family . . . . . . 20 2.2.1 Virtex-II/Virtex-II Pro Logic Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2.2.2 Reconfiguration Architecture and Reconfiguration Control . . 21 2.3 Methods for Design Entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 2.3.1 Behavioural Design Entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 2.3.2 Design Entry at Register-Transfer Level (RTL) . . . . . . . . . . 25 2.3.3 Xilinx Early Access Partial Reconfiguration Design Flow . . . . 26 2.4 Task Management in Reconfigurable Computing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 2.4.1 Online and Offline Task Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 2.4.2 Task Scheduling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 2.4.3 Task Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 2.4.4 Reconfiguration Runtime Overhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 2.5 Configuration Data Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 2.6 Evaluation of Reconfigurable Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 2.6.1 Energy Efficiency Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 2.6.2 Area Efficiency Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 2.6.3 Runtime Efficiency Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 2.7 Similarity Based Reduction of Reconfiguration Overhead . . . . . . . . 38 2.7.1 Configuration Data Generation Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 2.7.2 Device Mapping Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 2.7.3 Circuit Design Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 2.7.4 Model for Partial Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 2.8 Contributions of this Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 3 Runtime Reconfiguration Cost and Optimization Methods 47 3.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 3.2 Reconfiguration State Graph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 3.2.1 Reconfiguration Time Overhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 3.2.2 Dynamic Configuration Data Overhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 3.3 Configuration Cost at Bitstream Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 3.4 Configuration Cost at Structural Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 3.4.1 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 3.4.2 Virtual Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 3.4.3 Reconfiguration Costs in the VA Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 3.5 Allocation Functions with Minimal Reconfiguration Costs . . . . . . . 67 3.5.1 Allocation of Node Pairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 3.5.2 Direct Allocation of Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 3.5.3 Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 3.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 4 Implementation Tools for Reconfigurable Computing 95 4.1 Mapping of Netlists to FPGA Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 4.1.1 Mapping to Device Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 4.1.2 Connectivity Transformations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 4.1.3 Mapping Variants and Reconfiguration Costs . . . . . . . . . . . 100 4.1.4 Mapping of Circuit Macros . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 4.1.5 Global Interconnect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 4.1.6 Netlist Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 4.2 Mapping Aware Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 4.2.1 Generalized Node Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 4.2.2 Successive Node Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 4.2.3 Node Allocation with Ant Colony Optimization . . . . . . . . . 107 4.2.4 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 4.3 Netlist Mapping with Minimized Reconfiguration Cost . . . . . . . . . 110 4.3.1 Mapping Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 4.3.2 Mapping and Packing of Elements into Logic Blocks . . . . . . 112 4.3.3 Logic Element Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 4.3.4 Logic Element Selection for Min. Routing Reconfiguration . . 115 4.3.5 Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 4.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 5 High-Level Synthesis for Reconfigurable Computing 125 5.1 Introduction to HLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 5.1.1 HLS Tool Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 5.1.2 Realization of the Hardware Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 5.2 New Concepts for Task-based Reconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 5.2.1 Multiple Hardware Tasks in one Reconfigurable Module . . . . 132 5.2.2 Multi-Level Reconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 5.2.3 Resource Sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 5.3 Datapath Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 5.3.1 Task Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 5.3.2 Resource Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 5.3.3 Resource Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 5.3.4 Scheduling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 5.3.5 Constraints for Scheduling and Resource Binding . . . . . . . . 151 5.4 Reconfiguration Optimized Datapath Implementation . . . . . . . . . . 153 5.4.1 Effects of Scheduling and Binding on Reconfiguration Costs . 153 5.4.2 Strategies for Resource Type Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 5.4.3 Strategies for Resource Instance Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 5.5 Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 5.5.1 Summary of Binding Methods and Tool Setup . . . . . . . . . . 163 5.5.2 Cost Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 5.5.3 Implementation Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 5.5.4 Benchmark Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 5.5.5 Benchmark Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 5.5.6 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 5.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 6 Summary and Outlook 185 Bibliography 189 A Simulated Annealing 20

Models, Design Methods and Tools for Improved Partial Dynamic Reconfiguration

Partial dynamic reconfiguration of FPGAs has attracted high attention from both academia and industry in recent years. With this technique, the functionality of the programmable devices can be adapted at runtime to changing requirements. The approach allows designers to use FPGAs more efficiently: E. g. FPGA resources can be time-shared between different functions and the functions itself can be adapted to changing workloads at runtime. Thus partial dynamic reconfiguration enables a unique combination of software-like flexibility and hardware-like performance. Still there exists no common understanding on how to assess the overhead introduced by partial dynamic reconfiguration. This dissertation presents a new cost model for both the runtime and the memory overhead that results from partial dynamic reconfiguration. It is shown how the model can be incorporated into all stages of the design optimization for reconfigurable hardware. In particular digital circuits can be mapped onto FPGAs such that only small fractions of the hardware must be reconfigured at runtime, which saves time, memory, and energy. The design optimization is most efficient if it is applied during high level synthesis. This book describes how the cost model has been integrated into a new high level synthesis tool. The tool allows the designer to trade-off FPGA resource use versus reconfiguration overhead. It is shown that partial reconfiguration causes only small overhead if the design is optimized with regard to reconfiguration cost. A wide range of experimental results is provided that demonstrates the benefits of the applied method.:1 Introduction 1 1.1 Reconfigurable Computing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1.1 Reconfigurable System on a Chip (RSOC) . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1.2 Anatomy of an Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.1.3 RSOC Design Characteristics and Trade-offs . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1.2 Classification of Reconfigurable Architectures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1.2.1 Partial Reconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1.2.2 Runtime Reconfiguration (RTR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1.2.3 Multi-Context Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1.2.4 Fine-Grain Logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1.2.5 Coarse-Grain Logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1.3 Reconfigurable Computing Specific Design Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1.4 Overview of this Dissertation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2 Reconfigurable Computing Systems – Background 17 2.1 Examples for RSOCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2.2 Partially Reconfigurable FPGAs: Xilinx Virtex Device Family . . . . . . 20 2.2.1 Virtex-II/Virtex-II Pro Logic Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2.2.2 Reconfiguration Architecture and Reconfiguration Control . . 21 2.3 Methods for Design Entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 2.3.1 Behavioural Design Entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 2.3.2 Design Entry at Register-Transfer Level (RTL) . . . . . . . . . . 25 2.3.3 Xilinx Early Access Partial Reconfiguration Design Flow . . . . 26 2.4 Task Management in Reconfigurable Computing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 2.4.1 Online and Offline Task Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 2.4.2 Task Scheduling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 2.4.3 Task Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 2.4.4 Reconfiguration Runtime Overhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 2.5 Configuration Data Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 2.6 Evaluation of Reconfigurable Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 2.6.1 Energy Efficiency Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 2.6.2 Area Efficiency Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 2.6.3 Runtime Efficiency Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 2.7 Similarity Based Reduction of Reconfiguration Overhead . . . . . . . . 38 2.7.1 Configuration Data Generation Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 2.7.2 Device Mapping Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 2.7.3 Circuit Design Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 2.7.4 Model for Partial Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 2.8 Contributions of this Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 3 Runtime Reconfiguration Cost and Optimization Methods 47 3.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 3.2 Reconfiguration State Graph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 3.2.1 Reconfiguration Time Overhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 3.2.2 Dynamic Configuration Data Overhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 3.3 Configuration Cost at Bitstream Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 3.4 Configuration Cost at Structural Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 3.4.1 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 3.4.2 Virtual Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 3.4.3 Reconfiguration Costs in the VA Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 3.5 Allocation Functions with Minimal Reconfiguration Costs . . . . . . . 67 3.5.1 Allocation of Node Pairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 3.5.2 Direct Allocation of Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 3.5.3 Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 3.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 4 Implementation Tools for Reconfigurable Computing 95 4.1 Mapping of Netlists to FPGA Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 4.1.1 Mapping to Device Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 4.1.2 Connectivity Transformations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 4.1.3 Mapping Variants and Reconfiguration Costs . . . . . . . . . . . 100 4.1.4 Mapping of Circuit Macros . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 4.1.5 Global Interconnect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 4.1.6 Netlist Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 4.2 Mapping Aware Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 4.2.1 Generalized Node Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 4.2.2 Successive Node Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 4.2.3 Node Allocation with Ant Colony Optimization . . . . . . . . . 107 4.2.4 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 4.3 Netlist Mapping with Minimized Reconfiguration Cost . . . . . . . . . 110 4.3.1 Mapping Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 4.3.2 Mapping and Packing of Elements into Logic Blocks . . . . . . 112 4.3.3 Logic Element Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 4.3.4 Logic Element Selection for Min. Routing Reconfiguration . . 115 4.3.5 Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 4.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 5 High-Level Synthesis for Reconfigurable Computing 125 5.1 Introduction to HLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 5.1.1 HLS Tool Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 5.1.2 Realization of the Hardware Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 5.2 New Concepts for Task-based Reconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 5.2.1 Multiple Hardware Tasks in one Reconfigurable Module . . . . 132 5.2.2 Multi-Level Reconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 5.2.3 Resource Sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 5.3 Datapath Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 5.3.1 Task Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 5.3.2 Resource Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 5.3.3 Resource Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 5.3.4 Scheduling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 5.3.5 Constraints for Scheduling and Resource Binding . . . . . . . . 151 5.4 Reconfiguration Optimized Datapath Implementation . . . . . . . . . . 153 5.4.1 Effects of Scheduling and Binding on Reconfiguration Costs . 153 5.4.2 Strategies for Resource Type Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 5.4.3 Strategies for Resource Instance Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 5.5 Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 5.5.1 Summary of Binding Methods and Tool Setup . . . . . . . . . . 163 5.5.2 Cost Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 5.5.3 Implementation Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 5.5.4 Benchmark Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 5.5.5 Benchmark Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 5.5.6 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 5.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 6 Summary and Outlook 185 Bibliography 189 A Simulated Annealing 201Partielle dynamische Rekonfiguration von FPGAs hat in den letzten Jahren große Aufmerksamkeit von Wissenschaft und Industrie auf sich gezogen. Die Technik erlaubt es, die Funktionalität von progammierbaren Bausteinen zur Laufzeit an veränderte Anforderungen anzupassen. Dynamische Rekonfiguration erlaubt es Entwicklern, FPGAs effizienter einzusetzen: z.B. können Ressourcen für verschiedene Funktionen wiederverwendet werden und die Funktionen selbst können zur Laufzeit an veränderte Verarbeitungsschritte angepasst werden. Insgesamt erlaubt partielle dynamische Rekonfiguration eine einzigartige Kombination von software-artiger Flexibilität und hardware-artiger Leistungsfähigkeit. Bis heute gibt es keine Übereinkunft darüber, wie der zusätzliche Aufwand, der durch partielle dynamische Rekonfiguration verursacht wird, zu bewerten ist. Diese Dissertation führt ein neues Kostenmodell für Laufzeit und Speicherbedarf ein, welche durch partielle dynamische Rekonfiguration verursacht wird. Es wird aufgezeigt, wie das Modell in alle Ebenen der Entwurfsoptimierung für rekonfigurierbare Hardware einbezogen werden kann. Insbesondere wird gezeigt, wie digitale Schaltungen derart auf FPGAs abgebildet werden können, sodass nur wenig Ressourcen der Hardware zur Laufzeit rekonfiguriert werden müssen. Dadurch kann Zeit, Speicher und Energie eingespart werden. Die Entwurfsoptimierung ist am effektivsten, wenn sie auf der Ebene der High-Level-Synthese angewendet wird. Diese Arbeit beschreibt, wie das Kostenmodell in ein neuartiges Werkzeug für die High-Level-Synthese integriert wurde. Das Werkzeug erlaubt es, beim Entwurf die Nutzung von FPGA-Ressourcen gegen den Rekonfigurationsaufwand abzuwägen. Es wird gezeigt, dass partielle Rekonfiguration nur wenig Kosten verursacht, wenn der Entwurf bezüglich Rekonfigurationskosten optimiert wird. Eine Anzahl von Beispielen und experimentellen Ergebnissen belegt die Vorteile der angewendeten Methodik.:1 Introduction 1 1.1 Reconfigurable Computing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1.1 Reconfigurable System on a Chip (RSOC) . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1.2 Anatomy of an Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.1.3 RSOC Design Characteristics and Trade-offs . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1.2 Classification of Reconfigurable Architectures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1.2.1 Partial Reconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1.2.2 Runtime Reconfiguration (RTR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1.2.3 Multi-Context Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1.2.4 Fine-Grain Logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1.2.5 Coarse-Grain Logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1.3 Reconfigurable Computing Specific Design Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1.4 Overview of this Dissertation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2 Reconfigurable Computing Systems – Background 17 2.1 Examples for RSOCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2.2 Partially Reconfigurable FPGAs: Xilinx Virtex Device Family . . . . . . 20 2.2.1 Virtex-II/Virtex-II Pro Logic Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2.2.2 Reconfiguration Architecture and Reconfiguration Control . . 21 2.3 Methods for Design Entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 2.3.1 Behavioural Design Entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 2.3.2 Design Entry at Register-Transfer Level (RTL) . . . . . . . . . . 25 2.3.3 Xilinx Early Access Partial Reconfiguration Design Flow . . . . 26 2.4 Task Management in Reconfigurable Computing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 2.4.1 Online and Offline Task Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 2.4.2 Task Scheduling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 2.4.3 Task Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 2.4.4 Reconfiguration Runtime Overhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 2.5 Configuration Data Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 2.6 Evaluation of Reconfigurable Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 2.6.1 Energy Efficiency Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 2.6.2 Area Efficiency Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 2.6.3 Runtime Efficiency Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 2.7 Similarity Based Reduction of Reconfiguration Overhead . . . . . . . . 38 2.7.1 Configuration Data Generation Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 2.7.2 Device Mapping Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 2.7.3 Circuit Design Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 2.7.4 Model for Partial Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 2.8 Contributions of this Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 3 Runtime Reconfiguration Cost and Optimization Methods 47 3.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 3.2 Reconfiguration State Graph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 3.2.1 Reconfiguration Time Overhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 3.2.2 Dynamic Configuration Data Overhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 3.3 Configuration Cost at Bitstream Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 3.4 Configuration Cost at Structural Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 3.4.1 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 3.4.2 Virtual Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 3.4.3 Reconfiguration Costs in the VA Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 3.5 Allocation Functions with Minimal Reconfiguration Costs . . . . . . . 67 3.5.1 Allocation of Node Pairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 3.5.2 Direct Allocation of Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 3.5.3 Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 3.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 4 Implementation Tools for Reconfigurable Computing 95 4.1 Mapping of Netlists to FPGA Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 4.1.1 Mapping to Device Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 4.1.2 Connectivity Transformations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 4.1.3 Mapping Variants and Reconfiguration Costs . . . . . . . . . . . 100 4.1.4 Mapping of Circuit Macros . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 4.1.5 Global Interconnect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 4.1.6 Netlist Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 4.2 Mapping Aware Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 4.2.1 Generalized Node Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 4.2.2 Successive Node Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 4.2.3 Node Allocation with Ant Colony Optimization . . . . . . . . . 107 4.2.4 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 4.3 Netlist Mapping with Minimized Reconfiguration Cost . . . . . . . . . 110 4.3.1 Mapping Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 4.3.2 Mapping and Packing of Elements into Logic Blocks . . . . . . 112 4.3.3 Logic Element Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 4.3.4 Logic Element Selection for Min. Routing Reconfiguration . . 115 4.3.5 Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 4.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 5 High-Level Synthesis for Reconfigurable Computing 125 5.1 Introduction to HLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 5.1.1 HLS Tool Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 5.1.2 Realization of the Hardware Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 5.2 New Concepts for Task-based Reconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 5.2.1 Multiple Hardware Tasks in one Reconfigurable Module . . . . 132 5.2.2 Multi-Level Reconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 5.2.3 Resource Sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 5.3 Datapath Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 5.3.1 Task Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 5.3.2 Resource Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 5.3.3 Resource Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 5.3.4 Scheduling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 5.3.5 Constraints for Scheduling and Resource Binding . . . . . . . . 151 5.4 Reconfiguration Optimized Datapath Implementation . . . . . . . . . . 153 5.4.1 Effects of Scheduling and Binding on Reconfiguration Costs . 153 5.4.2 Strategies for Resource Type Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 5.4.3 Strategies for Resource Instance Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 5.5 Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 5.5.1 Summary of Binding Methods and Tool Setup . . . . . . . . . . 163 5.5.2 Cost Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 5.5.3 Implementation Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 5.5.4 Benchmark Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 5.5.5 Benchmark Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 5.5.6 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 5.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 6 Summary and Outlook 185 Bibliography 189 A Simulated Annealing 20

High-level synthesis of fine-grained weakly consistent C concurrency

High-level synthesis (HLS) is the process of automatically compiling high-level programs into a netlist (collection of gates). Given an input program, HLS tools exploit its inherent parallelism and pipelining opportunities to generate efficient customised hardware. C-based programs are the most popular input for HLS tools, but these tools historically only synthesise sequential C programs. As the appeal for software concurrency rises, HLS tools are beginning to synthesise concurrent C programs, such as C/C++ pthreads and OpenCL. Although supporting software concurrency leads to better hardware parallelism, shared memory synchronisation is typically serialised to ensure correct memory behaviour, via locks. Locks are safety resources that ensure exclusive access of shared memory, eliminating data races and providing synchronisation guarantees for programmers.  As an alternative to lock-based synchronisation, the C memory model also defines the possibility of lock-free synchronisation via fine-grained atomic operations (`atomics'). However, most HLS tools either do not support atomics at all or implement atomics using locks. Instead, we treat the synthesis of atomics as a scheduling problem. We show that we can augment the intra-thread memory constraints during memory scheduling of concurrent programs to support atomics. On average, hardware generated by our method is 7.5x faster than the state-of-the-art, for our set of experiments. Our method of synthesising atomics enables several unique possibilities. Chiefly, we are capable of supporting weakly consistent (`weak') atomics, which necessitate fewer ordering constraints compared to sequentially consistent (SC) atomics. However, implementing weak atomics is complex and error-prone and hence we formally verify our methods via automated model checking to ensure our generated hardware is correct. Furthermore, since the C memory model defines memory behaviour globally, we can globally analyse the entire program to generate its memory constraints. Additionally, we can also support loop pipelining by extending our methods to generate inter-iteration memory constraints. On average, weak atomics, global analysis and loop pipelining improve performance by 1.6x, 3.4x and 1.4x respectively, for our set of experiments. Finally, we present a case study of a real-world example via an HLS-based Google PageRank algorithm, whose performance improves by 4.4x via lock-free streaming and work-stealing.Open Acces