Hardware/Software Cost Analysis of Interrupt Processing Strategies

The purpose of this work was to study and analyze interrupt processing strategies from a cost point of view. The cost referred to is the architectural cost of implementing a particular interrupt processing strategy. The scope of this study included five strategies. All the strategies under investigation were originally designed to make it possible for pipelined processors to support precise interrupts. To analyze the cost of each strategy, its design and implementation was carefully studied. Based on that it was possible to determine or closely estimate the amount of hardware, and the complexity of software needed to implement each strategy. On pipelined processors, interrupt processing can be broken down into six phases. Some phases such as detecting the interrupt, running the interrupt handler, and resuming the interrupted process (for precise interrupts), are common for all strategies. The strategies differ in whether they finish pending the instructions once an interrupt has occurred, or they just flush the pipeline. Also they differ in whether they undo state changes or maintain a precise state at all times. Hardware dominates the cost of many of the strategies, except for one, namely Checkpoint Repair, for which the cost varies from being mainly composed of hardware costs to being mainly composed of software costs according to the strategy's implementation

Precise exception handling for a self-timed processor

Journal ArticleSelf-timed systems structured as multiple concurrent processes and communicating through self-timed queues are a convenient way to implement decoupled computer architectures. Machines of this type can exploit instruction level parallelism in a natural way, and can be easily modified and extended. However, providing a precise exception model for a self-timed micropipelined processor can be difficult, since the processor state does not change at uniformly discrete intervals. We present a precise exception method implemented for Fred, a self-timed, decoupled, pipelined computer architecture with out-of-order instruction completion

Design of a Five Stage Pipeline CPU with Interruption System

A central processing unit (CPU), also referred to as a central processor unit, is the hardware within a computer that carries out the instructions of a computer program by performing the basic arithmetical, logical, and input/output operations of the system. The term has been in use in the computer industry at least since the early 1960s.The form, design, and implementation of CPUs have changed over the course of their history, but their fundamental operation remains much the same. A computer can have more than one CPU; this is called multiprocessing. All modern CPUs are microprocessors, meaning contained on a single chip. Some integrated circuits (ICs) can contain multiple CPUs on a single chip; those ICs are called multi-core processors. An IC containing a CPU can also contain peripheral devices, and other components of a computer system; this is called a system on a chip (SoC).Two typical components of a CPU are the arithmetic logic unit (ALU), which performs arithmetic and logical operations, and the control unit (CU), which extracts instructions from memory and decodes and executes them, calling on the ALU when necessary. Not all computational systems rely on a central processing unit. An array processor or vector processor has multiple parallel computing elements, with no one unit considered the "center". In the distributed computing model, problems are solved by a distributed interconnected set of processors

On static execution-time analysis

Proving timeliness is an integral part of the verification of safety-critical real-time systems. To this end, timing analysis computes upper bounds on the execution times of programs that execute on a given hardware platform. Modern hardware platforms commonly exhibit counter-intuitive timing behaviour: a locally slower execution can lead to a faster overall execution. Such behaviour challenges efficient timing analysis. In this work, we present and discuss a hardware design, the strictly in-order pipeline, that behaves monotonically w.r.t. the progress of a program's execution. Based on monotonicity, we prove the absence of the aforementioned counter-intuitive behaviour. At least since multi-core processors have emerged, timing analysis separates concerns by analysing different aspects of the system's timing behaviour individually. In this work, we validate the underlying assumption that a timing bound can be soundly composed from individual contributions. We show that even simple processors exhibit counter-intuitive behaviour - a locally slow execution can lead to an even slower overall execution - that impedes the soundness of the composition. We present the compositional base bound analysis that accounts for any such amplifying effects within its timing contribution. This enables a sound compositional analysis even for complex processors. Furthermore, we discuss hardware modifications that enable efficient compositional analyses.Echtzeitsysteme müssen unter allen Umständen beweisbar pünktlich arbeiten. Zum Beweis errechnet die Zeitanalyse obere Schranken der für die Ausführung von Programmen auf einer Hardware-Plattform benötigten Zeit. Moderne Hardware-Plattformen sind bekannt für unerwartetes Zeitverhalten bei dem eine lokale Verzögerung in einer global schnelleren Ausführung resultiert. Solches Zeitverhalten erschwert eine effiziente Analyse. Im Rahmen dieser Arbeit diskutieren wir das Design eines Prozessors mit eingeschränkter Fließbandverarbeitung (strictly in-order pipeline), der sich bzgl. des Fortschritts einer Programmausführung monoton verhält. Wir beweisen, dass Monotonie das oben genannte unerwartete Zeitverhalten verhindert. Spätestens seit dem Einsatz von Mehrkernprozessoren besteht die Zeitanalyse aus einzelnen Teilanalysen welche nur bestimmte Aspekte des Zeitverhaltens betrachten. Eine zentrale Annahme ist hierbei, dass sich die Teilergebnisse zu einer korrekten Zeitschranke zusammensetzen lassen. Im Rahmen dieser Arbeit zeigen wir, dass diese Annahme selbst für einfache Prozessoren ungültig ist, da eine lokale Verzögerung zu einer noch größeren globalen Verzögerung führen kann. Für bestehende Prozessoren entwickeln wir eine neuartige Teilanalyse, die solche verstärkenden Effekte berücksichtigt und somit eine korrekte Komposition von Teilergebnissen erlaubt. Für zukünftige Prozessoren beschreiben wir Modifikationen, die eine deutlich effizientere Zeitanalyse ermöglichen