재구성형 구조에서의 효율적인 조건실행 기법

학위논문 (박사)-- 서울대학교 대학원 : 전기·컴퓨터공학부, 2013. 8. 최기영.재구성형 구조는 연산량이 많은 프로그램을 내장형 시스템에서 가속시키는 데 적합한 방법 중 하나이다. 이는 일반적으로 많은 연산유닛들과 하나의 컨트롤러로 구성되어 고성능, 유연성, 저전력을 동시에 달성할 수 있도록 해준다. 많은 연산유닛을 바탕으로 한 병렬처리는 응용프로그램의 실행속도를 빠르게 하며, 재구성 기능은 다양한 응용프로그램에의 활용을 가능하게 해준다. 또한, 명령어와 데이터에 대한 스케쥴을 미리 정해놓음으로써 제어구조를 단순화시킬 수 있으며 이는 연산량 대비 전력소모를 최소한으 로 줄여준다. 하지만 응용프로그램이 복잡해짐에 따라 연산량이 많은 부분들에 분기문이 생기게 되었으며 이는 재구성형 구조를 사용함에 있어 큰 위협이 되고 있다. 분기문을 다룰 수 있는 컨트롤러가 하나이기 때문에 컨트롤러에 병목현상이 발생하거나 동시에 서로 다른 제어를 요구하게 되면 해당 프로그램은 가속이 불가능해진다. 조건실행이라는 기술을 사용할 경우 이를 부분적으로 해소할 수 있지만 기존에 개발되어 있는 조건실행 기술들은 재구성형 구조에 성능 및 전력소모 면에서 부정적인 영향을 끼친다. 따라서 본 논문에서는 연산량이 많지만 분기문을 가진 응용프로그램에서 조건실행이 성능과 전력 면에서 어떠한 영향을 미치는지 밝히며 이를 바탕으로 고성능과 저전력을 가진 조건실행 방법을 제안한다. 실험 결과에 따르면 제안한 방식은 기존의 세가지 방식보다 성능과 전력소모를 곱으로 표현한 수치에 있어서 11.9%, 14.7%, 23.8% 만큼의 이득을 보였다. 또한, 제안한 조건실행 방법에 적합한 컴파일 체계도 제안하였다. 제안한 조건실행은 절전모드를 사용함에 따라 전력을 아낄 수 있지만 기존의 컴파일방식으로는 여러 조건문을 병렬적으로 수행하도록 컴파일할 수 없는 문제가 생긴다. 따라서 본 논문에서는 이런 문제를 밝히고 조건문들을 서로 다른 연산유닛에 할당함으로써 문제를 해결하는 방식을 제안하고 있다. 제안한 방식을 사용할 경우 단순하고 직관적인 방법에 비하여 평균적으로 2.21배의 높은 성능을 얻을 수 있었다.Coarse-Grained Reconfigurable Architecture (CGRA) is one of viable solutions in embedded systems to accelerate data-intensive applications. It typically consists of an array of processing elements (PEs) and a centralized controller, which can provide high performance, flexibility, and low power. Parallel array processing reduces execution time of applications, reconfigurability of PEs allows changing its functionality, and simplified control structure with static scheduling for instruction fetching and data communication minimizes power consumption. However, as applications become complex so that data-intensive parts are having control flows in them, CGRAs face a challenge for its effectiveness. Since the entire PEs are controlled by a centralized unit, it is impossible to execute programs having control divergence among PEs. To overcome the problem, we can adopt the technique called predicated execution, which is the unique solution known so far, but conventional predication techniques have a negative impact on both performance and power consumption due to longer instruction words and unnecessary instruction-fetching/decoding/nullifying steps. Thus, this thesis reveals performance and power issues in predicated execution when a CGRA executes both data- and control-intensive applications, which have not been well-addressed yet. Then it proposes high-performance and low-power predication mechanisms. Experiments conducted through gate-level simulation show that the proposed mechanism improves energy-delay product by 11.9%, 14.7%, and 23.8% compared to three conventional techniques. In addition, this thesis also reveals mapping issues when mapping applications on CGRAs using the proposed predication. A power-saving mode introduced into PEs prohibits multiple conditionals from being parallelized if conventional mapping algorithms are used. Thus, this thesis proposes the framework to release this problem by mapping conditionals to different PEs. Experiments show that mapping results from the proposed approach lead to 2.21 times higher performance than those of the naïve approach.Abstract i Chapter 1 Introduction 1 Chapter 2 Background and Related Work 5 2.1 Coarse-Grained Reconfigurable Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1.2 Target Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1.3 Comparison with Other Architectures . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1.4 Application Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.1.5 Target CGRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.2 Predicated Execution Technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.2.2 Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.2.3 Different Roles in ILP and DLP processors . . . . . . . . 13 2.2.4 Predication Support on CGRAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Chapter 3 Conventional Predicated Execution Techniques 15 3.1 Partial Predication (Partial) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.2 Condition-Based Full Predication (CondFull) . . . . . . . . . . 18 Chapter 4 State-Based Full Predication 23 4.1 Previous Approach (PseudoBranch) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 4.2 Counter-Based Approach (StateFull) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4.3 Dual-Issue-Single-Execution (DISE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 4.4 Hybrid Predication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 4.4.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 4.4.2 StateFull+Partial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 4.4.3 StateFull+Partial+DISE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Chapter 5 Evaluation 39 5.1 Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 5.1.1 Conventional Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 5.1.2 Proposed Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 5.2 Experimental Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 5.3 Experimental Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 5.3.1 Effect of Predication Mechanism on Power Consumption of a PE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 5.3.2 Quantitative Definitions of short-if and long-if . . . . . . 48 5.3.3 Compilation Strategy in StateFull+Partial . . . . . . 48 5.3.4 Conventional Techniques (Partial, CondFull, and PseudoBranch) vs. Proposed StateFull Technique . . . . . 49 5.3.5 Proposed Hybrid Predication Techniques . . . . . . . . . 53 5.3.6 Putting Together . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 5.3.7 Speedup of Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Chapter 6 Mapping Framework 61 6.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 6.2 Proposed Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 6.2.1 Overall Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 6.2.2 From IR to CDFG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 6.2.3 Separation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 6.2.4 CDFG Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 6.3 Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 6.4 Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 6.4.1 Experimental Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 6.4.2 Verification of Mapping Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 6.4.3 Quality of Mapping Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Chapter 7 Conclusion 73 7.1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 7.2 Applicable Scope and Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Appendix 77 국문초록 93 감사의 글 95Docto

Implementation of Data-Driven Applications on Two-Level Reconfigurable Hardware

RÉSUMÉ Les architectures reconfigurables à large grain sont devenues un sujet important de recherche en raison de leur haut potentiel pour accélérer une large gamme d’applications. Ces architectures utilisent la nature parallèle de l’architecture matérielle pour accélérer les calculs. Les architectures reconfigurables à large grain sont en mesure de combler les lacunes existantes entre le FPGA (architecture reconfigurable à grain fin) et le processeur. Elles contrastent généralement avec les Application Specific Integrated Circuits (ASIC) en ce qui concerne la performance (moins bonnes) et la flexibilité (meilleures). La programmation d’architectures reconfigurables est un défi qui date depuis longtemps et pose plusieurs problèmes. Les programmeurs doivent être avisés des caractéristiques du matériel sur lequel ils travaillent et connaître des langages de description matériels tels que VHDL et Verilog au lieu de langages de programmation séquentielle. L’implémentation d’un algorithme sur FPGA s’avère plus difficile que de le faire sur des CPU ou des GPU. Les implémentations à base de processeurs ont déjà leur chemin de données pré synthétisé et ont besoin uniquement d’un programme pour le contrôler. Par contre, dans un FPGA, le développeur doit créer autant le chemin de données que le contrôleur. Cependant, concevoir une nouvelle architecture pour exploiter efficacement les millions de cellules logiques et les milliers de ressources arithmétiques dédiées qui sont disponibles dans une FPGA est une tâche difficile qui requiert beaucoup de temps. Seulement les spécialistes dans le design de circuits peuvent le faire. Ce projet est fondé sur un tissu de calcul générique contrôlé par les données qui a été proposé par le professeur J.P David et a déjà été implémenté par un étudiant à la maîtrise M. Allard. Cette architecture est principalement formée de trois composants: l’unité arithmétique et logique partagée (Shared Arithmetic Logic Unit –SALU-), la machine à état pour le jeton des données (Token State Machine –TSM-) et la banque de FIFO (FIFO Bank –FB-). Cette architecture est semblable aux architectures reconfigurables à large grain (Coarse-Grained Reconfigurable Architecture-CGRAs-), mais contrôlée par les données.----------ABSTRACT Coarse-grained reconfigurable computing architectures have become an important research topic because of their high potential to accelerate a wide range of applications. These architectures apply the concurrent nature of hardware architecture to accelerate computations. Substantially, coarse-grained reconfigurable computing architectures can fill up existing gaps between FPGAs and processor. They typically contrast with Application Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs) in connection with performance and flexibility. Programming reconfigurable computing architectures is a long-standing challenge, and it is yet extremely inconvenient. Programmers must be aware of hardware features and also it is assumed that they have a good knowledge of hardware description languages such as VHDL and Verilog, instead of the sequential programming paradigm. Implementing an algorithm on FPGA is intrinsically more difficult than programming a processor or a GPU. Processor-based implementations “only” require a program to control their pre-synthesized data path, while an FPGA requires that a designer creates a new data path and a new controller for each application. Nevertheless, conceiving an architecture that best exploits the millions of logic cells and the thousands of dedicated arithmetic resources available in an FPGA is a time-consuming challenge that only talented experts in circuit design can handle. This project is founded on the generic data-driven compute fabric proposed by Prof. J.P. David and implemented by M. Allard, a previous master student. This architecture is composed of three main individual components: the Shared Arithmetic Logic Unit (SALU), the Token State Machine (TSM) and the FIFO Bank (FB). The architecture is somewhat similar to Coarse-Grained Reconfigurable Architectures (CGRAs), but it is data-driven. Indeed, in that architecture, register banks are replaced by FBs and the controllers are TSMs. The operations start as soon as the operands are available in the FIFOs that contain the operands. Data travel from FBs to FBs through the SALU, as programmed in the configuration memory of the TSMs. Final results return in FIFOs