Design space exploration of streaming multiprocessor architectures

In this paper, we present a comparison of two design-space exploration approaches. The comparison is in terms of (1) speed of simulation versus accuracy of performance numbers, and (2) connection to trajectories for detailed design. The two approaches are: the trace driven approach and the control data flow graph approach. The first approach leads to the shortest simulation time, but is insufficiently accurate in the performance numbers it provides. It also does not connect well to a trajectory for detailed design. The second method is leading to rather long simulation times, yet it can give fairly accurate performance numbers, and it produces results that can be readily taken as input for further design. The two approaches are somehow extreme in that several in-between methods can be conceived of. We also describe our search for an exploration trajectory which would be somehow "optimal" in terms of speed versus accuracy and closeness to a design trajectory. As expected, this trajectory appears somewhere in-between the two extremes mentioned above.

[1]  Ed F. Deprettere,et al.  System level design with SPADE: an M-JPEG case study , 2001, IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer Aided Design. ICCAD 2001. IEEE/ACM Digest of Technical Papers (Cat. No.01CH37281).

[2]  Erwin A. de Kock,et al.  COSY communication IP's , 2000, Proceedings 37th Design Automation Conference.

[3]  Gilles Kahn,et al.  The Semantics of a Simple Language for Parallel Programming , 1974, IFIP Congress.

[4]  Peng Yang,et al.  Task concurrency management methodology to schedule the MPEG4 IM1 player on a highly parallel processor platform , 2001, Ninth International Symposium on Hardware/Software Codesign. CODES 2001 (IEEE Cat. No.01TH8571).

[5]  Ed F. Deprettere,et al.  A trace transformation technique for communication refinement , 2001, CODES '01.

[6]  Ed F. Deprettere,et al.  A Methodology for Architecture Exploration of Heterogeneous Signal Processing Systems , 2001, J. VLSI Signal Process..

[7]  Ed F. Deprettere,et al.  An Approach for Quantitative Analysis of Application-Specific Dataflow Architectures , 1997, ASAP.

[8]  Sujit Dey,et al.  Fast performance analysis of bus-based system-on-chip communication architectures , 1999, 1999 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-Aided Design. Digest of Technical Papers (Cat. No.99CH37051).

[9]  Erwin A. de Kock,et al.  YAPI: application modeling for signal processing systems , 2000, Proceedings 37th Design Automation Conference.

[10]  Rudy Lauwereins,et al.  DF-STAR: An extension of Synchronous Dataflow with Data Dependency and Non-determinism , 2000 .

[11]  Monica S. Lam,et al.  RETROSPECTIVE : Software Pipelining : An Effective Scheduling Technique for VLIW Machines , 1998 .