- Timestamp:
- Feb 15, 2011, 11:20:41 AM (14 years ago)
- File:
-
- 1 edited
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
-
anr/section-etat-de-art.tex
r356 r369 19 19 The High-Performance Computing (HPC) world is composed of three main families of architectures: 20 20 many-core, GPGPU (General Purpose computation on Graphics Unit Processing) and FPGA. 21 T he first two families are dominating the market by taking benefit21 Today, the first two families are dominating the market by taking benefit 22 22 of the strength and influence of mass-market leaders (Intel, Nvidia). 23 23 %such as Intel for many-core CPU and Nvidia for GPGPU. … … 26 26 FPGAs architectures enable better performance 27 27 (typically an acceleration factor between 10 and 100) 28 while using smaller size and less energy (and heat).28 while using smaller size and less energy (and generating less heat). 29 29 However, using FPGAs presents significant challenges~\cite{hpc06a}. 30 30 First, the operating frequency of an FPGA is low compared to a high-end microprocessor. 31 Second, based on Amdahl law, HPC/FPGA application performance is unusually sensitive 31 Second, % based on Amdahl law, 32 HPC/FPGA application performance is unusually sensitive 32 33 to the implementation quality~\cite{hpc06b}. 33 34 % Thus, the performance strongly relies on the detected parallelism. … … 44 45 researches on HPC-FPGA are mainly conducted in the USA. 45 46 None of the approaches developed in these researches are fulfilling entirely the 46 challenges described above. For example, Convey Computer proposes application-specific instruction set extension of x86 cores in an FPGA accelerator, 47 challenges described above. For example, Convey Computer proposes application-specific instruction 48 set extension of x86 cores in an FPGA accelerator, 47 49 but extension generation is not automated and requires hardware design skills. 48 50 Mitrionics has an elegant solution based on a compute engine specifically … … 58 60 appears very interesting for improving HPC performance as well as reducing required area. 59 61 62 %oui, mais il me semble que COACH ne va rien faire à ce sujet. Est-ce la peine de 63 %donner des verges pour nous faire battre? En outre, je ne vois pas bien l'intérêt. 64 % 65 %Paul 66 60 67 \subsubsection{System Synthesis} 61 68 \label{soa:system:synthesis} 62 69 Today, several solutions for system design are proposed and commercialized. 63 70 The existing commercial or free tools do not 64 cover the whole system synthesis process in a full automatic way. Moreover,65 they are bound to a particular device family and to IPslibrary.71 cover the whole system synthesis process in a fully automatic way. Moreover, 72 they are bound to a particular device family and to an IP library. 66 73 The most commonly used are provided by \altera and \xilinx to promote their 67 74 FPGA devices. These representative tools used to synthesize SoC on FPGA … … 71 78 plug-in to Simulink that enables designers to develop high-performance DSP 72 79 systems for \xilinx FPGAs. 73 Designers can designand simulate a system using MATLAB and Simulink. The80 Designers can specify and simulate a system using MATLAB and Simulink. The 74 81 tool will then automatically generate synthesizable Hardware Description 75 82 Language (HDL) code mapped to \xilinx pre-optimized algorithms. 76 However, this tool targets only signal processing algorithms, \xilinx FPGAs and83 However, this tool targets only signal processing algorithms, \xilinx FPGAs and 77 84 cannot handle a complete SoC. Thus, it is not really a system synthesis tool. 78 85 \\ … … 80 87 Platform Studio XPS from \xilinx allow to describe a system, to synthesize it, 81 88 to program it into a target FPGA and to upload a software application. 82 Both SOPC Builder and XPS ,allow designers to select and parameterize components from89 Both SOPC Builder and XPS allow designers to select and parameterize components from 83 90 an extensive drop-down list of IP cores (I/O core, DSP, processor, bus core, ...) 84 as well as incorporate their own IP. Nevertheless, all the previously introduced tools91 as well as to incorporate their own IP. Nevertheless, all the previously introduced tools 85 92 do not provide any facilities to synthesize coprocessors and to simulate the platform 86 93 at a high level (SystemC). 87 System designer must provide the synthesizable description of its own IP-cores with 88 the feasible bus interface. Design Space Exploration is thus limited 89 and SystemC simulation is not possible neither at transactional nor at cycle 94 A system designer must provide the synthesizable description of its own IP-cores with 95 a feasible bus interface.% 96 %qu'est-ce que c'est qu'un ``feasible bus interface''? a *standard* bus interface? Paul 97 % 98 Design Space Exploration is thus limited 99 and SystemC simulation is not possible either at transactional or at cycle 90 100 accurate level. 91 101 \\ … … 121 131 to the HLS input dialect and perform engineering work to exploit the synthesis result 122 132 at the system level, 123 \item Current HLS tools can 133 \item Current HLS tools cannot target control AND data oriented applications, 124 134 \item HLS tools take into account mainly a unique constraint while realistic design 125 135 is multi-constrained. 126 Lowpower consumption constraint which is mandatory for embedded systems is not yet136 The power consumption constraint which is mandatory for embedded systems is not yet 127 137 well handled or not handled at all by the HLS tools already available, 128 \item The parallelism is extracted fromthe initial specification.138 \item The parallelism is limited to that present in the initial specification. 129 139 To get more parallelism or to reduce the amount of required memory in the SoC, the user 130 140 must re-write the algorithmic specification while there are techniques such as polyhedral 131 transformations t o increase the intrinsic parallelism,141 transformations that can automate this process. 132 142 \item While they support limited loop transformations like loop unrolling and loop 133 143 pipelining, current HLS tools do not provide support for design space exploration, either 134 through automatic loop transformations or throughmemory mapping,144 through automatic loop transformations or for improving the memory mapping, 135 145 \item Despite having the same input language (C/C++), they are sensitive to the style in 136 146 which the algorithm is written. Consequently, engineering work is required to swap from … … 159 169 \par 160 170 In this context, ASIP design based on Instruction Set Extensions (ISEs) has 161 received a lot of interest~\cite{NIOS2}, as it makes micro 171 received a lot of interest~\cite{NIOS2}, as it makes micro-architecture synthesis 162 172 more tractable \footnote{ISEs rely on a template micro-architecture in which 163 173 only a small fraction of the architecture has to be specialized}, and help ASIP
Note: See TracChangeset
for help on using the changeset viewer.