By Dan Stafford - Rochester Institute of...

By Dan Stafford

Background◦ Heterogeneous Architectures

Performance Modeling◦ Single Core Performance Profiling◦ Multicore Performance Estimation

Test Cases◦ Multicore Design Space

Results & Observations◦ General◦ Limited Off-Chip Bandwidth◦ Impact of LLC Size◦ Optimal Heterogeneous Design◦ Job Scheduling

Summary of Design Considerations References

Typically used to obtain a higher performance for a lower power budget

CPU/GPU Heterogeneous Systems◦ Intel Core Series, AMD Fusion, NVIDIA Tegra

Single ISA Heterogeneous Systems◦ Energy optimized cores◦ Performance optimized cores◦ Every core shares a common ISA◦ ARM big.LITTLE, NVIDIA Kal-El

Clock Rate Heterogeneous Systems◦ Homogenous cores◦ Different clock rates

Single Core CPI Memory CPI◦ Fraction of single core CPI waiting for memory

Stack Distance Counters (SDC)s◦ Captures the programs temporal memory access in

the Last Level of Cache (LLC)

All metrics captured every 20M instructions SPEC CPU2006 workloads

Profiles each core type across all SPEC CPU2006 workloads

Single-core profiles then used to estimate multicore performance◦ Traditional methods take 80 plus days◦ Only takes a single day◦ Accurate within 2.1%

Out-of-Order cores◦ 4-wide: 128-entry reorder buffer◦ 2-wide: 32-entry reorder buffer

In-Order cores◦ 4-wide, 2-wide, and scalar

Caches◦ LRU policy◦ Private L1 instruction and data caches 32 KB, 8-way set associative

◦ Private L2 cache 256KB 8-way set associative

◦ Shared L3 cache (LLC) 1-4MB 16-way set associative

BCE – Base Core Equivalent◦ Relative chip area

measurement Heterogeneous

designs configured to use 40 BCEs

#BCEs

scalar in-order core 1

2-wide in-order core 2

4-wide in-order core 3

2-wide out-of-order core 4

4-wide out-of-order core 8

512KB LLC slice 1

System Throughput◦ Multicore performance from system perspective◦ ∑ ,

,

Average Normalized Turnaround Time◦ User perceived performance◦ ∑ ,

,

Note: n independent jobs and coresp programs

[1]

Simple in order cores have better system throughput

Aggressive out-of-order cores have better turnaround time

[1]

[1]

Same tradeoff between system throughput and turnaround time

Some heterogeneous configurations outperform homogenous configurations

Heterogeneity allows more precise control over the system throughput and turnaround time

Two different core types provide the majority of the benefit from heterogeneity

[1]

[1]

Limiting the off-chip bandwidth will proportionally affect the per-program performance more

Best performance achieved using heterogeneous configurations

[1]

Cache reduces the off-chip bandwidth pressure

Under unlimited bandwidth◦ Less cache leads to integrating more cores together◦ Assuming same chip area vs. with cache

[1]

High throughput: single-issue and dual-issue in-order cores

Per-program performance: At least one out-of-order core

Optimal Mapping◦ Optimal mapping so performance is optimized◦ Prior profiling of all configurations◦ Not feasible

Cache-miss-rate◦ Higher LLC miss-rate jobs mapped to lower-end

cores Relative Slowdown◦ Assumes relative performance of each job is known◦ Job with highest slowdown on smaller core assigned

to higher performing core Random

Two Core Types◦ 4-wide out-of-order◦ 2-wide in-order

6 separate heterogeneous configurations◦ 4-wide out-of-order cores◦ 2-wide in-order cores

500 randomly chosen multi-program workload mixes

[1]

None of the scheduling techniques are quantitatively better◦ Cache-miss rate does not take into account

memory parallelism◦ Relative slowdown requires a substantial amount of

information Active area of research for all types of

heterogeneous architecture

Perform many simulations before committing to a specific architecture

Large LLC Cache vs. Additional Cores◦ Increase LLC cache if bandwidth constrained◦ Additional cores otherwise

System Throughput vs. Per-Program Performance◦ In-order cores have better system throughput◦ Out-of-order cores have better per-program

throughput

[1]K. Van Craeynest and L. Eeckhout, "Understanding fundamental design choices in single-ISA heterogeneous multicore architectures", TACO, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 1-23, 2013.

[2]R. Kumar, D. Tullsen, P. Ranganathan, N. Jouppi and K. Farkas, "Single-ISA Heterogeneous Multi-Core Architectures for Multithreaded Workload Performance", ACM SIGARCH Computer Architecture News, vol. 32, no. 2, p. 64, 2004.