Intel’s Tara-scale computing projectIntel’s Tara-scale computing project 100 cores, >100 threads Datacenter-on-a-chip

Sun’s Niagara2 (T2)Sun’s Niagara2 (T2) 8 cores, 64 Threads

Key design issuesKey design issues Architecture Challenges and TradeoffsArchitecture Challenges and Tradeoffs Packaging and off-chip memory bandwidth Software and runtime environment

Tara-Scale CMP

CDA5155sp08 peir

Many-Core CMPs – High-level View

Cores

L2

L1I/D What are the key

architecture issues in

many-cores CMP

CDA5155sp08 Peir 2

On-die interconnectOn-die interconnect Cache organization Cache organization

& Cache coherence& Cache coherence I/O and Memory I/O and Memory

architecturearchitecture

The General Block Diagram

FFU: Fixed Function Unit,

Mem C: Memory Controller,

PCI-E C: PCI-based Controller,

R: Router,

ShdU: Shader Unit,

Sys I/F: System Interface,

TexU: Texture Unit

CDA5155sp08 Peir 3

On-Die Interconnect

2D Embedding of a 64-core 3D-mesh network

The longest hop of the topological distance is extended from 9 to 18!

On-Die Interconnect

Must satisfy bandwidth and latency within power/area Ring or 2D mesh/torusRing or 2D mesh/torus are good candidate topology

Wiring density, router complexity, design complexity Multiple source/dest. pairs can be switched together; avoid

packets stop and buffered, save power, help throughput Xbar, general router are power hungry Fault-tolerant interconnect

Provide spare modules, allow fault-tolerant routing Partition for performance isolation

Performance Isolation in 2D mesh

Performance isolation in 2D mesh with partition 3 rectangular partitions Intra-communication confined within partition Traffic generated in a partition will not affect others

Virtualization of network interfaces Interconnect as an abstraction of applications Allow programmers fine-tune application’s inter-processor

communication

Many-Core CMPs

Cores

L2

L1I/D How about on-die cache organization with so many

cores?

Shared vs. PrivateShared vs. Private Cache capacity vs. Cache capacity vs.

accessibility accessibility Data replication vs. Data replication vs.

block migrationblock migration Cache partition Cache partition

CMP Cache Organization

Capacity vs. Accessibility, A Tradeoff Capacity – favor Shared cacheCapacity – favor Shared cache

No data replication, no cache coherenceNo data replication, no cache coherence Longer access time, contention issueLonger access time, contention issue Flexible cache capacity sharingFlexible cache capacity sharing Fair sharing among cores – Cache partitionFair sharing among cores – Cache partition

Accessibility – favor Private cacheAccessibility – favor Private cache Fast local access with data replication, capacity Fast local access with data replication, capacity

may suffermay suffer Need maintain coherence among private cachesNeed maintain coherence among private caches Equal partition, inflexibleEqual partition, inflexible

Many works to take advantage of bothMany works to take advantage of both Capacity sharing on private– cooperative cachingCapacity sharing on private– cooperative caching Utility-based cache partition on sharedUtility-based cache partition on shared

Analytical Data Replication Model

Reuse distance histogram f(x):# of accesses with distance x Cache size S:

Total # hits => Area beneath the curve =>

S

dxxf0

)(Cache misses increase

S

RSdxxf )(

Capacity decreases Cache hits now

RS

dxxf0

)(

Local hits increaseR/S of hits to replica

RS

dxxfS

R0

)(

Local hits increaseR/S of hits to replica

L of replica hits: local

RS

dxxfS

R0

)(

RS

dxxfS

RL

0)(

P: Miss Penalty Cycles; G: Local Gain CyclesNet memory access cycle increase:

IncMissCachePIncHitLocalG

S

RS

RSdxxfPdxxfL

S

RG )()(

0

Get Histogram f(x) for OLTP

-1012345678

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Reuse distance (MB)

Reus

e hi

stog

ram

f(x)

3

6

10*658.2

,10*084.6

),exp()(

B

Awhere

BxAxf

Step 2:Matlab Curve Fitting

Find math expr.

Step 1: Stack simulationCollect discrete reuse distance

X106

Data Replication Effects

-10

0

10

20

30

40

0 1/8 1/4 3/8 1/2 5/8 3/4 7/8

Fraction of replication

Ave

. acc

ess

tim

e in

crea

ses

(Cyc

les)

f(x)G =15P = 400L = 0.5

S = 2M

-10

0

10

20

30

40

0 1/8 1/4 3/8 1/2 5/8 3/4 7/8

Fraction of replication

Ave

. acc

ess

tim

e in

crea

ses

(Cyc

les)

-10

0

10

20

30

40

0 1/8 1/4 3/8 1/2 5/8 3/4 7/8

Fraction of replication

Ave

. acc

ess

tim

e in

crea

ses

(Cyc

les)

S = 4MS = 8M:

S

RS

RSdxxfPdxxfL

S

RGModel )()(:

0

(R/S)

S = 2M0% best S = 4M

40% best S = 8M65% best

Data Replication Impacts vary with

different cache sizes

Many-Core CMPs

Cores

L2

L1I/D How about Cache

Coherence with so many cores&caches

?

Snooping bus:Snooping bus: Broadcast requestsBroadcast requests

Directory-based:Directory-based: maintaining memory maintaining memory block information block information

Review Culler’s bookReview Culler’s book

Simplicity: Shared L2, Write-through L1

Existing designs IBM Power4 & 5 Sun Niagara & Niagara 2

Small number of cores,Multiple L2 banks, Xbar

Still need L1 coherence!! Inclusive L2, use L2 directory record L1 sharers in Power4&5 Non-inclusive L2, Shadow L1 directory in Niagara

L2 (shared) coherence among multiple CMPs Private L2 is assumed

Other Considerations

Broadcast Snooping Bus: loading, speed, space, power, scalability, etc. Ring: slow traversal, ordering, scalability

Memory-based directory Huge directory space Directory cache, extra penalty

Shadow L2 Directory: copy all local L2s Aggregated associativity = Cores * Ways/Core;

64*16 = 1024 way High power

Directory-Based Approach

Directory needs to maintain the statestate and locationlocation of all cached blocks

Directory is checked when the data cannot be accessed locally, e.g. cache miss, write-to-shared

Directory may route the request to remote cache to fetch the requested block

Sparse Directory Approach

Holds states for all cached blocks

Low-cost set-associative design

No backup Key issues:Key issues:

Centralized vs. Centralized vs. DistributedDistributed

Indirect accessesIndirect accesses Extra invalidation Extra invalidation

due to conflictsdue to conflicts Presence bit vs. Presence bit vs.

duplicated blocksduplicated blocks

Conflict Issues in Coherence Directory

Coherence directory must be a superset of all cached blocks

Uneven distribution of cached blocks in each directory set cause invalidations

Potential solutions: High set associativity – costly Directory + victim directory Randomization and Skew associativity Bigger directory - Costly Others?

50

60

70

80

90

100

OLTP Apache SPECjbb SPEC-2000 SPEC-2006

Val

id B

lock

(%

)

Set-8wSet-16wSet-32wSet-64wSet-2x-8w

Impact of Invalidation due to Directory Conflict

• 8-core CMP, 1MB 8-way private L2 (total 8MB)• Set-associative dir; # of dir entry = total # of cache blocks• Each cached block occupies a directory entry

75%

96%

72%

93%

Presence bits Issue in Directory Presence bits (or not?)Presence bits (or not?)

Extra space, useless for multi-programs Coherence directory must cover all cached

blocks (consider no sharing) Potential solutionsPotential solutions

Coarse-granularity present bits, imprecise not suitable for CMP

Sparse presence vectors – record core-ids Allow duplicated block addresses with few

core-ids for each shared block, enable multiple hits on directory search

Others?

50

60

70

80

90

100

OLTP Apache SPECjbb SPEC-2000 SPEC-2006

Val

id b

lock

s (%

)

Set-8w Set-8w-64v Skew-8wSet-10w-1/4 Set-8w-p Set-full

Valid Blocks

Presence Bit:Multiprogrammed -> No

Multithreaded -> Yes

Skew, and 10w-1/4 helps;

No difference 64v

Challenge in Memory Bandwidth

Increase in off-chip memory bandwidth to sustain chip-level IPC Need power-efficient high-speed off-die I/O Need power-efficient high-bandwidth DRAM access

Potential Solutions: Embedded DRAM Integrated DRAM, GDDR inside processor package 3D stacking of multiple DRAM/processor dies Many technology issues to overcome

Memory Bandwidth Fundamental BW = # of bits x bit rate

A typical DDR2 bus is 16 bytes (128 bits) wide and operating at 800Mb/s. The memory bandwidth of that bus is 16 bytes x 800Mb/s, which is 12.8GB/s

Latency and Capacity Fast, but small capacity on-chip SRAM (caches) Slow large capacity off-chip DRAM

Memory Bus vs. System Bus Bandwidth

Scaling of bus capability has usually involved a combination of increasing the bus width while simultaneously increasing the bus speed

Integrated CPU with Memory Controller

Eliminate off-chip controller delay Fast, but difficult to adapt new DRAM technology

The entire burden of pin count and interconnect speed to sustain increases in memory bandwidth requirements now falls on the CPU package alone

Challenge in Memory Bandwidth and Pin Count

Challenge in Memory Bandwidth

Historical trend for memory bandwidth demand Current generation: 10-20 GB/s Next generation: >100GB/s and could go 1TB/s

New Packaging

New Packaging

New Packaging