skip to main content
article

Reducing power while increasing performance with supercisc

Published:01 August 2006Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Multiprocessor Systems on Chips (MPSoCs) have become a popular architectural technique to increase performance. However, MPSoCs may lead to undesirable power consumption characteristics for computing systems that have strict power budgets, such as PDAs, mobile phones, and notebook computers. This paper presents the super-complex instruction-set computing (SuperCISC) Embedded Processor Architecture and, in particular, investigates performance and power consumption of this device compared to traditional processor architecture-based execution. SuperCISC is a heterogeneous, multicore processor architecture designed to exceed performance of traditional embedded processors while maintaining a reduced power budget compared to low-power embedded processors. At the heart of the SuperCISC processor is a multicore VLIW (Very Large Instruction Word) containing several homogeneous execution cores/functional units. In addition, complex and heterogeneous combinational hardware function cores are tightly integrated to the core VLIW engine providing an opportunity for improved performance and reduced energy consumption. Our SuperCISC processor core has been synthesized for both a 90-nm Stratix II Field Programmable Gate Aray (FPGA) and a 160-nm standard cell Application-Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC) fabrication process from OKI, each operating at approximately 167 MHz for the VLIW core. We examine several reasons for speedup and power improvement through the SuperCISC architecture, including predicated control flow, cycle compression, and a reduction in arithmetic power consumption, which we call power compression. Finally, testing our SuperCISC processor with multimedia and signal-processing benchmarks, we show how the SuperCISC processor can provide performance improvements ranging from 7X to 160X with an average of 60X, while also providing orders of magnitude of power improvements for the computational kernels. The power improvements for our benchmark kernels range from just over 40X to over 400X, with an average savings exceeding 130X. By combining these power and performance improvements, our total energy improvements all exceed 1000X. As these savings are limited to the computational kernels of the applications, which often consume approximately 90% of the execution time, we expect our savings to approach the ideal application improvement of 10X.

References

  1. Banerjee, P., Shenoy, N., Choudhary, A., Hauck, S., Bachmann, C., Chang, M., Haldar, M., Joisha, P., Jones, A., Kanhare, A., Nayak, A., Periyacheri, S., Walkden, M., and Zaretsky, D. 2000. A matlab compiler for distributed, heterogeneous, reconfigurable computing systems. In IEEE Symposium on Field-Programmable Custom Computing Machines (FCCM). Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Banerjee, P., Haldar, M., Nayak, A., Kim, V., Saxena, V., Parkes, S., Bagchi, D., Pal, S., Tripathi, N., Zaretsky, D., Anderson, R., and Uribe, J. 2004. Overview of a compiler for synthesizing matlab programs onto fpgas. IEEE Transactions on Very large Scale Integration (VLSI) Systems. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Benini, L., Macii, A., Macii, E., and Poncino, M. 1999. Selective instruction compression for memory energy reduction in embedded systems. In Proceedings of the 1999 International Symposium on Low Power Electronics and Design. ACM Press, New York. 206--211. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Callahan, T. J., Hauser, J. R., and Wawrzynek, J. 2000. The garp architecture and c compiler. Computer 33. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Chandar, S., Mehendale, M., and Govindarajan, R. 2001. Area and power reduction of embedded dsp systems using instruction compression and reconfigurable encoding. In Proeedings of ICCAD. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Chandrakasan, A., Sheng, S., and Brodersen, R. 1992. Low-power cmos digital design. JSSC 27, 4, 473--484.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Chang, J.-M. and Pedram, M. 1996. Module assignment for low power. In European Design Automation Conference. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen, Z. and Roy, K. 1998. A power macromodeling technique based on power sensitivity. In DAC '98: Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference on Design Automation. ACM Press, New York. 678--683. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Cousin, J.-G., Sentieys, O., and Chillet, D. 2000. Multi-algorithm asip synthesis and power estimation for dsp applications. In Proceedings of ISCAS.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. CoWare. The lisatek solution: Automated embedded processor design and software development tool generation. Datasheet, CoWare, Inc.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Dutta, S., Wolfe, A., Wolf, W., and O'Connor, K. 1996. Design issues for very-long-instruction-word vlsi video signal processors. In IEEE Workshop on VLSI Signal Processing.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Ebeling, C., Cronquist, D. C., and Franklin, P. 1996. Rapid - reconfigurable pipelined datapath. In in the 6th International Workshop on Field-Programmable Logic and Applications. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. eun Lee, J., Choi, K., and Dutt, N. D. 2003. Energy-efficient instruction set synthesis for application-specific processors. In Proceedings of ISLPED. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Georing, R. 2000. Synopsys launches power tool. EETimes.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Glokler, C. and Meyr, H. 2001. Power reduction for asips: A case study. In Proceedings of the Wkshp. Signal Processing Systems (SIPS).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Gonzalez, R. E. 2000. Xtensa -- a configurable and extensible processor. IEEE Micro 20, 2, 60--70. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Goodwin, D. and Petkov, D. 2003. Automatic generation of application specific processors. In Proceedings of the 2003 international conference on Compilers, Architectures and Synthesis for Embedded Systems. ACM Press, New York. 137--147. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Gupta, S. and Najm, F. N. 1997. Power macromodeling for high level power estimation. In DAC '97: Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference on Design Automation. ACM Press, New York. 365--370. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Gupta, S., Gupta, R., Dutt, N., and Nicolau, A. 2004. SPARK: : A Parallelizing Approach to the High-Level Synthesis of Digital Circuits. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Hauck, S., Fry, T. W., Hosler, M. M., and Kao, J. P. 1997. The chimaera reconfigurable functional unit. In IEEE Symposium on FPGAs for Custom Computing Machines(FCCM). 87--96. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Hoare, R., Tung, S., and Werger, K. 2003. A 64-way simd processing architecture on an fpga. In IASTED International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Computing and Systems.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Hoare, R., Tung, S., and Werger, K. 2004. An 88-way multiprocessor within an fpga with customizable instructions. In International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Hoare, R., Jones, A. K., Kusic, D., Fazekas, J., Foster, J., Tung, S., and McCloud, M. 2005. Rapid vliw processor customization for signal processing applications using combinational hardware functions. EURASIP Journal on Applied Signal Processing. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Huang, Z. and Malik, S. 2002. Exploiting operation level parallelism through dynamicall reconfigurable datapaths. In Proc. of the Design Automation Conference (DAC). Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Huang, Z., Malik, S., Moreano, N., and Araujo, G. 2004. The design of dynamically reconfigurable datapath coprocessors. ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems (TECS) 3, 2, 361--384. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Jha, N. K. 2001. Low power system scheduling and synthesis. In Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-Aided Design. IEEE Press, 259--263. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Jones, A. K., Bagchi, D., Pal, S., Banerjee, P., and Choudhary, A. 2002. Pact HDL: Compiler Targeting ASIC's and FPGA's with Power and Performance Optimizations. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Jones, A., Hoare, R., Kourtev, I., Fazekas, J., Kusic, D., Foster, J., Boddie, S., and Muaydh, A. 2004. A 64way vliw/simd fpga processing architecture and design flow. In IEEE International Conference on Electronics, Circuits, and Systems (ICECS).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Jones, A. K., Hoare, R., Kusic, D., Fazekas, J., and Foster, J. 2005. An fpga-based vliw processor with custom hardware execution. In ACM International Symposium on Field-Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGA). Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Khailany, B. and et al. 2001. Imagine: media processing with streams. In Micro. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Khailany, B., Dally, W. J., Chang, A., Kapsi, U. J., Namkoong, J., and Towles, B. 2002. Vlsi design and verification of the imagine processor. In IEEE International Conference on Computer Design (ICCD). Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Khouri, K., Lakshminarayana, G., and Jha, N. 1998. Impact: A highlevel synthesis system for low power control-flow intensive circuits. In Proc. Design Automation & Test in Europe Conf. 848--854. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Lee, C., Potkonjak, M., and Magione-Smith, W. K. 1997. Mediabench: A tool for evaluating and synhesizing multimedia and communications systems. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Microarchitecture. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Levine, B. and Schmit, H. 2002. Piperench: Power & performance evaluation of a programmable pipelined datapath. presented at Hot Chips 14, Palo Alto, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Levine, B. A. and Schmit, H. 2003. Efficient application representation for haste: Hybrid architectures with a single, transformable executable. In IEEE Symposium on FPGAs for Custom Computing Machines(FCCM). Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Liu, X. and Papaefthymiou, M. C. 2001. A static power estimation methodology for ip-based design. In Design, Automation, and Test in Europe. 280--287. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Liu, X. and Papaefthymiou, M. C. 2004. A markov chain sequence generator for power macromodeling. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems (TCAD). Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. McCloud, S. 2004. Catapult c synthesis-based design flow: Speeding implementation and increasing flexibility. Tech. rep., Mentor Graphics.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Mehta, G., Jones, A. K., and Hoare, R. 2005. An energy-efficient coarse-grained reconfigurable fabric arch itecture. Tech. Rep. TR-ECE-2005-07-001, University of Pittsburgh, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering. July.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Mirsky, E. and Dehon, A. 1996. Matrix: A reconfigurable computing architecture with configurable instruction distribution and deployable resources. In in Proceedings of the IEEE Workshop on FPGAs for Custom Computing Machines.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Musoll, E. and Cortadella, J. 1995. High-level synthesis techniques for reducing the activity of functional units. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Low-Power Design. 99--104. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Najm, F. N. 1994. A survey of power estimation techniques in vlsi circuits. IEEE Trans. Very Large Scale Integr. Syst. 2, 4, 446--455. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Nene, A., Talla, S., Goldberg, B., Kim, H., and Rabbah, R. M. 1998. Trimaran: An infrastructure for compiler research in instruction level parallelism.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Raghunathan, A. and Jha, N. K. 1994. Behavioral synthesis for low power. In Proceedings of ICCD. 318--322. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Roy, K. and Prasad, S. 2000. Low-Power CMOS VLSI Design. Wiley, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Schmit, H., Whelihan, D., Tsai, A., Moe, M., Levine, B., and Taylor, R. R. 2002. Piperench: A virtualized programmable datapath in 0.18 micron technolog. In Proceedings of the IEEE Custom Integrated Circuits Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Shen, Z. X. and Jong, C. C. 1997. Exploring module selection space for architectural synthesis of low power designs. In IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Sima, M., Cotofana, S., van Eijndhoven, J. T. J., Vassilidis, S., and Vissers, K. 2001. An 8 × 8 idct implementation on an fpga-augmented trimedia. In Field Programmable Custom Computing Machines (FCCM). Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Synopsys Inc. Design compiler and primepower manual. www.synopsys.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Tang, X., Jiang, T., Jones, A. K., and Banerjee, P. 2005. Behavioral synthesis of data-dominated circuits for minimal energy implementation. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on VLSI Design. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Reducing power while increasing performance with supercisc

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in

          Full Access

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader
          About Cookies On This Site

          We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

          Learn more

          Got it!