skip to main content
research-article

Synchronous dataflow scenarios

Published:07 January 2011Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The Synchronous Dataflow (SDF) model of computation by Lee and Messerschmitt has become popular for modeling concurrent applications on a multiprocessor platform. It is used to obtain a guaranteed, predictable performance. The model, on the other hand, is quite restrictive in its expressivity, making it less applicable to many modern, more dynamic applications. A common technique to deal with dynamic behavior is to consider different scenarios in separation. This analysis is, however, currently limited mainly to sequential applications.

In this article, we present a new analysis approach that allows analysis of synchronous dataflow models across different scenarios of operation. The dataflow graphs corresponding to the different scenarios can be completely different. Execution times, consumption and production rates and the structure of the SDF may change. Our technique allows to derive or prove worst-case performance guarantees of the resulting model and as such extends the model-driven approach to designing predictable systems to significantly more dynamic applications and platforms. The approach is illustrated with three MP3 and MPEG-4 related case studies.

References

  1. ARM. Arm7tdmi processor. http://www.arm.com/products/CPUs/ARM7TDMI.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Baccelli, F., Cohen, G., Olsder, G., and JQuadrat, J. P. 1992. Synchronization and Linearity. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Bhattacharya, B. and Bhattacharyya, S. 2001. Parameterized dataflow modeling for DSP systems. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 49, 10, 2408--2421. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Bilsen, G., Engels, M., Lauwereins, R., and Peperstraete, J. 1996. Cyclo-static dataflow. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 44, 2, 397--408. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Boudec, J. L. and Thiran, P. 2003. Network calculus: A theory of deterministic queuing systems for the Internet. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Buck, J. 1993. Scheduling dynamic dataflow graphs with bounded memory using the token flow model. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, EECS Dept., Berkeley, CA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Chao, L.-F. and Sha, E. H.-M. 1995. Static scheduling for synthesis of dsp algorithms on various models. J. VLSI Signal Process. Syst. 10, 3, 207--223. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Cochet-Terransson, J., Gaubert, S., and Gunawardena, J. 1999. A constructive fixed point theorem for min-max functions. Dyn. Stab. Syst. 14, 4, 407--433.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Dasdan, A., Irani, S. S., and Gupta, R. K. 1999. Efficient algorithms for optimum cycle mean and optimum cost to time ratio problems. In Proceedings of the 36th ACM/IEEE Conference on Design Automation (DAC '99). ACM, New York, 37--42. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Geilen, M. 2009. Reduction techniques for synchronous dataflow graphs. In Proceedings of the 46th Design Automation Conference. ACM, New York. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Ghamarian, A., Geilen, M., Basten, T., and Stuijk, S. 2008. Parametric throughput analysis of synchronous data flow graphs. In Proceedings of the Design Automation and Test in Europe Conference. ACM, New York, 116--121. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Ghamarian, A., Geilen, M., Stuijk, S., Basten, T., Moonen, A., Bekooij, M., Theelen, B., and Mousavi, M. 2006. Throughput analysis of synchronous dataflow graphs. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Application of Concurrency to System Design. IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 27--30. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Ghamarian, A. H., Geilen, M. C. W., Basten, T., Theelen, B. D., Mousavi, M. R., and Stuijk, S. 2006. Liveness and boundedness of synchronous dataflow graphs. In Proceedings of the Formal Methods in Computer Aided Design. IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 68--75. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Gheorghita, S., Basten, T., and Corporaal, H. 2006. Application scenarios in streaming- oriented embedded system design. In Proceedings of the 2006 International Symposium on System-on-Chip. IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 175--178.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Girault, A., Lee, B., and Lee, E. 1999. Hierarchical finite state machines with multiple con- currency models. IEEE Trans. Comput. Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst. 18, 6, 742--760. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Heidergott, B., Olsder, G. J., and van der Woude, J. 2006. Max Plus at Work. Princeton University Press. Princeton, NJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Kahn, G. 1974. The semantics of a simple language for parallel programming. In Proceedings of the Information Processing Congress 74. North-Holland, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 471--475.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Karp, R. M. and Miller, R. E. 1966. Properties of a model for parallel computations: Determinancy, termination, queueing. SIAM J. Appl. Math. 14, 6, 1390--1411.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Käunzli, S., Hamann, A., Ernst, R., and Thiele, L. 2007. Combined approach to system level performance analysis of embedded systems. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Hardware/Software Codesign and System Synthesis. ACM, New York, 63--68. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Lee, E. and Messerschmitt, D. 1987. Synchronous dataflow. IEEE Proc. 75, 9, 1235--1245.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Lee, E. and Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A. Dec 1998. A framework for comparing models of computation, IEEE Trans Comput. Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst. 17, 12, 1217--1229. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Mamagkakis, S., Soudris, D., and Catthoor, F. 2007. Middleware design optimization of wireless protocols based on the exploitation of dynamic input patterns. In Proceedings of the Conference on Design, Automation and Test in Europe. ACM, New York, 1036--1041. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Moreira, O. M. and Bekooij, M. J. G. 2007. Self-timed scheduling analysis for real-time applications. EURASIP J. Adv. Sig. Process.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Poplavko, P., Basten, T., and van Meerbergen, J. 2007. Execution-time prediction for dynamic streaming applications with task-level parallelism. In Proceedings of the 10th Euromicro Conference on Digital System Design Architectures, Methods and Tools. IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 228--235. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A. and Martin, G. 2001. Platform-based design and software design methodology for embedded systems. IEEE Des. Test 18, 6, 23--33. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Shlien, S. 1994. Guide to mpeg-1 audio standard. IEEE Trans. Broadcast. 40, 4, 206--218.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Sriram, S. and Bhattacharyya, S. S. 2000. Embedded Multiprocessors: Scheduling and Synchronization. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Stefanov, T., Zissulescu, C., Turjan, A., Kienhuis, B., and Deprettere, E. 2004. System design using Kahn process networks: The Compaan/Laura approach. Proceedings of the Conference on Design, Automation and Test in Europe. ACM, New York, 10340. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Stiliadis, D. and Varma, A. 1998. Latency-rate servers: A general model for analysis of traffic scheduling algorithms. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 6, 5, 611--624. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Stuijk, S., Geilen, M., and Basten, T. 2006. SDF3: SDF for free. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Application of Concurrency to System Design. IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 276--278. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Theelen, B. D., Geilen, M., Basten, T., Voeten, J., Gheorghita, S. V., and Stuijk, S. 2006. A scenario-aware dataflow model for combined long-run average and worst-case performance analysis. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal Methods and Models for Co-Design. ACM, New York, 185--194.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Thiele, L., Chakraborty, S., and Naedele, M. 2000. Real-time calculus for scheduling hard real-time systems. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Circuits and Systems. IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 101--104.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Wiggers, M., Bekooij, M., and Smit, G. J. M. 2007. Efficient computation of buffer capacities for cyclo-static dataflow graphs. In Proceedings of the Conference on Design Automation. ACM, New York, 658--663. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Yang, P., Marchal, P., Wong, C., Himpe, S., Catthoor, F., David, P., Vounckx, J., and Lauwereins, R. 2002. Managing dynamic concurrent tasks in embedded real-time multimedia systems. In Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium on System Synthesis. ACM, New York, 112--119. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Synchronous dataflow scenarios

      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

      • Published in

        cover image ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems
        ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems  Volume 10, Issue 2
        December 2010
        457 pages
        ISSN:1539-9087
        EISSN:1558-3465
        DOI:10.1145/1880050
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2011 ACM

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 7 January 2011
        • Accepted: 1 June 2009
        • Revised: 1 April 2009
        • Received: 1 October 2008
        Published in tecs Volume 10, Issue 2

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed

      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!