skip to main content
research-article

IGOR, Get Me the Optimum! Prioritizing Important Design Decisions During the DSE of Embedded Systems

Published:08 October 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Design Space Exploration (DSE) techniques for complex embedded systems must cope with a huge variety of applications and target architectures as well as a wide spectrum of objectives and constraints. In particular, existing design automation approaches are either problem-independent, in that they do not exploit any knowledge about the optimization problem at hand, or are tailored to specific a priori assumptions about the problem and/or a specific set of design objectives. While the latter are only applicable within a very limited scope of design problems, the former may struggle to deliver high-quality solutions for problems with large design spaces and/or complex design objectives. As a remedy, we propose Importance-Guided Order Rearrangement (IGOR) as a novel approach for DSE of embedded systems. Instead of relying on an a priori problem knowledge, IGOR uses a machine-learning-inspired technique to dynamically analyze the importance of design decisions, i.e., the impact that these decisions—within the specific problem that is being optimized—have on the quality of explored problem solutions w.r.t. the given design objectives. Throughout the DSE, IGOR uses this information to guide the optimization towards the most promising regions of the design space. Experimental results for a variety of applications from different domains of embedded computing and for different optimization scenarios give evidence that the proposed approach is both scalable and adaptable, as it can be used for the optimization of systems described by several thousands constraints, where it outperforms both problem-specific and problem-independent optimization approaches and achieves ε-dominance improvements of up to 95%.

References

  1. Hananeh Aliee, Stefan Vitzethum, Michael Glaß, Jürgen Teich, and Emanuele Borgonovo. 2016. Guiding genetic algorithms using importance measures for reliable design of embedded systems. In DFT. IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Giovanni Beltrame, Luca Fossati, and Donatella Sciuto. 2010. Decision-theoretic design space exploration of multiprocessor platforms. IEEE TODAES 29, 7 (2010).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Tobias Blickle, Jürgen Teich, and Lothar Thiele. 1998. System-level synthesis using evolutionary algorithms. Design Automation for Embedded Systems (1998), 23--58.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Justin Boyan and Andrew W. Moore. 2000. Learning evaluation functions to improve optimization by local search. Journal of Machine Learning Research 1, Nov (2000), 77--112.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Leo Breiman. 2017. Classification and Regression Trees. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Carlos A. Coello Coello. 2002. Theoretical and numerical constraint-handling techniques used with evolutionary algorithms: A survey of the state of the art. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 191, 11 (2002).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Martin Davis, George Logemann, and Donald Loveland. 1962. A machine program for theorem-proving. Commun. ACM 5, 7 (1962), 394--397.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Kalyanmoy Deb, Amrit Pratap, Sameer Agarwal, and TAMT Meyarivan. 2002. A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation (2002), 182--197.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Robert Dick. 2010. Embedded system synthesis benchmarks suite (E3S). http://ziyang.eecs.umich.edu/ dickrp/e3sdd/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Michael Glaß, Felix Reimann, Martin Lukasiewycz, and Faramarz Khosravi. 2014. JReliability - The Java-based Reliability Library.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Michael Glaß, Jürgen Teich, Martin Lukasiewycz, and Felix Reimann. 2017. Hybrid Optimization Techniques for System-Level Design Space Exploration. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 217--246.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Taishi Ito, Hernán Aguirre, Kiyoshi Tanaka, Arnaud Liefooghe, Bilel Derbel, and Sébastien Verel. [n.d.]. Estimating relevance of variables for effective recombination. In EMO 2019. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Zai Jian Jia, Andy D. Pimentel, Mark Thompson, Tomás Bautista, and Antonio Núñez. 2010. NASA: A generic infrastructure for system-level MP-SoC design space exploration. In ESTIMedia. IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Biresh Joardar, Ryan Kim, Janardhan Rao Doppa, Partha Pratim Pande, Diana Marculescu, and Radu Marculescu. 2018. Learning-based application-agnostic 3D NoCe design for heterogeneous manycore systems. IEEE Trans. Comput. (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Pham Nam Khanh, Amit Kumar Singh, Akash Kumar, and Khin Mi Mi Aung. 2013. Incorporating energy and throughput awareness in design space exploration and run-time mapping for heterogeneous MPSoCs. In Euromicro Conference on Digital System Design (DSD). IEEE, 513--521.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Faramarz Khosravi, Felix Reimann, Michael Glaß, and Jürgen Teich. 2014. Multi-objective local-search optimization using reliability importance measuring. In DAC. ACM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Marco Laumanns, Lothar Thiele, Kalyanmoy Deb, and Eckart Zitzler. 2002. Combining convergence and diversity in evolutionary multiobjective optimization. Evolutionary Computation (2002).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Daniel Le Berre and Anne Parrain. 2010. The sat4j library, release 2.2, system description. Journal on Satisfiability, Boolean Modeling and Computation 7 (2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Hung-Yi Liu and Luca P. Carloni. 2013. On learning-based methods for design-space exploration with high-level synthesis. In DAC. ACM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Martin Lukasiewycz, Michael Glaß, Christian Haubelt, and Jurgen Teich. 2007. SAT-decoding in evolutionary algorithms for discrete constrained optimization problems. In IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Martin Lukasiewycz, Michael Glaß, Felix Reimann, and Jürgen Teich. 2011. Opt4J - A modular framework for meta-heuristic optimization. In Proceedings of GECCO.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Martin Lukasiewycz, Shanker Shreejith, and Suhaib A. Fahmy. 2014. System simulation and optimization using reconfigurable hardware. In Proceedings of ISIC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Martin Lukasiewycz, Martin Streubühr, Michael Glaß, Christian Haubelt, and Jürgen Teich. 2009. Combined system synthesis and communication architecture exploration for MPSoCs. In Proceedings of DATE.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Kai Neubauer, Philipp Wanko, Torsten Schaub, and Christian Haubelt. 2018. Exact multi-objective design space exploration using ASPmT. In Proceedings of DATE.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Lionel M. Ni and Philip K. McKinley. 1993. A survey of wormhole routing techniques in direct networks. Computer 2 (1993), 62--76.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Berkin Ozisikyilmaz, Gokhan Memik, and Alok Choudhary. 2008. Efficient system design space exploration using machine learning techniques. In DAC. ACM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Jacopo Panerati, Donatella Sciuto, and Giovanni Beltrame. 2017. Optimization Strategies in Design Space Exploration. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1--29.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V. Dubourg, J. Vanderplas, A. Passos, D. Cournapeau, M. Brucher, M. Perrot, and E. Duchesnay. 2011. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research 12 (2011), 2825--2830.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Behnaz Pourmohseni, Michael Glaß, and Jürgen Teich. 2017. Automatic operating point distillation for hybrid mapping methodologies. In DATE. IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Behnaz Pourmohseni, Fedor Smirnov, Stefan Wildermann, and Jürgen Teich. 2019. Isolation-aware timing analysis and design space exploration for predictable and composable many-core systems. In 31st Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems (ECRTS 2019) (Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs)), Vol. 133. Schloss Dagstuhl--Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Felix Reimann, Martin Lukasiewycz, Michael Glaß, and Fedor Smirnov. 2018. OpenDSE -- Open Design Space Exploration Framework. http://opendse.sourceforge.net/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Valentina Richthammer, Tobias Schwarzer, Stefan Wildermann, Jürgen Teich, and Michael Glaß. 2018. Architecture decomposition in system synthesis of heterogeneous many-core systems. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Design Automation Conference. ACM, 175.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Miyako Sagawa, Hernán Aguirre, Fabio Daolio, Arnaud Liefooghe, Bilel Derbel, Sébastien Verel, and Kiyoshi Tanaka. 2017. Learning variable importance to guide recombination on many-objective optimization. In IIAI-AAI. IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Alberto Sangiovanni-Vincentelli and Marco Di Natale. 2007. Embedded system design for automotive applications. Computer 40, 10 (2007).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Amit Kumar Singh, Akash Kumar, and Thambipillai Srikanthan. 2013. Accelerating throughput-aware runtime mapping for heterogeneous MPSoCs. ACM TODAES (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Fedor Smirnov. 2019. IGOR. https://github.com/FedorSmirnov89/IGOR.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Fedor Smirnov. 2019. MDR. https://github.com/FedorSmirnov89/MDR.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Fedor Smirnov, Behnaz Pourmohseni, Michael Glaß, and Jürgen Teich. 2019. Variety-aware routing encoding for efficient design space exploration of automotive communication networks. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Vehicle Technology and Intelligent Transport Systems - Volume 1: VEHITS,. INSTICC, SciTePress, 242--253.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Fedor Smirnov, Felix Reimann, Jürgen Teich, Zhao Han, and Michael Glaß. 2018. Automatic optimization of redundant message routings in automotive networks. In Proceedings of SCOPES.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Alice Smith, Alice E. Smith, David W. Coit, Thomas Baeck, David Fogel, and Zbigniew Michalewicz. 1997. Penalty Functions.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Reza Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, Jalal Safari, and Farrokh Sassani. 2008. Reliability optimization of series-parallel systems with a choice of redundancy strategies using a genetic algorithm. Reliability Engineering 8 System Safety 93, 4 (2008).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Pascal T. Wolkotte, Gerard J. M. Smit, Nikolay Kavaldjiev, Jens E. Becker, and Jürgen Becker. 2005. Energy model of networks-on-chip and a bus. In International Symposium on System-on-Chip (SoC).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Eckart Zitzler, Marco Laumanns, and Lothar Thiele. 2001. SPEA2: Improving the strength Pareto evolutionary algorithm. TIK-report 103 (2001).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Eckart Zitzler and Lothar Thiele. 1999. Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: A comparative case study and the strength Pareto approach. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 3.4 3, 4 (1999), 257--271.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Marcela Zuluaga, Andreas Krause, Peter Milder, and Markus Püschel. 2012. Smart design space sampling to predict Pareto-optimal solutions. In ACM SIGPLAN Notices, Vol. 47. ACM, 119--128.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. IGOR, Get Me the Optimum! Prioritizing Important Design Decisions During the DSE of Embedded Systems

        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

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format .

        View HTML Format
        About Cookies On This Site

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

        Learn more

        Got it!