skip to main content
research-article

Cooperative Coevolution-based Design Space Exploration for Multi-mode Dataflow Mapping

Authors Info & Claims
Published:27 March 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Some signal processing and multimedia applications can be specified by synchronous dataflow (SDF) models. The problem of SDF mapping to a given set of heterogeneous processors has been known to be NP-hard and widely studied in the design automation field. However, modern embedded applications are becoming increasingly complex with dynamic behaviors changes over time. As a significant extension to the SDF, the multi-mode dataflow (MMDF) model has been proposed to specify such an application with a finite number of behaviors (or modes) and each behavior (mode) is represented by an SDF graph. The multiprocessor mapping of an MMDF is far more challenging as the design space increases with the number of modes. Instead of using traditional genetic algorithm (GA)-based design space exploration (DSE) method that encodes the design space as a whole, this article proposes a novel cooperative co-evolutionary genetic algorithm (CCGA)-based framework to efficiently explore the design space by a new problem-specific decomposition strategy in which the solutions of node mapping for each individual mode are assigned to an individual population. Besides, a problem-specific local search operator is introduced as a supplement to the global search of CCGA for further improving the search efficiency of the whole framework. Furthermore, a fitness approximation method and a hybrid fitness evaluation strategy are applied for reducing the time consumption of fitness evaluation significantly. The experimental studies demonstrate the advantage of the proposed DSE method over the previous GA-based method. The proposed method can obtain an optimization result with 2×−3× better quality using less (1/2−1/3) optimization time.

References

  1. A. Bartoli, A. De Lorenzo, E. Medvet, and F. Tarlao. 2019. Automatic search-and-replace from examples with coevolutionary genetic programming. IEEE Trans. Cybernet. Retrieved from https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8734703.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. C. Bolchini and A. Miele. 2013. Reliability-driven system-level synthesis for mixed-critical embedded systems. IEEE Trans. Comput. 62, 12 (2013), 2489--2502.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. J. A. Boyan and A. W. Moore. 2000. Learning evaluation functions to improve optimization by local search. J. Mach. Learn. Res. (2000), 77--112.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. J. Caplan, Z. Albayati, H. Zeng, and B. H. Meyer. 2018. Mapping and scheduling mixed-criticality systems with on-demand redundancy. IEEE Trans. Comput. 67, 4 (2018), 582--588.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. X. Chen, Y. Ong, M. Lim, and K. C. Tan. 2011. A multi-facet survey on memetic computation. IEEE Trans. Evolution. Comput. 15, 5 (2011), 591--607.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. H. Chen, P. Tino, and X. Yao. 2009. Probabilistic classification vector machines. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. 20, 6 (2009), 901--914.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. H. Chen, P. Tino, A. Rodan, and X. Yao. 2014. Learning in the model space for cognitive fault diagnosis. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst. 25, 1 (2014), 124--136.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. S. Das, J. R. Doppa, P. P. Pande, and K. Chakrabarty. 2017. Design-space exploration and optimization of an energy-efficient and reliable 3-D small-world network-on-chip. IEEE Trans. Comput.-Aided Design Integr. Circ. Syst. 36, 5 (2017), 719--732.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. K. Deb, A. Pratap, S. Agarwal, and T. Meyarivan. 2002. A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans. Evolution. Comput. 6, 2 (2002), 182--197.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. C. Erbas, S. Ceraverbas, and A. D. Pimentel. 2006. Multiobjective optimization and evolutionary algorithms for the application mapping problem in multiprocessor system-on-chip design. IEEE Trans. Evolution. Comput. 10, 3 (2006), 358--374.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. M. Gong, H. Li, E. Luo, J. Liu, and J. Liu. 2017. A multi-objective cooperative coevolutionary algorithm for hyperspectral sparse unmixing. IEEE Trans. Evolution. Comput. 21, 2 (2017), 234--248.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. W. Jiang, L. Wen, K. Jiang, X. Zhang, X. Pan, and K. Zhou. 2016. System-level design to detect fault injection attacks on embedded real-time applications. ACM J. Emerg. Technol. Comput. Syst. 13, 2 (2016), 22.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Y. Jin. 2005. A comprehensive survey of fitness approximation in evolutionary computation. Soft Comput.g 9, 1 (2005), 3--12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Y. Jin, M. Olhofer, and B. Sendhoff. 2002. A framework for evolutionary optimization with approximate fitness functions. IEEE Trans. Evolution. Comput. 6, 5 (2002), 481--494.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. B. K. Joardar, R. G. Kim, J. R. Doppa, P. P. Pande, D. Marculescu, and R. Marculescu. 2019. Learning-based application-agnostic 3D NoC design for heterogeneous manycore systems. IEEE Trans. Comput. 68, 6 (2019), 852--866.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. H. Jung, C. Lee, S. Kang, S. Kim, H. Oh, and S. Ha. 2014. Dynamic behavior specification and dynamic mapping for real-time embedded systems: HOPES approach. ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems 13, 4s (2014), 135.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. H. Jung, H. Oh, and S. Ha. 2017. Multiprocessor scheduling of a multi-mode dataflow graph considering mode transition delay. ACM Trans. Design Autom. Electron. Syst. 22, 2 (2017), 37.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. N. Kadri and M. Koudil. 2019. A survey on fault-tolerant application mapping techniques for network-on-chip. J. Syst. Architect. 92 (2019), 39--52.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. R. Kumar, D. M. Tullsen, P. Ranganathan, N. P. Jouppi, and K. I. Farkas. 2004. Single-ISA heterogeneous multi-core architectures for multithreaded workload performance. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA’04). 64--72.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. E. L. Lawler. 1963. The quadratic assignment problem. Manage. Sci. 9, 4 (1963), 586--599.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. C. Lee, S. Kim, H. Oh, and S. Ha. 2013. Failure-aware task scheduling of synchronous data flow graphs under real-time constraints. J. Signal Process. Syst. 73, 2 (2013), 201--212.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. E. A. Lee and D. G. Messerschmitt. 1987. Synchronous data flow. Proc. IEEE 75, 9 (1987), 1235--1245.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. J. Lin, A. Srivatsa, A. Gerstlauer, and B. L. Evans. 2011. Heterogeneous multiprocessor mapping for real-time streaming systems. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP’11). 1605--1608.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. X. Lu, S. Menzel, K. Tang, and X. Yao. 2018. Cooperative co-evolution based design optimisation: A concurrent engineering perspective. IEEE Trans. Evolution. Comput. 22, 2 (2018), 173--188.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. K. Manna, P. Mukherjee, S. Chattopadhyay, and I. Sengupta. 2018. Thermal-aware application mapping strategy for network-on-chip based system design. IEEE Trans. Comput. 67, 4 (2018), 528--542.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. S. Nguyen, M. Zhang, M. Johnston, and K. C. Tan. 2014. Automatic design of scheduling policies for dynamic multi-objective job shop scheduling via cooperative coevolution genetic programming. IEEE Trans. Evolution. Comput. 18, 2 (2014), 193--208.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. P. Pop, V. Izosimov, P. Eles, and Z. Peng. 2009. Design optimization of time- and cost-constrained fault-tolerant embedded systems with checkpointing and replication. IEEE Trans. Very Large Scale Integr. Syst. 17, 3 (2009), 389--402.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. M. A. Potter and K. A. De Jong. 1994. A cooperative coevolutionary approach to function optimization. In Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature (PPSN’94). 249--257.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. W. Quan and A. D. Pimentel. 2013. A scenario-based run-time task mapping algorithm for MPSoCs. In Proceedings of the 50th Design Automation Conference (DAC’13).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. W. Quan and A. D. Pimentel. 2015. A hybrid task mapping algorithm for heterogeneous MPSoCs. ACM Trans. Embed. Comput. Syst. 14, 1 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. P. K. Sahu, T. Shah, K. Manna, and S. Chattopadhyay. 2014. Application mapping onto mesh-based network-on-chip using discrete particle swarm optimization. IEEE Trans. Very Large Scale Integr. Syst. 22, 2 (2014), 300--312.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. L. Schor, I. Bacivarov, D. Rai, H. Yang, S. Kang, and L. Thiele. 2012. Scenario-based design flow for mapping streaming applications onto on-chip many-core systems. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Compilers, Architectures and Synthesis for Embedded Systems (CASES’12). 71--80.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. T. Schwarzer, A. Weichslgartner, M. Glaß, S. Wildermann, P. Brand, and J. Teich. 2018. Symmetry-eliminating design space exploration for hybrid application mapping on many-core architectures. IEEE Trans. Comput.-Aided Design Integr. Circ. Syst. 37, 2 (2018), 297--310.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. A. K. Singh, M. Shafique, A. Kumar, and J. Henkel. 2013. Mapping on multi/many-core systems: Survey of current and emerging trends. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual Design Automation Conference (DAC’13). 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. M. Skelin, M. Geilen, F. Catthoor, and S. Hendseth. 2017. Parameterized dataflow scenarios. IEEE Trans. Comput.-Aided Design Integr. Circ. Syst. 36, 4 (2017), 669--682.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. S. Starke, N. Hendrich, and J. Zhang. 2019. Memetic evolution for generic full-body inverse kinematics in robotics and animation. IEEE Trans. Evolution. Comput. 23, 3 (2019), 406--420.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. S. Stuijk, M. Geilen, and T. Basten. 2010. A predictable multiprocessor design flow for streaming applications with dynamic behavior. In Proceedings of the 13th Euromicro Conference on Digital System Design: Architectures, Methods and Tools (DSD’10). 548--555.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. S. Stuijk, M. Geilen, B. Theelen, and T. Basten. 2011. Scenario-aware dataflow: modeling, analysis and implementation of dynamic applications. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Embedded Computer Systems: Architectures, Modeling, and Simulation (SAMOS’11). 404--411.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. B. Theelen, M. Geilen, T. Basten, J. Voeten, S. Gheorghita, and S. Stuijk. 2006. A scenario-aware data flow model for combined long-run average and worst-case performance analysis. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM and IEEE International Conference on Formal Methods and Models for Co-design (MEMOCODE’06). 185--194.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. B. Theelen, M. Geilen, S. Stuijk, S. Gheorghita, T. Basten, J. Voeten, and A. Ghamarian. 2008. Scenario-aware dataflow, TU Technical Report, Eindhoven University of Technology, ESR-2008-08, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. P. Van Stralen and A. D. Pimentel. 2010. Scenario-based design space exploration of MPSoCs. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Design (ICCD’10). 305--312.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. H. Wang, Y. Jin, and J. Doherty. 2017. Committee-based active learning for surrogate-assisted particle swarm optimization of expensive problems. IEEE Trans. Cybernet. 47, 9 (2017), 2664--2677.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. H. Wang, Y. Jin, C. Sun, and John Doherty. 2019. Offline data-driven evolutionary optimization using selective surrogate ensembles. IEEE Trans. Evolution. Comput. 23, 2 (2019), 203--216.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. S. Wang and L. Wang. 2016. An estimation of distribution algorithm-based memetic algorithm for the distributed assembly permutation flow-shop scheduling problem. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybernet.: Syst. 6, 1 (2016), 139--149.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Y. Yang. 2012. Exploring resource/performance trade-offs for streaming applications on embedded multiprocessors. Ph.D. Dissertation, Eindhoven University of Technology.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. B. Yuan, H. Chen, and X. Yao. 2020. Toward efficient design space exploration for fault-tolerant multiprocessor systems. IEEE Trans. Evolution. Comput. 24, 1 (2020), 157--169.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. B. Yuan, B. Li, H. Chen, and X. Yao. 2016. Defect-and variation-tolerant logic mapping in nanocrossbar using bipartite matching and memetic algorithm. IEEE Trans. Very Large Scale Integr. Syst. 24, 9 (2016), 2813--2826.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. B. Yuan, B. Li, T. Weise, and X. Yao. 2014. A new memetic algorithm with fitness approximation for the defect-tolerant logic mapping in crossbar-based nanoarchitectures. IEEE Trans. Evolution. Comput. 18, 6 (2014), 846--859.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Y. Zhou, J. Hao, and F. Glover. 2019. Memetic search for identifying critical nodes in sparse graphs. IEEE Trans. Cybernet. 49, 10 (2019), 3699--3712.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. E. Zitzler, M. Laumanns, and L. Thiele. 2002. SPEA2: Improving the strength pareto evolutionary algorithm for multiobjective optimization. In Evolutionary Methods for Design, Optimization, and Control, K. Giannakoglou, D. Tsahalis, J. Periaux, K. Papailiou, and T. Fogarty (Eds.). CIMNE, Barcelona, Spain, 95--100.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Cooperative Coevolution-based Design Space Exploration for Multi-mode Dataflow Mapping

        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!