skip to main content
research-article

Network-level Design Space Exploration of Resource-constrained Networks-of-Systems

Published:21 June 2020Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Driven by recent advances in networking and computing technologies, distributed application scenarios are increasingly deployed on resource-constrained processing platforms. This includes networked embedded and cyber-physical systems as well as edge computing in mobile applications and the Internet of Things (IoT). In such resource-constrained Networks-of-Systems (NoS), computation and communication workloads need to be carefully co-optimized yet are tightly coupled. How to optimally partition and schedule application tasks among an appropriately designed NoS architecture requires a simultaneous consideration of design parameters from applications and processing platforms all the way to network configurations. Traditionally, however, systems and networks are designed in isolation and combined in an ad hoc manner, which ignores joint effects and optimization opportunities. To systematically explore and optimize NoS design spaces, a higher level of design abstraction on top of traditional system and network design is required.

In this article, we propose a novel network-level design methodology for resource-constrained NoS optimization and design space exploration. A key component in such a design flow is fast yet accurate network/system co-simulation to rapidly evaluate NoS parameters with high fidelity. We first introduce a novel NoS simulator (NoSSim) that integrates source-level simulation models of applications with a host-compiled system simulation platform and a reconfigurable network simulation backplane to accurately capture system and network interactions. The co-simulation platform is further combined with model generation tools and a multi-objective genetic search algorithm to provide a comprehensive and fully automated NoS design space exploration framework. Finally, we apply our network-level design flow on several state-of-art IoT/mobile design case studies. Results show that NoSSim can achieve more than 86% simulation accuracy on average as compared to a real-world edge device cluster, where sensitivities to various design parameters are faithfully captured with high fidelity. When applying our network-level design space exploration methodology, design decisions are automatically optimized, where non-obvious NoS configurations are discovered outperforming manually designed solutions by more than 45%.

References

  1. Lan S. Bai, Robert P. Dick, Pai H. Chou, and Peter A. Dinda. 2011. Automated construction of fast and accurate system-level models for wireless sensor networks. In Proceedings of the Design, Automation and Test in Europe (DATE’11).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. A. Bakshi and V. K. Prasanna. 2004. Algorithm design and synthesis for wireless sensor networks. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Parallel Processing (ICPP’04).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Amal Banerjee and Andreas Gerstlauer. 2009. Transaction level modeling of best-effort channels for networked embedded devices. In Proceedings of the International Embedded Systems Symposium (IESS’09).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Nicola Bombieri, Franco Fummi, and Davide Quaglia. 2010. System/network design-space exploration based on TLM for networked embedded systems. ACM Trans. Embed. Comput. Syst. 9, 4 (Apr. 2010), 37:1--37:32.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. A. Bonivento, L. P. Carloni, and A. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli. 2006. Platform-based design of wireless sensor networks for industrial applications. In Proceedings of the Design, Automation and Test in Europe (DATE’06).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Oliver Bringmann, Wolfgang Ecker, Andreas Gerstlauer, Ajay Goyal, Daniel Mueller-Gritschneder, Prasanth Sasidharan, and Simranjit Singh. 2015. The next generation of virtual prototyping: Ultra-fast yet accurate simulation of HW/SW systems. In Proceedings of the Design, Automation and Test in Europe (DATE’15).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Luca Catarinucci, Danilo De Donno, Luca Mainetti, Luca Palano, Luigi Patrono, Maria Laura Stefanizzi, and Luciano Tarricone. 2015. An IoT-aware architecture for smart healthcare systems. IEEE Internet Things J. 2, 6 (2015), 515--526.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Zhaolin Cheng, Dhanya Devarajan, and Richard J. Radke. 2007. Determining vision graphs for distributed camera networks using feature digests. EURASIP J. Appl. Signal Process. 1 (2007), 220--220.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Markus Damm, Javier Moreno, Jan Haase, and Christoph Grimm. 2010. Using transaction level modeling techniques for wireless sensor network simulation. In Proceedings of the Design, Automation and Test in Europe (DATE’10).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. 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 (Apr. 2002), 182--197.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Dhanya Devarajan, Richard J. Radke, and Haeyong Chung. 2006. Distributed metric calibration of ad hoc camera networks. ACM Trans. Sensor Netw.2, 3 (2006), 380--403.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Charalampos Doukas and Ilias Maglogiannis. 2012. Bringing IoT and cloud computing towards pervasive healthcare. In Proceedings of the Conference on Innovative Mobile and Internet Services in Ubiquitous Computing (IMIS’12).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Wan Du, Fabien Mieyeville, David Navarro, and Ian O’Connor. 2011. IDEA1: A validated SystemC-based system-level design and simulation environment for wireless sensor network. EURASIP J. Wireless Commun. Netw. 1 (2011), 143.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. C. Erbas, S. Cerav-Erbas, 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 (June 2006), 358--374.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Konstantinos P. Ferentinos and Theodore A. Tsiligiridis. 2007. Adaptive design optimization of wireless sensor networks using genetic algorithms. Comput. Netw. 51, 4 (Mar. 2007), 1031--1051.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Félix-Antoine Fortin, François-Michel De Rainville, Marc-André Gardner, Marc Parizeau, and Christian Gagné. 2012. DEAP: Evolutionary algorithms made easy. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 13 (July 2012), 2171--2175.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Franco Fummi, Davide Quaglia, and Francesco Stefanni. 2008. A systemc-based framework for modeling and simulation of networked embedded systems. In Proceedings of the Forum on Specification, Verification and Design Languages (FDL’08).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Andreas Gerstlauer, Suhas Chakravarty, Manan Kathuria, and Parisa Razaghi. 2012. Abstract system-level models for early performance and power exploration. In Proceedings of the Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference (ASP-DAC’12).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. A. Gerstlauer, C. Haubelt, A. D. Pimentel, T. P. Stefanov, D. D. Gajski, and J. Teich. 2009. Electronic system-level synthesis methodologies. IEEE Trans. Comput.-Aided Design Integr. Circ. Syst. 28, 10 (Oct 2009), 1517--1530.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Yiping Kang, Johann Hauswald, Cao Gao, Austin Rovinski, Trevor Mudge, Jason Mars, and Lingjia Tang. 2017. Neurosurgeon: Collaborative intelligence between the cloud and mobile edge. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS’17).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Jing Lin, Andreas Gerstlauer, and Brian L. Evans. 2012. Communication-aware heterogeneous multiprocessor mapping for real-time streaming systems. J. Signal Process. Syst. 69, 3 (Dec. 2012), 279--291.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. lwip 2018. lwIP—A Lightweight TCP/IP stack. Retrieved from http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/lwip.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Jiachen Mao, Xiang Chen, Kent W. Nixon, Christopher Krieger, and Yiran Chen. 2017. MoDNN: Local distributed mobile computing system for deep neural network. In Proceedings of the Design, Automation and Test in Europe (DATE’17).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Ivan Minakov and Roberto Passerone. 2013. PASES: An energy-aware design space exploration framework for wireless sensor networks. J. Syst. Architect. 59, 8 (2013), 626--642.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. George B. Moody and Roger G. Mark. 2001. The impact of the MIT-BIH arrhythmia database. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Mag. 20, 3 (2001), 45--50.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Daniel Mueller-Gritschneder and Andreas Gerstlauer. 2017. Host-Compiled Simulation. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1--27.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Majid Nabi, Milos Blagojevic, Twan Basten, Marc Geilen, and Teun Hendriks. 2009. Configuring multi-objective evolutionary algorithms for design-space exploration of wireless sensor networks. In Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Performance Monitoring and Measurement of Heterogeneous Wireless and Wired Networks.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. ns3 2019. NS-3 Discrete-Event Network Simulator. Retrieved from http://www.nsnam.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Peter Ochs, Jitendra Malik, and Thomas Brox. 2014. Segmentation of moving objects by long term video analysis. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 36, 6 (2014), 1187--1200.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. A. D. Pimentel. 2017. Exploring exploration: A tutorial introduction to embedded systems design space exploration. IEEE Design Test 34, 1 (Feb. 2017), 77--90.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. A. Pinto, M. D’Angelo, C. Fischione, E. Scholte, and A. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli. 2008. Synthesis of embedded networks for building automation and control. In Proceedings of the American Control Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Markus Quaritsch, Markus Kreuzthaler, Bernhard Rinner, Horst Bischof, and Bernhard Strobl. 2007. Autonomous multicamera tracking on embedded smart cameras. EURASIP J. Embed. Syst. 1 (2007), 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Parisa Razaghi and Andreas Gerstlauer. 2014. Host-compiled multicore system simulation for early real-time performance evaluation. ACM Trans. Embed. Comput. Syst. 13, 5s (Dec. 2014), 166:1--166:26.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Joseph Redmon and Ali Farhadi. 2017. YOLO9000: Better, faster, stronger. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR’17).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. K. Romer and F. Mattern. 2004. The design space of wireless sensor networks. IEEE Wireless Commun. 11, 6 (Dec. 2004), 54--61.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Farzad Samie, Vasileios Tsoutsouras, Sotirios Xydis, Lars Bauer, Dimitrios Soudris, and Jörg Henkel. 2016. Distributed QoS management for internet of things under resource constraints. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Hardware/Software Codesign and System Synthesis (CODES+ISSS’16).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Parinaz Sayyah, Mihai T. Lazarescu, Davide Quaglia, Emad Ebeid, Sara Bocchio, and Alberto Rosti. 2012. Network-aware design-space exploration of a power-efficient embedded application. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Hardware/Software Codesign and System Synthesis (CODES+ISSS’12).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Jürgen Sommer, Simon Lüders, Suguna Subramanian, Stephen Schmitt, and Wolfgang Rosenstiel. 2009. SySifoS: SystemC simulator for sensor and communication systems. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Mobile Technology, Application 8 Systems.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Thilo Streichert, Michael Glaß, Christian Haubelt, and Jürgen Teich. 2007. Design space exploration of reliable networked embedded systems. J. Syst. Architect. 53, 10 (2007), 751--763.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Surat Teerapittayanon, Bradley McDanel, and Hsiang-Tsung Kung. 2017. Distributed deep neural networks over the cloud, the edge and end devices. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS’17).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. András Varga and Rudolf Hornig. 2008. An overview of the OMNeT++ simulation environment. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Simulation Tools and Techniques (SIMUtools’08).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Guohui Wang. 2018. ezSIFT: An easy-to-use standalone SIFT library. Retrieved from https://github.com/robertwgh/ezSIFT/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Zhuoran Zhao. 2018. DeepThings. Retrieved from https://github.com/SLAM-Lab/DeepThings.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Zhuoran Zhao. 2019. NoSDSE. Retrieved from https://github.com/SLAM-Lab/NoSDSE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Zhuoran Zhao. 2019. NoSSim. Retrieved from https://github.com/SLAM-Lab/NoSSim.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Zhuoran Zhao, Andreas Gerstlauer, and Lizy K. John. 2017. Source-level performance, energy, reliability, power and thermal (PERPT) simulation. IEEE Trans. Comput.-Aided Design Integr. Circ. Syst. 36, 2 (Feb. 2017), 299--312.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Zhuoran Zhao, Kamyar Mirzazad, and Andreas Gerstlauer. 2018. DeepThings: Distributed adaptive deep learning inference on resource-constrained IoT edge clusters. IEEE Trans. Comput.-Aided Design Integr. Circ. Syst. 37, 11 (Nov. 2018), 2348--2359.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Zhuoran Zhao, Vasileios Tsoutsouras, Dimitrios Soudris, and Andreas Gerstlauer. 2017. Network/system co-simulation for design space exploration of IoT applications. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Embedded Computer Systems: Architectures, Modeling and Simulation (SAMOS’17).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Eckart Zitzler, Marco Laumanns, and Lothar Thiele. 2001. SPEA2: Improving the strength pareto evolutionary algorithm. In Proceedings of the EUROGEN Conference: Evolutionary Methods for Design, Optimization and Control with Applications to Industrial Problems (2001).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Network-level Design Space Exploration of Resource-constrained Networks-of-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!