a superscalar out of order x86 soft processor for fpga
play

A Superscalar Out-of-Order x86 Soft Processor for FPGA Henry Wong - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Feb 08, 2023 •579 likes •1.89k views

A Superscalar Out-of-Order x86 Soft Processor for FPGA Henry Wong University of Toronto, Intel henry@stufgedcow.net June 5, 2019 Stanford University EE380 1 Hi! CPU architect, Intel Hillsboro Ph.D., University of Toronto Today:

  1. Processor Area and Frequency Component Estimated Frequency Area (ALM) (MHz) Decode * 6 000 247 Renaming 1 900 317 Scheduler * 4 000 275 Register fjle 2 400 260 Execution 2 300 240 Memory system (Logic) 9 000 200 (Caches) 5 000 Commit + ROB * 2 000 Microcode * 500 Total 28 700 200 * Area estimate for partial or unimplemented circuit ● Compare to Nios II/f with MMU and 32K L1I + 32K L1D – 4400 ALM (6.5× ), 245 MHz (0.82× ) 36

  2. Processor Area and Frequency Component Estimated Frequency Area (ALM) (MHz) Decode * 6 000 247 Renaming 1 900 317 Scheduler * 4 000 275 Register fjle 2 400 260 Execution 2 300 240 Memory system (Logic) 9 000 200 (Caches) 5 000 Commit + ROB * 2 000 Microcode * 500 Total 28 700 200 * Area estimate for partial or unimplemented circuit 7% of Stratix IV ● Compare to Nios II/f with MMU and 32K L1I + 32K L1D – 4400 ALM (6.5× ), 245 MHz (0.82× ) 37

  3. Processor Area and Frequency Component Estimated Frequency Area (ALM) (MHz) Decode * 6 000 247 Renaming 1 900 317 Scheduler * 4 000 275 Register fjle 2 400 260 Execution 2 300 240 Memory system (Logic) 9 000 200 (Caches) 5 000 Commit + ROB * 2 000 Optimize more? Microcode * 500 Total 28 700 200 * Area estimate for partial or unimplemented circuit 7% of Stratix IV ● Compare to Nios II/f with MMU and 32K L1I + 32K L1D – 4400 ALM (6.5× ), 245 MHz (0.82× ) 38

  4. Processor Area and Frequency Component Estimated Frequency Area (ALM) (MHz) Decode * 6 000 247 Renaming 1 900 317 Scheduler * 4 000 275 Register fjle 2 400 260 “OoO stufg” Execution 2 300 240 Memory system (Logic) 9 000 200 (Caches) 5 000 Commit + ROB * 2 000 Optimize more? Microcode * 500 Total 28 700 200 * Area estimate for partial or unimplemented circuit 7% of Stratix IV ● Compare to Nios II/f with MMU and 32K L1I + 32K L1D – 4400 ALM (6.5× ), 245 MHz (0.82× ) 39

  5. Per-clock performance (SPECint2000) Slower VIA C3 550 MHz 2.68 Nios II/f 100 MHz 2.73 2.06 Pentium 200 MHz Atom (Bonnell) 1600 MHz 1.63 1.46 AMD K6 166 MHz Pentium 4 2800 MHz 1.58 1.42 ARM Cortex-A9 800 MHz 1.26 Pentium Pro 233 MHz This work ~200 MHz 1.00 0.99 Atom (Silvermont) 2400 MHz VIA Nano 1000 MHz 0.87 0.91 Opteron K8 2800 MHz AMD Piledriver 3500 MHz 0.68 Core 2 Q9550 3400 MHz 0.56 0.44 Haswell 4300 MHz 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Relative Runtime Cycles 40

  6. Per-clock performance (SPECint2000) Slower ● Nios II/f: 2.73× VIA C3 550 MHz 2.68 Nios II/f 100 MHz 2.73 – Wall-clock: 2.23× 2.06 Pentium 200 MHz ● Pentium Pro (1995): 1.26× Atom (Bonnell) 1600 MHz 1.63 – Also 8 KB/256 KB cache 1.46 AMD K6 166 MHz – 3-way OoO Pentium 4 2800 MHz 1.58 ● Atom Silvermont (2013): 0.99× 1.42 ARM Cortex-A9 800 MHz 1.26 Pentium Pro 233 MHz – Also 2-way OoO This work ~200 MHz 1.00 – 32 KB/2 MB cache 0.99 Atom (Silvermont) 2400 MHz VIA Nano 1000 MHz 0.87 ● Large performance increases vs. Nios II/f 0.91 Opteron K8 2800 MHz AMD Piledriver 3500 MHz 0.68 ● Comparable per-clock performance to Core 2 Q9550 3400 MHz 0.56 similar x86 microarchitectures 0.44 Haswell 4300 MHz 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Relative Runtime Cycles 41

  7. Per-clock performance (SPECint2000) Slower ● Nios II/f: 2.73× VIA C3 550 MHz VIA C3 550 MHz 2.68 2.68 Nios II/f 100 MHz Nios II/f 100 MHz 2.73 2.73 – Wall-clock: 2.23× 2.06 2.06 Pentium 200 MHz Pentium 200 MHz ● Pentium Pro (1995): 1.26× Atom (Bonnell) 1600 MHz Atom (Bonnell) 1600 MHz 1.63 1.63 – Also 8 KB/256 KB cache 1.46 1.46 AMD K6 166 MHz AMD K6 166 MHz – 3-way OoO Pentium 4 2800 MHz Pentium 4 2800 MHz 1.58 1.58 ● Atom Silvermont (2013): 0.99× ARM Cortex-A9 800 MHz 1.42 1.42 ARM Cortex-A9 800 MHz 1.26 1.26 Pentium Pro 233 MHz Pentium Pro 233 MHz – Also 2-way OoO This work ~200 MHz This work ~200 MHz 1.00 1.00 – 32 KB/2 MB cache 0.99 0.99 Atom (Silvermont) 2400 MHz Atom (Silvermont) 2400 MHz VIA Nano 1000 MHz VIA Nano 1000 MHz 0.87 0.87 ● Large performance increases vs. Nios II/f Opteron K8 2800 MHz 0.91 0.91 Opteron K8 2800 MHz 0.68 AMD Piledriver 3500 MHz AMD Piledriver 3500 MHz 0.68 ● Comparable per-clock performance to Core 2 Q9550 3400 MHz Core 2 Q9550 3400 MHz 0.56 0.56 similar x86 microarchitectures 0.44 0.44 Haswell 4300 MHz Haswell 4300 MHz 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 Relative Runtime Cycles Relative Runtime Cycles 42

  8. Per-clock performance (SPECint2000) Slower ● Nios II/f: 2.73× VIA C3 550 MHz VIA C3 550 MHz VIA C3 550 MHz 2.68 2.68 2.68 Nios II/f 100 MHz Nios II/f 100 MHz Nios II/f 100 MHz 2.73 2.73 2.73 – Wall-clock: 2.23× 2.06 2.06 2.06 Pentium 200 MHz Pentium 200 MHz Pentium 200 MHz ● Pentium Pro (1995): 1.26× Atom (Bonnell) 1600 MHz Atom (Bonnell) 1600 MHz Atom (Bonnell) 1600 MHz 1.63 1.63 1.63 – Also 8 KB/256 KB cache 1.46 1.46 1.46 AMD K6 166 MHz AMD K6 166 MHz AMD K6 166 MHz – 3-way OoO Pentium 4 2800 MHz Pentium 4 2800 MHz Pentium 4 2800 MHz 1.58 1.58 1.58 ● Atom Silvermont (2013): 0.99× ARM Cortex-A9 800 MHz ARM Cortex-A9 800 MHz 1.42 1.42 1.42 ARM Cortex-A9 800 MHz 1.26 1.26 1.26 Pentium Pro 233 MHz Pentium Pro 233 MHz Pentium Pro 233 MHz – Also 2-way OoO This work ~200 MHz This work ~200 MHz This work ~200 MHz 1.00 1.00 1.00 – 32 KB/2 MB cache 0.99 0.99 0.99 Atom (Silvermont) 2400 MHz Atom (Silvermont) 2400 MHz Atom (Silvermont) 2400 MHz VIA Nano 1000 MHz VIA Nano 1000 MHz VIA Nano 1000 MHz 0.87 0.87 0.87 ● Large performance increases vs. Nios II/f Opteron K8 2800 MHz Opteron K8 2800 MHz 0.91 0.91 0.91 Opteron K8 2800 MHz 0.68 0.68 AMD Piledriver 3500 MHz AMD Piledriver 3500 MHz AMD Piledriver 3500 MHz 0.68 ● Comparable per-clock performance to Core 2 Q9550 3400 MHz Core 2 Q9550 3400 MHz Core 2 Q9550 3400 MHz 0.56 0.56 0.56 similar x86 microarchitectures 0.44 0.44 0.44 Haswell 4300 MHz Haswell 4300 MHz Haswell 4300 MHz 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 Relative Runtime Cycles Relative Runtime Cycles Relative Runtime Cycles 43

  9. Per-clock performance (SPECint2000) Slower ● Nios II/f: 2.73× VIA C3 550 MHz VIA C3 550 MHz VIA C3 550 MHz VIA C3 550 MHz 2.68 2.68 2.68 2.68 Nios II/f 100 MHz Nios II/f 100 MHz Nios II/f 100 MHz Nios II/f 100 MHz 2.73 2.73 2.73 2.73 – Wall-clock: 2.23× 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 Pentium 200 MHz Pentium 200 MHz Pentium 200 MHz Pentium 200 MHz ● Pentium Pro (1995): 1.26× Atom (Bonnell) 1600 MHz Atom (Bonnell) 1600 MHz Atom (Bonnell) 1600 MHz Atom (Bonnell) 1600 MHz 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 – Also 8 KB/256 KB cache 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46 AMD K6 166 MHz AMD K6 166 MHz AMD K6 166 MHz AMD K6 166 MHz – 3-way OoO Pentium 4 2800 MHz Pentium 4 2800 MHz Pentium 4 2800 MHz Pentium 4 2800 MHz 1.58 1.58 1.58 1.58 ● Atom Silvermont (2013): 0.99× ARM Cortex-A9 800 MHz ARM Cortex-A9 800 MHz ARM Cortex-A9 800 MHz 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42 ARM Cortex-A9 800 MHz 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.26 Pentium Pro 233 MHz Pentium Pro 233 MHz Pentium Pro 233 MHz Pentium Pro 233 MHz – Also 2-way OoO This work ~200 MHz This work ~200 MHz This work ~200 MHz This work ~200 MHz 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 – 32 KB/2 MB cache 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Atom (Silvermont) 2400 MHz Atom (Silvermont) 2400 MHz Atom (Silvermont) 2400 MHz Atom (Silvermont) 2400 MHz VIA Nano 1000 MHz VIA Nano 1000 MHz VIA Nano 1000 MHz VIA Nano 1000 MHz 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 ● Large performance increases vs. Nios II/f Opteron K8 2800 MHz Opteron K8 2800 MHz Opteron K8 2800 MHz 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Opteron K8 2800 MHz 0.68 0.68 0.68 AMD Piledriver 3500 MHz AMD Piledriver 3500 MHz AMD Piledriver 3500 MHz AMD Piledriver 3500 MHz 0.68 ● Comparable per-clock performance to Core 2 Q9550 3400 MHz Core 2 Q9550 3400 MHz Core 2 Q9550 3400 MHz Core 2 Q9550 3400 MHz 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 similar x86 microarchitectures 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 Haswell 4300 MHz Haswell 4300 MHz Haswell 4300 MHz Haswell 4300 MHz 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Relative Runtime Cycles Relative Runtime Cycles Relative Runtime Cycles Relative Runtime Cycles 44

  10. Summary 1 ● Designed microarchitecture and circuits for a superscalar out-of-order x86 soft processor – Both user and system modes ● Area: 6.5× Nios II/f, but afgordable – 7% Stratix IV or 1.3% Stratix 10 ● Performance: 2.2× Nios II/f on SPECint2000 – Per-clock: ~2.7× – Frequency: ~0.8× ● Out-of-order increases soft processor performance without rewriting software ● x86 is feasible on FPGA 45

  11. Part 2: Pipeline Details ● Sketch of interesting circuits at each stage ● Timing budget: ~5 LUT levels (< 3.5 ns) ● Many circuits designed bottom-up – LUT granularity 46 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  12. Front end: Fetch-decode ● Fetch bandwidth – 3.4 B per instruction – Fetch 8 B/cycle 1 1 0.9 0.9 Frequency 0.8 0.8 Cumulative frequency 0.7 0.7 Cumulative Frequency 0.6 0.6 Frequency 0.5 0.5 0.36 0.4 0.4 0.27 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.12 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.1 0.04 0.1 3E-11 0.02 1E-3 3E-3 9E-5 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Instruction length (bytes) x86 : Worst case is complex, but common case isn’t too bad ICache Bytes Instructions Micro-ops Renamer → → → → 47 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  13. Front end: Fetch-decode ● Fetch bandwidth – 3.4 B per instruction 8B/cycle Multi-cycle – Fetch 8 B/cycle 1 1 1 1 ● Length decode 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.86 Frequency Frequency 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 Cumulative frequency Cumulative frequency – Prefjx bytes uncommon 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 Cumulative Frequency Cumulative Frequency 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 – Fast decode up to 1 Frequency Frequency 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 prefjx 0.36 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.27 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.12 0.14 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.1 0.1 0.04 0.1 0.1 3E-11 0.02 1E-3 3E-3 9E-5 0.0006 1E-6 6E-10 3E-10 1E-10 3E-11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Instruction length (bytes) Number of prefix bytes x86 : Worst case is complex, but common case isn’t too bad ICache Bytes Instructions Micro-ops Renamer → → → → 48 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  14. Front end: Fetch-decode ● Fetch bandwidth 2-issue 1-issue – 3.4 B per instruction Multi-cycle – Fetch 8 B/cycle 0.94 1 1 1 1 1 1 ● Length decode 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.86 Frequency Frequency Frequency 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 Cumulative frequency Cumulative frequency Cumulative frequency – Prefjx bytes uncommon 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 Cumulative Frequency Cumulative Frequency Cumulative Frequency 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 – Fast decode up to 1 Frequency Frequency Frequency 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 prefjx 0.36 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.27 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 ● Decode into micro-ops 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.12 0.14 0.08 0.07 0.05 – 1 is common case 0.04 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.04 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.02 3E-11 0.02 1E-4 2E-4 4E-5 3E-5 1E-4 1E-3 3E-3 9E-5 7E-6 5E-5 8E-9 1E-5 0.0006 1E-6 6E-10 3E-10 1E-10 3E-11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 1 4 5 2 6 7 3 8 4 9 10 5 11 12 6 13 14 7+ 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 – Dual-issue up to 2, single- Instruction length (bytes) Micro-ops per instruction Number of prefix bytes issue up to 4 x86 : Worst case is complex, but common case isn’t too bad ICache Bytes Instructions Micro-ops Renamer → → → → 49 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  15. Register Renamer ● Read : Map logical Speculative register mapping table eax ecx register numbers to edx ebx esp physical ebp esi PRF A edi – ~14 sources/clk eflags fpucw fpusw tmp0 ● Write : Update mapping tmp1 Physical register file table – ~4 destinations/clk Map logical reg physical reg , 2 uops/clock → 50 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  16. Register Renamer ● Read : Map logical Speculative register mapping table Speculative register mapping table eax eax ecx ecx register numbers to edx edx ebx ebx esp esp physical ebp ebp esi esi PRF A PRF A PRF B PRF C edi edi – ~14 sources/clk eflags eflags fpucw fpucw fpusw fpusw tmp0 tmp0 ● Write : Update mapping tmp1 tmp1 Physical register file Physical register file table – ~4 destinations/clk ● Allows 1w-port reg. fjles – Each ALU “owns” an RF Map logical reg physical reg , 2 uops/clock → 51 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  17. Register Renamer ● Read : Map logical Speculative register mapping table Speculative register mapping table Speculative register mapping table eax eax eax ecx ecx ecx register numbers to edx edx edx ebx ebx ebx esp esp esp physical ebp ebp ebp esi esi esi PRF A PRF A PRF A PRF B PRF B PRF C PRF C edi edi edi – ~14 sources/clk eflags eflags eflags fpucw fpucw fpucw fpusw fpusw fpusw tmp0 tmp0 tmp0 ● Write : Update mapping tmp1 tmp1 tmp1 Physical register file Physical register file Physical register file table Copy: pipeline flush – ~4 destinations/clk ● Allows 1w-port reg. fjles Committed register mapping table eax – Each ALU “owns” an RF ecx edx ebx esp ● Used for recovery from ebp esi edi misspeculation eflags fpucw fpusw tmp0 tmp1 Map logical reg physical reg , 2 uops/clock → 52 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  18. Renamer Circuit From Decode String-op Microcode μop 0 μop 1 StringOp × 2 μcode × 2 μop 0 μop 1 Pause? OCZAPS Free list A OCZAPS Free list B GPR Free list A GPR Free list B GPR Free list C SREG Free list Choose Operands Choose Operands Forwarding and mux select 6 regs 2 regs 4 regs dst0 dst1 dst GPR C GPR C GPR RAT SREG RAT OCZAPS RF_is_zero 13 x 8-bit 12 x 4-bit 1 x 5-bit 1 x 1-bit (64 p.regs) (16 p.regs) (16 p.regs) Forwarding 6r 2w ports 4r 2w ports 1r 1w ports 1r 1w ports GPR Forwarding SREG Forwarding Forwarding ALUop0 [dst,src,src] AGUop0 [dst,src,src,src,seg] ALUop1 [dst,src,src] AGUop1 [dst,src,src,src,seg] w r w r μop 0 μop 1 ● Stage 1: Pick two uops; fjnd where each operand comes from ● Stage 2: A bunch of read muxes; write destination regs to RAT ● 317 MHz, 1900 ALMs ● x86 : Few registers: small FF-based RAT. But ≥3 register types. 53 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  19. Scheduling: Track dependencies ● Pick a ready operation, execute , and wake up dependents 54 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  20. Scheduling: Track dependencies ● Pick a ready operation, execute , and wake up dependents 55 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  21. Scheduling: Track dependencies ● Pick a ready operation, execute , and wake up dependents 56 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  22. Scheduling: Track dependencies ● Pick a ready operation, execute , and wake up dependents 57 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  23. Scheduling: Track dependencies ● Pick a ready operation, execute , and wake up dependents 58 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  24. Scheduler Size 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 IPC 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 Scheduler Capacity (entries) ● Can trade capacity (area and frequency) for IPC 59

  25. Scheduler Size 0.9 0.8 0.7 32 entries 275 MHz 0.6 0.5 IPC 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 Scheduler Capacity (entries) ● Can trade capacity (area and frequency) for IPC 60

  26. Scheduler Circuit ● 4-way distributed matrix scheduler ● 32-entry (10, 10, 7, 5) – 275 MHz ● Comparison: – Pentium Pro: 20 – Haswell: 60 – Ryzen: 84 (6×14) – Skylake: 97 61 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  27. Scheduler Circuit ● 4-way distributed matrix scheduler ● 32-entry (10, 10, 7, 5) – 275 MHz ● Comparison: – Pentium Pro: 20 – Haswell: 60 – Ryzen: 84 (6×14) – Skylake: 97 62 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  28. Scheduler Circuit ● 4-way distributed matrix scheduler ● 32-entry (10, 10, 7, 5) – 275 MHz ● Comparison: – Pentium Pro: 20 – Haswell: 60 – Ryzen: 84 (6×14) – Skylake: 97 63 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  29. Scheduler Circuit ● 4-way distributed matrix scheduler ● 32-entry (10, 10, 7, 5) – 275 MHz ● Comparison: – Pentium Pro: 20 – Haswell: 60 – Ryzen: 84 (6×14) – Skylake: 97 64 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  30. Scheduler Circuit ● 4-way distributed matrix scheduler ● 32-entry (10, 10, 7, 5) – 275 MHz ● Comparison: – Pentium Pro: 20 – Haswell: 60 – Ryzen: 84 (6×14) – Skylake: 97 65 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  31. Scheduler Circuit ● 4-way distributed matrix scheduler ● 32-entry (10, 10, 7, 5) – 275 MHz ● Comparison: – Pentium Pro: 20 – Haswell: 60 – Ryzen: 84 (6×14) – Skylake: 97 66 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  32. Scheduler Picker: Bit Scan Ready (input) Newer Older Scan for fjrst ready Bit scan (output) ● Pick fjrst ready instruction to execute 67 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  33. Scheduler Picker: Bit Scan Ready (input) Newer Older Scan for fjrst ready Bit scan (output) ● Pick fjrst ready instruction to execute 68 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  34. Scheduler Picker: Bit Scan Ready (input) Bit scan (output) ● Pick fjrst ready instruction to execute ● Logarithmic depth: radix-6 – Han-Carlson prefjx tree – Very diffjcult to code: Synthesizer makes it linear depth again 69 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  35. Execution ● Three difgerent execution units – Complex, 3+ cycle – Simple, 1 cycle – Address generation ● Latency vs. delay circuit design problem 70 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  36. Execution ● Three difgerent execution units – Complex, 3+ cycle – Simple, 1 cycle – Address generation ● Latency vs. delay circuit design problem 71 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  37. Execution ● Three difgerent execution units – Complex, 3+ cycle – Simple, 1 cycle – Address generation ● Latency vs. delay circuit design problem 72 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  38. Execution ● Three difgerent execution units – Complex, 3+ cycle – Simple, 1 cycle – Address generation ● Latency vs. delay circuit design problem 73 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  39. Execution ● Three difgerent execution units – Complex, 3+ cycle – Simple, 1 cycle – Address generation ● Latency vs. delay circuit design problem 74 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  40. Execution ● Three difgerent execution units – Complex, 3+ cycle – Simple, 1 cycle – Address generation ● Latency vs. delay circuit design problem 75 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  41. Execution ● Three difgerent execution units – Complex, 3+ cycle – Simple, 1 cycle – Address generation ● Latency vs. delay circuit design problem 76 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  42. Execution Circuits: Simple ALU ● Three parts: – Shifter – Adder – Bitwise logic ● We’ll look at shifter and adder circuits 77 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  43. Execution Circuits: Simple ALU ● Three parts: – Shifter – Adder – Bitwise logic ● We’ll look at shifter and adder circuits 78 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  44. Execution Circuits: Simple ALU ● Three parts: – Shifter – Adder – Bitwise logic ● We’ll look at shifter and adder circuits 79 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  45. Execution Circuit: Shifter ● Minimal 32-bit shifter: Needs 3 LUT levels (4-to-1 mux per level) ● We used a rotate + mask circuit: Almost 3 LUT levels 80 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  46. Execution Circuit: Shifter ● Minimal 32-bit shifter: Needs 3 LUT levels (4-to-1 mux per level) ● We used a rotate + mask circuit: Almost 3 LUT levels – Left and right. 32-, 16-, and 8-bit operands – Rotate, shift, arithmetic shift – Rotate-through-carry-by-1 – Byte swap (aa bb cc dd dd cc bb aa) → – Sign extension 81 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  47. Execution Circuit: Shifter ● Minimal 32-bit shifter: Needs 3 LUT levels (4-to-1 mux per level) ● We used a rotate + mask circuit: Almost 3 LUT levels – Left and right. 32-, 16-, and 8-bit operands – Rotate, shift, arithmetic shift – Rotate-through-carry-by-1 – Byte swap (aa bb cc dd dd cc bb aa) → – Sign extension ● 2.9 ns, 54% faster (and 46% smaller) than HDL synthesis 82 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  48. Execution Circuit: Adder ● FPGAs have carry chains: Can’t improve on it by much 83 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  49. Execution Circuit: Adder ● FPGAs have carry chains: Can’t improve on it by much ● Condition codes: ZF means “is the result zero?” – 32/16/8-bit NOR gate is 3 LUT levels plus the adder... 84 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  50. Execution Circuit: Adder ● FPGAs have carry chains: Can’t improve on it by much ● Condition codes: ZF means “is the result zero?” – 32/16/8-bit NOR gate is 3 LUT levels plus the adder... ● Computing a + b = K does not need addition! – ZF: 3 LUT levels in parallel with adder 85 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  51. Execution Circuit: Adder ● FPGAs have carry chains: Can’t improve on it by much ● Condition codes: ZF means “is the result zero?” – 32/16/8-bit NOR gate is 3 LUT levels plus the adder... ● Computing a + b = K does not need addition! – ZF: 3 LUT levels in parallel with adder 86 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  52. Execution Circuit: Adder ● FPGAs have carry chains: Can’t improve on it by much ● Condition codes: ZF means “is the result zero?” – 32/16/8-bit NOR gate is 3 LUT levels plus the adder... ● Computing a + b = K does not need addition! – ZF: 3 LUT levels in parallel with adder ● 2.3ns, 24% faster, +55% area (+30 ALM) vs. HDL synthesis 87 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  53. Memory System Microarchitecture Store ● Memory operations Load – Store: mov [ecx], eax – Load: mov eax, [ecx] 88 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  54. Memory System Microarchitecture Store ● Memory operations Load – Store: mov [ecx], eax – Load: mov eax, [ecx] ● Caches – For performance (Instruction and data) – For OS support (TLB and page walking) 89 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  55. Basic Cache Trade-ofgs 90 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  56. Basic Cache Trade-ofgs 1.4 Bigger L1 cache 1.2 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.94 0.91 0.85 0.8 0.74 0.6 0.60 0.46 0.4 256 KB L2 cache 0.2 No L2 cache 0 Dhrystone SPECint 2000 ● Bigger cache higher IPC → – Sensitivity varies with workload 91 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  57. Basic Cache Trade-ofgs 1.4 Bigger L1 cache 1.2 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.94 0.91 0.85 0.8 0.74 0.6 0.60 0.46 0.4 256 KB L2 cache 0.2 No L2 cache 0 Dhrystone SPECint 2000 ● Bigger cache higher IPC → – Sensitivity varies with workload ● L1 caches need to be small (We chose 8 KB) 92 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  58. Basic Cache Trade-ofgs 1.4 Bigger L1 cache 1.13 1.11 1.2 1.10 1.07 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.94 0.91 0.85 0.8 0.74 0.6 0.60 0.46 0.4 256 KB L2 cache 0.2 No L2 cache 0 Dhrystone Dhrystone SPECint 2000 SPECint 2000 ● Bigger cache higher IPC → – Sensitivity varies with workload ● L1 caches need to be small (We chose 8 KB) ● L2 cache (256 KB) mostly makes up for this 93 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  59. More Memory System Trade-ofgs 1.35 1.32 + Out-of-order + 4 misses in-fight Stall on cache miss In-order memory 1.3 Relative IPC vs. In-order Blocking 1.25 1.21 1.2 1.15 1.08 1.1 1.05 1.01 1 Blocking, In-order 0.95 Non-blocking, In-order Non-blocking, Out-of-order 0.9 Dhrystone SPECint 2000 ● Multiple in-fight misses ● Out-of-order – Memory dependence speculation 94 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  60. L1 Memory System ● TLB lookup ● Cache tag compare ● Cache data rotate (32 B) 95 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  61. L1 Memory System ● TLB lookup ● Cache tag compare ● Cache data rotate (32 B) 96 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  62. L1 Memory System ● TLB lookup ● Cache tag compare ● Cache data rotate (32 B) ● Long critical path for direct implementation 97 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  63. L1 Memory System ● TLB lookup ● Cache tag compare ● Cache data rotate (32 B) ● Long critical path for direct implementation 98 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  64. What happens to a load: simplifjed 99 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

  65. What happens to a load: simplifjed 100 Fetch Len. decode Decode Rename Schedule Execute Memory Commit

Recommend

Out- -of of- -Order Order Out Tomasulos Algorithm Superscalar CPU Superscalar CPU -

Out- -of of- -Order Order Out Tomasulos Algorithm Superscalar CPU Superscalar CPU -

The Basis of Our Design Out- -of of- -Order Order Out Tomasulos Algorithm Superscalar CPU Superscalar CPU - Allows out-of-order execution - Instructions wait in Reservation Stations - Execute instructions once operands have been

405 views • 7 slides
Out- -of of- -Order Order Out Superscalar CPU Superscalar CPU Cliff Frey and Vicky Liu May

Out- -of of- -Order Order Out Superscalar CPU Superscalar CPU Cliff Frey and Vicky Liu May

Out- -of of- -Order Order Out Superscalar CPU Superscalar CPU Cliff Frey and Vicky Liu May 6 th , 2005 May 6 th , 2005 6.884 Final Project Presentation The Basis of Our Design Tomasulos Algorithm - Allows out-of-order execution -

651 views • 25 slides
Caches Out-of-order execution Data flow model Samira Khan Superscalar processor March

Caches Out-of-order execution Data flow model Samira Khan Superscalar processor March

3/21/17 Agenda Logistics Review from last lecture Caches Out-of-order execution Data flow model Samira Khan Superscalar processor March 21, 2017 Caches Final Exam AN AN IN-OR ORDER PIPELINE Integer add Combined

310 views • 13 slides
Trojans Modifying Soft-Processor Instruction Sequences Embedded in FPGA Bitstreams Ismail

Trojans Modifying Soft-Processor Instruction Sequences Embedded in FPGA Bitstreams Ismail

Trojans Modifying Soft-Processor Instruction Sequences Embedded in FPGA Bitstreams Ismail San, Nicole Fern, C etin Kaya Ko c and Kwang-Ting (Tim) Cheng University of California Santa Barbara Anadolu University FPL 2016 August 31,

72 views • 6 slides
A Fault Tolerant Superscalar Processor 1 [Based on Coverage of a Microarchitecture-level

A Fault Tolerant Superscalar Processor 1 [Based on Coverage of a Microarchitecture-level

A Fault Tolerant Superscalar Processor 1 [Based on Coverage of a Microarchitecture-level Fault Check Regimen in a Superscalar Processor by V. Reddy and E. Rotenberg (2008)] P R E S E N T E D B Y N A N Z H E N G [Part of slides borrowed

398 views • 21 slides
1 Register Renaming Examples Register Mapping Status Loop: Renamed dynamic instructions: R1

1 Register Renaming Examples Register Mapping Status Loop: Renamed dynamic instructions: R1

Generic Superscalar Processor Models Issue queue based Lecture 11: Modern Superscalar FU Rename Wakeup D-cache Regfile bypass Fetch select Processor Models FU commit schedule Generic Superscalar Models, Issue execute Reservation

139 views • 3 slides
FPGA co-processor Patrick Dunne for the co-processor group Introduction Co-processor will

FPGA co-processor Patrick Dunne for the co-processor group Introduction Co-processor will

FPGA co-processor Patrick Dunne for the co-processor group Introduction Co-processor will take care of data compression and trigger primitive generation Co-processor will also perform data buffering for supernova trigger Sits on FELIX

522 views • 13 slides
Processor Architecture Charles Eric LaForest J. Gregory Steffan ECE, University of Toronto FPGA

Processor Architecture Charles Eric LaForest J. Gregory Steffan ECE, University of Toronto FPGA

Octavo: An FPGA-Centric Processor Architecture Charles Eric LaForest J. Gregory Steffan ECE, University of Toronto FPGA 2012, February 24 Easier FPGA Programming We focus on overlay architectures Nios, MicroBlaze, Vector Processors

519 views • 38 slides
Embedded systems &amp; the Nios II soft core processor A Nios II processor system I equivalent to

Embedded systems &amp; the Nios II soft core processor A Nios II processor system I equivalent to

Embedded systems &amp; the Nios II soft core processor A Nios II processor system I equivalent to a microcontroller or System on a chip (SoC) The Nios II processor family consits of two configurable 32-bit Harvard architecture cores Fast (/f

121 views • 10 slides
Efficient FPGA implementation of a Digital Transparent Satellite Processor G. Marini, V. Sulli, F.

Efficient FPGA implementation of a Digital Transparent Satellite Processor G. Marini, V. Sulli, F.

Efficient FPGA implementation of a Digital Transparent Satellite Processor G. Marini, V. Sulli, F. Santucci, M. Faccio University of LAquila, LAquila, Italy Outline Introduction Problem Definition Resolution Method FPGA

1.27k views • 22 slides
FPGA Implementation of an Asynchronous Processor with Both Online and Offline Testing

FPGA Implementation of an Asynchronous Processor with Both Online and Offline Testing

FPGA Implementation of an Asynchronous Processor with Both Online and Offline Testing Capabilities Nikolaos Minas Matthew Marshall Gordon Russell Alex Yakovlev Outline Introduction. Error Detection/Correction overview. Information

730 views • 27 slides
Building Multi-Processor FPGA Systems Hands-on Tutorial to Using FPGAs and Linux Chris Martin

Building Multi-Processor FPGA Systems Hands-on Tutorial to Using FPGAs and Linux Chris Martin

Building Multi-Processor FPGA Systems Hands-on Tutorial to Using FPGAs and Linux Chris Martin Member Technical Staff Embedded Applications Agenda Introduction Problem: How to Integrate Multi-Processor Subsystems Why Why would you do

891 views • 42 slides
Modern processor design Hung-Wei Tseng Outline Achieving CPI &lt; 1 Improving

Modern processor design Hung-Wei Tseng Outline Achieving CPI &lt; 1 Improving

Modern processor design Hung-Wei Tseng Outline Achieving CPI &lt; 1 Improving instruction level parallelism SuperScalar Dynamic scheduling/Out-of-order execution Simultaneous multithreading 3 Instruction level parallelism

836 views • 23 slides
FastTrack : Leveraging Heterogeneous FPGA Wires to Design Low-cost High-performance Soft NoCs

FastTrack : Leveraging Heterogeneous FPGA Wires to Design Low-cost High-performance Soft NoCs

FastTrack : Leveraging Heterogeneous FPGA Wires to Design Low-cost High-performance Soft NoCs Nachiket Kapre + Tushar Krishna nachiket@uwaterloo.ca, tushar@ece.gatech.edu 1/29 Claim FPGA overlay NoCs designed to exploit interconnect

703 views • 48 slides
Softwar tware-Fir First st FPGA GA Ac Accele elerato rator r De Desi sign gn Make it

Softwar tware-Fir First st FPGA GA Ac Accele elerato rator r De Desi sign gn Make it

2GRVI Phalanx: A A Ki Kilocor locore RISC ISC-V V RV64I V64I Pr Processor ocessor Clust ster er Arr rray ay with h HBM BM2 2 In In a Xili linx nx VU37P 37P FPG FPGA Wor ork k in Progr ogress ss Re Repor ort Jan Gray |

710 views • 23 slides
RTLinux in an FPGA Alejandro Lucero alucero@os3sl.com www.os3sl.com RTLinux in a FPGA 1.

RTLinux in an FPGA Alejandro Lucero alucero@os3sl.com www.os3sl.com RTLinux in a FPGA 1.

RTLinux in an FPGA Alejandro Lucero alucero@os3sl.com www.os3sl.com RTLinux in a FPGA 1. OpenRTU Project 2. FPGAs and soft processors 3. uClinux 4. RTLinux in Microblaze www.os3sl.com RTLinux in a FPGA 1. OpenRTU Project Spanish

378 views • 33 slides
Approaching Overhead-Free Execution on FPGA Soft-Processors Charles Eric LaForest Jason Anderson

Approaching Overhead-Free Execution on FPGA Soft-Processors Charles Eric LaForest Jason Anderson

Approaching Overhead-Free Execution on FPGA Soft-Processors Charles Eric LaForest Jason Anderson J. Gregory Steffan University of Toronto ICFPT 2014, Shanghai Motivation Designing on FPGAs remains difficult Larger systems Longer

670 views • 44 slides
Spiking row-by-row FPGA Multi-kernel and Multi-layer Convolution Processor. Ricardo Tapiador

Spiking row-by-row FPGA Multi-kernel and Multi-layer Convolution Processor. Ricardo Tapiador

Spiking row-by-row FPGA Multi-kernel and Multi-layer Convolution Processor. Ricardo Tapiador Morales Robotic &amp; Tech of Computers Lab, University of Seville ricardo@atc.us.es Convolutional neural networks ricardo@atc.us.es 2

370 views • 12 slides
CSC2/458 Parallel and Distributed Systems Automatic Parallelization in Hardware Sreepathi Pai

CSC2/458 Parallel and Distributed Systems Automatic Parallelization in Hardware Sreepathi Pai

CSC2/458 Parallel and Distributed Systems Automatic Parallelization in Hardware Sreepathi Pai January 25, 2018 URCS Outline Pipelining Superscalar and Out-of-order Execution Speculation Outline Pipelining Superscalar and Out-of-order

820 views • 29 slides
A GPU-Inspired Soft Processor for High- Throughput Acceleration Throughput Acceleration Jeffrey

A GPU-Inspired Soft Processor for High- Throughput Acceleration Throughput Acceleration Jeffrey

A GPU-Inspired Soft Processor for High- Throughput Acceleration Throughput Acceleration Jeffrey Kingyens and J. Gregory Steffan Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Toronto 1 FGPA-Based Acceleration In-socket acceleration

342 views • 22 slides
FPGA What is a FPGA? How FPGAs work How do they work? Manufacturers

FPGA What is a FPGA? How FPGAs work How do they work? Manufacturers

2/21/2012 Content FPGA What is a FPGA? How FPGAs work How do they work? Manufacturers Distributed RAM History FPGA vs ASIC FPGA and Microprocessors Alternatives to FPGAs ETI135, Advanced Digital IC Design

123 views • 10 slides
Systems Architecture The ARM Processor The ARM Processor p. 1/14 The ARM Processor ARM:

Systems Architecture The ARM Processor The ARM Processor p. 1/14 The ARM Processor ARM:

Systems Architecture The ARM Processor The ARM Processor p. 1/14 The ARM Processor ARM: Advanced RISC Machine First developed in 1983 by Acorn Computers ARM Ltd was formed in 1988 to continue development Advantages of the ARM

391 views • 14 slides
WWW.FPGA What is an FPGA? Field Programmable Gate Array Introduction to FPGA designs

WWW.FPGA What is an FPGA? Field Programmable Gate Array Introduction to FPGA designs

WWW.FPGA What is an FPGA? Field Programmable Gate Array Introduction to FPGA designs Generic logic cells + Programmable switches Why do we use it? High performance &amp; Flexible Shorter time to market Joachim Rodrigues

310 views • 8 slides
MI6 Secure Enclaves ... in a Speculative Out-of-Order Processor Overview Goals of MI6 Big

MI6 Secure Enclaves ... in a Speculative Out-of-Order Processor Overview Goals of MI6 Big

Damian Barabonkov MI6 Secure Enclaves ... in a Speculative Out-of-Order Processor Overview Goals of MI6 Big Ideas Paper Feedback Motivation of MI6 Threat Model Implementation Performance Analysis

383 views • 24 slides

More recommend