Advertisement

Integrated Modeling Using Finite State Machines and Dataflow Graphs

  • Joachim Falk
  • Kai Neubauer
  • Christian Haubelt
  • Christian Zebelein
  • Jürgen Teich
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter, different application modeling approaches based on the integration of finite state machines with dataflow models are reviewed. Many well-known Models of Computation (MoC) that are used in design methodologies to generate optimized hardware/software implementations from a model-based specification turn out to be special cases thereof. A particular focus is put on the analyzability of these models with respect to schedulability and the generation of efficient schedule implementations. Here, newest results on clustering methods for model refinement and schedule optimization by means of quasi-static scheduling are presented.

References

  1. 1.
    Bacivarov, I., Haid, W., Huang, K., Thiele, L.: Methods and tools for mapping process networks onto multi-processor systems-on-chip. In: S.S. Bhattacharyya, E.F. Deprettere, R. Leupers, J. Takala (eds.) Handbook of Signal Processing Systems, third edn. Springer (2018)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baird, M. (ed.): IEEE Standard 1666–2005 SystemC Language Reference Manual. IEEE Standards Association, New Jersey, USA (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Balarin, F., Giusto, P., Jurecska, A., Passerone, C., Sentovich, E., Tabbara, B., Chiodo, M., Hsieh, H., Lavagno, L., Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A., Suzuki, K.: Hardware-Software Co-Design of Embedded Systems: The POLIS Approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers (1997)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bambha, N., Kianzad, V., Khandelia, M., Bhattacharyya, S.S.: Intermediate representations for design automation of multiprocessor dsp systems. Design Automation for Embedded Systems 7(4), 307–323 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020307222052 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bhattacharya, B., Bhattacharyya, S.: Parameterized dataflow modeling for DSP systems. Signal Processing, IEEE Transactions on 49(10), 2408–2421 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bhattacharyya, S.S., Buck, J.T., Ha, S., Lee, E.A.: Generating Compact Code from Dataflow Specifications of Multirate Signal Processing Algorithms. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Fundamental Theory and Applications 42(3), 138–150 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bilsen, G., Engels, M., Lauwereins, R., Peperstraete, J.: Cyclo-Static Dataflow. IEEE Transaction on Signal Processing 44(2), 397–408 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Buck, J.T.: Scheduling Dynamic Dataflow Graphs with Bounded Memory Using the Token Flow Model. Tech. rep., Dept. of EECS, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, U.S.A. (1993). Technical Report UCB/ERL 93/69, Ph.D dissertationGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Damavandpeyma, M., Stuijk, S., Basten, T., Geilen, M., Corporaal, H.: Modeling static-order schedules in synchronous dataflow graphs. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Design, Automation and Test in Europe, pp. 775–780. EDA Consortium (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    de Groote, R.: Throughput analysis of dataflow graphs. In: S.S. Bhattacharyya, E.F. Deprettere, R. Leupers, J. Takala (eds.) Handbook of Signal Processing Systems, third edn. Springer (2018)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eker, J., Janneck, J.W., Lee, E.A., Liu, J., Liu, X., Ludvig, J., Neuendorffer, S., Sachs, S., Xiong, Y.: Taming heterogeneity - the ptolemy approach. Proceedings of the IEEE 91(1), 127–144 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Falk, J.: A Clustering-Based MPSoC Design Flow for Data Flow-Oriented Applications. Dr. Hut, Sternstr. 18, München, Germany (2015). Dissertation, Computer Science Department, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Falk, J., Haubelt, C., Teich, J.: Efficient Representation and Simulation of Model-Based Designs in SystemC. In: Proc. Forum on Specification & Design Languages, FDL’06, pp. 129–134 (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Falk, J., Keinert, J., Haubelt, C., Teich, J., Bhattacharyya, S.S.: A Generalized Static Data Flow Clustering Algorithm for MPSoC Scheduling of Multimedia Applications. In: Proc. 8th ACM international conference on Embedded software, EMSOFT’08, pp. 189–198. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2008). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1450058.1450084
  15. 15.
    Falk, J., Schwarzer, T., Glaß, M., Teich, J., Haubelt, C.: Quasi-Static Scheduling of Data Flow Graphs in the Presence of Limited Channel Capacities. In: Proc. of the 13th IEEE Symposium on Embedded Systems for Real-time Multimedia, ESTIMEDIA’15, p. 10 (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Falk, J., Zebelein, C., Haubelt, C., Teich, J.: A Rule-Based Static Dataflow Clustering Algorithm for Efficient Embedded Software Synthesis. In: Proc. Design, Automation and Test in Europe, DATE’11, pp. 521–526. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Falk, J., Zebelein, C., Haubelt, C., Teich, J.: A Rule-Based Quasi-Static Scheduling Approach for Static Islands in Dynamic Dataflow Graphs. ACM Trans. Embedded Comput. Syst. 12(3), 74:1–74:31 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Falk, J., Zebelein, C., Keinert, J., Haubelt, C., Teich, J., Bhattacharyya, S.S.: Analysis of SystemC Actor Networks for Efficient Synthesis. ACM Trans. Embedded Comput. Syst. 10(2), 18:1–18:34 (2011). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1880050.1880054 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Geilen, M., Basten, T.: Kahn process networks and a reactive extension. In: S.S. Bhattacharyya, E.F. Deprettere, R. Leupers, J. Takala (eds.) Handbook of Signal Processing Systems, third edn. Springer (2018)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Geilen, M., Stuijk, S.: Worst-case performance analysis of synchronous dataflow scenarios. In: Proceedings of the eighth IEEE/ACM/IFIP international conference on Hardware/software codesign and system synthesis, pp. 125–134. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Girault, A., Lee, B., Lee, E.: Hierarchical finite state machines with multiple concurrency models. Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, IEEE Transactions on 18(6), 742–760 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ha, S., Oh, H.: Decidable signal processing dataflow graphs. In: S.S. Bhattacharyya, E.F. Deprettere, R. Leupers, J. Takala (eds.) Handbook of Signal Processing Systems, third edn. Springer (2018)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hsu, C.J., Bhattacharyya, S.S.: Cycle-Breaking Techniques for Scheduling Synchronous Dataflow Graphs. Tech. Rep. UMIACS-TR-2007-12, Institute for Advanced Computer Studies, University of Maryland at College Park (2007). URL http://hdl.handle.net/1903/4328
  24. 24.
    Kahn, G.: The Semantics of a Simple Language for Parallel Programming. In: IFIP Congress, pp. 471–475 (1974)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kosinski, P.R.: A Straightforward Denotational Semantics for Non-determinate Data Flow Programs. In: Proc. 5th ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL’78, pp. 214–221. ACM, New York, NY, USA (1978). https://doi.org/10.1145/512760.512783Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lee, E.A., Messerschmitt, D.G.: Synchronous Data Flow. Proc. of the IEEE 75(9), 1235–1245 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mattavelli, M., Janneck, J.W., Raulet, M.: MPEG reconfigurable video coding. In: S.S. Bhattacharyya, E.F. Deprettere, R. Leupers, J. Takala (eds.) Handbook of Signal Processing Systems, third edn. Springer (2018)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Parks, T.M.: Bounded Scheduling of Process Networks. Tech. rep., Dept. of EECS, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, U.S.A. (1995). URL http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/1995/2926.html. Technical Report UCB/ERL M95/105, Ph.D dissertation
  29. 29.
    Pino, J.L., Bhattacharyya, S.S., Lee, E.: A Hierarchical Multiprocessor Scheduling System for DSP Applications. In: Proc. Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and Computers, vol. 1, pp. 122–126 (1995). http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ACSSC.1995.540525Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Plishker, W., Sane, N., Kiemb, M., Bhattacharyya, S.S.: Heterogeneous design in functional DIF. In: Proceedings of the 8th international workshop on Embedded Computer Systems: Architectures, Modeling, and Simulation, SAMOS ’08, pp. 157–166. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A.L., Sgroi, M., Lavagno, L.: Formal models for communication-based design. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Concurrency Theory, CONCUR ’00, pp. 29–47. Springer-Verlag, London, UK (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stuijk, S., Geilen, M., Basten, T.: Throughput-buffering trade-off exploration for cyclo-static and synchronous dataflow graphs. IEEE Transactions on Computers 57(10), 1331–1345 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1109/TC.2008.58 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Theelen, B.D., Deprettere, E.F., Bhattacharyya, S.S.: Dynamic dataflow graphs. In: S.S. Bhattacharyya, E.F. Deprettere, R. Leupers, J. Takala (eds.) Handbook of Signal Processing Systems, third edn. Springer (2018)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Theelen, B.D., Geilen, M.C.W., Basten, T., Voeten, J.P.M., Gheorghita, S.V., Stuijk, S.: A scenario-aware data flow model for combined long-run average and worst-case performance analysis. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Formal Methods and Models for Co-Design, pp. 185–194 (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1109/MEMCOD.2006.1695924
  35. 35.
    Tripakis, S., Bui, D.N., Geilen, M., Rodiers, B., Lee, E.A.: Compositionality in Synchronous Data Flow: Modular Code Generation from Hierarchical SDF Graphs. ACM Trans. Embedded Comput. Syst. 12(3), 83:1–83:26 (2013). http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2442116.2442133 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tripakis, S., Bui, D.N., Rodiers, B., Lee, E.A.: Compositionality in Synchronous Data Flow: Modular Code Generation from Hierarchical SDF Graphs. In: J. Sztipanovits, R. Rajkumar (eds.) ACM/IEEE 1st International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems, ICCPS’10, p. 199. ACM (2010). https://doi.org/10.1145/1795194.1795223
  37. 37.
    Zebelein, C., Haubelt, C., Falk, J., Schwarzer, T., Teich, J.: Representing mapping and scheduling decisions within dataflow graphs. In: Proceedings of the 2013 Forum on specification and Design Languages (FDL), pp. 1–8 (2013)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zebelein, C., Haubelt, C., Falk, J., Teich, J.: Model-based representation of schedules for dataflow graphs. In: 16. Workshop Methoden und Beschreibungssprachen zur Modellierung und Verifikation von Schaltungen und Systemen (MBMV 2013), pp. 105–116 (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joachim Falk
    • 1
  • Kai Neubauer
    • 2
  • Christian Haubelt
    • 2
  • Christian Zebelein
    • 3
  • Jürgen Teich
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Hardware-Software-Co-DesignErlangenGermany
  2. 2.University of Rostock, Applied Microelectronics and Computer EngineeringRostock-WarnemündeGermany
  3. 3.Valeo Siemens eAutomotive Germany GmbHErlangenGermany

Personalised recommendations