VLSI 2010 Annual Symposium pp 47-63 | Cite as
MULTICUBE: Multi-Objective Design Space Exploration of Multi-Core Architectures
Abstract
Given the increasing complexity of Chip Multi-Processors (CMPs), a wide range of architecture parameters must be explored at design time to find the best trade-off in terms of multiple competing objectives (such as energy, delay, bandwidth, area, etc.) The design space of the target architectures is huge because it should consider all possible combinations of each hardware parameter (e.g., number of processors, processor issue width, L1 and L2 cache sizes, etc.). In this complex scenario, intuition and past experience of design architects is no more a sufficient condition to converge to an optimal design of the system. Indeed, Automatic Design Space Exploration (DSE) is needed to systematically support the analysis and quantitative comparison of a large amount of design alternatives in terms of multiple competing objectives (by means of Pareto analysis). The main goal of the MULTICUBE project consists of the definition of an automatic Design Space Exploration framework to support the design of next generation many-core architectures .
Keywords
Design Space Pareto Front Pareto Frontier Cache Size Design Space ExplorationNotes
Acknowledgements
We would like to gratefully acknowledge our EC Project Officer, Panagiotis Tsarchopoulos and our reviewers: Alain Perbost, Andrzej Pulka and Kamiar Sehat for their valuable comments and guidance during the project review process.
Prabhat Avasare, Geert Vanmeerbeeck, Chantal Ykman and Maryse Wouters are also associated with Interdisciplinary Institute for BroadBand Technology, Belgium (IBBT), B-9050 Gent, Belgium.
References
- 1.Mariani G, Avasare P, Vanmeerbeeck G, Ykman-Couvreur C, Palermo G, Silvano C, Zaccaria V (2010) An industrial design space exploration framework for supporting run-time resource management on multi-core systems. In: Proceedings of DATE 2010: IEEE design, automation and test conference in Europe. Dresden, Germany, pp 196–201, Mar 2010Google Scholar
- 2.Mariani G, Palermo G, Silvano C, Zaccaria V (2009) Multiprocessor system-on-chip design space exploration based on multi-level modeling techniques. In: Proceedings of IEEE IC-SAMOS’09—International Conference on Embedded Computer Systems: Architectures, MOdeling, and Simulation. Samos, Greece, pp 118–124, July 2009Google Scholar
- 3.Posadas H, Castillo J, Quijano D, Fernandez V, Villar E, Martinez M (2010) SystemC platform modeling for behavioral simulation and performance estimation of embedded systems. Behav Model Embedded Syst Technol: App Des Implementation pp 219–243Google Scholar
- 4.Mei B, Sutter B, Aa T, Wouters M, Kanstein A, Dupont S (2008) Implementation of a coarse-grained reconfigurable media processor for avc decoder. J Signal Process Syst 51(3):225–243MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Avasare P, Vanmeerbeeck G, Kavka C, Mariani G (2010) Practical approach to design space explorations using simulators at multiple abstraction levels. In: Design Automation Conference (DAC) User Track Sessions, Anaheim, USA, June 2010Google Scholar
- 6.Hwang CL, Masud ASM (1979) Multiple objective decision making—methods and applications: a state-of-the-art survey, vol 164. Lecture notes in economics and mathematical systems. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
- 7.Okabe T, Jin Y, off B (2003) A critical survey of performance indices for multi-objective optimization. In: Proceedings of the IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, pp 878–885Google Scholar
- 8.Jaszkiewicz A, Czyak P (1998) Pareto simulated annealing—a metaheuristic technique for multiple-objective combinatorial optimisation. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal (7):34–47MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Deb K, Agrawal S, Pratab A, Meyarivan T (2000) A fast and elitist multi-objective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. In: Proceedings of the parallel problem solving from nature VI conference, pp 849–858Google Scholar
- 10.Poloni C, Pediroda V (1998) GA coupled with computationally expensive simulations: tools to improve efficiency. In: Quagliarella D, Périaux J, Poloni C, Winter G (eds) Genetic algorithms and evolution strategies in engineering and computer science. Recent advances and industrial applications, Chap. 13, Wiley, Chichester, pp 267–288Google Scholar
- 11.Smith KI, Everson RM, Fieldsend JE, Murphy C, Misra R (2008) Dominance-based multiobjective simulated annealing. Evol Comput, IEEE Trans 12(3):323–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Palermo G, Silvano C, Zaccaria V (2008) Discrete particle swarm optimization for multi-objective design space exploration. In: Proceedings of DSD 2008: IEEE Euromicro conference on digital system design architectures, methods and tools, Parma, Italy, pp 641–644, Sep 2008Google Scholar
- 13.Turco A, Kavka C (2010) MFGA: a genetic algorithm for complex real-world optimization problems. In: Proceedings of BIOMA 2010, the 4th international conference on bioinspired optimization methods and their applications,.Lubiana, Slovenia, To appear in May 2010Google Scholar
- 14.Joseph PJ, Vaswani K, Thazhuthaveetil MJ (2006) A predictive performance model for superscalar processors. In: MICRO 39: Proceedings of the 39th annual IEEE/ACM international symposium on microarchitecture. IEEE Computer Society. Washington, DC, pp 161–170 Google Scholar
- 15.Joseph PJ, Vaswani K, Thazhuthaveetil MJ (2006) Construction and use of linear regression models for processor performance analysis. The twelfth international symposium on high-performance computer architecture. pp 99–108Google Scholar
- 16.Lee BC, Brooks DM (2006) Accurate and efficient regression modeling for microarchitectural performance and power prediction. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on architectural support for programming languages and operating systems 40(5):185–194Google Scholar
- 17.Bishop C (2002) Neural networks for pattern recognition. Oxford University Press, Oxford Google Scholar