A Fast Instruction Set Evaluation Method for ASIP Designs

  • Angela Yun Zhu
  • Xi Li
  • Laurence T. Yang
  • Jun Yang
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4096)


ASIPs are designed specifically for a particular application or a set of applications. Their instruction sets must be carefully tailored to provide high performance as well as to meet non-functional constraints such as silicon area and power consumption. Traditionally, evaluation of different candidate instruction sets is all carried out through simulation. However, the growing design complexity and time-to-market pressure have rendered simulation increasingly infeasible. In this paper, we present an instruction level modeling method that can rapidly evaluates several important aspects of a selected instruction set. Experimental results show that we can prune a large number of candidate instruction sets with the model, accelerate design space exploration and alleviate the pressure on simulation.


Execution Time Basic Block Design Space Exploration Data Flow Graph Instruction Selection 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1. (Synplify and Synplify Pro Reference Manual)
  2. 2.
    Zivojnovic, V., Pees, S., Meyr, H.: LISA - Machine Description Language and Generic Machine Model for HW/SWCo-Design. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Workshop on VLSI Signal Processing, San Francisco, CA, USA, October 1996, pp. 127–136 (1996)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Halambi, A., Grun, P.: EXPRESSION: A Language for Architecture Exploration through Compiler/Simulator Retargetability. In: Proceedings of Conference of Design, Automation, and Test Europe, Munich, Germany, March 1999, pp. 100–104 (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Freericks, M.: The nML Machine Description Formalism. Department of Computer Science, Technology University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany, Technical Report (1991)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vijaykrishnan, N., Kandemir, M., Irwin, M., Kim, H., Ye, W.: Energy driven integrated hardware-software optimizations using simplepower. In: Proceedings of the 27th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, June 2000, pp. 95–106 (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kastner, R., et al.: Instruction Generation for Hybrid Reconfigurable Systems. ACM Transactions on Design Automation of Electronic Systems 7(4) (April 2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vieri, C.: The pendulum instruction set architecture (PISA) MIT Reversible Computing Project Internal Memo (May 1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Van Praet, J., Goossens, G., Lanneer, D., De Man, H.: Instruction set definition and instruction selection for ASIPs. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on High-Level Synthesis, Ontario, Canada, May 1994, pp. 11–16 (1994)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Arnold, M., Corporaal, H.: Designing domain specific processors. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Hardware/Software Codesign, Copenhagen, Denmark, April 2001, pp. 61–66 (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Faraboschi, P., Brown, G., Fisher, J.A., Desoli, G., Homewood, F.: Lx: A technology platform for customizable VLIW embedded processing. In: Proceedings of the 27th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA 2000), Vancouver, Canada, June 2000, pp. 203–213 (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brandolese, C., Fornaciari, W., Salice, F., Sciuto, D.: An instruction-level functionality-based energy estimation model for 32-bits microprocessors. In: Proceedings of the Annual ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC 2000), Asia and South Pacific, June 2000, pp. 346–351 (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Barocci, M., Benini, L., Bogliolo, A., Ricco, B., De Micheli, G.: Lookup table power macro-models for behavioral library components. In: Proceedings of the Design, Automation and Test of Europe, Paris, France, February 1998, pp. 173–181 (1998)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Macii, E., Pedram, M., Somenzi, F.: High-level power modeling, evaluation, and optimization. IEEE Transactions on CAD of Intergrated Circuits and Systems 17, 1061–1079 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Luo, J., Zhong, L., et al.: Register binding based RTL power management for control-flow intensive designs. IEEE Transactions on CAD of Intergrated Circuits and Systems 23(8), 1175–1183 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Murata, T.: Petri Nets: Properties, Analysis and Applications. Proceedings of the IEEE 77(4), 541–580 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Li, X., Zhou, X.H., et al.: xp-ADL: A key issue in software and hardware codesign. In: Proceedings of 2002 Conference of Open Distributed and Parallel Computing Symposium (DPCS 2002), Wuhan, China, pp. 100–104 (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Li, X., Wang, Z.G., et al.: Study on system-level power model for low power optimization. Acta Electronica Sinica 32(2), 205–208 (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Angela Yun Zhu
    • 1
  • Xi Li
    • 1
  • Laurence T. Yang
    • 2
  • Jun Yang
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Science and Technology of ChinaHefei, AnhuiP.R. China
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceSt. Francis Xavier UniversityAntigonishCanada

Personalised recommendations