Advertisement

Symbolic Scheduling of SystemC Dataflow Designs

Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 36)

Abstract

In this chapter, we propose a quasi-static scheduling (QSS) method applicable to SystemC dataflow designs. QSS determines a schedule where several static schedules are combined in a dynamic schedule. This, among others, reduces runtime overhead. QSS is done by performing as much static scheduling as possible at compile time, and only treating data-dependent control flow as runtime decision. Our approach improves known quasi-static approaches in a way that it is automatically applicable to real world designs, and has less restrictions on the underlying model. The effectiveness of the approach based on symbolic computation is demonstrated by scheduling a SystemC design of a network packet filter.

Keywords

Software scheduling Quasi-static SystemC Symbolic methods 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    B. Bhattacharya and S.S. Bhattacharyya. Quasi-static scheduling of reconfigurable dataflow graphs for DSP systems. In Proc. of RSP, pages 84–89, 2000. Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S.S. Battacharyya, E.A. Lee, and P.K. Murthy. Software Synthesis from Dataflow Graphs. Kluwer Academic, Norwell, 1996. MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    R.E. Bryant. Graph-based algorithms for boolean function manipulation. IEEE Trans. Comput., 35(8):677–691, 1986. MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. Cortadella, A. Kondratyev, L. Lavagno, C. Passerone, and Y. Watanabe. Quasi-static scheduling of independent tasks for reactive systems. IEEE Trans. Comput.-Aided Design Integr. Circuits Syst., 24(10):1492–1514, 2005. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Falk, C. Haubelt, and J. Teich. Efficient representation and simulation of model-based designs in SystemC. In Proc. of FDL, pages 129–134, Darmstadt, Germany, September 2006. Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    C. Haubelt, J. Falk, J. Keinert, T. Schlichter, M. Streubühr, A. Deyhle, A. Hadert, and J. Teich. A SystemC-based design methodology for digital signal processing systems. EURASIP Journal on Embedded Systems, 2007. doi: 10.1155/2007/47580. Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    F. Herrera, H. Posadas, P. Sanchez, and E. Villar. Systematic embedded software generation from SystemC. In Proc. of DATE, pages 142–147, 2003. Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    F. Herrera and E. Villar. A framework for embedded system specification under different models of computation in SystemC. In Proc. of DAC, pages 911–914. Assoc. Comput. Mach., New York, 2006. Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    P.-A. Hsiung and F.-S. Su. Synthesis of real-time embedded software by timed quasi-static scheduling. In Proc. of VLSID, pages 579–584, 2003. Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A.J. Hu and D.L. Dill. Efficient verification with BDDs using implicitly conjoined invariants. In Proc. of CAV, pages 3–14. Springer, London, 1993. Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    E.A. Lee and D.G. Messerschmitt. Static scheduling of synchronous data flow programs for digital signal processing. IEEE Trans. Comput., 36(1):24–35, 1987. MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    E.A. Lee, S. Neuendorffer, and M.J. Wirthlin. Actor-oriented design of embedded hardware and software systems. Journal of Circuits, Systems, and Computers, 12(3):231–260, 2003. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    K.L. McMillan. Symbolic Model Checking. Kluwer Academic, Norwell, 1993. MATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    B. Niemann, F. Mayer, F. Javier, R. Rubio, and M. Speitel. Refining a high level SystemC model. In SystemC: Methodologies and Applications, pages 65–95. Kluwer Academic, Norwell, 2003. Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    T.M. Parks, J.L. Pino, and E.A. Lee. A comparison of synchronous and cycle-static dataflow. In Proc. of ASILOMAR, pages 204–210. IEEE Comput. Soc., Washington, 1995. Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    H.D. Patel and S.K. Shukla. SystemC Kernel Extensions for Heterogeneous System Modeling: A Framework for Multi-MoC Modeling & Simulation. Kluwer Academic, Norwell, 2004. Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    H.D. Patel, S.K. Shukla, E. Mednick, and R.S. Nikhil. A rule-based model of computation for SystemC: integrating SystemC and Bluespec for co-design. In Proc. of MEMOCODE, pages 39–48, 2006. Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. Sgroi and L. Lavagno. Synthesis of embedded software using free-choice Petri nets. In Proc. of DAC, pages 805–810, 1999. Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. Sgroi, L. Lavagno, Y. Watanabe, and A.L. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli. Quasi-static scheduling of embedded software using equal conflict nets. In Proc. of ICATPN, pages 208–227, 1999. Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    K. Strehl. Interval diagrams: Increasing efficiency of symbolic real-time verification. In Proc. of RTCSA, pages 488–491, Hong Kong, 1999. Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    K. Strehl. Symbolic Methods Applied to Formal Verification and Synthesis in Embedded Systems Design. PhD thesis, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, February 2000. Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    K. Strehl, L. Thiele, M. Gries, D. Ziegenbein, R. Ernst, and J. Teich. FunState—an internal design representation for codesign. IEEE Trans. VLSI Syst., 9(4):524–544, 2001. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    K. Strehl, L. Thiele, D. Ziegenbein, R. Ernst, and J. Teich. Scheduling hardware/software systems using symbolic techniques. In Proc. of CODES, pages 173–177, Rome, Italy, 1999. Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    C. Zebelein, J. Falk, C. Haubelt, and J. Teich. Classification of general data flow actors into known models of computation. In Proc. of MEMOCODE, pages 119–128, Anaheim, CA, USA, 2008. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Erlangen-NurembergErlangenGermany

Personalised recommendations