Modeling Instruction Level Parallel architectures efficiency in image processing applications

  • M. Migliardi
  • M. Maresca
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1225)


Image Processing and Pattern Recognition (IPPR) is receiving new impulse from the progress of Instruction Level Parallel (ILP) architectures which in general exhibit a level of performance comparable with that of the previous decade supercomputers. However, in spite of the huge computing power in principle available, it is a common experience that ILP efficiency in IPPR turns out to be low.

In this paper we describe the sources of inefficiency of ILP in IPPR and define a set of indices that allows analyzing them quantitatively. The quantitative analysis of the sources of inefficiency can be used by applications software developers to identify the most convenient coding solutions for IPPR algorithms (e.g. loop unrolling, loop permutation, register assignment) as well as to assess the advantages of such solutions over the natural and straightforward transposition of the algorithms in programs.


Performance Indices Instruction Level Parallel Architectures Coding Solutions Image Processing Applications 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Asprey T., Averill G. S., DeLano E., Mason R., Weiner B. and Yetter J., Performance Features of the PA7100 Microprocessor, IEEE Micro, pp. 22–35, June 1993.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Baglietto P., Maresca M., Migliardi M. and Zingirian N., Image Processing on High Performance RISC Systems, Proc. of IEEE, Vol. 84 n. 7, pp 917–930, July 1996Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Bertero M., Poggio T. A. and V. Torre, Ill-posed problems in Early Vision, Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 76, n. 8, pp. 869–889, 1988.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Dowd K., High Performance Computing, O'Reilly Associates Inc., 1993.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Hennessy J. L. and Patterson D. A., Computer Architecture: a Quantitative Approach, Morgan-Kauffman, 1990.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Hewlett Packard, HP9000 Series 700 Models 725/100.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Maresca M. and Li H., Morphological Operations on Mesh Connected Architectures: a generalized convolution algorithm, Proc. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Miami Beach (FL), pp. 199–304, June 1986.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Rosenfeld A. and Kak A. C., Digital Picture Processing, Academic Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Saavedra R. H. and. Smith A. J., Measuring Cache and TLB Performance and Their Effect on Benchmark Runtimes, IEEE Transactions on Computers, vol.44, no. 10, pp. 1223–1235, Oct. 1995.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Tremblay M., P. Tirumalai, Partners in Platform Design, IEEE Spectrum, vol.32, no. 4, pp. 20–26, April 1995.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    White S. W., Hester P. D., Kemp J. W. and McWilliams G. J., How Does Processor Performance MHz Relate to End-User Performance?, IEEE Micro, vol. 13, n. 4, pp. 8–16, August 1993.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Migliardi
    • 1
  • M. Maresca
    • 2
  1. 1.DIST University of GenovaGenovaItaly
  2. 2.DEI University of PadovaPadovaItaly

Personalised recommendations