programming many core systems marco bekooij n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Programming many core systems Marco Bekooij PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Programming many core systems Marco Bekooij

Programming many core systems Marco Bekooij

1 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Programming many core systems Marco Bekooij

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Programming many core systemsMarco Bekooij Name? and address?

  2. Outline • Definition many core systems • Application domain of many core systems • Microsoft Parallel Computing Initiative • simplify programming • improve quality of service • Mapping stream processing on real-time multiprocessor systems • Automatic parallelization • Budget computation • Multiprocessor system hardware design with budget enforcement • Conclusion

  3. Definition many core system according to Intel’s white paper • Many core systems are multiprocessor systems with a large number of cores (>8) • Many core systems have a shared address space and its resources are under control of the operating system

  4. Computing industry shifts and their effects on user experience

  5. Parallel computing and the next generation of user experiences

  6. Microsoft: many core applications • Next-Generation Personal Computing Experiences • Personal modeling: e.g. “walk-through” 3-dimensional, photo-realistic renderings of a home renovation • Personalized adaptive learning: create a personalized, context-aware curriculum in real-time. • Public safety: detailed 2- or 3-dimensional renderings, object recognition, help responders to make well-informed decisions critical to rescue tactics, evacuations, and emergency response • Business Opportunities • Financial modeling • Product design simulation

  7. Many core application example of NXP • Multi-stream multi-standard car-infotainment systems • Advanced radios contain already 13 processors (10 DSPs + 3 µP) + number of hardware accelerators

  8. Beamforming Improved radio reception

  9. Microsoft Parallel Computing Initiative • Objectives: • simplify parallel software development • take quality-of-service requirements into account

  10. Microsoft Parallel Computing Initiative • Applications: next experiences, improve productivity • Domain libraries: system building blocks for example image-processing libraries • Programming models and languages: easy application development without the need for expert knowledge • Developer tooling: simplify software integration • Runtime, platform, and operating systems: more effectively budget and arbitrate among competing requests for available resources in the face of parallelism and quality-of-service demands. Additionally, Microsoft will continue to improve the reliability and security of the platform.

  11. use-case f2 f1 CFE VIT CBE SRC APP DAC ADC PDC digital radio job A f3 use-case BR MP3 SRC APP DAC source decodingjob B NXP’s application domain: real-time stream processing

  12. Temporal constraints Architecture instance NLP Omphale (parallelization) Task graph +Dataflow graph Execution time analysis Task-graph + Dataflow graph Hebe (budget computation) Task-graph + budgets Helios (resource allocation) Use-cases + transitions Off-line = at design-time Table with resource allocations On-line = at run-time Start/stop job Minos (resource assignment) Preemptive kernel FIFO com lib Software mapping flow for real-time stream processing applications

  13. Run-time mapping of tasks to processors with admission control per job Temporal constraints Architecture instance NLP Omphale (parallelization) Task graph +Dataflow graph Execution time analysis Task-graph + Dataflow graph Hebe (budget computation) Task-graph + budgets Off-line = at design-time On-line = at run-time Start/stop job Minos (resource assignment) Preemptive kernel FIFO com lib

  14. v1 v2 v0 Setting computation requires property preserving abstraction Budget computation Dataflow model  Abstraction External SDRAM P DSP I/O $ ctrl mem NI NI NI NI Network

  15. Timer Timer Blaze Blaze ROM ROM $ $ MEM MEM Experimental predictable many core system • Distributed shared memory system • Pthread support • Budget scheduler for every shared resource • processors, memory ports, inter-connect • Flow control • back-pressure RS232 Aethereal NoC SDRAM ctrl SDRAM Mapped on a Vitex 4 FPGA

  16. Timer Blaze ROM $ MEM Heterogeneous many core system Timer DSP • Heterogeneous for area-efficiency and power-efficiency reasons • Streaming without addresses over the network beside address based streaming RS232 ROM DMEM IMEM Aethereal NoC SDRAM ctrl SDRAM

  17. Essential elements in the approach • Key assumption: characteristics of other jobs are not completely known at design time: • Other jobs are downloaded • Worst-case execution times of the tasks are not known at design time • Essential element • Budget schedulers • Flow control

  18. Budget schedulers All schedulers • Budget scheduler: subclass of the aperiodic server • minimum budget in a replenishment interval is independent of the execution-time and event arrival-rate • Budget reservation: • incomplete knowledge: worst-case execution times of the tasks of other jobs are not known • overload protection: estimated execution times are optimistic Budget schedulers

  19. Budget scheduler example: time division multiplex • x(j): execution time of the j-th execution, P: period, B: slice length

  20. Budget scheduler with priorities: PBS • number of preemptions in a RI is fixed  preemption overhead is known • maximum time between event and start of high priority task with budget

  21. Flow control Data can be lost without flow control  non deterministic functional behavior

  22. Buffer overflow • Buffer overflow can occur if: • best-case execution time of producer P is over estimated • worst-case execution time of consumer C is under estimated P C

  23. Task graph and dataflow graph extration • Extraction of a task graph is difficult • Data dependency analysis • Derivation of an (dataflow) analysis model of an application is difficult an error prone • No one-to-one correspondence between task graph and dataflow graph • Our approach: describe top-level of the application as a nested loop program • Allow while loops, if conditions, and non-affine index expressions

  24. Nested loop programs (NLPs) • A nested loop program is specified in a coordination language • Specifies dependencies (communication) between functions • functions are defined in a programming language, e.g. C • to simplify/enable parallelization • many programming language constructs are not supported to simplify/enable analysis • new program language constructs have been added to improve the analyzability (and therefore NLPs are not an C-subset) • Nested loop programs should be seen as a sequential specification of a task graph • single assignment • each array location is written at most once during one execution of the outer while loop • functions must be side-effect free

  25. Nested loop program example mode=0; while(1){ in=input(); switch(mode){ case 0: {mode=detect(in); } case 1: {mode,o1=decode1(in); o2=decode2(o1); output(o2);} } }

  26. Resulting task graph det • Every function becomes a task • Buffers can have multiple readers • Buffers can have multiple mutual exclusive writers • That writes are mutual exclusive is explicit in the NLP but not in the task-graph in dec2 out dec1

  27. Budget computation • Budgets are computed given real-time constraints • only end-2-end constraints are imposed by the environment • throughput + latency and not the deadlines of the tasks • Requires an suitable analysis model for real-time applications • should take pipelining into account • the i-th input sample is consumed before the (i-1)th output sample is produced • We apply dataflow analysis with measured (not worst-case) execution times

  28. Definition real-time system • Real-time systems are those systems in which the correctness of the system depends not only on the logical results of computation, but also on the time at which the results are produced.

  29. Real-time analysis • Use of measured execution times instead of worst-case execution times • Guarantees? • Load hypothesis • Basics of dataflow analysis

  30. Distinguishing features of real-time systems • High level of determinism: • It should be possible to derive useful properties of the system, given the stated assumptions and the information available with an acceptable effort and a useful accuracy • Concurrency: • Deal with the inherent physical concurrency • Deal with a concurrent description of the system • Deal with a concurrent implementation of the system • Emphasis and significance of reliability and fault tolerance: • Reliability is the probability that a system will perform correctly over a given period of time • Fault tolerance is concerned with the recognition and handling of failures

  31. Computer Assisted Control

  32. Definition predictability • Is should be possible to show, demonstrate, or prove that requirements are met subject to assumptions made, for example, concerning failures and workloads. • Note that: • predictability is always subject to the underlying assumptions made

  33. Real-time system classification • Note that: • no deadlines are defined for best-effort tasks • assumes that all tasks in the system have the same criticality

  34. Soft RT Firm RT Hard RT Best effort Very critical Not critical at all Criticality spectrum for systems

  35. Load hypothesis • Statement about the assumption of the peak load of the system • Translates often in an assumption about the worst-case execution times of the tasks

  36. Difference between guarantee and a statistical assertion • A guarantee is an assurance of a fulfillment of a condition • a guarantee is binary statement • guarantees about the reality are given under certain assumptions • Statistical assertion is a statement about a probability of an occurrence • Focus is on analysis techniques that result in guarantees • guarantees are given under explicit and testable assumptions (in our case the load hypothesis)

  37. Research Schools • Real-time system theory should help to give guarantees about the temporal behavior of the system • Testing can provide only a partial verification of the behavior. This justifies the use of analytical techniques that can provide complete coverage. • Classical view of the real-time community • Real-time system theory should provide means to manage the system resources such that the temporal behavior improves • Real-time system theory should provide means to compute system settings • Real-time system theory should provide means to reduce the verification effort • Real-time system theory should provide means to improve the robustness of a system

  38. Load hypothesis for firm real-time systems • Often execution times are measured instead of computed with WCET tools • reason: WCET tools are not available or computed WCETs are overly pessimistic • Typically a load hypothesis is defined which states that the execution times of the tasks are not larger than the WCETs used during analysis • Given that the load hypothesis holds we can guarantee with analysis techniques that no deadlines are missed • If the load hypothesis does not hold then no statements can be made about the worst-case temporal behavior of the system

  39. Assumption coverage • Strength of materials theory • Model is for example an approximation of a bridge • E.g. the stiffness of the metal beam is intrinsically not exactly known, i.e. can be worse or better • However model can be a useful approximation of the reality • Added safety margin (head room) is based on experience • Does the same reasoning apply to real-time system design? False  useful results?

  40. Usefulness real-time analysis results even given unsafe execution time estimates • Deadlock freedom and functional determinism of the application • Estimates of the real-time behavior of the tasks • Estimates of appropriate system configuration and system settings • Trends and anomalies • Responsiveness improvement • Sensitivity reduction • Robustness improvement • Synchronization and scheduling overhead reduction

  41. Focus of real-time analysis techniques • Single processor • Focus is on task scheduling of independent tasks + OS-kernel design • Multiprocessor • Focus is on throughput and latency analysis of applications described as task graphs • also synthesis of settings & budget such that throughput and latency constraints are met

  42. Formal models for real-time analysis • Process algebra • Algebra for communicating processes • Allows transformation of one system into another • Temporal logics • Propositional logic augmented by tense operators • System representation with global states become prohibitive large • Automata • Mathematical model for a finite statemachines • Synchrony timing hypothesis OR clocks • instantaneous broad-cast • system evolves faster than events • Petri nets • Dataflow graphs have similarities with Petri nets

  43. Classical timing verification techniques • Logic based approach • Deductive proof: IS or decision procedure Inot(S) is unsatisfiable • Very high computational complexity and hard to automate • Automata based approach • Language containment: Li Ls • State explosion • Model checking • State explosion • High computational complexity

  44. Outside scope of these formal verification techniques • Techniques to include resource sharing • effects of scheduling on the temporal behavior • Techniques to make an abstraction of the system while preserving properties • Techniques to synthesize properties instead of checking properties • Techniques to trade accuracy for lower computational complexity • Techniques to trade expressivity model for analyzability • Techniques to trade generality model for analyzability • However these techniques are essential for real-time multiprocessor system design • borrow ideas from performance analysis of communication networks • Latency rate-analysis  dataflow analysis

  45. Rate based analysis • Rate based analysis determines, loosely speaking, the throughput of the system • Three approaches: • Graph-based techniques: maximum cycle mean analysis • Algebraic techniques: determine eigenvectors with max-plus algebra • Stochastic approaches: Markov process • Limitations: • 1 and 2 assumes fixed timing delays instead of intervals, while 3 computes the for real-time systems not very useful long term average throughput • supported models do not support any choice • supported models do not support inputs and outputs • Still useful for real-time analysis purposes? (yes) • Are there solutions available to analyze data dependent applications? (yes)

  46. Related work: worst-case performance analysis of communication networks • Objective compute maximum latency and minimum throughput for a flow of packets • Links between routers are shared by flows • No flow control: input buffers must be large enough such that overflow does not occur

  47. Related work: worst-case performance analysis • [R. Cruz, 1991]: A Calculus for Network Delay • No flow control, does not require starvation free schedulers • Bound traffic for t0 with a non-decreasing function • [K. Tindell and J. Clark, 1994]: Holistic Schedulability Analysis • No flow control, static priority preemptive • fixed point iteration in case of cyclic resource dependencies • [D. Stiliadis, 1998]: Latency-Rate Servers: A General Model for Analysis of Traffic Scheduling Algorithms • No flow control • Requires starvation-free schedulers  there are no cyclic resource dependencies • System can be characterize without knowledge about the input traffic • use of the concept of busy periods • More accurate estimate of the end-to-end delay than [Cruz91] and [TC94] • [J.Y. Le Boudec, 1998]: Application of Network Calculus to Guaranteed Service Networks • No flow control • Does not require schedulers to be starvation-free • More accurate estimate of the end-to-end delay than [Cruz91] and [TC94]

  48. Related work: worst-case performance analysis of task graphs • [RZJE02, JRE02] Event model composition • Definition of period+jitter traffic models, tasks with AND-condition, generalization of [TC94] • [S. Chakraborty, 2003] A General framework for .... • Generalization network calculus, also known as real-time calculus • Bound traffic and service for any interval t • Acyclic task graphs • [M.Wiggers,, 2007] Modeling Run-Time Arbitration by Latency-Rate Servers in Data Flow Graphs • Requires starvation-free schedulers • Applicable in case of arbitrary deterministic task graphs: AND, cyclic task graphs, buffer capacity can be given or computed • [M.Wiggers,, 2009] Monotonicity and run-time scheduling • Generalization of [M.Wiggers, and M. Bekooij, 2007]: allows sequence of execution times and any deterministic dataflow graph • not based on busy periods • [L. Thiele, and M. Stoimenov, 2009] Modular performance analysis of cyclic dataflow graphs • Generalization real-time calculus [S. Chakraborty, 2003] : Analysis of cyclic HSDF graphs

  49. Related work: worst-case performance analysis of task graphs • [J. Staschulat, 2009] Dataflow models for shared memory access latency analysis • piece-wise linear service approximation of priority based budget schedulers • [M. Wiggers,, 2010] Simultaneous Budget and Buffer Size Computation for Throughput-Constrained Task Graphs • only HSDF graphs • algorithm has a polynomial computational complexity

  50. Dataflow analysis primer