1 / 23

Performance and Power Estimation

Performance and Power Estimation. M. Balakrishnan. Outline. Motivation Estimation problem Estimation at different levels. Performance & Power Variation. Same MP3 Application running on different systems consume significantly different amounts of power. System partitioning

irisl
Download Presentation

Performance and Power Estimation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Performance and Power Estimation M. Balakrishnan System Level Design Workshop

  2. Outline • Motivation • Estimation problem • Estimation at different levels System Level Design Workshop

  3. Performance & Power Variation Same MP3 Application running on different systems consume significantly different amounts of power • System partitioning • Busses/Memory/IO devices /interfaces • Choice of components • Coding • System states (sleep/snooze etc) • DVS/DFS/.. System Level Design Workshop

  4. Estimation Problem • Area and performance – traditional VLSI design tradeoff • Performance and power tradeoff – new objective • Battery operated systems – energy rather than power important; • requires estimation of both performance and average power consumption • Battery life optimization – a new objective System Level Design Workshop

  5. Estimation Algorithm Design • The objective in estimation algorithm design is similar to design of any estimation problem • one tries to minimize time for estimation to achieve a certain accuracy or maximize accuracy for a given effort • Hi-fidelity is another objective System Level Design Workshop

  6. Abstraction Levels • Higher the level of abstraction, it is likely to take less time but also produce lower accuracy • Suitable models to speedup estimation at higher levels • Primitive operations or structures keep on changing as we move up the abstraction levels System Level Design Workshop

  7. System Level • Energy estimation in terms of very coarse granularity events e.g. specific tasks initiated by specific triggers or interrupts • Estimates for components like memory, buses etc. handled separately • Support for system level power management decisions System Level Design Workshop

  8. System Level Approaches • Early approaches [3] were based on Monte-Carlo simulation. • Random input vectors were generated and power data for them generated using simulation • Approaches varied in terms of efficiency and accuracy. Some approaches provided for confidence level to be controlled • Quality of results depend on the “statistical” properties of the input vectors and their impact on power • Difficult to handle various power modes of operation • A recent approach for IP power estimation [4] works with hierarchical models System Level Design Workshop

  9. Park et al [4] • Estimation at different hierarchical levels • Direct tradeoff between accuracy and time for estimation • Creation of power models at different levels • TLM (Transaction level modeling) System Level Design Workshop

  10. Park et al[4] contd H.264 Prediction IP Active IDLE Inter Intra Chroma Chroma Luma (4X4) Luma Luma (16X16) Loc 0 Loc m Mod 0 Mod n System Level Design Workshop

  11. Algorithmic/Behavioral Level • Models of RT level components expressed in terms of input characteristics that can be extracted from the behavior • e.g. adder operation energy in terms of word-length and hamming distance of inputs • e.g. memory energy per read or write access • Energy estimation based on weighted sum of such basic operations • Behavioral transformations to be supported in terms of energy change • Prediction of interconnect power consumption to support data transfer is an issue System Level Design Workshop

  12. Algorithmic Energy Components Total energy consumed = energy consumed in computation + energy consumed in storage access + energy consumed in data transfer + energy consumed in control (function of allocation as well as binding) System Level Design Workshop

  13. Adder Module Characteristics E n e r g y Hamming distance System Level Design Workshop

  14. Processor Level • First proposed by Tiwari et. al [5,6] for software power estimation • The methodology is based on measuring power consumption for each instruction and • Overall energy consumption is computed by taking a weighted sum of number of instructions of each type. The weighting factor is the power consumption of the individual instructions • This approach based on measurements is valid only for a processor which has been fabricated. Sama et.al [7] have modified it to create an instruction level power model with a gate level simulator System Level Design Workshop

  15. Vivel Tiwari’s Model[5] Energy cost of an instruction = base cost (measuring current on a repetitive set of identical instructions) + circuit state overhead cost (measuring current on pairs of instruction) + resource constraint cost (to account for stall cycles due to resource contention) + cache energy costs (to account for cache misses) Tiwari observed that at least for CISC processors, operand and data value variations affect less than 3% of the total energy consumption. System Level Design Workshop

  16. Lee et al [6] • Approach similar to the one proposed in [5]. Processor used is Fujitsu DSP processor instead of DX486 (Intel processor) • Base cost of the instructions varies significantly unlike CISC processor • Instructions classified into 6 different classes to reduce the size of measurements. (individual as well as pair wise measurements) • Power minimization strategies suggested include • “Intelligent” register bank assignment • Instruction packing to reduce cycles • Instruction scheduling to reduce circuit state switching energy • Operand swapping to reduce computation in Booth’s algorithm System Level Design Workshop

  17. Sama et al[7] • Instruction set model similar to the models proposed by Tiwari[5] • Energy numbers obtained through a power simulator rather than actual measurement; thus models possible at design time and can be part of micro-architecture and/or instruction set architecture exploration • Considerable speedup over gate-level or circuit-level simulation of the processor model System Level Design Workshop

  18. Issues in Instruction Set Power Models • Instructions are not executed one at a time • All current processors are deeply pipelined and as many instructions are active concurrently in the pipeline, their interactions should also be accounted for • Tiwari[5] also measured interactions between consecutive instructions from different classes • The effect of varying data (as well as address) is ignored in the model • Though can be accounted by an additive factor System Level Design Workshop

  19. RT Level Estimation • Models of RTL components like adders, comparators, decoders, multiplexers etc. • Models based on effective capacitance • Switching activity estimated from the RTL code System Level Design Workshop

  20. Gate Level Estimation • Effective capacitance models at the gate level in the library • Switching activity is estimated for a given application (specified as a set of Boolean equations) • Switching activity could be based on probabilistic input vector characteristics or actual input vector characteristics System Level Design Workshop

  21. Circuit Level • Comparison is always with SPICE • How much faster and how close in terms of prediction? • Compact set of vectors • How representative are these vectors in terms of actual use? • Powermill [3] a popular tool achieves 2 to 3 order speedup while being within 10% accuracy. This is based on event driven timing simulation and uses a simplified table –driven device models. System Level Design Workshop

  22. References • M. Pedram, “Power Minimization in IC Design”, ACM TODAES, Vol. 1., No. 1, Jan. 1996, pp. 3-56 • Macii et al, “High-level Power Modeling, Estimation and Optimization”, DAC 1997 • Burch et al, “ A Monte-carlo Approach for Power Estimation”, IEEE TVLSI, Vol. 1, No. 1, Mar. 1993. pp. 63-71 • Park et al, “System Level Power Estimation Methodology with H.264 Decoder Prediction IP Case Study”, pp. 601-608 System Level Design Workshop

  23. References (contd) • Tiwari et al, “Power Analysis of Embedded Software: A First Step towards Software Power Minimization”, IEEE TVLSI, Vol. 2, No. 4, Dec. 1994, pp. 437-444 • Lee et al, “Power Analysis and Minimization Techniques for Embedded DSP Software ”, IEEE TVLSI, Vol. 5, No. 1, Mar 1997, pp. 123-135 • Sama et al, “Speeding up Power Estimation of Embedded Software”, ISLPED 2000, pp. 191-196 System Level Design Workshop

More Related