首页资源分类IC设计及制造 > 计算机体系结构一个量化方法


已有 448149个资源



标    签:computerarchitecture

分    享:




In Praise of Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach Fifth Edition “The 5th edition of Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach continues the legacy, providing students of computer architecture with the most up-to-date information on current computing platforms, and architectural insights to help them design future systems. A highlight of the new edition is the significantly revised chapter on data-level parallelism, which demystifies GPU architectures with clear explanations using traditional computer architecture terminology.” —Krste Asanovic´, University of California, Berkeley “Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach is a classic that, like fine wine, just keeps getting better. I bought my first copy as I finished up my undergraduate degree and it remains one of my most frequently referenced texts today. When the fourth edition came out, there was so much new material that I needed to get it to stay current in the field. And, as I review the fifth edition, I realize that Hennessy and Patterson have done it again. The entire text is heavily updated and Chapter 6 alone makes this new edition required reading for those wanting to really understand cloud and warehouse scale-computing. Only Hennessy and Patterson have access to the insiders at Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and other cloud computing and internet-scale application providers and there is no better coverage of this important area anywhere in the industry.” —James Hamilton, Amazon Web Services “Hennessy and Patterson wrote the first edition of this book when graduate students built computers with 50,000 transistors. Today, warehouse-size computers contain that many servers, each consisting of dozens of independent processors and billions of transistors. The evolution of computer architecture has been rapid and relentless, but Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach has kept pace, with each edition accurately explaining and analyzing the important emerging ideas that make this field so exciting.” —James Larus, Microsoft Research “This new edition adds a superb new chapter on data-level parallelism in vector, SIMD, and GPU architectures. It explains key architecture concepts inside massmarket GPUs, maps them to traditional terms, and compares them with vector and SIMD architectures. It’s timely and relevant with the widespread shift to GPU parallel computing. Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach furthers its string of firsts in presenting comprehensive architecture coverage of significant new developments!” —John Nickolls, NVIDIA “The new edition of this now classic textbook highlights the ascendance of explicit parallelism (data, thread, request) by devoting a whole chapter to each type. The chapter on data parallelism is particularly illuminating: the comparison and contrast between Vector SIMD, instruction level SIMD, and GPU cuts through the jargon associated with each architecture and exposes the similarities and differences between these architectures.” —Kunle Olukotun, Stanford University “The fifth edition of Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach explores the various parallel concepts and their respective tradeoffs. As with the previous editions, this new edition covers the latest technology trends. Two highlighted are the explosive growth of Personal Mobile Devices (PMD) and Warehouse Scale Computing (WSC)—where the focus has shifted towards a more sophisticated balance of performance and energy efficiency as compared with raw performance. These trends are fueling our demand for ever more processing capability which in turn is moving us further down the parallel path.” —Andrew N. Sloss, Consultant Engineer, ARM Author of ARM System Developer’s Guide Computer Architecture A Quantitative Approach Fifth Edition John L. Hennessy is the tenth president of Stanford University, where he has been a member of the faculty since 1977 in the departments of electrical engineering and computer science. Hennessy is a Fellow of the IEEE and ACM; a member of the National Academy of Engineering, the National Academy of Science, and the American Philosophical Society; and a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Among his many awards are the 2001 EckertMauchly Award for his contributions to RISC technology, the 2001 Seymour Cray Computer Engineering Award, and the 2000 John von Neumann Award, which he shared with David Patterson. He has also received seven honorary doctorates. In 1981, he started the MIPS project at Stanford with a handful of graduate students. After completing the project in 1984, he took a leave from the university to cofound MIPS Computer Systems (now MIPS Technologies), which developed one of the first commercial RISC microprocessors. As of 2006, over 2 billion MIPS microprocessors have been shipped in devices ranging from video games and palmtop computers to laser printers and network switches. Hennessy subsequently led the DASH (Director Architecture for Shared Memory) project, which prototyped the first scalable cache coherent multiprocessor; many of the key ideas have been adopted in modern multiprocessors. In addition to his technical activities and university responsibilities, he has continued to work with numerous start-ups both as an early-stage advisor and an investor. David A. Patterson has been teaching computer architecture at the University of California, Berkeley, since joining the faculty in 1977, where he holds the Pardee Chair of Computer Science. His teaching has been honored by the Distinguished Teaching Award from the University of California, the Karlstrom Award from ACM, and the Mulligan Education Medal and Undergraduate Teaching Award from IEEE. Patterson received the IEEE Technical Achievement Award and the ACM Eckert-Mauchly Award for contributions to RISC, and he shared the IEEE Johnson Information Storage Award for contributions to RAID. He also shared the IEEE John von Neumann Medal and the C & C Prize with John Hennessy. Like his co-author, Patterson is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the Computer History Museum, ACM, and IEEE, and he was elected to the National Academy of Engineering, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Silicon Valley Engineering Hall of Fame. He served on the Information Technology Advisory Committee to the U.S. President, as chair of the CS division in the Berkeley EECS department, as chair of the Computing Research Association, and as President of ACM. This record led to Distinguished Service Awards from ACM and CRA. At Berkeley, Patterson led the design and implementation of RISC I, likely the first VLSI reduced instruction set computer, and the foundation of the commercial SPARC architecture. He was a leader of the Redundant Arrays of Inexpensive Disks (RAID) project, which led to dependable storage systems from many companies. He was also involved in the Network of Workstations (NOW) project, which led to cluster technology used by Internet companies and later to cloud computing. These projects earned three dissertation awards from ACM. His current research projects are Algorithm-Machine-People Laboratory and the Parallel Computing Laboratory, where he is director. The goal of the AMP Lab is develop scalable machine learning algorithms, warehouse-scale-computer-friendly programming models, and crowd-sourcing tools to gain valueable insights quickly from big data in the cloud. The goal of the Par Lab is to develop technologies to deliver scalable, portable, efficient, and productive software for parallel personal mobile devices. Computer Architecture A Quantitative Approach Fifth Edition John L. Hennessy Stanford University David A. Patterson University of California, Berkeley With Contributions by Krste Asanovic´ University of California, Berkeley Jason D. Bakos University of South Carolina Robert P. Colwell R&E Colwell & Assoc. Inc. Thomas M. Conte North Carolina State University José Duato Universitat Politècnica de València and Simula Diana Franklin University of California, Santa Barbara David Goldberg The Scripps Research Institute Norman P. Jouppi HP Labs Sheng Li HP Labs Naveen Muralimanohar HP Labs Gregory D. Peterson University of Tennessee Timothy M. Pinkston University of Southern California Parthasarathy Ranganathan HP Labs David A. Wood University of Wisconsin–Madison Amr Zaky University of Santa Clara Amsterdam • Boston • Heidelberg • London New York • Oxford • Paris • San Diego San Francisco • Singapore • Sydney • Tokyo Acquiring Editor: Todd Green Development Editor: Nate McFadden Project Manager: Paul Gottehrer Designer: Joanne Blank Morgan Kaufmann is an imprint of Elsevier 225 Wyman Street, Waltham, MA 02451, USA © 2012 Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions. This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein). Notices Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods or professional practices, may become necessary. Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information or methods described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility. To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Application submitted British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN: 978-0-12-383872-8 For information on all MK publications visit our website at www.mkp.com Printed in the United States of America 11 12 13 14 15 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Typeset by: diacriTech, Chennai, India To Andrea, Linda, and our four sons This page intentionally left blank Foreword 1 by Luiz André Barroso, Google Inc. The first edition of Hennessy and Patterson’s Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach was released during my first year in graduate school. I belong, therefore, to that first wave of professionals who learned about our discipline using this book as a compass. Perspective being a fundamental ingredient to a useful Foreword, I find myself at a disadvantage given how much of my own views have been colored by the previous four editions of this book. Another obstacle to clear perspective is that the student-grade reverence for these two superstars of Computer Science has not yet left me, despite (or perhaps because of) having had the chance to get to know them in the years since. These disadvantages are mitigated by my having practiced this trade continuously since this book’s first edition, which has given me a chance to enjoy its evolution and enduring relevance. The last edition arrived just two years after the rampant industrial race for higher CPU clock frequency had come to its official end, with Intel cancelling its 4 GHz single-core developments and embracing multicore CPUs. Two years was plenty of time for John and Dave to present this story not as a random product line update, but as a defining computing technology inflection point of the last decade. That fourth edition had a reduced emphasis on instruction-level parallelism (ILP) in favor of added material on thread-level parallelism, something the current edition takes even further by devoting two chapters to thread- and datalevel parallelism while limiting ILP discussion to a single chapter. Readers who are being introduced to new graphics processing engines will benefit especially from the new Chapter 4 which focuses on data parallelism, explaining the different but slowly converging solutions offered by multimedia extensions in general-purpose processors and increasingly programmable graphics processing units. Of notable practical relevance: If you have ever struggled with CUDA terminology check out Figure 4.24 (teaser: “Shared Memory” is really local, while “Global Memory” is closer to what you’d consider shared memory). Even though we are still in the middle of that multicore technology shift, this edition embraces what appears to be the next major one: cloud computing. In this case, the ubiquity of Internet connectivity and the evolution of compelling Web services are bringing to the spotlight very small devices (smart phones, tablets) ix x ■ Foreword and very large ones (warehouse-scale computing systems). The ARM Cortex A8, a popular CPU for smart phones, appears in Chapter 3’s “Putting It All Together” section, and a whole new Chapter 6 is devoted to request- and data-level parallelism in the context of warehouse-scale computing systems. In this new chapter, John and Dave present these new massive clusters as a distinctively new class of computers—an open invitation for computer architects to help shape this emerging field. Readers will appreciate how this area has evolved in the last decade by comparing the Google cluster architecture described in the third edition with the more modern incarnation presented in this version’s Chapter 6. Return customers of this book will appreciate once again the work of two outstanding computer scientists who over their careers have perfected the art of combining an academic’s principled treatment of ideas with a deep understanding of leading-edge industrial products and technologies. The authors’ success in industrial interactions won’t be a surprise to those who have witnessed how Dave conducts his biannual project retreats, forums meticulously crafted to extract the most out of academic–industrial collaborations. Those who recall John’s entrepreneurial success with MIPS or bump into him in a Google hallway (as I occasionally do) won’t be surprised by it either. Perhaps most importantly, return and new readers alike will get their money’s worth. What has made this book an enduring classic is that each edition is not an update but an extensive revision that presents the most current information and unparalleled insight into this fascinating and quickly changing field. For me, after over twenty years in this profession, it is also another opportunity to experience that student-grade admiration for two remarkable teachers. Contents 1 Foreword ix Preface xv Acknowledgments xxiii Chapter 1 Fundamentals of Quantitative Design and Analysis 1.1 Introduction 2 1.2 Classes of Computers 5 1.3 Defining Computer Architecture 11 1.4 Trends in Technology 17 1.5 Trends in Power and Energy in Integrated Circuits 21 1.6 Trends in Cost 27 1.7 Dependability 33 1.8 Measuring, Reporting, and Summarizing Performance 36 1.9 Quantitative Principles of Computer Design 44 1.10 Putting It All Together: Performance, Price, and Power 52 1.11 Fallacies and Pitfalls 55 1.12 Concluding Remarks 59 1.13 Historical Perspectives and References 61 Case Studies and Exercises by Diana Franklin 61 Chapter 2 Memory Hierarchy Design 2.1 Introduction 72 2.2 Ten Advanced Optimizations of Cache Performance 78 2.3 Memory Technology and Optimizations 96 2.4 Protection: Virtual Memory and Virtual Machines 105 2.5 Crosscutting Issues: The Design of Memory Hierarchies 112 2.6 Putting It All Together: Memory Hierachies in the ARM Cortex-A8 and Intel Core i7 113 2.7 Fallacies and Pitfalls 125 xi xii ■ Contents 2.8 Concluding Remarks: Looking Ahead 129 2.9 Historical Perspective and References 131 Case Studies and Exercises by Norman P. Jouppi, Naveen Muralimanohar, and Sheng Li 131 Chapter 3 Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation 3.1 Instruction-Level Parallelism: Concepts and Challenges 148 3.2 Basic Compiler Techniques for Exposing ILP 156 3.3 Reducing Branch Costs with Advanced Branch Prediction 162 3.4 Overcoming Data Hazards with Dynamic Scheduling 167 3.5 Dynamic Scheduling: Examples and the Algorithm 176 3.6 Hardware-Based Speculation 183 3.7 Exploiting ILP Using Multiple Issue and Static Scheduling 192 3.8 Exploiting ILP Using Dynamic Scheduling, Multiple Issue, and Speculation 197 3.9 Advanced Techniques for Instruction Delivery and Speculation 202 3.10 Studies of the Limitations of ILP 213 3.11 Cross-Cutting Issues: ILP Approaches and the Memory System 221 3.12 Multithreading: Exploiting Thread-Level Parallelism to Improve Uniprocessor Throughput 223 3.13 Putting It All Together: The Intel Core i7 and ARM Cortex-A8 233 3.14 Fallacies and Pitfalls 241 3.15 Concluding Remarks: What’s Ahead? 245 3.16 Historical Perspective and References 247 Case Studies and Exercises by Jason D. Bakos and Robert P. Colwell 247 Chapter 4 Data-Level Parallelism in Vector, SIMD, and GPU Architectures 4.1 Introduction 262 4.2 Vector Architecture 264 4.3 SIMD Instruction Set Extensions for Multimedia 282 4.4 Graphics Processing Units 288 4.5 Detecting and Enhancing Loop-Level Parallelism 315 4.6 Crosscutting Issues 322 4.7 Putting It All Together: Mobile versus Server GPUs and Tesla versus Core i7 323 4.8 Fallacies and Pitfalls 330 4.9 Concluding Remarks 332 4.10 Historical Perspective and References 334 Case Study and Exercises by Jason D. Bakos 334 Chapter 5 Thread-Level Parallelism 5.1 Introduction 344 5.2 Centralized Shared-Memory Architectures 351 5.3 Performance of Symmetric Shared-Memory Multiprocessors 366 Contents ■ xiii 5.4 Distributed Shared-Memory and Directory-Based Coherence 378 5.5 Synchronization: The Basics 386 5.6 Models of Memory Consistency: An Introduction 392 5.7 Crosscutting Issues 395 5.8 Putting It All Together: Multicore Processors and Their Performance 400 5.9 Fallacies and Pitfalls 405 5.10 Concluding Remarks 409 5.11 Historical Perspectives and References 412 Case Studies and Exercises by Amr Zaky and David A. Wood 412 Chapter 6 Warehouse-Scale Computers to Exploit Request-Level and Data-Level Parallelism 6.1 Introduction 432 6.2 Programming Models and Workloads for Warehouse-Scale Computers 436 6.3 Computer Architecture of Warehouse-Scale Computers 441 6.4 Physical Infrastructure and Costs of Warehouse-Scale Computers 446 6.5 Cloud Computing: The Return of Utility Computing 455 6.6 Crosscutting Issues 461 6.7 Putting It All Together: A Google Warehouse-Scale Computer 464 6.8 Fallacies and Pitfalls 471 6.9 Concluding Remarks 475 6.10 Historical Perspectives and References 476 Case Studies and Exercises by Parthasarathy Ranganathan 476 Appendix A Instruction Set Principles A.1 Introduction A-2 A.2 Classifying Instruction Set Architectures A-3 A.3 Memory Addressing A-7 A.4 Type and Size of Operands A-13 A.5 Operations in the Instruction Set A-14 A.6 Instructions for Control Flow A-16 A.7 Encoding an Instruction Set A-21 A.8 Crosscutting Issues: The Role of Compilers A-24 A.9 Putting It All Together: The MIPS Architecture A-32 A.10 Fallacies and Pitfalls A-39 A.11 Concluding Remarks A-45 A.12 Historical Perspective and References A-47 Exercises by Gregory D. Peterson A-47 Appendix B Review of Memory Hierarchy B.1 Introduction B-2 B.2 Cache Performance B-16 B.3 Six Basic Cache Optimizations B-22 xiv ■ Contents B.4 Virtual Memory B-40 B.5 Protection and Examples of Virtual Memory B-49 B.6 Fallacies and Pitfalls B-57 B.7 Concluding Remarks B-59 B.8 Historical Perspective and References B-59 Exercises by Amr Zaky B-60 Appendix C Pipelining: Basic and Intermediate Concepts C.1 Introduction C-2 C.2 The Major Hurdle of Pipelining—Pipeline Hazards C-11 C.3 How Is Pipelining Implemented? C-30 C.4 What Makes Pipelining Hard to Implement? C-43 C.5 Extending the MIPS Pipeline to Handle Multicycle Operations C-51 C.6 Putting It All Together: The MIPS R4000 Pipeline C-61 C.7 Crosscutting Issues C-70 C.8 Fallacies and Pitfalls C-80 C.9 Concluding Remarks C-81 C.10 Historical Perspective and References C-81 Updated Exercises by Diana Franklin C-82 Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G Appendix H Appendix I Appendix J Appendix K Appendix L Online Appendices Storage Systems Embedded Systems By Thomas M. Conte Interconnection Networks Revised by Timothy M. Pinkston and José Duato Vector Processors in More Depth Revised by Krste Asanovic Hardware and Software for VLIW and EPIC Large-Scale Multiprocessors and Scientific Applications Computer Arithmetic by David Goldberg Survey of Instruction Set Architectures Historical Perspectives and References References R-1 Index I-1 Preface 1 Why We Wrote This Book Through five editions of this book, our goal has been to describe the basic principles underlying what will be tomorrow’s technological developments. Our excitement about the opportunities in computer architecture has not abated, and we echo what we said about the field in the first edition: “It is not a dreary science of paper machines that will never work. No! It’s a discipline of keen intellectual interest, requiring the balance of marketplace forces to cost-performance-power, leading to glorious failures and some notable successes.” Our primary objective in writing our first book was to change the way people learn and think about computer architecture. We feel this goal is still valid and important. The field is changing daily and must be studied with real examples and measurements on real computers, rather than simply as a collection of definitions and designs that will never need to be realized. We offer an enthusiastic welcome to anyone who came along with us in the past, as well as to those who are joining us now. Either way, we can promise the same quantitative approach to, and analysis of, real systems. As with earlier versions, we have strived to produce a new edition that will continue to be as relevant for professional engineers and architects as it is for those involved in advanced computer architecture and design courses. Like the first edition, this edition has a sharp focus on new platforms—personal mobile devices and warehouse-scale computers—and new architectures—multicore and GPUs. As much as its predecessors, this edition aims to demystify computer architecture through an emphasis on cost-performance-energy trade-offs and good engineering design. We believe that the field has continued to mature and move toward the rigorous quantitative foundation of long-established scientific and engineering disciplines. xv xvi ■ Preface This Edition We said the fourth edition of Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach may have been the most significant since the first edition due to the switch to multicore chips. The feedback we received this time was that the book had lost the sharp focus of the first edition, covering everthing equally but without emphasis and context. We’re pretty sure that won’t be said about the fifth edition. We believe most of the excitement is at the extremes in size of computing, with personal mobile devices (PMDs) such as cell phones and tablets as the clients and warehouse-scale computers offering cloud computing as the server. (Observant readers may seen the hint for cloud computing on the cover.) We are struck by the common theme of these two extremes in cost, performance, and energy efficiency despite their difference in size. As a result, the running context through each chapter is computing for PMDs and for warehouse scale computers, and Chapter 6 is a brand-new chapter on the latter topic. The other theme is parallelism in all its forms. We first idetify the two types of application-level parallelism in Chapter 1: data-level parallelism (DLP), which arises because there are many data items that can be operated on at the same time, and task-level parallelism (TLP), which arises because tasks of work are created that can operate independently and largely in parallel. We then explain the four architectural styles that exploit DLP and TLP: instruction-level parallelism (ILP) in Chapter 3; vector architectures and graphic processor units (GPUs) in Chapter 4, which is a brand-new chapter for this edition; thread-level parallelism in Chapter 5; and request-level parallelism (RLP) via warehouse-scale computers in Chapter 6, which is also a brand-new chapter for this edition. We moved memory hierarchy earlier in the book to Chapter 2, and we moved the storage systems chapter to Appendix D. We are particularly proud about Chapter 4, which contains the most detailed and clearest explanation of GPUs yet, and Chapter 6, which is the first publication of the most recent details of a Google Warehousescale computer. As before, the first three appendices in the book give basics on the MIPS instruction set, memory hierachy, and pipelining for readers who have not read a book like Computer Organization and Design. To keep costs down but still supply supplemental material that are of interest to some readers, available online at http://booksite.mkp.com/9780123838728/ are nine more appendices. There are more pages in these appendices than there are in this book! This edition continues the tradition of using real-world examples to demonstrate the ideas, and the “Putting It All Together” sections are brand new. The “Putting It All Together” sections of this edition include the pipeline organizations and memory hierarchies of the ARM Cortex A8 processor, the Intel core i7 processor, the NVIDIA GTX-280 and GTX-480 GPUs, and one of the Google warehouse-scale computers. Preface ■ xvii Topic Selection and Organization As before, we have taken a conservative approach to topic selection, for there are many more interesting ideas in the field than can reasonably be covered in a treatment of basic principles. We have steered away from a comprehensive survey of every architecture a reader might encounter. Instead, our presentation focuses on core concepts likely to be found in any new machine. The key criterion remains that of selecting ideas that have been examined and utilized successfully enough to permit their discussion in quantitative terms. Our intent has always been to focus on material that is not available in equivalent form from other sources, so we continue to emphasize advanced content wherever possible. Indeed, there are several systems here whose descriptions cannot be found in the literature. (Readers interested strictly in a more basic introduction to computer architecture should read Computer Organization and Design: The Hardware/Software Interface.) An Overview of the Content Chapter 1 has been beefed up in this edition. It includes formulas for energy, static power, dynamic power, integrated circuit costs, reliability, and availability. (These formulas are also found on the front inside cover.) Our hope is that these topics can be used through the rest of the book. In addition to the classic quantitative principles of computer design and performance measurement, the PIAT section has been upgraded to use the new SPECPower benchmark. Our view is that the instruction set architecture is playing less of a role today than in 1990, so we moved this material to Appendix A. It still uses the MIPS64 architecture. (For quick review, a summary of the MIPS ISA can be found on the back inside cover.) For fans of ISAs, Appendix K covers 10 RISC architectures, the 80x86, the DEC VAX, and the IBM 360/370. We then move onto memory hierarchy in Chapter 2, since it is easy to apply the cost-performance-energy principles to this material and memory is a critical resource for the rest of the chapters. As in the past edition, Appendix B contains an introductory review of cache principles, which is available in case you need it. Chapter 2 discusses 10 advanced optimizations of caches. The chapter includes virtual machines, which offers advantages in protection, software management, and hardware management and play an important role in cloud computing. In addition to covering SRAM and DRAM technologies, the chapter includes new material on Flash memory. The PIAT examples are the ARM Cortex A8, which is used in PMDs, and the Intel Core i7, which is used in servers. Chapter 3 covers the exploitation of instruction-level parallelism in highperformance processors, including superscalar execution, branch prediction, speculation, dynamic scheduling, and multithreading. As mentioned earlier, Appendix C is a review of pipelining in case you need it. Chapter 3 also surveys the limits of ILP. Like Chapter 2, the PIAT examples are again the ARM Cortex A8 and the Intel Core i7. While the third edition contained a great deal xviii ■ Preface on Itanium and VLIW, this material is now in Appendix H, indicating our view that this architecture did not live up to the earlier claims. The increasing importance of multimedia applications such as games and video processing has also increased the importance of achitectures that can exploit datalevel parallelism. In particular, there is a rising interest in computing using graphical processing units (GPUs), yet few architects understand how GPUs really work. We decided to write a new chapter in large part to unveil this new style of computer architecture. Chapter 4 starts with an introduction to vector architectures, which acts as a foundation on which to build explanations of multimedia SIMD instrution set extensions and GPUs. (Appendix G goes into even more depth on vector architectures.) The section on GPUs was the most difficult to write in this book, in that it took many iterations to get an accurate description that was also easy to understand. A significant challenge was the terminology. We decided to go with our own terms and then provide a translation between our terms and the official NVIDIA terms. (A copy of that table can be found in the back inside cover pages.) This chapter introduces the Roofline performance model and then uses it to compare the Intel Core i7 and the NVIDIA GTX 280 and GTX 480 GPUs. The chapter also describes the Tegra 2 GPU for PMDs. Chapter 5 describes multicore processors. It explores symmetric and distributed-memory architectures, examining both organizational principles and performance. Topics in synchronization and memory consistency models are next. The example is the Intel Core i7. Readers interested in interconnection networks on a chip should read Appendix F, and those interested in larger scale multiprocessors and scientific applications should read Appendix I. As mentioned earlier, Chapter 6 describes the newest topic in computer architecture, warehouse-scale computers (WSCs). Based on help from engineers at Amazon Web Services and Google, this chapter integrates details on design, cost, and performance of WSCs that few architects are aware of. It starts with the popular MapReduce programming model before describing the architecture and physical implemention of WSCs, including cost. The costs allow us to explain the emergence of cloud computing, whereby it can be cheaper to compute using WSCs in the cloud than in your local datacenter. The PIAT example is a description of a Google WSC that includes information published for the first time in this book. This brings us to Appendices A through L. Appendix A covers principles of ISAs, including MIPS64, and Appendix K describes 64-bit versions of Alpha, MIPS, PowerPC, and SPARC and their multimedia extensions. It also includes some classic architectures (80x86, VAX, and IBM 360/370) and popular embedded instruction sets (ARM, Thumb, SuperH, MIPS16, and Mitsubishi M32R). Appendix H is related, in that it covers architectures and compilers for VLIW ISAs. As mentioned earlier, Appendices B and C are tutorials on basic caching and pipelining concepts. Readers relatively new to caching should read Appendix B before Chapter 2 and those new to pipelining should read Appendix C before Chapter 3. Preface ■ xix Appendix D, “Storage Systems,” has an expanded discussion of reliability and availability, a tutorial on RAID with a description of RAID 6 schemes, and rarely found failure statistics of real systems. It continues to provide an introduction to queuing theory and I/O performance benchmarks. We evaluate the cost, performance, and reliability of a real cluster: the Internet Archive. The “Putting It All Together” example is the NetApp FAS6000 filer. Appendix E, by Thomas M. Conte, consolidates the embedded material in one place. Appendix F, on interconnection networks, has been revised by Timothy M. Pinkston and José Duato. Appendix G, written originally by Krste Asanovic´, includes a description of vector processors. We think these two appendices are some of the best material we know of on each topic. Appendix H describes VLIW and EPIC, the architecture of Itanium. Appendix I describes parallel processing applications and coherence protocols for larger-scale, shared-memory multiprocessing. Appendix J, by David Goldberg, describes computer arithmetic. Appendix L collects the “Historical Perspective and References” from each chapter into a single appendix. It attempts to give proper credit for the ideas in each chapter and a sense of the history surrounding the inventions. We like to think of this as presenting the human drama of computer design. It also supplies references that the student of architecture may want to pursue. If you have time, we recommend reading some of the classic papers in the field that are mentioned in these sections. It is both enjoyable and educational to hear the ideas directly from the creators. “Historical Perspective” was one of the most popular sections of prior editions. Navigating the Text There is no single best order in which to approach these chapters and appendices, except that all readers should start with Chapter 1. If you don’t want to read everything, here are some suggested sequences: ■ Memory Hierarchy: Appendix B, Chapter 2, and Appendix D. ■ Instruction-Level Parallelism: Appendix C, Chapter 3, and Appendix H ■ Data-Level Parallelism: Chapters 4 and 6, Appendix G ■ Thread-Level Parallelism: Chapter 5, Appendices F and I ■ Request-Level Parallelism: Chapter 6 ■ ISA: Appendices A and K Appendix E can be read at any time, but it might work best if read after the ISA and cache sequences. Appendix J can be read whenever arithmetic moves you. You should read the corresponding portion of Appendix L after you complete each chapter. xx ■ Preface Chapter Structure The material we have selected has been stretched upon a consistent framework that is followed in each chapter. We start by explaining the ideas of a chapter. These ideas are followed by a “Crosscutting Issues” section, a feature that shows how the ideas covered in one chapter interact with those given in other chapters. This is followed by a “Putting It All Together” section that ties these ideas together by showing how they are used in a real machine. Next in the sequence is “Fallacies and Pitfalls,” which lets readers learn from the mistakes of others. We show examples of common misunderstandings and architectural traps that are difficult to avoid even when you know they are lying in wait for you. The “Fallacies and Pitfalls” sections is one of the most popular sections of the book. Each chapter ends with a “Concluding Remarks” section. Case Studies with Exercises Each chapter ends with case studies and accompanying exercises. Authored by experts in industry and academia, the case studies explore key chapter concepts and verify understanding through increasingly challenging exercises. Instructors should find the case studies sufficiently detailed and robust to allow them to create their own additional exercises. Brackets for each exercise () indicate the text sections of primary relevance to completing the exercise. We hope this helps readers to avoid exercises for which they haven’t read the corresponding section, in addition to providing the source for review. Exercises are rated, to give the reader a sense of the amount of time required to complete an exercise: [10] Less than 5 minutes (to read and understand) [15] 5–15 minutes for a full answer [20] 15–20 minutes for a full answer [25] 1 hour for a full written answer [30] Short programming project: less than 1 full day of programming [40] Significant programming project: 2 weeks of elapsed time [Discussion] Topic for discussion with others Solutions to the case studies and exercises are available for instructors who register at textbooks.elsevier.com. Supplemental Materials A variety of resources are available online at http://booksite.mkp.com/9780123838728/, including the following: Preface ■ xxi ■ Reference appendices—some guest authored by subject experts—covering a range of advanced topics ■ Historical Perspectives material that explores the development of the key ideas presented in each of the chapters in the text ■ Instructor slides in PowerPoint ■ Figures from the book in PDF, EPS, and PPT formats ■ Links to related material on the Web ■ List of errata New materials and links to other resources available on the Web will be added on a regular basis. Helping Improve This Book Finally, it is possible to make money while reading this book. (Talk about costperformance!) If you read the Acknowledgments that follow, you will see that we went to great lengths to correct mistakes. Since a book goes through many printings, we have the opportunity to make even more corrections. If you uncover any remaining resilient bugs, please contact the publisher by electronic mail (ca5bugs@mkp.com). We welcome general comments to the text and invite you to send them to a separate email address at ca5comments@mkp.com. Concluding Remarks Once again this book is a true co-authorship, with each of us writing half the chapters and an equal share of the appendices. We can’t imagine how long it would have taken without someone else doing half the work, offering inspiration when the task seemed hopeless, providing the key insight to explain a difficult concept, supplying reviews over the weekend of chapters, and commiserating when the weight of our other obligations made it hard to pick up the pen. (These obligations have escalated exponentially with the number of editions, as the biographies attest.) Thus, once again we share equally the blame for what you are about to read. John Hennessy ■ David Patterson This page intentionally left blank Acknowledgments 1 Although this is only the fifth edition of this book, we have actually created ten different versions of the text: three versions of the first edition (alpha, beta, and final) and two versions of the second, third, and fourth editions (beta and final). Along the way, we have received help from hundreds of reviewers and users. Each of these people has helped make this book better. Thus, we have chosen to list all of the people who have made contributions to some version of this book. Contributors to the Fifth Edition Like prior editions, this is a community effort that involves scores of volunteers. Without their help, this edition would not be nearly as polished. Reviewers Jason D. Bakos, University of South Carolina; Diana Franklin, The University of California, Santa Barbara; Norman P. Jouppi, HP Labs; Gregory Peterson, University of Tennessee; Parthasarathy Ranganathan, HP Labs; Mark Smotherman, Clemson University; Gurindar Sohi, University of Wisconsin–Madison; Mateo Valero, Universidad Politécnica de Cataluña; Sotirios G. Ziavras, New Jersey Institute of Technology Members of the University of California–Berkeley Par Lab and RAD Lab who gave frequent reviews of Chapter 1, 4, and 6 and shaped the explanation of GPUs and WSCs: Krste Asanovic´, Michael Armbrust, Scott Beamer, Sarah Bird, Bryan Catanzaro, Jike Chong, Henry Cook, Derrick Coetzee, Randy Katz, Yunsup Lee, Leo Meyervich, Mark Murphy, Zhangxi Tan, Vasily Volkov, and Andrew Waterman Advisory Panel Luiz André Barroso, Google Inc.; Robert P. Colwell, R&E Colwell & Assoc. Inc.; Krisztian Flautner, VP of R&D at ARM Ltd.; Mary Jane Irwin, Penn State; xxiii xxiv ■ Acknowledgments David Kirk, NVIDIA; Grant Martin, Chief Scientist, Tensilica; Gurindar Sohi, University of Wisconsin–Madison; Mateo Valero, Universidad Politécnica de Cataluña Appendices Krste Asanovic´, University of California, Berkeley (Appendix G); Thomas M. Conte, North Carolina State University (Appendix E); José Duato, Universitat Politècnica de València and Simula (Appendix F); David Goldberg, Xerox PARC (Appendix J); Timothy M. Pinkston, University of Southern California (Appendix F) José Flich of the Universidad Politécnica de Valencia provided significant contributions to the updating of Appendix F. Case Studies with Exercises Jason D. Bakos, University of South Carolina (Chapters 3 and 4); Diana Franklin, University of California, Santa Barbara (Chapter 1 and Appendix C); Norman P. Jouppi, HP Labs (Chapter 2); Naveen Muralimanohar, HP Labs (Chapter 2); Gregory Peterson, University of Tennessee (Appendix A); Parthasarathy Ranganathan, HP Labs (Chapter 6); Amr Zaky, University of Santa Clara (Chapter 5 and Appendix B) Jichuan Chang, Kevin Lim, and Justin Meza assisted in the development and testing of the case studies and exercises for Chapter 6. Additional Material John Nickolls, Steve Keckler, and Michael Toksvig of NVIDIA (Chapter 4 NVIDIA GPUs); Victor Lee, Intel (Chapter 4 comparison of Core i7 and GPU); John Shalf, LBNL (Chapter 4 recent vector architectures); Sam Williams, LBNL (Roofline model for computers in Chapter 4); Steve Blackburn of Australian National University and Kathryn McKinley of University of Texas at Austin (Intel performance and power measurements in Chapter 5); Luiz Barroso, Urs Hölzle, Jimmy Clidaris, Bob Felderman, and Chris Johnson of Google (the Google WSC in Chapter 6); James Hamilton of Amazon Web Services (power distribution and cost model in Chapter 6) Jason D. Bakos of the University of South Carolina developed the new lecture slides for this edition. Finally, a special thanks once again to Mark Smotherman of Clemson University, who gave a final technical reading of our manuscript. Mark found numerous bugs and ambiguities, and the book is much cleaner as a result. This book could not have been published without a publisher, of course. We wish to thank all the Morgan Kaufmann/Elsevier staff for their efforts and support. For this fifth edition, we particularly want to thank our editors Nate McFadden Acknowledgments ■ xxv and Todd Green, who coordinated surveys, the advisory panel, development of the case studies and exercises, focus groups, manuscript reviews, and the updating of the appendices. We must also thank our university staff, Margaret Rowland and Roxana Infante, for countless express mailings, as well as for holding down the fort at Stanford and Berkeley while we worked on the book. Our final thanks go to our wives for their suffering through increasingly early mornings of reading, thinking, and writing. Contributors to Previous Editions Reviewers George Adams, Purdue University; Sarita Adve, University of Illinois at Urbana– Champaign; Jim Archibald, Brigham Young University; Krste Asanovic´, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Jean-Loup Baer, University of Washington; Paul Barr, Northeastern University; Rajendra V. Boppana, University of Texas, San Antonio; Mark Brehob, University of Michigan; Doug Burger, University of Texas, Austin; John Burger, SGI; Michael Butler; Thomas Casavant; Rohit Chandra; Peter Chen, University of Michigan; the classes at SUNY Stony Brook, Carnegie Mellon, Stanford, Clemson, and Wisconsin; Tim Coe, Vitesse Semiconductor; Robert P. Colwell; David Cummings; Bill Dally; David Douglas; José Duato, Universitat Politècnica de València and Simula; Anthony Duben, Southeast Missouri State University; Susan Eggers, University of Washington; Joel Emer; Barry Fagin, Dartmouth; Joel Ferguson, University of California, Santa Cruz; Carl Feynman; David Filo; Josh Fisher, Hewlett-Packard Laboratories; Rob Fowler, DIKU; Mark Franklin, Washington University (St. Louis); Kourosh Gharachorloo; Nikolas Gloy, Harvard University; David Goldberg, Xerox Palo Alto Research Center; Antonio González, Intel and Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya; James Goodman, University of Wisconsin–Madison; Sudhanva Gurumurthi, University of Virginia; David Harris, Harvey Mudd College; John Heinlein; Mark Heinrich, Stanford; Daniel Helman, University of California, Santa Cruz; Mark D. Hill, University of Wisconsin–Madison; Martin Hopkins, IBM; Jerry Huck, Hewlett-Packard Laboratories; Wen-mei Hwu, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign; Mary Jane Irwin, Pennsylvania State University; Truman Joe; Norm Jouppi; David Kaeli, Northeastern University; Roger Kieckhafer, University of Nebraska; Lev G. Kirischian, Ryerson University; Earl Killian; Allan Knies, Purdue University; Don Knuth; Jeff Kuskin, Stanford; James R. Larus, Microsoft Research; Corinna Lee, University of Toronto; Hank Levy; Kai Li, Princeton University; Lori Liebrock, University of Alaska, Fairbanks; Mikko Lipasti, University of Wisconsin–Madison; Gyula A. Mago, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; Bryan Martin; Norman Matloff; David Meyer; William Michalson, Worcester Polytechnic Institute; James Mooney; Trevor Mudge, University of Michigan; Ramadass Nagarajan, University of Texas at Austin; David Nagle, Carnegie Mellon University; Todd Narter; Victor Nelson; Vojin Oklobdzija, University of California, Berkeley; Kunle Olukotun, Stanford University; Bob Owens, Pennsylvania State University; Greg Papadapoulous, Sun xxvi ■ Acknowledgments Microsystems; Joseph Pfeiffer; Keshav Pingali, Cornell University; Timothy M. Pinkston, University of Southern California; Bruno Preiss, University of Waterloo; Steven Przybylski; Jim Quinlan; Andras Radics; Kishore Ramachandran, Georgia Institute of Technology; Joseph Rameh, University of Texas, Austin; Anthony Reeves, Cornell University; Richard Reid, Michigan State University; Steve Reinhardt, University of Michigan; David Rennels, University of California, Los Angeles; Arnold L. Rosenberg, University of Massachusetts, Amherst; Kaushik Roy, Purdue University; Emilio Salgueiro, Unysis; Karthikeyan Sankaralingam, University of Texas at Austin; Peter Schnorf; Margo Seltzer; Behrooz Shirazi, Southern Methodist University; Daniel Siewiorek, Carnegie Mellon University; J. P. Singh, Princeton; Ashok Singhal; Jim Smith, University of Wisconsin–Madison; Mike Smith, Harvard University; Mark Smotherman, Clemson University; Gurindar Sohi, University of Wisconsin–Madison; Arun Somani, University of Washington; Gene Tagliarin, Clemson University; Shyamkumar Thoziyoor, University of Notre Dame; Evan Tick, University of Oregon; Akhilesh Tyagi, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; Dan Upton, University of Virginia; Mateo Valero, Universidad Politécnica de Cataluña, Barcelona; Anujan Varma, University of California, Santa Cruz; Thorsten von Eicken, Cornell University; Hank Walker, Texas A&M; Roy Want, Xerox Palo Alto Research Center; David Weaver, Sun Microsystems; Shlomo Weiss, Tel Aviv University; David Wells; Mike Westall, Clemson University; Maurice Wilkes; Eric Williams; Thomas Willis, Purdue University; Malcolm Wing; Larry Wittie, SUNY Stony Brook; Ellen Witte Zegura, Georgia Institute of Technology; Sotirios G. Ziavras, New Jersey Institute of Technology Appendices The vector appendix was revised by Krste Asanovic´ of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The floating-point appendix was written originally by David Goldberg of Xerox PARC. Exercises George Adams, Purdue University; Todd M. Bezenek, University of Wisconsin– Madison (in remembrance of his grandmother Ethel Eshom); Susan Eggers; Anoop Gupta; David Hayes; Mark Hill; Allan Knies; Ethan L. Miller, University of California, Santa Cruz; Parthasarathy Ranganathan, Compaq Western Research Laboratory; Brandon Schwartz, University of Wisconsin–Madison; Michael Scott; Dan Siewiorek; Mike Smith; Mark Smotherman; Evan Tick; Thomas Willis Case Studies with Exercises Andrea C. Arpaci-Dusseau, University of Wisconsin–Madison; Remzi H. ArpaciDusseau, University of Wisconsin–Madison; Robert P. Colwell, R&E Colwell & Assoc., Inc.; Diana Franklin, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo; Wen-mei W. Hwu, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign; Norman P. Jouppi, HP Labs; John W. Sias, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign; David A. Wood, University of Wisconsin–Madison Acknowledgments ■ xxvii Special Thanks Duane Adams, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; Tom Adams; Sarita Adve, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign; Anant Agarwal; Dave Albonesi, University of Rochester; Mitch Alsup; Howard Alt; Dave Anderson; Peter Ashenden; David Bailey; Bill Bandy, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; Luiz Barroso, Compaq’s Western Research Lab; Andy Bechtolsheim; C. Gordon Bell; Fred Berkowitz; John Best, IBM; Dileep Bhandarkar; Jeff Bier, BDTI; Mark Birman; David Black; David Boggs; Jim Brady; Forrest Brewer; Aaron Brown, University of California, Berkeley; E. Bugnion, Compaq’s Western Research Lab; Alper Buyuktosunoglu, University of Rochester; Mark Callaghan; Jason F. Cantin; Paul Carrick; Chen-Chung Chang; Lei Chen, University of Rochester; Pete Chen; Nhan Chu; Doug Clark, Princeton University; Bob Cmelik; John Crawford; Zarka Cvetanovic; Mike Dahlin, University of Texas, Austin; Merrick Darley; the staff of the DEC Western Research Laboratory; John DeRosa; Lloyd Dickman; J. Ding; Susan Eggers, University of Washington; Wael El-Essawy, University of Rochester; Patty Enriquez, Mills; Milos Ercegovac; Robert Garner; K. Gharachorloo, Compaq’s Western Research Lab; Garth Gibson; Ronald Greenberg; Ben Hao; John Henning, Compaq; Mark Hill, University of Wisconsin–Madison; Danny Hillis; David Hodges; Urs Hölzle, Google; David Hough; Ed Hudson; Chris Hughes, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign; Mark Johnson; Lewis Jordan; Norm Jouppi; William Kahan; Randy Katz; Ed Kelly; Richard Kessler; Les Kohn; John Kowaleski, Compaq Computer Corp; Dan Lambright; Gary Lauterbach, Sun Microsystems; Corinna Lee; Ruby Lee; Don Lewine; Chao-Huang Lin; Paul Losleben, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; Yung-Hsiang Lu; Bob Lucas, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; Ken Lutz; Alan Mainwaring, Intel Berkeley Research Labs; Al Marston; Rich Martin, Rutgers; John Mashey; Luke McDowell; Sebastian Mirolo, Trimedia Corporation; Ravi Murthy; Biswadeep Nag; Lisa Noordergraaf, Sun Microsystems; Bob Parker, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; Vern Paxson, Center for Internet Research; Lawrence Prince; Steven Przybylski; Mark Pullen, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; Chris Rowen; Margaret Rowland; Greg Semeraro, University of Rochester; Bill Shannon; Behrooz Shirazi; Robert Shomler; Jim Slager; Mark Smotherman, Clemson University; the SMT research group at the University of Washington; Steve Squires, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; Ajay Sreekanth; Darren Staples; Charles Stapper; Jorge Stolfi; Peter Stoll; the students at Stanford and Berkeley who endured our first attempts at creating this book; Bob Supnik; Steve Swanson; Paul Taysom; Shreekant Thakkar; Alexander Thomasian, New Jersey Institute of Technology; John Toole, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; Kees A. Vissers, Trimedia Corporation; Willa Walker; David Weaver; Ric Wheeler, EMC; Maurice Wilkes; Richard Zimmerman. John Hennessy ■ David Patterson 1.1 Introduction 2 1.2 Classes of Computers 5 1.3 Defining Computer Architecture 11 1.4 Trends in Technology 17 1.5 Trends in Power and Energy in Integrated Circuits 21 1.6 Trends in Cost 27 1.7 Dependability 33 1.8 Measuring, Reporting, and Summarizing Performance 36 1.9 Quantitative Principles of Computer Design 44 1.10 Putting It All Together: Performance, Price, and Power 52 1.11 Fallacies and Pitfalls 55 1.12 Concluding Remarks 59 1.13 Historical Perspectives and References 61 Case Studies and Exercises by Diana Franklin 61 1 Fundamentals of Quantitative Design and Analysis 1 I think it’s fair to say that personal computers have become the most empowering tool we’ve ever created. They’re tools of communication, they’re tools of creativity, and they can be shaped by their user. Bill Gates, February 24, 2004 Computer Architecture. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-383872-8.00002-1 © 2012 Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved. 2 ■ Chapter One Fundamentals of Quantitative Design and Analysis 1.1 Introduction Computer technology has made incredible progress in the roughly 65 years since the first general-purpose electronic computer was created. Today, less than $500 will purchase a mobile computer that has more performance, more main memory, and more disk storage than a computer bought in 1985 for $1 million. This rapid improvement has come both from advances in the technology used to build computers and from innovations in computer design. Although technological improvements have been fairly steady, progress arising from better computer architectures has been much less consistent. During the first 25 years of electronic computers, both forces made a major contribution, delivering performance improvement of about 25% per year. The late 1970s saw the emergence of the microprocessor. The ability of the microprocessor to ride the improvements in integrated circuit technology led to a higher rate of performance improvement—roughly 35% growth per year. This growth rate, combined with the cost advantages of a mass-produced microprocessor, led to an increasing fraction of the computer business being based on microprocessors. In addition, two significant changes in the computer marketplace made it easier than ever before to succeed commercially with a new architecture. First, the virtual elimination of assembly language programming reduced the need for object-code compatibility. Second, the creation of standardized, vendor-independent operating systems, such as UNIX and its clone, Linux, lowered the cost and risk of bringing out a new architecture. These changes made it possible to develop successfully a new set of architectures with simpler instructions, called RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer) architectures, in the early 1980s. The RISC-based machines focused the attention of designers on two critical performance techniques, the exploitation of instructionlevel parallelism (initially through pipelining and later through multiple instruction issue) and the use of caches (initially in simple forms and later using more sophisticated organizations and optimizations). The RISC-based computers raised the performance bar, forcing prior architectures to keep up or disappear. The Digital Equipment Vax could not, and so it was replaced by a RISC architecture. Intel rose to the challenge, primarily by translating 80x86 instructions into RISC-like instructions internally, allowing it to adopt many of the innovations first pioneered in the RISC designs. As transistor counts soared in the late 1990s, the hardware overhead of translating the more complex x86 architecture became negligible. In low-end applications, such as cell phones, the cost in power and silicon area of the x86-translation overhead helped lead to a RISC architecture, ARM, becoming dominant. Figure 1.1 shows that the combination of architectural and organizational enhancements led to 17 years of sustained growth in performance at an annual rate of over 50%—a rate that is unprecedented in the computer industry. The effect of this dramatic growth rate in the 20th century has been fourfold. First, it has significantly enhanced the capability available to computer users. For many applications, the highest-performance microprocessors of today outperform the supercomputer of less than 10 years ago. 1.1 Introduction ■ 3 Performance (vs. VAX-11/780) 100,000 10,000 1000 100 10 Intel Xeon 6 cores, 3.3 GHz (boost to 3.6 GHz) Intel Xeon 4 cores, 3.3 GHz (boost to 3.6 GHz) Intel Core i7 Extreme 4 cores 3.2 GHz (boost to 3.5 GHz) 24,129 Intel Core Duo Extreme 2 cores, 3.0 GHz 21,871 Intel Core 2 Extreme 2 cores, 2.9 GHz AMD Athlon 64, 2.8 GHz AMD Athlon, 2.6 GHz 19,484 14,387 11,865 Intel Xeon EE 3.2 GHz 7,108 Intel D850EMVR motherboard (3.06 GHz, Pentium 4 processor with Hyper-Threading Technology) 6,043 6,681 IBM Power4, 1.3 GHz 4,195 Intel VC820 motherboard, 1.0 GHz Pentium III processor 3,016 Professional Workstation XP1000, 667 MHz 21264A 1,779 Digital AlphaServer 8400 6/575, 575 MHz 21264 1,267 993 AlphaServer 4000 5/600, 600 MHz 21164 Digital Alphastation 5/500, 500 MHz 649 481 Digital Alphastation 5/300, 300 MHz 280 Digital Alphastation 4/266, 266 MHz 183 22%/year IBM POWERstation 100, 150 MHz 117 Digital 3000 AXP/500, 150 MHz 80 HP 9000/750, 66 MHz 51 IBM RS6000/540, 30 MHz 24 MIPS M2000, 25 MHz MIPS M/120, 16.7 MHz 13 18 Sun-4/260, 16.7 MHz 9 VAX 8700, 22 MHz 5 52%/year AX-11/780, 5 MHz 11 25%/year 1.5, VAX-11/785 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 Figure 1.1 Growth in processor performance since the late 1970s. This chart plots performance relative to the VAX 11/780 as measured by the SPEC benchmarks (see Section 1.8). Prior to the mid-1980s, processor performance growth was largely technology driven and averaged about 25% per year. The increase in growth to about 52% since then is attributable to more advanced architectural and organizational ideas. By 2003, this growth led to a difference in performance of about a factor of 25 versus if we had continued at the 25% rate. Performance for floating-point-oriented calculations has increased even faster. Since 2003, the limits of power and available instruction-level parallelism have slowed uniprocessor performance, to no more than 22% per year, or about 5 times slower than had we continued at 52% per year. (The fastest SPEC performance since 2007 has had automatic parallelization turned on with increasing number of cores per chip each year, so uniprocessor speed is harder to gauge. These results are limited to single-socket systems to reduce the impact of automatic parallelization.) Figure 1.11 on page 24 shows the improvement in clock rates for these same three eras. Since SPEC has changed over the years, performance of newer machines is estimated by a scaling factor that relates the performance for two different versions of SPEC (e.g., SPEC89, SPEC92, SPEC95, SPEC2000, and SPEC2006). Second, this dramatic improvement in cost-performance leads to new classes of computers. Personal computers and workstations emerged in the 1980s with the availability of the microprocessor. The last decade saw the rise of smart cell phones and tablet computers, which many people are using as their primary computing platforms instead of PCs. These mobile client devices are increasingly using the Internet to access warehouses containing tens of thousands of servers, which are being designed as if they were a single gigantic computer. Third, continuing improvement of semiconductor manufacturing as predicted by Moore’s law has led to the dominance of microprocessor-based computers across the entire range of computer design. Minicomputers, which were 4 ■ Chapter One Fundamentals of Quantitative Design and Analysis traditionally made from off-the-shelf logic or from gate arrays, were replaced by servers made using microprocessors. Even mainframe computers and highperformance supercomputers are all collections of microprocessors. The hardware innovations above led to a renaissance in computer design, which emphasized both architectural innovation and efficient use of technology improvements. This rate of growth has compounded so that by 2003, highperformance microprocessors were 7.5 times faster than what would have been obtained by relying solely on technology, including improved circuit design; that is, 52% per year versus 35% per year. This hardware renaissance led to the fourth impact, which is on software development. This 25,000-fold performance improvement since 1978 (see Figure 1.1) allowed programmers today to trade performance for productivity. In place of performance-oriented languages like C and C++, much more programming today is done in managed programming languages like Java and C#. Moreover, scripting languages like Python and Ruby, which are even more productive, are gaining in popularity along with programming frameworks like Ruby on Rails. To maintain productivity and try to close the performance gap, interpreters with just-in-time compilers and trace-based compiling are replacing the traditional compiler and linker of the past. Software deployment is changing as well, with Software as a Service (SaaS) used over the Internet replacing shrinkwrapped software that must be installed and run on a local computer. The nature of applications also changes. Speech, sound, images, and video are becoming increasingly important, along with predictable response time that is so critical to the user experience. An inspiring example is Google Goggles. This application lets you hold up your cell phone to point its camera at an object, and the image is sent wirelessly over the Internet to a warehouse-scale computer that recognizes the object and tells you interesting information about it. It might translate text on the object to another language; read the bar code on a book cover to tell you if a book is available online and its price; or, if you pan the phone camera, tell you what businesses are nearby along with their websites, phone numbers, and directions. Alas, Figure 1.1 also shows that this 17-year hardware renaissance is over. Since 2003, single-processor performance improvement has dropped to less than 22% per year due to the twin hurdles of maximum power dissipation of aircooled chips and the lack of more instruction-level parallelism to exploit efficiently. Indeed, in 2004 Intel canceled its high-performance uniprocessor projects and joined others in declaring that the road to higher performance would be via multiple processors per chip rather than via faster uniprocessors. This milestone signals a historic switch from relying solely on instructionlevel parallelism (ILP), the primary focus of the first three editions of this book, to data-level parallelism (DLP) and thread-level parallelism (TLP), which were featured in the fourth edition and expanded in this edition. This edition also adds warehouse-scale computers and request-level parallelism (RLP). Whereas the compiler and hardware conspire to exploit ILP implicitly without the programmer’s attention, DLP, TLP, and RLP are explicitly parallel, requiring the 1.2 Classes of Computers ■ 5 restructuring of the application so that it can exploit explicit parallelism. In some instances, this is easy; in many, it is a major new burden for programmers. This text is about the architectural ideas and accompanying compiler improvements that made the incredible growth rate possible in the last century, the reasons for the dramatic change, and the challenges and initial promising approaches to architectural ideas, compilers, and interpreters for the 21st century. At the core is a quantitative approach to computer design and analysis that uses empirical observations of programs, experimentation, and simulation as its tools. It is this style and approach to computer design that is reflected in this text. The purpose of this chapter is to lay the quantitative foundation on which the following chapters and appendices are based. This book was written not only to explain this design style but also to stimulate you to contribute to this progress. We believe this approach will work for explicitly parallel computers of the future just as it worked for the implicitly parallel computers of the past. 1.2 Classes of Computers These changes have set the stage for a dramatic change in how we view computing, computing applications, and the computer markets in this new century. Not since the creation of the personal computer have we seen such dramatic changes in the way computers appear and in how they are used. These changes in computer use have led to five different computing markets, each characterized by different applications, requirements, and computing technologies. Figure 1.2 summarizes these mainstream classes of computing environments and their important characteristics. Feature Personal mobile device Desktop (PMD) Server Clusters/warehousescale computer Embedded Price of system Price of microprocessor Critical system design issues $100–$1000 $10–$100 Cost, energy, media performance, responsiveness $300–$2500 $50–$500 Priceperformance, energy, graphics performance $5000–$10,000,000 $100,000–$200,000,000 $10–$100,000 $200–$2000 $50–$250 $0.01–$100 Throughput, availability, scalability, energy Price-performance, throughput, energy proportionality Price, energy, application-specific performance Figure 1.2 A summary of the five mainstream computing classes and their system characteristics. Sales in 2010 included about 1.8 billion PMDs (90% cell phones), 350 million desktop PCs, and 20 million servers. The total number of embedded processors sold was nearly 19 billion. In total, 6.1 billion ARM-technology based chips were shipped in 2010. Note the wide range in system price for servers and embedded systems, which go from USB keys to network routers. For servers, this range arises from the need for very large-scale multiprocessor systems for high-end transaction processing. 6 ■ Chapter One Fundamentals of Quantitative Design and Analysis Personal Mobile Device (PMD) Personal mobile device (PMD) is the term we apply to a collection of wireless devices with multimedia user interfaces such as cell phones, tablet computers, and so on. Cost is a prime concern given the consumer price for the whole product is a few hundred dollars. Although the emphasis on energy efficiency is frequently driven by the use of batteries, the need to use less expensive packaging— plastic versus ceramic—and the absence of a fan for cooling also limit total power consumption. We examine the issue of energy and power in more detail in Section 1.5. Applications on PMDs are often Web-based and media-oriented, like the Google Goggles example above. Energy and size requirements lead to use of Flash memory for storage (Chapter 2) instead of magnetic disks. Responsiveness and predictability are key characteristics for media applications. A real-time performance requirement means a segment of the application has an absolute maximum execution time. For example, in playing a video on a PMD, the time to process each video frame is limited, since the processor must accept and process the next frame shortly. In some applications, a more nuanced requirement exists: the average time for a particular task is constrained as well as the number of instances when some maximum time is exceeded. Such approaches—sometimes called soft real-time—arise when it is possible to occasionally miss the time constraint on an event, as long as not too many are missed. Real-time performance tends to be highly application dependent. Other key characteristics in many PMD applications are the need to minimize memory and the need to use energy efficiently. Energy efficiency is driven by both battery power and heat dissipation. The memory can be a substantial portion of the system cost, and it is important to optimize memory size in such cases. The importance of memory size translates to an emphasis on code size, since data size is dictated by the application. Desktop Computing The first, and probably still the largest market in dollar terms, is desktop computing. Desktop computing spans from low-end netbooks that sell for under $300 to high-end, heavily configured workstations that may sell for $2500. Since 2008, more than half of the desktop computers made each year have been battery operated laptop computers. Throughout this range in price and capability, the desktop market tends to be driven to optimize price-performance. This combination of performance (measured primarily in terms of compute performance and graphics performance) and price of a system is what matters most to customers in this market, and hence to computer designers. As a result, the newest, highest-performance microprocessors and cost-reduced microprocessors often appear first in desktop systems (see Section 1.6 for a discussion of the issues affecting the cost of computers). Desktop computing also tends to be reasonably well characterized in terms of applications and benchmarking, though the increasing use of Web-centric, interactive applications poses new challenges in performance evaluation. 1.2 Classes of Computers ■ 7 Servers As the shift to desktop computing occurred in the 1980s, the role of servers grew to provide larger-scale and more reliable file and computing services. Such servers have become the backbone of large-scale enterprise computing, replacing the traditional mainframe. For servers, different characteristics are important. First, availability is critical. (We discuss availability in Section 1.7.) Consider the servers running ATM machines for banks or airline reservation systems. Failure of such server systems is far more catastrophic than failure of a single desktop, since these servers must operate seven days a week, 24 hours a day. Figure 1.3 estimates revenue costs of downtime for server applications. A second key feature of server systems is scalability. Server systems often grow in response to an increasing demand for the services they support or an increase in functional requirements. Thus, the ability to scale up the computing capacity, the memory, the storage, and the I/O bandwidth of a server is crucial. Finally, servers are designed for efficient throughput. That is, the overall performance of the server—in terms of transactions per minute or Web pages served per second—is what is crucial. Responsiveness to an individual request remains important, but overall efficiency and cost-effectiveness, as determined by how many requests can be handled in a unit time, are the key metrics for most servers. We return to the issue of assessing performance for different types of computing environments in Section 1.8. Application Cost of downtime per hour Annual losses with downtime of 1% (87.6 hrs/yr) 0.5% (43.8 hrs/yr) 0.1% (8.8 hrs/yr) Brokerage operations Credit card authorization Package shipping services Home shopping channel Catalog sales center Airline reservation center Cellular service activation Online network fees ATM service fees $6,450,000 $2,600,000 $150,000 $113,000 $90,000 $89,000 $41,000 $25,000 $14,000 $565,000,000 $228,000,000 $13,000,000 $9,900,000 $7,900,000 $7,900,000 $3,600,000 $2,200,000 $1,200,000 $283,000,000 $114,000,000 $6,600,000 $4,900,000 $3,900,000 $3,900,000 $1,800,000 $1,100,000 $600,000 $56,500,000 $22,800,000 $1,300,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $800,000 $400,000 $200,000 $100,000 Figure 1.3 Costs rounded to nearest $100,000 of an unavailable system are shown by analyzing the cost of downtime (in terms of immediately lost revenue), assuming three different levels of availability and that downtime is distributed uniformly. These data are from Kembel [2000] and were collected and analyzed by Contingency Planning Research. 8 ■ Chapter One Fundamentals of Quantitative Design and Analysis Clusters/Warehouse-Scale Computers The growth of Software as a Service (SaaS) for applications like search, social networking, video sharing, multiplayer games, online shopping, and so on has led to the growth of a class of computers called clusters. Clusters are collections of desktop computers or servers connected by local area networks to act as a single larger computer. Each node runs its own operating system, and nodes communicate using a networking protocol. The largest of the clusters are called warehouse-scale computers (WSCs), in that they are designed so that tens of thousands of servers can act as one. Chapter 6 describes this class of the extremely large computers. Price-performance and power are critical to WSCs since they are so large. As Chapter 6 explains, 80% of the cost of a $90M warehouse is associated with power and cooling of the computers inside. The computers themselves and networking gear cost another $70M and they must be replaced every few years. When you are buying that much computing, you need to buy wisely, as a 10% improvement in price-performance means a savings of $7M (10% of $70M). WSCs are related to servers, in that availability is critical. For example, Amazon.com had $13 billion in sales in the fourth quarter of 2010. As there are about 2200 hours in a quarter, the average revenue per hour was almost $6M. During a peak hour for Christmas shopping, the potential loss would be many times higher. As Chapter 6 explains, the difference from servers is that WSCs use redundant inexpensive components as the building blocks, relying on a software layer to catch and isolate the many failures that will happen with computing at this scale. Note that scalability for a WSC is handled by the local area network connecting the computers and not by integrated computer hardware, as in the case of servers. Supercomputers are related to WSCs in that they are equally expensive, costing hundreds of millions of dollars, but supercomputers differ by emphasizing floating-point performance and by running large, communication-intensive batch programs that can run for weeks at a time. This tight coupling leads to use of much faster internal networks. In contrast, WSCs emphasize interactive applications, large-scale storage, dependability, and high Internet bandwidth. Embedded Computers Embedded computers are found in everyday machines; microwaves, washing machines, most printers, most networking switches, and all cars contain simple embedded microprocessors. The processors in a PMD are often considered embedded computers, but we are keeping them as a separate category because PMDs are platforms that can run externally developed software and they share many of the characteristics of desktop computers. Other embedded devices are more limited in hardware and software sophistication. We use the ability to run third-party software as the dividing line between non-embedded and embedded computers. Embedded computers have the widest spread of processing power and cost. They include 8-bit and 16-bit processors that may cost less than a dime, 32-bit 1.2 Classes of Computers ■ 9 microprocessors that execute 100 million instructions per second and cost under $5, and high-end processors for network switches that cost $100 and can execute billions of instructions per second. Although the range of computing power in the embedded computing market is very large, price is a key factor in the design of computers for this space. Performance requirements do exist, of course, but the primary goal is often meeting the performance need at a minimum price, rather than achieving higher performance at a higher price. Most of this book applies to the design, use, and performance of embedded processors, whether they are off-the-shelf microprocessors or microprocessor cores that will be assembled with other special-purpose hardware. Indeed, the third edition of this book included examples from embedded computing to illustrate the ideas in every chapter. Alas, most readers found these examples unsatisfactory, as the data that drive the quantitative design and evaluation of other classes of computers have not yet been extended well to embedded computing (see the challenges with EEMBC, for example, in Section 1.8). Hence, we are left for now with qualitative descriptions, which do not fit well with the rest of the book. As a result, in this and the prior edition we consolidated the embedded material into Appendix E. We believe a separate appendix improves the flow of ideas in the text while allowing readers to see how the differing requirements affect embedded computing. Classes of Parallelism and Parallel Architectures Parallelism at multiple levels is now the driving force of computer design across all four classes of computers, with energy and cost being the primary constraints. There are basically two kinds of parallelism in applications: 1. Data-Level Parallelism (DLP) arises because there are many data items that can be operated on at the same time. 2. Task-Level Parallelism (TLP) arises because tasks of work are created that can operate independently and largely in parallel. Computer hardware in turn can exploit these two kinds of application parallelism in four major ways: 1. Instruction-Level Parallelism exploits data-level parallelism at modest levels with compiler help using ideas like pipelining and at medium levels using ideas like speculative execution. 2. Vector Architectures and Graphic Processor Units (GPUs) exploit data-level parallelism by applying a single instruction to a collection of data in parallel. 3. Thread-Level Parallelism exploits either data-level parallelism or task-level parallelism in a tightly coupled hardware model that allows for interaction among parallel threads. 4. Request-Level Parallelism exploits parallelism among largely decoupled tasks specified by the programmer or the operating system. 10 ■ Chapter One Fundamentals of Quantitative Design and Analysis These four ways for hardware to support the data-level parallelism and task-level parallelism go back 50 years. When Michael Flynn [1966] studied the parallel computing efforts in the 1960s, he found a simple classification whose abbreviations we still use today. He looked at the parallelism in the instruction and data streams called for by the instructions at the most constrained component of the multiprocessor, and placed all computers into one of four categories: 1. Single instruction stream, single data stream (SISD)—This category is the uniprocessor. The programmer thinks of it as the standard sequential computer, but it can exploit instruction-level parallelism. Chapter 3 covers SISD architectures that use ILP techniques such as superscalar and speculative execution. 2. Single instruction stream, multiple data streams (SIMD)—The same instruction is executed by multiple processors using different data streams. SIMD computers exploit data-level parallelism by applying the same operations to multiple items of data in parallel. Each processor has its own data memory (hence the MD of SIMD), but there is a single instruction memory and control processor, which fetches and dispatches instructions. Chapter 4 covers DLP and three different architectures that exploit it: vector architectures, multimedia extensions to standard instruction sets, and GPUs. 3. Multiple instruction streams, single data stream (MISD)—No commercial multiprocessor of this type has been built to date, but it rounds out this simple classification. 4. Multiple instruction streams, multiple data streams (MIMD)—Each processor fetches its own instructions and operates on its own data, and it targets task-level parallelism. In general, MIMD is more flexible than SIMD and thus more generally applicable, but it is inherently more expensive than SIMD. For example, MIMD computers can also exploit data-level parallelism, although the overhead is likely to be higher than would be seen in an SIMD computer. This overhead means that grain size must be sufficiently large to exploit the parallelism efficiently. Chapter 5 covers tightly coupled MIMD architectures, which exploit thread-level parallelism since multiple cooperating threads operate in parallel. Chapter 6 covers loosely coupled MIMD architectures—specifically, clusters and warehouse-scale computers—that exploit request-level parallelism, where many independent tasks can proceed in parallel naturally with little need for communication or synchronization. This taxonomy is a coarse model, as many parallel processors are hybrids of the SISD, SIMD, and MIMD classes. Nonetheless, it is useful to put a framework on the design space for the computers we will see in this book. 1.3 Defining Computer Architecture ■ 11 1.3 Defining Computer Architecture The task the computer designer faces is a complex one: Determine what attributes are important for a new computer, then design a computer to maximize performance and energy efficiency while staying within cost, power, and availability constraints. This task has many aspects, including instruction set design, functional organization, logic design, and implementation. The implementation may encompass integrated circuit design, packaging, power, and cooling. Optimizing the design requires familiarity with a very wide range of technologies, from compilers and operating systems to logic design and packaging. Several years ago, the term computer architecture often referred only to instruction set design. Other aspects of computer design were called implementation, often insinuating that implementation is uninteresting or less challenging. We believe this view is incorrect. The architect’s or designer’s job is much more than instruction set design, and the technical hurdles in the other aspects of the project are likely more challenging than those encountered in instruction set design. We’ll quickly review instruction set architecture before describing the larger challenges for the computer architect. Instruction Set Architecture: The Myopic View of Computer Architecture We use the term instruction set architecture (ISA) to refer to the actual programmervisible instruction set in this book. The ISA serves as the boundary between the software and hardware. This quick review of ISA will use examples from 80x86, ARM, and MIPS to illustrate the seven dimensions of an ISA. Appendices A and K give more details on the three ISAs. 1. Class of ISA—Nearly all ISAs today are classified as general-purpose register architectures, where the operands are either registers or memory locations. The 80x86 has 16 general-purpose registers and 16 that can hold floatingpoint data, while MIPS has 32 general-purpose and 32 floating-point registers (see Figure 1.4). The two popular versions of this class are register-memory ISAs, such as the 80x86, which can access memory as part of many instructions, and load-store ISAs, such as ARM and MIPS, which can access memory only with load or store instructions. All recent ISAs are load-store. 2. Memory addressing—Virtually all desktop and server computers, including the 80x86, ARM, and MIPS, use byte addressing to access memory operands. Some architectures, like ARM and MIPS, require that objects must be aligned. An access to an object of size s bytes at byte address A is aligned if A mod s = 0. (See Figure A.5 on page A-8.) The 80x86 does not require alignment, but accesses are generally faster if operands are aligned. 3. Addressing modes—In addition to specifying registers and constant operands, addressing modes specify the address of a memory object. MIPS addressing 12 ■ Chapter One Fundamentals of Quantitative Design and Analysis Name $zero $at $v0–$v1 $a0–$a3 $t0–$t7 $s0–$s7 $t8–$t9 $k0–$k1 $gp $sp $fp $ra Number 0 1 2–3 4–7 8–15 16–23 24–25 26–27 28 29 30 31 Use The constant value 0 Assembler temporary Values for function results and expression evaluation Arguments Temporaries Saved temporaries Temporaries Reserved for OS kernel Global pointer Stack pointer Frame pointer Return address Preserved across a call? N.A. No No No No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Figure 1.4 MIPS registers and usage conventions. In addition to the 32 generalpurpose registers (R0–R31), MIPS has 32 floating-point registers (F0–F31) that can hold either a 32-bit single-precision number or a 64-bit double-precision number. modes are Register, Immediate (for constants), and Displacement, where a constant offset is added to a register to form the memory address. The 80x86 supports those three plus three variations of displacement: no register (absolute), two registers (based indexed with displacement), and two registers where one register is multiplied by the size of the operand in bytes (based with scaled index and displacement). It has more like the last three, minus the displacement field, plus register indirect, indexed, and based with scaled index. ARM has the three MIPS addressing modes plus PC-relative addressing, the sum of two registers, and the sum of two registers where one register is multiplied by the size of the operand in bytes. It also has autoincrement and autodecrement addressing, where the calculated address replaces the contents of one of the registers used in forming the address. 4. Types and sizes of operands—Like most ISAs, 80x86, ARM, and MIPS support operand sizes of 8-bit (ASCII character), 16-bit (Unicode character or half word), 32-bit (integer or word), 64-bit (double word or long integer), and IEEE 754 floating point in 32-bit (single precision) and 64-bit (double precision). The 80x86 also supports 80-bit floating point (extended double precision). 5. Operations—The general categories of operations are data transfer, arithmetic logical, control (discussed next), and floating point. MIPS is a simple and easy-to-pipeline instruction set architecture, and it is representative of the RISC architectures being used in 2011. Figure 1.5 summarizes the MIPS ISA. The 80x86 has a much richer and larger set of operations (see Appendix K). 1.3 Defining Computer Architecture ■ 13 Instruction type/opcode Instruction meaning Data transfers LB, LBU, SB LH, LHU, SH LW, LWU, SW LD, SD L.S, L.D, S.S, S.D MFC0, MTC0 MOV.S, MOV.D MFC1, MTC1 Arithmetic/logical DADD, DADDI, DADDU, DADDIU DSUB, DSUBU DMUL, DMULU, DDIV, DDIVU, MADD AND, ANDI OR, ORI, XOR, XORI LUI DSLL, DSRL, DSRA, DSLLV, DSRLV, DSRAV SLT, SLTI, SLTU, SLTIU Control BEQZ, BNEZ BEQ, BNE BC1T, BC1F MOVN, MOVZ J, JR JAL, JALR TRAP ERET Floating point ADD.D, ADD.S, ADD.PS SUB.D, SUB.S, SUB.PS MUL.D, MUL.S, MUL.PS MADD.D, MADD.S, MADD.PS DIV.D, DIV.S, DIV.PS CVT._._ C.__.D, C.__.S Move data between registers and memory, or between the integer and FP or special registers; only memory address mode is 16-bit displacement + contents of a GPR Load byte, load byte unsigned, store byte (to/from integer registers) Load half word, load half word unsigned, store half word (to/from integer registers) Load word, load word unsigned, store word (to/from integer registers) Load double word, store double word (to/from integer registers) Load SP float, load DP float, store SP float, store DP float Copy from/to GPR to/from a special register Copy one SP or DP FP register to another FP register Copy 32 bits to/from FP registers from/to integer registers Operations on integer or logical data in GPRs; signed arithmetic trap on overflow Add, add immediate (all immediates are 16 bits); signed and unsigned Subtract, signed and unsigned Multiply and divide, signed and unsigned; multiply-add; all operations take and yield 64-bit values And, and immediate Or, or immediate, exclusive or, exclusive or immediate Load upper immediate; loads bits 32 to 47 of register with immediate, then sign-extends Shifts: both immediate (DS__) and variable form (DS__V); shifts are shift left logical, right logical, right arithmetic Set less than, set less than immediate, signed and unsigned Conditional branches and jumps; PC-relative or through register Branch GPRs equal/not equal to zero; 16-bit offset from PC + 4 Branch GPR equal/not equal; 16-bit offset from PC + 4 Test comparison bit in the FP status register and branch; 16-bit offset from PC + 4 Copy GPR to another GPR if third GPR is negative, zero Jumps: 26-bit offset from PC + 4 (J) or target in register (JR) Jump and link: save PC + 4 in R31, target is PC-relative (JAL) or a register (JALR) Transfer to operating system at a vectored address Return to user code from an exception; restore user mode FP operations on DP and SP formats Add DP, SP numbers, and pairs of SP numbers Subtract DP, SP numbers, and pairs of SP numbers Multiply DP, SP floating point, and pairs of SP numbers Multiply-add DP, SP numbers, and pairs of SP numbers Divide DP, SP floating point, and pairs of SP numbers Convert instructions: CVT.x.y converts from type x to type y, where x and y are L (64-bit integer), W (32-bit integer), D (DP), or S (SP). Both operands are FPRs. DP and SP compares: “__” = LT,GT,LE,GE,EQ,NE; sets bit in FP status register Figure 1.5 Subset of the instructions in MIPS64. SP = single precision; DP = double precision. Appendix A gives much more detail on MIPS64. For data, the most significant bit number is 0; least is 63. 14 ■ Chapter One Fundamentals of Quantitative Design and Analysis 6. Control flow instructions—Virtually all ISAs, including these three, support conditional branches, unconditional jumps, procedure calls, and returns. All three use PC-relative addressing, where the branch address is specified by an address field that is added to the PC. There are some small differences. MIPS conditional branches (BE, BNE, etc.) test the contents of registers, while the 80x86 and ARM branches test condition code bits set as side effects of arithmetic/logic operations. The ARM and MIPS procedure call places the return address in a register, while the 80x86 call (CALLF) places the return address on a stack in memory. 7. Encoding an ISA—There are two basic choices on encoding: fixed length and variable length. All ARM and MIPS instructions are 32 bits long, which simplifies instruction decoding. Figure 1.6 shows the MIPS instruction formats. The 80x86 encoding is variable length, ranging from 1 to 18 bytes. Variablelength instructions can take less space than fixed-length instructions, so a program compiled for the 80x86 is usually smaller than the same program compiled for MIPS. Note that choices mentioned above will affect how the instructions are encoded into a binary representation. For example, the number of registers and the number of addressing modes both have a significant impact on the size of instructions, as the register field and addressing mode field can appear many times in a single instruction. (Note that ARM and MIPS later offered extensions to offer 16-bit length instructions so as to reduce program size, called Thumb or Thumb-2 and MIPS16, respectively.) Basic instruction formats R opcode rs rt rd shamt funct 31 26 25 21 20 16 15 11 10 65 0 I opcode rs rt immediate 31 26 25 21 20 16 15 J opcode address 31 26 25 Floating-point instruction formats FR opcode fmt ft fs 31 26 25 21 20 16 15 FI opcode fmt ft 31 26 25 21 20 16 15 fd funct 11 10 65 0 immediate Figure 1.6 MIPS64 instruction set architecture formats. All instructions are 32 bits long. The R format is for integer register-to-register operations, such as DADDU, DSUBU, and so on. The I format is for data transfers, branches, and immediate instructions, such as LD, SD, BEQZ, and DADDIs. The J format is for jumps, the FR format for floating-point operations, and the FI format for floating-point branches. 1.3 Defining Computer Architecture ■ 15 The other challenges facing the computer architect beyond ISA design are particularly acute at the present, when the differences among instruction sets are small and when there are distinct application areas. Therefore, starting with the last edition, the bulk of instruction set material beyond this quick review is found in the appendices (see Appendices A and K). We use a subset of MIPS64 as the example ISA in this book because it is both the dominant ISA for networking and it is an elegant example of the RISC architectures mentioned earlier, of which ARM (Advanced RISC Machine) is the most popular example. ARM processors were in 6.1 billion chips shipped in 2010, or roughly 20 times as many chips that shipped with 80x86 processors. Genuine Computer Architecture: Designing the Organization and Hardware to Meet Goals and Functional Requirements The implementation of a computer has two components: organization and hardware. The term organization includes the high-level aspects of a computer’s design, such as the memory system, the memory interconnect, and the design of the internal processor or CPU (central processing unit—where arithmetic, logic, branching, and data transfer are implemented). The term microarchitecture is also used instead of organization. For example, two processors with the same instruction set architectures but different organizations are the AMD Opteron and the Intel Core i7. Both processors implement the x86 instruction set, but they have very different pipeline and cache organizations. The switch to multiple processors per microprocessor led to the term core to also be used for processor. Instead of saying multiprocessor microprocessor, the term multicore has caught on. Given that virtually all chips have multiple processors, the term central processing unit, or CPU, is fading in popularity. Hardware refers to the specifics of a computer, including the detailed logic design and the packaging technology of the computer. Often a line of computers contains computers with identical instruction set architectures and nearly identical organizations, but they differ in the detailed hardware implementation. For example, the Intel Core i7 (see Chapter 3) and the Intel Xeon 7560 (see Chapter 5) are nearly identical but offer different clock rates and different memory systems, making the Xeon 7560 more effective for server computers. In this book, the word architecture covers all three aspects of computer design—instruction set architecture, organization or microarchitecture, and hardware. Computer architects must design a computer to meet functional requirements as well as price, power, performance, and availability goals. Figure 1.7 summarizes requirements to consider in designing a new computer. Often, architects also must determine what the functional requirements are, which can be a major task. The requirements may be specific features inspired by the market. Application software often drives the choice of certain functional requirements by determining how the computer will be used. If a large body of software exists for a certain instruction set architecture, the architect may decide that a new computer 16 ■ Chapter One Fundamentals of Quantitative Design and Analysis Functional requirements Typical features required or supported Application area Personal mobile device General-purpose desktop Servers Clusters/warehouse-scale computers Embedded computing Level of software compatibility At programming language Object code or binary compatible Operating system requirements Size of address space Memory management Protection Standards Floating point I/O interfaces Operating systems Networks Programming languages Target of computer Real-time performance for a range of tasks, including interactive performance for graphics, video, and audio; energy efficiency (Ch. 2, 3, 4, 5; App. A) Balanced performance for a range of tasks, including interactive performance for graphics, video, and audio (Ch. 2, 3, 4, 5; App. A) Support for databases and transaction processing; enhancements for reliability and availability; support for scalability (Ch. 2, 5; App. A, D, F) Throughput performance for many independent tasks; error correction for memory; energy proportionality (Ch 2, 6; App. F) Often requires special support for graphics or video (or other application-specific extension); power limitations and power control may be required; real-time constraints (Ch. 2, 3, 5; App. A, E) Determines amount of existing software for computer Most flexible for designer; need new compiler (Ch. 3, 5; App. A) Instruction set architecture is completely defined—little flexibility—but no investment needed in software or porting programs (App. A) Necessary features to support chosen OS (Ch. 2; App. B) Very important feature (Ch. 2); may limit applications Required for modern OS; may be paged or segmented (Ch. 2) Different OS and application needs: page vs. segment; virtual machines (Ch. 2) Certain standards may be required by marketplace Format and arithmetic: IEEE 754 standard (App. J), special arithmetic for graphics or signal processing For I/O devices: Serial ATA, Serial Attached SCSI, PCI Express (App. D, F) UNIX, Windows, Linux, CISCO IOS Support required for different networks: Ethernet, Infiniband (App. F) Languages (ANSI C, C++, Java, Fortran) affect instruction set (App. A) Figure 1.7 Summary of some of the most important functional requirements an architect faces. The left-hand column describes the class of requirement, while the right-hand column gives specific examples. The right-hand column also contains references to chapters and appendices that deal with the specific issues. should implement an existing instruction set. The presence of a large market for a particular class of applications might encourage the designers to incorporate requirements that would make the computer competitive in that market. Later chapters examine many of these requirements and features in depth. Architects must also be aware of important trends in both the technology and the use of computers, as such trends affect not only the future cost but also the longevity of an architecture. 1.4 Trends in Technology ■ 17 1.4 Trends in Technology If an instruction set architecture is to be successful, it must be designed to survive rapid changes in computer technology. After all, a successful new instruction set architecture may last decades—for example, the core of the IBM mainframe has been in use for nearly 50 years. An architect must plan for technology changes that can increase the lifetime of a successful computer. To plan for the evolution of a computer, the designer must be aware of rapid changes in implementation technology. Five implementation technologies, which change at a dramatic pace, are critical to modern implementations: ■ Integrated circuit logic technology—Transistor density increases by about 35% per year, quadrupling somewhat over four years. Increases in die size are less predictable and slower, ranging from 10% to 20% per year. The combined effect is a growth rate in transistor count on a chip of about 40% to 55% per year, or doubling every 18 to 24 months. This trend is popularly known as Moore’s law. Device speed scales more slowly, as we discuss below. ■ Semiconductor DRAM (dynamic random-access memory)—Now that most DRAM chips are primarily shipped in DIMM modules, it is harder to track chip capacity, as DRAM manufacturers typically offer several capacity products at the same time to match DIMM capacity. Capacity per DRAM chip has increased by about 25% to 40% per year recently, doubling roughly every two to three years. This technology is the foundation of main memory, and we discuss it in Chapter 2. Note that the rate of improvement has continued to slow over the editions of this book, as Figure 1.8 shows. There is even concern as whether the growth rate will stop in the middle of this decade due to the increasing difficulty of efficiently manufacturing even smaller DRAM cells [Kim 2005]. Chapter 2 mentions several other technologies that may replace DRAM if it hits a capacity wall. CA:AQA Edition Year DRAM growth Characterization of impact rate on DRAM capacity 1 1990 60%/year Quadrupling every 3 years 2 1996 60%/year Quadrupling every 3 years 3 2003 40%–60%/year Quadrupling every 3 to 4 years 4 2007 40%/year Doubling every 2 years 5 2011 25%–40%/year Doubling every 2 to 3 years Figure 1.8 Change in rate of improvement in DRAM capacity over time. The first two editions even called this rate the DRAM Growth Rule of Thumb, since it had been so dependable since 1977 with the 16-kilobit DRAM through 1996 with the 64-megabit DRAM. Today, some question whether DRAM capacity can improve at all in 5 to 7 years, due to difficulties in manufacturing an increasingly three-dimensional DRAM cell [Kim 2005]. 18 ■ Chapter One Fundamentals of Quantitative Design and Analysis ■ Semiconductor Flash (electrically erasable programmable read-only memory)—This nonvolatile semiconductor memory is the standard storage device in PMDs, and its rapidly increasing popularity has fueled its rapid growth rate in capacity. Capacity per Flash chip has increased by about 50% to 60% per year recently, doubling roughly every two years. In 2011, Flash memory is 15 to 20 times cheaper per bit than DRAM. Chapter 2 describes Flash memory. ■ Magnetic disk technology—Prior to 1990, density increased by about 30% per year, doubling in three years. It rose to 60% per year thereafter, and increased to 100% per year in 1996. Since 2004, it has dropped back to about 40% per year, or doubled every three years. Disks are 15 to 25 times cheaper per bit than Flash. Given the slowed growth rate of DRAM, disks are now 300 to 500 times cheaper per bit than DRAM. This technology is central to server and warehouse scale storage, and we discuss the trends in detail in Appendix D. ■ Network technology—Network performance depends both on the performance of switches and on the performance of the transmission system. We discuss the trends in networking in Appendix F. These rapidly changing technologies shape the design of a computer that, with speed and technology enhancements, may have a lifetime of three to five years. Key technologies such as DRAM, Flash, and disk change sufficiently that the designer must plan for these changes. Indeed, designers often design for the next technology, knowing that when a product begins shipping in volume that the next technology may be the most cost-effective or may have performance advantages. Traditionally, cost has decreased at about the rate at which density increases. Although technology improves continuously, the impact of these improvements can be in discrete leaps, as a threshold that allows a new capability is reached. For example, when MOS technology reached a point in the early 1980s where between 25,000 and 50,000 transistors could fit on a single chip, it became possible to build a single-chip, 32-bit microprocessor. By the late 1980s, first-level caches could go on a chip. By eliminating chip crossings within the processor and between the processor and the cache, a dramatic improvement in cost-performance and energy-performance was possible. This design was simply infeasible until the technology reached a certain point. With multicore microprocessors and increasing numbers of cores each generation, even server computers are increasingly headed toward a single chip for all processors. Such technology thresholds are not rare and have a significant impact on a wide variety of design decisions. Performance Trends: Bandwidth over Latency As we shall see in Section 1.8, bandwidth or throughput is the total amount of work done in a given time, such as megabytes per second for a disk transfer. In contrast, latency or response time is the time between the start and the completion of an event, such as milliseconds for a disk access. Figure 1.9 plots the relative 100,000 10,000 1000 100 1.4 Trends in Technology ■ 19 Microprocessor Network Memory Disk Relative bandwidth improvement 10 (Latency improvement = bandwidth improvement) 1 1 10 100 Relative latency improvement Figure 1.9 Log–log plot of bandwidth and latency milestones from Figure 1.10 relative to the first milestone. Note that latency improved 6X to 80X while bandwidth improved about 300X to 25,000X. Updated from Patterson [2004]. improvement in bandwidth and latency for technology milestones for microprocessors, memory, networks, and disks. Figure 1.10 describes the examples and milestones in more detail. Performance is the primary differentiator for microprocessors and networks, so they have seen the greatest gains: 10,000–25,000X in bandwidth and 30–80X in latency. Capacity is generally more important than performance for memory and disks, so capacity has improved most, yet bandwidth advances of 300– 1200X are still much greater than gains in latency of 6–8X. Clearly, bandwidth has outpaced latency across these technologies and will likely continue to do so. A simple rule of thumb is that bandwidth grows by at least the square of the improvement in latency. Computer designers should plan accordingly. Scaling of Transistor Performance and Wires Integrated circuit processes are characterized by the feature size, which is the minimum size of a transistor or a wire in either the x or y dimension. Feature sizes have decreased from 10 microns in 1971 to 0.032 microns in 2011; in fact, we have switched units, so production in 2011 is referred to as “32 nanometers,” and 22 nanometer chips are under way. Since the transistor count per square 20 ■ Chapter One Fundamentals of Quantitative Design and Analysis Microprocessor 16-bit 32-bit 5-stage address/ address/ pipeline, bus, bus, on-chip I & D microcoded microcoded caches, FPU 2-way superscalar, 64-bit bus Out-of-order 3-way superscalar Out-of-order Multicore superpipelined, OOO 4-way on-chip L2 on chip L3 cache cache, Turbo Product Intel 80286 Intel 80386 Intel 80486 Intel Pentium Intel Pentium Pro Intel Pentium 4 Intel Core i7 Year Die size (mm2) 1982 47 1985 43 1989 81 1993 90 1997 308 2001 217 2010 240 Transistors 134,000 275,000 1,200,000 3,100,000 5,500,000 42,000,000 1,170,000,000 Processors/chip 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 Pins 68 132 168 273 387 423 1366 Latency (clocks) 6 5 5 5 10 22 14 Bus width (bits) 16 32 32 64 64 64 196 Clock rate (MHz) 12.5 16 25 66 200 1500 3333 Bandwidth (MIPS) 2 6 25 132 600 4500 50,000 Latency (ns) 320 313 200 76 50 15 4 Memory module DRAM Page mode Fast page Fast page Synchronous DRAM mode DRAM mode DRAM DRAM Double data rate SDRAM DDR3 SDRAM Module width (bits) 16 16 32 64 64 64 64 Year 1980 1983 1986 1993 1997 2000 2010 Mbits/DRAM chip 0.06 0.25 1 16 64 Die size (mm2) 35 45 70 130 170 256 2048 204 50 Pins/DRAM chip 16 16 18 20 54 66 134 Bandwidth (MBytes/s) 13 40 160 267 640 1600 16,000 Latency (ns) 225 170 125 75 62 52 37 Local area network Ethernet Fast Ethernet Gigabit Ethernet 10 Gigabit Ethernet 100 Gigabit Ethernet IEEE standard 802.3 803.3u 802.3ab 802.3ac 802.3ba Year 1978 1995 1999 2003 2010 Bandwidth (Mbits/sec) 10 100 1000 10,000 100,000 Latency (μsec) 3000 500 340 190 100 Hard disk 3600 RPM 5400 RPM 7200 RPM 10,000 RPM 15,000 RPM 15,000 RPM Product CDC WrenI Seagate 94145-36 ST41600 Seagate ST15150 Seagate ST39102 Seagate ST373453 Seagate ST3600057 Year 1983 1990 1994 1998 2003 2010 Capacity (GB) 0.03 1.4 4.3 9.1 73.4 600 Disk form factor 5.25 inch 5.25 inch 3.5 inch 3.5 inch 3.5 inch 3.5 inch Media diameter 5.25 inch 5.25 inch 3.5 inch 3.0 inch 2.5 inch 2.5 inch Interface ST-412 SCSI SCSI SCSI SCSI SAS Bandwidth (MBytes/s) 0.6 4 9 24 86 204 Latency (ms) 48.3 17.1 12.7 8.8 5.7 3.6 Figure 1.10 Performance milestones over 25 to 40 years for microprocessors, memory, networks, and disks. The microprocessor milestones are several generations of IA-32 processors, going from a 16-bit bus, microcoded 80286 to a 64-bit bus, multicore, out-of-order execution, superpipelined Core i7. Memory module milestones go from 16-bit-wide, plain DRAM to 64-bit-wide double data rate version 3 synchronous DRAM. Ethernet advanced from 10 Mbits/sec to 100 Gbits/sec. Disk milestones are based on rotation speed, improving from 3600 RPM to 15,000 RPM. Each case is best-case bandwidth, and latency is the time for a simple operation assuming no contention. Updated from Patterson [2004]. 1.5 Trends in Power and Energy in Integrated Circuits ■ 21 millimeter of silicon is determined by the surface area of a transistor, the density of transistors increases quadratically with a linear decrease in feature size. The increase in transistor performance, however, is more complex. As feature sizes shrink, devices shrink quadratically in the horizontal dimension and also shrink in the vertical dimension. The shrink in the vertical dimension requires a reduction in operating voltage to maintain correct operation and reliability of the transistors. This combination of scaling factors leads to a complex interrelationship between transistor performance and process feature size. To a first approximation, transistor performance improves linearly with decreasing feature size. The fact that transistor count improves quadratically with a linear improvement in transistor performance is both the challenge and the opportunity for which computer architects were created! In the early days of microprocessors, the higher rate of improvement in density was used to move quickly from 4-bit, to 8-bit, to 16-bit, to 32-bit, to 64-bit microprocessors. More recently, density improvements have supported the introduction of multiple processors per chip, wider SIMD units, and many of the innovations in speculative execution and caches found in Chapters 2, 3, 4, and 5. Although transistors generally improve in performance with decreased feature size, wires in an integrated circuit do not. In particular, the signal delay for a wire increases in proportion to the product of its resistance and capacitance. Of course, as feature size shrinks, wires get shorter, but the resistance and capacitance per unit length get worse. This relationship is complex, since both resistance and capacitance depend on detailed aspects of the process, the geometry of a wire, the loading on a wire, and even the adjacency to other structures. There are occasional process enhancements, such as the introduction of copper, which provide one-time improvements in wire delay. In general, however, wire delay scales poorly compared to transistor performance, creating additional challenges for the designer. In the past few years, in addition to the power dissipation limit, wire delay has become a major design limitation for large integrated circuits and is often more critical than transistor switching delay. Larger and larger fractions of the clock cycle have been consumed by the propagation delay of signals on wires, but power now plays an even greater role than wire delay. 1.5 Trends in Power and Energy in Integrated Circuits Today, power is the biggest challenge facing the computer designer for nearly every class of computer. First, power must be brought in and distributed around the chip, and modern microprocessors use hundreds of pins and multiple interconnect layers just for power and ground. Second, power is dissipated as heat and must be removed. Power and Energy: A Systems Perspective How should a system architect or a user think about performance, power, and energy? From the viewpoint of a system designer, there are three primary concerns. 22 ■ Chapter One Fundamentals of Quantitative Design and Analysis First, what is the maximum power a processor ever requires? Meeting this demand can be important to ensuring correct operation. For example, if a processor attempts to draw more power than a power supply system can provide (by drawing more current than the system can supply), the result is typically a voltage drop, which can cause the device to malfunction. Modern processors can vary widely in power consumption with high peak currents; hence, they provide voltage indexing methods that allow the processor to slow down and regulate voltage within a wider margin. Obviously, doing so decreases performance. Second, what is the sustained power consumption? This metric is widely called the thermal design power (TDP), since it determines the cooling requirement. TDP is neither peak power, which is often 1.5 times higher, nor is it the actual average power that will be consumed during a given computation, which is likely to be lower still. A typical power supply for a system is usually sized to exceed the TDP, and a cooling system is usually designed to match or exceed TDP. Failure to provide adequate cooling will allow the junction temperature in the processor to exceed its maximum value, resulting in device failure and possibly permanent damage. Modern processors provide two features to assist in managing heat, since the maximum power (and hence heat and temperature rise) can exceed the long-term average specified by the TDP. First, as the thermal temperature approaches the junction temperature limit, circuitry reduces the clock rate, thereby reducing power. Should this technique not be successful, a second thermal overload trip is activated to power down the chip. The third factor that designers and users need to consider is energy and energy efficiency. Recall that power is simply energy per unit time: 1 watt = 1 joule per second. Which metric is the right one for comparing processors: energy or power? In general, energy is always a better metric because it is tied to a specific task and the time required for that task. In particular, the energy to execute a workload is equal to the average power times the execution time for the workload. Thus, if we want to know which of two processors is more efficient for a given task, we should compare energy consumption (not power) for executing the task. For example, processor A may have a 20% higher average power consumption than processor B, but if A executes the task in only 70% of the time needed by B, its energy consumption will be 1.2 × 0.7 = 0.84, which is clearly better. One might argue that in a large server or cloud, it is sufficient to consider average power, since the workload is often assumed to be infinite, but this is misleading. If our cloud were populated with processor Bs rather than As, then the cloud would do less work for the same amount of energy expended. Using energy to compare the alternatives avoids this pitfall. Whenever we have a fixed workload, whether for a warehouse-size cloud or a smartphone, comparing energy will be the right way to compare processor alternatives, as the electricity bill for the cloud and the battery lifetime for the smartphone are both determined by the energy consumed. When is power consumption a useful measure? The primary legitimate use is as a constraint: for example, a chip might be limited to 100 watts. It can be used 1.5 Trends in Power and Energy in Integrated Circuits ■ 23 as a metric if the workload is fixed, but then it’s just a variation of the true metric of energy per task. Energy and Power within a Microprocessor For CMOS chips, the traditional primary energy consumption has been in switching transistors, also called dynamic energy. The energy required per transistor is proportional to the product of the capacitive load driven by the transistor and the square of the voltage: Energydynamic ∝ Capacitive load × Voltage2 This equation is the energy of pulse of the logic transition of 0→1→0 or 1→0→1. The energy of a single transition (0→1 or 1→0) is then: Energydynamic ∝ 1 ⁄ 2 × Capacitive load × Voltage2 The power required per transistor is just the product of the energy of a transition multiplied by the frequency of transitions: Powerdynamic ∝ 1 ⁄ 2 × Capacitive load × Voltage2 × Frequency switched For a fixed task, slowing clock rate reduces power, but not energy. Clearly, dynamic power and energy are greatly reduced by lowering the voltage, so voltages have dropped from 5V to just under 1V in 20 years. The capacitive load is a function of the number of transistors connected to an output and the technology, which determines the capacitance of the wires and the transistors. Example Some microprocessors today are designed to have adjustable voltage, so a 15% reduction in voltage may result in a 15% reduction in frequency. What would be the impact on dynamic energy and on dynamic power? Answer Since the capacitance is unchanged, the answer for energy is the ratio of the voltages since the capacitance is unchanged: E----n---e---r--g---y---n--e---w- = (---V----o---l--t--a--g---e----×-----0---.--8---5---)--2- = 0.852 = 0.72 Energyold Voltage2 thereby reducing energy to about 72% of the original. For power, we add the ratio of the frequencies P----o---w----e---r--n--e---w- = 0.72 × (---F---r--e---q---u---e---n---c--y-----s--w----i--t--c--h---e---d-----×----0---.--8---5----) = 0.61 Powerold Frequency switched shrinking power to about 61% of the original. 24 ■ Chapter One Fundamentals of Quantitative Design and Analysis As we move from one process to the next, the increase in the number of transistors switching and the frequency with which they switch dominate the decrease in load capacitance and voltage, leading to an overall growth in power consumption and energy. The first microprocessors consumed less than a watt and the first 32-bit microprocessors (like the Intel 80386) used about 2 watts, while a 3.3 GHz Intel Core i7 consumes 130 watts. Given that this heat must be dissipated from a chip that is about 1.5 cm on a side, we have reached the limit of what can be cooled by air. Given the equation above, you would expect clock frequency growth to slow down if we can’t reduce voltage or increase power per chip. Figure 1.11 shows that this has indeed been the case since 2003, even for the microprocessors in Figure 1.1 that were the highest performers each year. Note that this period of flat clock rates corresponds to the period of slow performance improvement range in Figure 1.1. 10,000 Intel Pentium4 Xeon 3200 MHz in 2003 Intel Nehalem Xeon 3330 MHz in 2010 Clock rate (MHz) 1000 100 Intel Pentium III 1000 MHz in 2000 Digital Alpha 21164A 500 MHz in 1996 Digital Alpha 21064 150 MHz in 1992 MIPS M2000 25 MHz in 1989 40%/year 1%/year 10 Sun-4 SPARC 16.7 MHz in 1986 Digital VAX-11/780 5 MHz in 1978 15%/year 1 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 Figure 1.11 Growth in clock rate of microprocessors in Figure 1.1. Between 1978 and 1986, the clock rate improved less than 15% per year while performance improved by 25% per year. During the “renaissance period” of 52% performance improvement per year between 1986 and 2003, clock rates shot up almost 40% per year. Since then, the clock rate has been nearly flat, growing at less than 1% per year, while single processor performance improved at less than 22% per year. 1.5 Trends in Power and Energy in Integrated Circuits ■ 25 Distributing the power, removing the heat, and preventing hot spots have become increasingly difficult challenges. Power is now the major constraint to using transistors; in the past, it was raw silicon area. Hence, modern microprocessors offer many techniques to try to improve energy efficiency despite flat clock rates and constant supply voltages: 1. Do nothing well. Most microprocessors today turn off the clock of inactive modules to save energy and dynamic power. For example, if no floating-point instructions are executing, the clock of the floating-point unit is disabled. If some cores are idle, their clocks are stopped. 2. Dynamic Voltage-Frequency Scaling (DVFS). The second technique comes directly from the formulas above. Personal mobile devices, laptops, and even servers have periods of low activity where there is no need to operate at the highest clock frequency and voltages. Modern microprocessors typically offer a few clock frequencies and voltages in which to operate that use lower power and energy. Figure 1.12 plots the potential power savings via DVFS for a server as the workload shrinks for three different clock rates: 2.4 GHz, 1.8 GHz, and 1 GHz. The overall server power savings is about 10% to 15% for each of the two steps. 3. Design for typical case. Given that PMDs and laptops are often idle, memory and storage offer low power modes to save energy. For example, DRAMs have a series of increasingly lower power modes to extend battery life in PMDs and laptops, and there have been proposals for disks that have a mode that spins at lower rates when idle to save power. Alas, you cannot access DRAMs or disks in these modes, so you must return to fully active mode to read or write, no matter how low the access rate. As mentioned 100 2.4 GHz 80 1.8 GHz 60 1 GHz Power (% of peak) 40 20 0 Idle 7 DVS savings (%) 14 21 29 36 43 50 57 64 71 79 86 93 100 Compute load (%) Figure 1.12 Energy savings for a server using an AMD Opteron microprocessor, 8 GB of DRAM, and one ATA disk. At 1.8 GHz, the server can only handle up to twothirds of the workload without causing service level violations, and, at 1.0 GHz, it can only safely handle one-third of the workload. (Figure 5.11 in Barroso and Hölzle [2009].) 26 ■ Chapter One Fundamentals of Quantitative Design and Analysis above, microprocessors for PCs have been designed instead for a more typical case of heavy use at high operating temperatures, relying on on-chip temperature sensors to detect when activity should be reduced automatically to avoid overheating. This “emergency slowdown” allows manufacturers to design for a more typical case and then rely on this safety mechanism if someone really does run programs that consume much more power than is typical. 4. Overclocking. Intel started offering Turbo mode in 2008, where the chip decides that it is safe to run at a higher clock rate for a short time possibly on just a few cores until temperature starts to rise. For example, the 3.3 GHz Core i7 can run in short bursts for 3.6 GHz. Indeed, the highest-performing microprocessors each year since 2008 in Figure 1.1 have all offered temporary overclocking of about 10% over the nominal clock rate. For single threaded code, these microprocessors can turn off all cores but one and run it at an even higher clock rate. Note that while the operating system can turn off Turbo mode there is no notification once it is enabled, so the programmers may be surprised to see their programs vary in performance due to room temperature! Although dynamic power is traditionally thought of as the primary source of power dissipation in CMOS, static power is becoming an important issue because leakage current flows even when a transistor is off: Powerstatic ∝ Currentstatic × Voltage That is, static power is proportional to number of devices. Thus, increasing the number of transistors increases power even if they are idle, and leakage current increases in processors with smaller transistor sizes. As a result, very low power systems are even turning off the power supply (power gating) to inactive modules to control loss due to leakage. In 2011, the goal for leakage is 25% of the total power consumption, with leakage in highperformance designs sometimes far exceeding that goal. Leakage can be as high as 50% for such chips, in part because of the large SRAM caches that need power to maintain the storage values. (The S in SRAM is for static.) The only hope to stop leakage is to turn off power to subsets of the chips. Finally, because the processor is just a portion of the whole energy cost of a system, it can make sense to use a faster, less energy-efficient processor to allow the rest of the system to go into a sleep mode. This strategy is known as race-to-halt. The importance of power and energy has increased the scrutiny on the efficiency of an innovation, so the primary evaluation now is tasks per joule or performance per watt as opposed to performance per mm2 of silicon. This new metric affects approaches to parallelism, as we shall see in Chapters 4 and 5. 1.6 Trends in Cost ■ 27 1.6 Trends in Cost Although costs tend to be less important in some computer designs—specifically supercomputers—cost-sensitive designs are of growing significance. Indeed, in the past 30 years, the use of technology improvements to lower cost, as well as increase performance, has been a major theme in the computer industry. Textbooks often ignore the cost half of cost-performance because costs change, thereby dating books, and because the issues are subtle and differ across industry segments. Yet, an understanding of cost and its factors is essential for computer architects to make intelligent decisions about whether or not a new feature should be included in designs where cost is an issue. (Imagine architects designing skyscrapers without any information on costs of steel beams and concrete!) This section discusses the major factors that influence the cost of a computer and how these factors are changing over time. The Impact of Time, Volume, and Commoditization The cost of a manufactured computer component decreases over time even without major improvements in the basic implementation technology. The underlying principle that drives costs down is the learning curve—manufacturing costs decrease over time. The learning curve itself is best measured by change in yield—the percentage of manufactured devices that survives the testing procedure. Whether it is a chip, a board, or a system, designs that have twice the yield will have half the cost. Understanding how the learning curve improves yield is critical to projecting costs over a product’s life. One example is that the price per megabyte of DRAM has dropped over the long term. Since DRAMs tend to be priced in close relationship to cost—with the exception of periods when there is a shortage or an oversupply—price and cost of DRAM track closely. Microprocessor prices also drop over time, but, because they are less standardized than DRAMs, the relationship between price and cost is more complex. In a period of significant competition, price tends to track cost closely, although microprocessor vendors probably rarely sell at a loss. Volume is a second key factor in determining cost. Increasing volumes affect cost in several ways. First, they decrease the time needed to get down the learning curve, which is partly proportional to the number of systems (or chips) manufactured. Second, volume decreases cost, since it increases purchasing and manufacturing efficiency. As a rule of thumb, some designers have estimated that cost decreases about 10% for each doubling of volume. Moreover, volume decreases the amount of development cost that must be amortized by each computer, thus allowing cost and selling price to be closer. Commodities are products that are sold by multiple vendors in large volumes and are essentially identical. Virtually all the products sold on the shelves of grocery stores are commodities, as are standard DRAMs, Flash memory, disks, 28 ■ Chapter One Fundamentals of Quantitative Design and Analysis monitors, and keyboards. In the past 25 years, much of the personal computer industry has become a commodity business focused on building desktop and laptop computers running Microsoft Windows. Because many vendors ship virtually identical products, the market is highly competitive. Of course, this competition decreases the gap between cost and selling price, but it also decreases cost. Reductions occur because a commodity market has both volume and a clear product definition, which allows multiple suppliers to compete in building components for the commodity product. As a result, the overall product cost is lower because of the competition among the suppliers of the components and the volume efficiencies the suppliers can achieve. This rivalry has led to the low end of the computer business being able to achieve better price-performance than other sectors and yielded greater growth at the low end, although with very limited profits (as is typical in any commodity business). Cost of an Integrated Circuit Why would a computer architecture book have a section on integrated circuit costs? In an increasingly competitive computer marketplace where standard parts—disks, Flash memory, DRAMs, and so on—are becoming a significant portion of any system’s cost, integrated circuit costs are becoming a greater portion of the cost that varies between computers, especially in the high-volume, cost-sensitive portion of the market. Indeed, with personal mobile devices’ increasing reliance of whole systems on a chip (SOC), the cost of the integrated circuits is much of the cost of the PMD. Thus, computer designers must understand the costs of chips to understand the costs of current computers. Although the costs of integrated circuits have dropped exponentially, the basic process of silicon manufacture is unchanged: A wafer is still tested and chopped into dies that are packaged (see Figures 1.13, 1.14, and 1.15). Thus, the cost of a packaged integrated circuit is Cost of integrated circuit = Cost of die + Cost of testing die + Cost of packaging and final test Final test yield In this section, we focus on the cost of dies, summarizing the key issues in testing and packaging at the end. Learning how to predict the number of good chips per wafer requires first learning how many dies fit on a wafer and then learning how to predict the percentage of those that will work. From there it is simple to predict cost: Cost of die = D-----i--e--s----p---Ce---r-o--w-s--t--a--of--e-f--r-w--×--a---fD--e---ir-e----y---i--e---l-d-- The most interesting feature of this first term of the chip cost equation is its sensitivity to die size, shown below. 1.6 Trends in Cost ■ 29 M i s c Core I/O Figure 1.13 Photograph of an Intel Core i7 microprocessor die, which is evaluated in Chapters 2 through 5. The dimensions are 18.9 mm by 13.6 mm (257 mm2) in a 45 nm process. (Courtesy Intel.) Memory controller Core MQ eu me ou re y Core M i Core s c I/O Out-oforder scheduling & instruction commit Execution units Instruction decode, register renaming, & microcode Memory ordering & execution L1 data cache Q Shared L3 P I cache Q P I L1 inst cache & inst fetch Branch Virtual pre- memory diction L2 cache & interrupt servicing Figure 1.14 Floorplan of Core i7 die in Figure 1.13 on left with close-up of floorplan of second core on right. 30 ■ Chapter One Fundamentals of Quantitative Design and Analysis Figure 1.15 This 300 mm wafer contains 280 full Sandy Bridge dies, each 20.7 by 10.5 mm in a 32 nm process. (Sandy Bridge is Intel’s successor to Nehalem used in the Core i7.) At 216 mm2, the formula for dies per wafer estimates 282. (Courtesy Intel.) The number of dies per wafer is approximately the area of the wafer divided by the area of the die. It can be more accurately estimated by Dies per wafer = π-----×-----(---W-----a---f--e---r---d---i--a--m-----e---t-e---r--/--2---)---2 – π-----×-----W------a---f-e---r----d---i-a---m-----e--t--e---r Die area 2 × Die area The first term is the ratio of wafer area (πr2 ) to die area. The second compensates for the “square peg in a round hole” problem—rectangular dies near the periphery of round wafers. Dividing the circumference (πd ) by the diagonal of a square die is approximately the number of dies along the edge. 1.6 Trends in Cost ■ 31 Example Find the number of dies per 300 mm (30 cm) wafer for a die that is 1.5 cm on a side and for a die that is 1.0 cm on a side. Answer When die area is 2.25 cm2: Dies per wafer = π-----×-----(---3---0----⁄---2---)--2- – -----π-----×----3---0------ = 7----0---6---.-9- – 9---4----.-2- = 270 2.25 2 × 2.25 2.25 2.12 Since the area of the larger die is 2.25 times bigger, there are roughly 2.25 as many smaller dies per wafer: Dies per wafer = π-----×-----(---3---0----⁄---2---)--2- – -----π-----×----3---0------ = 7----0---6---.-9- – 9---4----.-2- = 640 1.00 2 × 1.00 1.00 1.41 However, this formula only gives the maximum number of dies per wafer. The critical question is: What is the fraction of good dies on a wafer, or the die yield? A simple model of integrated circuit yield, which assumes that defects are randomly distributed over the wafer and that yield is inversely proportional to the complexity of the fabrication process, leads to the following: Die yield = Wafer yield × 1 ⁄ (1 + Defects per unit area × Die area)N This Bose–Einstein formula is an empirical model developed by looking at the yield of many manufacturing lines [Sydow 2006]. Wafer yield accounts for wafers that are completely bad and so need not be tested. For simplicity, we’ll just assume the wafer yield is 100%. Defects per unit area is a measure of the random manufacturing defects that occur. In 2010, the value was typically 0.1 to 0.3 defects per square inch, or 0.016 to 0.057 defects per square centimeter, for a 40 nm process, as it depends on the maturity of the process (recall the learning curve, mentioned earlier). Finally, N is a parameter called the process-complexity factor, a measure of manufacturing difficulty. For 40 nm processes in 2010, N ranged from 11.5 to 15.5. Example Find the die yield for dies that are 1.5 cm on a side and 1.0 cm on a side, assuming a defect density of 0.031 per cm2 and N is 13.5. Answer The total die areas are 2.25 cm2 and 1.00 cm2. For the larger die, the yield is Die yield = 1 ⁄ (1 + 0.031 × 2.25)13.5 = 0.40 For the smaller die, the yield is Die yield = 1 ⁄ (1 + 0.031 × 1.00)13.5 = 0.66 That is, less than half of all the large dies are good but two-thirds of the small dies are good. 32 ■ Chapter One Fundamentals of Quantitative Design and Analysis The bottom line is the number of good dies per wafer, which comes from multiplying dies per wafer by die yield to incorporate the effects of defects. The examples above predict about 109 good 2.25 cm2 dies from the 300 mm wafer and 424 good 1.00 cm2 dies. Many microprocessors fall between these two sizes. Low-end embedded 32-bit processors are sometimes as small as 0.10 cm2, and processors used for embedded control (in printers, microwaves, and so on) are often less than 0.04 cm2. Given the tremendous price pressures on commodity products such as DRAM and SRAM, designers have included redundancy as a way to raise yield. For a number of years, DRAMs have regularly included some redundant memory cells, so that a certain number of flaws can be accommodated. Designers have used similar techniques in both standard SRAMs and in large SRAM arrays used for caches within microprocessors. Obviously, the presence of redundant entries can be used to boost the yield significantly. Processing of a 300 mm (12-inch) diameter wafer in a leading-edge technology cost between $5000 and $6000 in 2010. Assuming a processed wafer cost of $5500, the cost of the 1.00 cm2 die would be around $13, but the cost per die of the 2.25 cm2 die would be about $51, or almost four times the cost for a die that is a little over twice as large. What should a computer designer remember about chip costs? The manufacturing process dictates the wafer cost, wafer yield, and defects per unit area, so the sole control of the designer is die area. In practice, because the number of defects per unit area is small, the number of good dies per wafer, and hence the cost per die, grows roughly as the square of the die area. The computer designer affects die size, and hence cost, both by what functions are included on or excluded from the die and by the number of I/O pins. Before we have a part that is ready for use in a computer, the die must be tested (to separate the good dies from the bad), packaged, and tested again after packaging. These steps all add significant costs. The above analysis has focused on the variable costs of producing a functional die, which is appropriate for high-volume integrated circuits. There is, however, one very important part of the fixed costs that can significantly affect the cost of an integrated circuit for low volumes (less than 1 million parts), namely, the cost of a mask set. Each step in the integrated circuit process requires a separate mask. Thus, for modern high-density fabrication processes with four to six metal layers, mask costs exceed $1M. Obviously, this large fixed cost affects the cost of prototyping and debugging runs and, for small-volume production, can be a significant part of the production cost. Since mask costs are likely to continue to increase, designers may incorporate reconfigurable logic to enhance the flexibility of a part or choose to use gate arrays (which have fewer custom mask levels) and thus reduce the cost implications of masks. Cost versus Price With the commoditization of computers, the margin between the cost to manufacture a product and the price the product sells for has been shrinking. Those 1.7 Dependability ■ 33 margins pay for a company’s research and development (R&D), marketing, sales, manufacturing equipment maintenance, building rental, cost of financing, pretax profits, and taxes. Many engineers are surprised to find that most companies spend only 4% (in the commodity PC business) to 12% (in the high-end server business) of their income on R&D, which includes all engineering. Cost of Manufacturing versus Cost of Operation For the first four editions of this book, cost meant the cost to build a computer and price meant price to purchase a computer. With the advent of warehousescale computers, which contain tens of thousands of servers, the cost to operate the computers is significant in addition to the cost of purchase. As Chapter 6 shows, the amortized purchase price of servers and networks is just over 60% of the monthly cost to operate a warehouse-scale computer, assuming a short lifetime of the IT equipment of 3 to 4 years. About 30% of the monthly operational costs are for power use and the amortized infrastructure to distribute power and to cool the IT equipment, despite this infrastructure being amortized over 10 years. Thus, to lower operational costs in a warehouse-scale computer, computer architects need to use energy efficiently. 1.7 Dependability Historically, integrated circuits were one of the most reliable components of a computer. Although their pins may be vulnerable, and faults may occur over communication channels, the error rate inside the chip was very low. That conventional wisdom is changing as we head to feature sizes of 32 nm and smaller, as both transient faults and permanent faults will become more commonplace, so architects must design systems to cope with these challenges. This section gives a quick overview of the issues in dependability, leaving the official definition of the terms and approaches to Section D.3 in Appendix D. Computers are designed and constructed at different layers of abstraction. We can descend recursively down through a computer seeing components enlarge themselves to full subsystems until we run into individual transistors. Although some faults are widespread, like the loss of power, many can be limited to a single component in a module. Thus, utter failure of a module at one level may be considered merely a component error in a higher-level module. This distinction is helpful in trying to find ways to build dependable computers. One difficult question is deciding when a system is operating properly. This philosophical point became concrete with the popularity of Internet services. Infrastructure providers started offering service level agreements (SLAs) or service level objectives (SLOs) to guarantee that their networking or power service would be dependable. For example, they would pay the customer a penalty if they did not meet an agreement more than some hours per month. Thus, an SLA could be used to decide whether the system was up or down. 34 ■ Chapter One Fundamentals of Quantitative Design and Analysis Systems alternate between two states of service with respect to an SLA: 1. Service accomplishment, where the service is delivered as specified 2. Service interruption, where the delivered service is different from the SLA Transitions between these two states are caused by failures (from state 1 to state 2) or restorations (2 to 1). Quantifying these transitions leads to the two main measures of dependability: ■ Module reliability is a measure of the continuous service accomplishment (or, equivalently, of the time to failure) from a reference initial instant. Hence, the mean time to failure (MTTF) is a reliability measure. The reciprocal of MTTF is a rate of failures, generally reported as failures per billion hours of operation, or FIT (for failures in time). Thus, an MTTF of 1,000,000 hours equals 109/106 or 1000 FIT. Service interruption is measured as mean time to repair (MTTR). Mean time between failures (MTBF) is simply the sum of MTTF + MTTR. Although MTBF is widely used, MTTF is often the more appropriate term. If a collection of modules has exponentially distributed lifetimes—meaning that the age of a module is not important in probability of failure—the overall failure rate of the collection is the sum of the failure rates of the modules. ■ Module availability is a measure of the service accomplishment with respect to the alternation between the two states of accomplishment and interruption. For nonredundant systems with repair, module availability is Module availability = (---M-----T----T--M--F----T+---T--M--F----T---T----R-----) Note that reliability and availability are now quantifiable metrics, rather than synonyms for dependability. From these definitions, we can estimate reliability of a system quantitatively if we make some assumptions about the reliability of components and that failures are independent. Example Assume a disk subsystem with the following components and MTTF: ■ 10 disks, each rated at 1,000,000-hour MTTF ■ 1 ATA controller, 500,000-hour MTTF ■ 1 power supply, 200,000-hour MTTF ■ 1 fan, 200,000-hour MTTF ■ 1 ATA cable, 1,000,000-hour MTTF Using the simplifying assumptions that the lifetimes are exponentially distributed and that failures are independent, compute the MTTF of the system as a whole. 1.7 Dependability ■ 35 Answer The sum of the failure rates is Failure ratesystem = 10 × -----------1------------ + ---------1--------- + ---------1--------- + ---------1--------- + -----------1-----------1,000,000 500,000 200,000 200,000 1,000,000 = 1--1-0--,--0-+--0---20---,-0-+--0--5--0---+--h---o5---u-+--r--s-1- = 1---,--0---0-2--0-3--,--0---0---0- = 1----,-0---0---0---,--0-2--0-3--0-,--,0-0--0-0--0-0-----h---o---u---r--s- or 23,000 FIT. The MTTF for the system is just the inverse of the failure rate: MTTFsystem = -------------------1--------------------Failure ratesystem = 1---,--0---0---0---,-0---0---0----,-0---0---0-----h---o---u---r--s23,000 = 43,500 hours or just under 5 years. The primary way to cope with failure is redundancy, either in time (repeat the operation to see if it still is erroneous) or in resources (have other components to take over from the one that failed). Once the component is replaced and the system fully repaired, the dependability of the system is assumed to be as good as new. Let’s quantify the benefits of redundancy with an example. Example Disk subsystems often have redundant power supplies to improve dependability. Using the components and MTTFs from above, calculate the reliability of redundant power supplies. Assume one power supply is sufficient to run the disk subsystem and that we are adding one redundant power supply. Answer We need a formula to show what to expect when we can tolerate a failure and still provide service. To simplify the calculations, we assume that the lifetimes of the components are exponentially distributed and that there is no dependency between the component failures. MTTF for our redundant power supplies is the mean time until one power supply fails divided by the chance that the other will fail before the first one is replaced. Thus, if the chance of a second failure before repair is small, then the MTTF of the pair is large. Since we have two power supplies and independent failures, the mean time until one disk fails is MTTFpower supply/2. A good approximation of the probability of a second failure is MTTR over the mean time until the other power supply fails. Hence, a reasonable approximation for a redundant pair of power supplies is MTTFpower supply pair = -M-----T----T---F----p--o---w---e--r---s-u---p--p--l--y----⁄--2M------T---T----R----p---o--w---e--r---s--u--p---p--l-y- = M------T---T----F----p2--o--w----e--r---s-u---p--p--l--y----⁄--2MTTRpower supply = -2----×-M----M-T----TT---F-T---p2-R-o--w-p--o-e-w-r --s-e-u-r --ps--pu--l-p-y-p--l--y MTTFpower supply Using the MTTF numbers above, if we assume it takes on average 24 hours for a human operator to notice that a power supply has failed and replace it, the reliability of the fault tolerant pair of power supplies is MTTFpower supply pair = -2----×M-----M-T---T-T---F-T---p2-R-o--w-p--o-e-w-r---se-u-r--p-s-pu--l-p-y-p--l--y = 2---0-2---0-×--,-0--2-0--4-0---2- ≅ 830,000,000 making the pair about 4150 times more reliable than a single power supply. 36 ■ Chapter One Fundamentals of Quantitative Design and Analysis Having quantified the cost, power, and dependability of computer technology, we are ready to quantify performance. 1.8 Measuring, Reporting, and Summarizing Performance When we say one computer is faster than another is, what do we mean? The user of a desktop computer may say a computer is faster when a program runs in less time, while an Amazon.com administrator may say a computer is faster when it completes more transactions per hour. The computer user is interested in reducing response time—the time between the start and the completion of an event—also referred to as execution time. The operator of a warehouse-scale computer may be interested in increasing throughput—the total amount of work done in a given time. In comparing design alternatives, we often want to relate the performance of two different computers, say, X and Y. The phrase “X is faster than Y” is used here to mean that the response time or execution time is lower on X than on Y for the given task. In particular, “X is n times faster than Y” will mean: E----x---e---c---u---t-i--o---n----t--i--m----e---Y-- = n Execution timeX Since execution time is the reciprocal of performance, the following relationship holds: ----------------1----------------n = E----x---e---c---u---t-i--o---n----t--i--m----e---Y-- = -P---e---r--f--o---r--m----a---n---c--e----Y- = P----e---r-f---o--r--m-----a---n---c--e---X-- Execution timeX ----------------1----------------- PerformanceY PerformanceX The phrase “the throughput of X is 1.3 times higher than Y” signifies here that the number of tasks completed per unit time on computer X is 1.3 times the number completed on Y. Unfortunately, time is not always the metric quoted in comparing the performance of computers. Our position is that the only consistent and reliable measure of performance is the execution time of real programs, and that all proposed alternatives to time as the metric or to real programs as the items measured have eventually led to misleading claims or even mistakes in computer design. Even execution time can be defined in different ways depending on what we count. The most straightforward definition of time is called wall-clock time, response time, or elapsed time, which is the latency to complete a task, including disk accesses, memory accesses, input/output activities, operating system overhead—everything. With multiprogramming, the processor works on another program while waiting for I/O and may not necessarily minimize the elapsed time of one program. Hence, we need a term to consider this activity. CPU time recognizes this distinction and means the time the processor is computing, not including the time waiting for I/O or running other programs. (Clearly, the response time seen by the user is the elapsed time of the program, not the CPU time.) 1.8 Measuring, Reporting, and Summarizing Performance ■ 37 Computer users who routinely run the same programs would be the perfect candidates to evaluate a new computer. To evaluate a new system the users would simply compare the execution time of their workloads—the mixture of programs and operating system commands that users run on a computer. Few are in this happy situation, however. Most must rely on other methods to evaluate computers, and often other evaluators, hoping that these methods will predict performance for their usage of the new computer. Benchmarks The best choice of benchmarks to measure performance is real applications, such as Google Goggles from Section 1.1. Attempts at running programs that are much simpler than a real application have led to performance pitfalls. Examples include: ■ Kernels, which are small, key pieces of real applications ■ Toy programs, which are 100-line programs from beginning programming assignments, such as quicksort ■ Synthetic benchmarks, which are fake programs invented to try to match the profile and behavior of real applications, such as Dhrystone All three are discredited today, usually because the compiler writer and architect can conspire to make the computer appear faster on these stand-in programs than on real applications. Depressingly for your authors—who dropped the fallacy about using synthetic programs to characterize performance in the fourth edition of this book since we thought computer architects agreed it was disreputable— the synthetic program Dhrystone is still the most widely quoted benchmark for embedded processors! Another issue is the conditions under which the benchmarks are run. One way to improve the performance of a benchmark has been with benchmarkspecific flags; these flags often caused transformations that would be illegal on many programs or would slow down performance on others. To restrict this process and increase the significance of the results, benchmark developers often require the vendor to use one compiler and one set of flags for all the programs in the same language (C++ or C). In addition to the question of compiler flags, another question is whether source code modifications are allowed. There are three different approaches to addressing this question: 1. No source code modifications are allowed. 2. Source code modifications are allowed but are essentially impossible. For example, database benchmarks rely on standard database programs that are tens of millions of lines of code. The database companies are highly unlikely to make changes to enhance the performance for one particular computer. 3. Source modifications are allowed, as long as the modified version produces the same output. 38 ■ Chapter One Fundamentals of Quantitative Design and Analysis The key issue that benchmark designers face in deciding to allow modification of the source is whether such modifications will reflect real practice and provide useful insight to users, or whether such modifications simply reduce the accuracy of the benchmarks as predictors of real performance. To overcome the danger of placing too many eggs in one basket, collections of benchmark applications, called benchmark suites, are a popular measure of performance of processors with a variety of applications. Of course, such suites are only as good as the constituent individual benchmarks. Nonetheless, a key advantage of such suites is that the weakness of any one benchmark is lessened by the presence of the other benchmarks. The goal of a benchmark suite is that it will characterize the relative performance of two computers, particularly for programs not in the suite that customers are likely to run. A cautionary example is the Electronic Design News Embedded Microprocessor Benchmark Consortium (or EEMBC, pronounced “embassy”) benchmarks. It is a set of 41 kernels used to predict performance of different embedded applications: automotive/industrial, consumer, networking, office automation, and telecommunications. EEMBC reports unmodified performance and “full fury” performance, where almost anything goes. Because these benchmarks use kernels, and because of the reporting options, EEMBC does not have the reputation of being a good predictor of relative performance of different embedded computers in the field. This lack of success is why Dhrystone, which EEMBC was trying to replace, is still used. One of the most successful attempts to create standardized benchmark application suites has been the SPEC (Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation), which had its roots in efforts in the late 1980s to deliver better benchmarks for workstations. Just as the computer industry has evolved over time, so has the need for different benchmark suites, and there are now SPEC benchmarks to cover many application classes. All the SPEC benchmark suites and their reported results are found at www.spec.org. Although we focus our discussion on the SPEC benchmarks in many of the following sections, many benchmarks have also been developed for PCs running the Windows operating system. Desktop Benchmarks Desktop benchmarks divide into two broad classes: processor-intensive benchmarks and graphics-intensive benchmarks, although many graphics benchmarks include intensive processor activity. SPEC originally created a benchmark set focusing on processor performance (initially called SPEC89), which has evolved into its fifth generation: SPEC CPU2006, which follows SPEC2000, SPEC95 SPEC92, and SPEC89. SPEC CPU2006 consists of a set of 12 integer benchmarks (CINT2006) and 17 floating-point benchmarks (CFP2006). Figure 1.16 describes the current SPEC benchmarks and their ancestry. SPEC benchmarks are real programs modified to be portable and to minimize the effect of I/O on performance. The integer benchmarks vary from part of a C 1.8 Measuring, Reporting, and Summarizing Performance ■ 39 SPEC2006 benchmark description GNU C compiler Interpreted string processing Combinatorial optimization Block-sorting compression Go game (AI) Video compression Games/path finding Search gene sequence Quantum computer simulation Discrete event simulation library Chess game (AI) XML parsing CFD/blast waves Numerical relativity Finite element code Differential equation solver framework Quantum chemistry EM solver (freq/time domain) Scalable molecular dynamics (~NAMD) Lattice Boltzman method (fluid/air flow) Large eddie simulation/turbulent CFD Lattice quantum chromodynamics Molecular dynamics Image ray tracing Spare linear algebra Speech recognition Quantum chemistry/object oriented Weather research and forecasting Magneto hydrodynamics (astrophysics) SPEC2006 go h264avc astar hmmer libquantum omnetpp sjeng xalancbmk bwaves cactusADM calculix dealll gamess GemsFDTD gromacs lbm LESlie3d milc namd povray soplex sphinx3 tonto wrf zeusmp Benchmark name by SPEC generation SPEC2000 SPEC95 SPEC92 mcf bzip2 vortex gzip eon twolf vortex vpr crafty parser perl go ijpeg m88ksim compress sc wupwise apply galgel mesa art equake facerec ammp lucas fma3d sixtrack apsi mgrid applu turb3d swim hydro2d su2cor wave5 SPEC89 gcc espresso li eqntott fpppp tomcatv doduc nasa7 spice matrix300 Figure 1.16 SPEC2006 programs and the evolution of the SPEC benchmarks over time, with integer programs above the line and floating-point programs below the line. Of the 12 SPEC2006 integer programs, 9 are written in C, and the rest in C++. For the floating-point programs, the split is 6 in Fortran, 4 in C++, 3 in C, and 4 in mixed C and Fortran. The figure shows all 70 of the programs in the 1989, 1992, 1995, 2000, and 2006 releases. The benchmark descriptions on the left are for SPEC2006 only and do not apply to earlier versions. Programs in the same row from different generations of SPEC are generally not related; for example, fpppp is not a CFD code like bwaves. Gcc is the senior citizen of the group. Only 3 integer programs and 3 floating-point programs survived three or more generations. Note that all the floating-point programs are new for SPEC2006. Although a few are carried over from generation to generation, the version of the program changes and either the input or the size of the benchmark is often changed to increase its running time and to avoid perturbation in measurement or domination of the execution time by some factor other than CPU time. 40 ■ Chapter One Fundamentals of Quantitative Design and Analysis compiler to a chess program to a quantum computer simulation. The floatingpoint benchmarks include structured grid codes for finite element modeling, particle method codes for molecular dynamics, and sparse linear algebra codes for fluid dynamics. The SPEC CPU suite is useful for processor benchmarking for both desktop systems and single-processor servers. We will see data on many of these programs throughout this text. However, note that these programs share little with programming languages and environments and the Google Goggles application that Section 1.1 describes. Seven use C++, eight use C, and nine use Fortran! They are even statically linked, and the applications themselves are dull. It’s not clear that SPECINT2006 and SPECFP2006 capture what is exciting about computing in the 21st century. In Section 1.11, we describe pitfalls that have occurred in developing the SPEC benchmark suite, as well as the challenges in maintaining a useful and predictive benchmark suite. SPEC CPU2006 is aimed at processor performance, but SPEC offers many other benchmarks. Server Benchmarks Just as servers have multiple functions, so are there multiple types of benchmarks. The simplest benchmark is perhaps a processor throughput-oriented benchmark. SPEC CPU2000 uses the SPEC CPU benchmarks to construct a simple throughput benchmark where the processing rate of a multiprocessor can be measured by running multiple copies (usually as many as there are processors) of each SPEC CPU benchmark and converting the CPU time into a rate. This leads to a measurement called the SPECrate, and it is a measure of request-level parallelism from Section 1.2. To measure thread-level parallelism, SPEC offers what they call high-performance computing benchmarks around OpenMP and MPI. Other than SPECrate, most server applications and benchmarks have significant I/O activity arising from either disk or network traffic, including benchmarks for file server systems, for Web servers, and for database and transactionprocessing systems. SPEC offers both a file server benchmark (SPECSFS) and a Web server benchmark (SPECWeb). SPECSFS is a benchmark for measuring NFS (Network File System) performance using a script of file server requests; it tests the performance of the I/O system (both disk and network I/O) as well as the processor. SPECSFS is a throughput-oriented benchmark but with important response time requirements. (Appendix D discusses some file and I/O system benchmarks in detail.) SPECWeb is a Web server benchmark that simulates multiple clients requesting both static and dynamic pages from a server, as well as clients posting data to the server. SPECjbb measures server performance for Web applications written in Java. The most recent SPEC benchmark is SPECvirt_Sc2010, which evaluates end-to-end performance of virtualized datacenter servers, including hardware, the virtual machine layer, and the virtualized guest operating system. Another recent SPEC benchmark measures power, which we examine in Section 1.10. 1.8 Measuring, Reporting, and Summarizing Performance ■ 41 Transaction-processing (TP) benchmarks measure the ability of a system to handle transactions that consist of database accesses and updates. Airline reservation systems and bank ATM systems are typical simple examples of TP; more sophisticated TP systems involve complex databases and decision-making. In the mid-1980s, a group of concerned engineers formed the vendor-independent Transaction Processing Council (TPC) to try to create realistic and fair benchmarks for TP. The TPC benchmarks are described at www.tpc.org. The first TPC benchmark, TPC-A, was published in 1985 and has since been replaced and enhanced by several different benchmarks. TPC-C, initially created in 1992, simulates a complex query environment. TPC-H models ad hoc decision support—the queries are unrelated and knowledge of past queries cannot be used to optimize future queries. TPC-E is a new On-Line Transaction Processing (OLTP) workload that simulates a brokerage firm’s customer accounts. The most recent effort is TPC Energy, which adds energy metrics to all the existing TPC benchmarks. All the TPC benchmarks measure performance in transactions per second. In addition, they include a response time requirement, so that throughput performance is measured only when the response time limit is met. To model realworld systems, higher transaction rates are also associated with larger systems, in terms of both users and the database to which the transactions are applied. Finally, the system cost for a benchmark system must also be included, allowing accurate comparisons of cost-performance. TPC modified its pricing policy so that there is a single specification for all the TPC benchmarks and to allow verification of the prices that TPC publishes. Reporting Performance Results The guiding principle of reporting performance measurements should be reproducibility—list everything another experimenter would need to duplicate the results. A SPEC benchmark report requires an extensive description of the computer and the compiler flags, as well as the publication of both the baseline and optimized results. In addition to hardware, software, and baseline tuning parameter descriptions, a SPEC report contains the actual performance times, shown both in tabular form and as a graph. A TPC benchmark report is even more complete, since it must include results of a benchmarking audit and cost information. These reports are excellent sources for finding the real costs of computing systems, since manufacturers compete on high performance and cost-performance. Summarizing Performance Results In practical computer design, you must evaluate myriad design choices for their relative quantitative benefits across a suite of benchmarks believed to be relevant. Likewise, consumers trying to choose a computer will rely on performance measurements from benchmarks, which hopefully are similar to the user’s applications. In both cases, it is useful to have measurements for a suite of bench- 42 ■ Chapter One Fundamentals of Quantitative Design and Analysis marks so that the performance of important applications is similar to that of one or more benchmarks in the suite and that variability in performance can be understood. In the ideal case, the suite resembles a statistically valid sample of the application space, but such a sample requires more benchmarks than are typically found in most suites and requires a randomized sampling, which essentially no benchmark suite uses. Once we have chosen to measure performance with a benchmark suite, we would like to be able to summarize the performance results of the suite in a single number. A straightforward approach to computing a summary result would be to compare the arithmetic means of the execution times of the programs in the suite. Alas, some SPEC programs take four times longer than others do, so those programs would be much more important if the arithmetic mean were the single number used to summarize performance. An alternative would be to add a weighting factor to each benchmark and use the weighted arithmetic mean as the single number to summarize performance. The problem would then be how to pick weights; since SPEC is a consortium of competing companies, each company might have their own favorite set of weights, which would make it hard to reach consensus. One approach is to use weights that make all programs execute an equal time on some reference computer, but this biases the results to the performance characteristics of the reference computer. Rather than pick weights, we could normalize execution times to a reference computer by dividing the time on the reference computer by the time on the computer being rated, yielding a ratio proportional to performance. SPEC uses this approach, calling the ratio the SPECRatio. It has a particularly useful property that it matches the way we compare computer performance throughout this text—namely, comparing performance ratios. For example, suppose that the SPECRatio of computer A on a benchmark was 1.25 times higher than computer B; then we would know: E----x---e---c---u---t-i--o---n----t--i--m----e---r--e--f--e--r-e--n---c--e 1.25 = S----P---E----C----R----a---t-i--o---A-- = --------E---x---e---c---u---t-i--o---n----t--i--m-----e--A--------- = -E---x---e---c---u---t-i--o---n----t--i--m----e---B-- = -P---e--r--f--o---r--m-----a---n---c--e---A-- SPECRatioB E----x---e---c---u---t-i--o---n----t--i--m----e---r--e--f--e--r-e--n---c--e Execution timeA PerformanceB Execution timeB Notice that the execution times on the reference computer drop out and the choice of the reference computer is irrelevant when the comparisons are made as a ratio, which is the approach we consistently use. Figure 1.17 gives an example. Because a SPECRatio is a ratio rather than an absolute execution time, the mean must be computed using the geometric mean. (Since SPECRatios have no units, comparing SPECRatios arithmetically is meaningless.) The formula is n n ∏ Geometric mean = samplei i=1 1.8 Measuring, Reporting, and Summarizing Performance ■ 43 Benchmarks Ultra 5 time Opteron Itanium 2 Opteron/Itanium Itanium/Opteron (sec) time (sec) SPECRatio time (sec) SPECRatio times (sec) SPECRatios wupwise 1600 51.5 31.06 56.1 28.53 0.92 0.92 swim 3100 125.0 24.73 70.7 43.85 1.77 1.77 mgrid 1800 98.0 18.37 65.8 27.36 1.49 1.49 applu 2100 94.0 22.34 50.9 41.25 1.85 1.85 mesa 1400 64.6 21.69 108.0 12.99 0.60 0.60 galgel 2900 86.4 33.57 40.0 72.47 2.16 2.16 art 2600 92.4 28.13 21.0 123.67 4.40 4.40 equake 1300 72.6 17.92 36.3 35.78 2.00 2.00 facerec 1900 73.6 25.80 86.9 21.86 0.85 0.85 ammp 2200 136.0 16.14 132.0 16.63 1.03 1.03 lucas 2000 88.8 22.52 107.0 18.76 0.83 0.83 fma3d 2100 120.0 17.48 131.0 16.09 0.92 0.92 sixtrack 1100 123.0 8.95 68.8 15.99 1.79 1.79 apsi 2600 150.0 17.36 231.0 11.27 0.65 0.65 Geometric mean 20.86 27.12 1.30 1.30 Figure 1.17 SPECfp2000 execution times (in seconds) for the Sun Ultra 5—the reference computer of SPEC2000— and execution times and SPECRatios for the AMD Opteron and Intel Itanium 2. (SPEC2000 multiplies the ratio of execution times by 100 to remove the decimal point from the result, so 20.86 is reported as 2086.) The final two columns show the ratios of execution times and SPECRatios. This figure demonstrates the irrelevance of the reference computer in relative performance. The ratio of the execution times is identical to the ratio of the SPECRatios, and the ratio of the geometric means (27.12/20.86 = 1.30) is identical to the geometric mean of the ratios (1.30). In the case of SPEC, samplei is the SPECRatio for program i. Using the geometric mean ensures two important properties: 1. The geometric mean of the ratios is the same as the ratio of the geometric means. 2. The ratio of the geometric means is equal to the geometric mean of the performance ratios, which implies that the choice of the reference computer is irrelevant. Hence, the motivations to use the geometric mean are substantial, especially when we use performance ratios to make comparisons. Example Show that the ratio of the geometric means is equal to the geometric mean of the performance ratios, and that the reference computer of SPECRatio matters not. Answer Assume two computers A and B and a set of SPECRatios for each. 44 ■ Chapter One Fundamentals of Quantitative Design and Analysis n ∏ G-----e---o---m-----e--t--r--i--c----m----e---a---n---A-∏ ∏ Geometric meanB = n SPECRatio Ai ------i--=---1------------------------------------- n n SPECRatio Bi = n n -S---P---E----C----R----a---t-i--o----A-----i i=1 SPECRatio Bi i =1 E----x---e---c---u---t-i--o---n----t--i--m----e---r--e---f-e---r--e--n---c--e--i ∏ ∏ ∏ = n ---------E----x---e--c---u---t--i-o---n-----t--i-m-----e---A---i-------- = n -E---x---e---c---u---t-i--o---n----t--i--m-----e--B---i = n P----e--r--f--o---r--m-----a---n---c---e--A---i n i=1 E----x---e---c---u---t-i--o---n----t--i--m----e---r--e---f-e---r--e--n---c--e--i n i=1 Execution timeAi n i=1 PerformanceBi Execution timeBi That is, the ratio of the geometric means of the SPECRatios of A and B is the geometric mean of the performance ratios of A to B of all the benchmarks in the suite. Figure 1.17 demonstrates this validity using examples from SPEC. 1.9 Quantitative Principles of Computer Design Now that we have seen how to define, measure, and summarize performance, cost, dependability, energy, and power, we can explore guidelines and principles that are useful in the design and analysis of computers. This section introduces important observations about design, as well as two equations to evaluate alternatives. Take Advantage of Parallelism Taking advantage of parallelism is one of the most important methods for improving performance. Every chapter in this book has an example of how performance is enhanced through the exploitation of parallelism. We give three brief examples here, which are expounded on in later chapters. Our first example is the use of parallelism at the system level. To improve the throughput performance on a typical server benchmark, such as SPECWeb or TPC-C, multiple processors and multiple disks can be used. The workload of handling requests can then be spread among the processors and disks, resulting in improved throughput. Being able to expand memory and the number of processors and disks is called scalability, and it is a valuable asset for servers. Spreading of data across many disks for parallel reads and writes enables data-level parallelism. SPECWeb also relies on request-level parallelism to use many processors while TPC-C uses thread-level parallelism for faster processing of database queries. At the level of an individual processor, taking advantage of parallelism among instructions is critical to achieving high performance. One of the simplest ways to do this is through pipelining. (It is explained in more detail in Appendix C and is a major focus of Chapter 3.) The basic idea behind pipelining 1.9 Quantitative Principles of Computer Design ■ 45 is to overlap instruction execution to reduce the total time to complete an instruction sequence. A key insight that allows pipelining to work is that not every instruction depends on its immediate predecessor, so executing the instructions completely or partially in parallel may be possible. Pipelining is the best-known example of instruction-level parallelism. Parallelism can also be exploited at the level of detailed digital design. For example, set-associative caches use multiple banks of memory that are typically searched in parallel to find a desired item. Modern ALUs (arithmetic-logical units) use carry-lookahead, which uses parallelism to speed the process of computing sums from linear to logarithmic in the number of bits per operand. These are more examples of data-level parallelism. Principle of Locality Important fundamental observations have come from properties of programs. The most important program property that we regularly exploit is the principle of locality: Programs tend to reuse data and instructions they have used recently. A widely held rule of thumb is that a program spends 90% of its execution time in only 10% of the code. An implication of locality is that we can predict with reasonable accuracy what instructions and data a program will use in the near future based on its accesses in the recent past. The principle of locality also applies to data accesses, though not as strongly as to code accesses. Two different types of locality have been observed. Temporal locality states that recently accessed items are likely to be accessed in the near future. Spatial locality says that items whose addresses are near one another tend to be referenced close together in time. We will see these principles applied in Chapter 2. Focus on the Common Case Perhaps the most important and pervasive principle of computer design is to focus on the common case: In making a design trade-off, favor the frequent case over the infrequent case. This principle applies when determining how to spend resources, since the impact of the improvement is higher if the occurrence is frequent. Focusing on the common case works for power as well as for resource allocation and performance. The instruction fetch and decode unit of a processor may be used much more frequently than a multiplier, so optimize it first. It works on dependability as well. If a database server has 50 disks for every processor, storage dependability will dominate system dependability. In addition, the frequent case is often simpler and can be done faster than the infrequent case. For example, when adding two numbers in the processor, we can expect overflow to be a rare circumstance and can therefore improve performance by optimizing the more common case of no overflow. This emphasis may slow down the case when overflow occurs, but if that is rare then overall performance will be improved by optimizing for the normal case. 46 ■ Chapter One Fundamentals of Quantitative Design and Analysis We will see many cases of this principle throughout this text. In applying this simple principle, we have to decide what the frequent case is and how much performance can be improved by making that case faster. A fundamental law, called Amdahl’s law, can be used to quantify this principle. Amdahl’s Law The performance gain that can be obtained by improving some portion of a computer can be calculated using Amdahl’s law. Amdahl’s law states that the performance improvement to be gained from using some faster mode of execution is limited by the fraction of the time the faster mode can be used. Amdahl’s law defines the speedup that can be gained by using a particular feature. What is speedup? Suppose that we can make an enhancement to a computer that will improve performance when it is used. Speedup is the ratio: Speedup = Performance for entire task using the enhancement when possible Performance for entire task without using the enhancement Alternatively, Execution time for entire task without using the enhancement Speedup = Execution time for entire task using the enhancement when possible Speedup tells us how much faster a task will run using the computer with the enhancement as opposed to the original computer. Amdahl’s law gives us a quick way to find the speedup from some enhancement, which depends on two factors: 1. The fraction of the computation time in the original computer that can be converted to take advantage of the enhancement—For example, if 20 seconds of the execution time of a program that takes 60 seconds in total can use an enhancement, the fraction is 20/60. This value, which we will call Fractionenhanced, is always less than or equal to 1. 2. The improvement gained by the enhanced execution mode, that is, how much faster the task would run if the enhanced mode were used for the entire program—This value is the time of the original mode over the time of the enhanced mode. If the enhanced mode takes, say, 2 seconds for a portion of the program, while it is 5 seconds in the original mode, the improvement is 5/2. We will call this value, which is always greater than 1, Speedupenhanced. The execution time using the original computer with the enhanced mode will be the time spent using the unenhanced portion of the computer plus the time spent using the enhancement: Execution timenew = Execution timeold × § ¨(1 © – Fraction enhanced ) + -F---r--a---c--t--i--o---n---e--n---h--a--n--c--e--dSpeedupenhanced · ¸ ¹ 1.9 Quantitative Principles of Computer Design ■ 47 The overall speedup is the ratio of the execution times: Speedupoverall = -E----x---e---c--u---t--i--o---n----t--i--m----e---o---l-dExecution timenew = ------------------------------------------------1------------------------------------------------- (1 – Fraction enhanced ) + -F---r--a---c--t--i--o---n---e--n--h---a--n--c--e--dSpeedupenhanced Example Answer Suppose that we want to enhance the processor used for Web serving. The new processor is 10 times faster on computation in the Web serving application than the original processor. Assuming that the original processor is busy with computation 40% of the time and is waiting for I/O 60% of the time, what is the overall speedup gained by incorporating the enhancement? Fractionenhanced = 0.4; Speedupenhanced = 10; Speedupoverall = ----------1----------0.6 + 0---.--4- = ----1----0.64 ≈ 1.56 10 Amdahl’s law expresses the law of diminishing returns: The incremental improvement in speedup gained by an improvement of just a portion of the computation diminishes as improvements are added. An important corollary of Amdahl’s law is that if an enhancement is only usable for a fraction of a task then we can’t speed up the task by more than the reciprocal of 1 minus that fraction. A common mistake in applying Amdahl’s law is to confuse “fraction of time converted to use an enhancement” and “fraction of time after enhancement is in use.” If, instead of measuring the time that we could use the enhancement in a computation, we measure the time after the enhancement is in use, the results will be incorrect! Amdahl’s law can serve as a guide to how much an enhancement will improve performance and how to distribute resources to improve costperformance. The goal, clearly, is to spend resources proportional to where time is spent. Amdahl’s law is particularly useful for comparing the overall system performance of two alternatives, but it can also be applied to compare two processor design alternatives, as the following example shows. Example A common transformation required in graphics processors is square root. Implementations of floating-point (FP) square root vary significantly in performance, especially among processors designed for graphics. Suppose FP square root (FPSQR) is responsible for 20% of the execution time of a critical graphics benchmark. One proposal is to enhance the FPSQR hardware and speed up this operation by a factor of 10. The other alternative is just to try to make all FP instructions in the graphics processor run faster by a factor of 1.6; FP instructions are responsible for half of the execution time for the application. The design team believes that they can make all FP instructions run 1.6 times faster with the same effort as required for the fast square root. Compare these two design alternatives. 48 ■ Chapter One Fundamentals of Quantitative Design and Analysis Answer We can compare these two alternatives by comparing the speedups: SpeedupFPSQR = -----------------1----------------(1 – 0.2) + 0----.-2- = ----1----0.82 = 1.22 10 SpeedupFP = -----------------1----------------(1 – 0.5) + 0----.-5- = -------1-------0.8125 = 1.23 1.6 Improving the performance of the FP operations overall is slightly better because of the higher frequency. Amdahl’s law is applicable beyond performance. Let’s redo the reliability example from page 35 after improving the reliability of the power supply via redundancy from 200,000-hour to 830,000,000-hour MTTF, or 4150X better. Example The calculation of the failure rates of the disk subsystem was Failure ratesystem = 10 × -----------1------------ + ---------1--------- + ---------1--------- + ---------1--------1,000,000 500,000 200,000 200,000 + -----------1-----------1,000,000 = 1---0-----+-----2----+-----5-----+----5-----+-----1- = -----------------2---3-----------------1,000,000 hours 1,000,000 hours Therefore, the fraction of the failure rate that could be improved is 5 per million hours out of 23 for the whole system, or 0.22. Answer The reliability improvement would be Improvementpower supply pair = (---1----–-----0---.-2----2-1--)---+-------0------.----2------2---- = 0---.-1-7---8- = 1.28 4150 Despite an impressive 4150X improvement in reliability of one module, from the system’s perspective, the change has a measurable but small benefit. In the examples above, we needed the fraction consumed by the new and improved version; often it is difficult to measure these times directly. In the next section, we will see another way of doing such comparisons based on the use of an equation that decomposes the CPU execution time into three separate components. If we know how an alternative affects these three components, we can determine its overall performance. Furthermore, it is often possible to build simulators that measure these components before the hardware is actually designed. The Processor Performance Equation Essentially all computers are constructed using a clock running at a constant rate. These discrete time events are called ticks, clock ticks, clock periods, clocks, 1.9 Quantitative Principles of Computer Design ■ 49 cycles, or clock cycles. Computer designers refer to the time of a clock period by its duration (e.g., 1 ns) or by its rate (e.g., 1 GHz). CPU time for a program can then be expressed two ways: CPU time = CPU clock cycles for a program × Clock cycle time or CPU time = C-----P---U------c--l--o---c---k----c---y---c--l--e---s----f--o---r---a----p---r--o---g---r--a---m--Clock rate In addition to the number of clock cycles needed to execute a program, we can also count the number of instructions executed—the instruction path length or instruction count (IC). If we know the number of clock cycles and the instruction count, we can calculate the average number of clock cycles per instruction (CPI). Because it is easier to work with, and because we will deal with simple processors in this chapter, we use CPI. Designers sometimes also use instructions per clock (IPC), which is the inverse of CPI. CPI is computed as CPI = C-----P---U------c--l--o---c---k----c---y---c--l--e---s----f--o---r---a----p---r--o---g---r--a---m--Instruction count This processor figure of merit provides insight into different styles of instruction sets and implementations, and we will use it extensively in the next four chapters. By transposing the instruction count in the above formula, clock cycles can be defined as IC × CPI. This allows us to use CPI in the execution time formula: CPU time = Instruction count × Cycles per instruction × Clock cycle time Expanding the first formula into the units of measurement shows how the pieces fit together: I---n---s--t--r--u---c--t--i--o---n---s × C-----l-o---c---k----c---y---c---l-e---s- × -----S---e---c--o---n---d---s----- = -S---e---c--o---n---d----s- = CPU time Program Instruction Clock cycle Program As this formula demonstrates, processor performance is dependent upon three characteristics: clock cycle (or rate), clock cycles per instruction, and instruction count. Furthermore, CPU time is equally dependent on these three characteristics; for example, a 10% improvement in any one of them leads to a 10% improvement in CPU time. Unfortunately, it is difficult to change one parameter in complete isolation from others because the basic technologies involved in changing each characteristic are interdependent: ■ Clock cycle time—Hardware technology and organization ■ CPI—Organization and instruction set architecture ■ Instruction count—Instruction set architecture and compiler technology 50 ■ Chapter One Fundamentals of Quantitative Design and Analysis Luckily, many potential performance improvement techniques primarily improve one component of processor performance with small or predictable impacts on the other two. Sometimes it is useful in designing the processor to calculate the number of total processor clock cycles as n ¦ CPU clock cycles = ICi × CPIi i=1 where ICi represents the number of times instruction i is executed in a program and CPIi represents the average number of clocks per instruction for instruction i. This form can be used to express CPU time as §n · ¦ CPU time = ¨ ¨ ICi × CPIi¸¸ × Clock cycle time © i=1 ¹ and overall CPI as n ¦ ICi × CPIi ¦ CPI = -----i-=---1------------------------------- = Instruction count n -----------------I--C-----i---------------Instruction count × CPIi i=1 The latter form of the CPI calculation uses each individual CPIi and the fraction of occurrences of that instruction in a program (i.e., ICi ÷ Instruction count). CPIi should be measured and not just calculated from a table in the back of a reference manual since it must include pipeline effects, cache misses, and any other mem- ory system inefficiencies. Consider our performance example on page 47, here modified to use mea- surements of the frequency of the instructions and of the instruction CPI values, which, in practice, are obtained by simulation or by hardware instrumentation. Example Suppose we have made the following measurements: Frequency of FP operations = 25% Average CPI of FP operations = 4.0 Average CPI of other instructions = 1.33 Frequency of FPSQR = 2% CPI of FPSQR = 20 Assume that the two design alternatives are to decrease the CPI of FPSQR to 2 or to decrease the average CPI of all FP operations to 2.5. Compare these two design alternatives using the processor performance equation. 1.9 Quantitative Principles of Computer Design ■ 51 Answer First, observe that only the CPI changes; the clock rate and instruction count remain identical. We start by finding the original CPI with neither enhancement: ¦ CPIoriginal = n CPIi × § © I--n----s--t--r--u---c--tI--iC--o---in----c---o---u---n---t¹· i=1 = (4 × 25%) + (1.33 × 75%) = 2.0 We can compute the CPI for the enhanced FPSQR by subtracting the cycles saved from the original CPI: CPIwith new FPSQR = CPIoriginal – 2% × (CPIold FPSQR – CPIof new FPSQR only) = 2.0 – 2% × (20 – 2) = 1.64 We can compute the CPI for the enhancement of all FP instructions the same way or by summing the FP and non-FP CPIs. Using the latter gives us: CPInew FP = (75% × 1.33) + (25% × 2.5) = 1.625 Since the CPI of the overall FP enhancement is slightly lower, its performance will be marginally better. Specifically, the speedup for the overall FP enhancement is Speedupnew FP = C-----P---U------t-i--m-----e---o--r-i--g--i-n---a--l CPU timenew FP = -II-C-C-----××-----CC----ll-o-o--c-c--kk-----cc--y-y--cc---ll--ee----××-----CC----PP---II--on---re-i-wg---i-nF--a-P-l = -C----P---I--o--r--i-g---i-n--a--l = --2---.-0---0--- = 1.23 CPInew FP 1.625 Happily, we obtained this same speedup using Amdahl’s law on page 46. It is often possible to measure the constituent parts of the processor performance equation. This is a key advantage of using the processor performance equation versus Amdahl’s law in the previous example. In particular, it may be difficult to measure things such as the fraction of execution time for which a set of instructions is responsible. In practice, this would probably be computed by summing the product of the instruction count and the CPI for each of the instructions in the set. Since the starting point is often individual instruction count and CPI measurements, the processor performance equation is incredibly useful. To use the processor performance equation as a design tool, we need to be able to measure the various factors. For an existing processor, it is easy to obtain the execution time by measurement, and we know the default clock speed. The challenge lies in discovering the instruction count or the CPI. Most new processors include counters for both instructions executed and for clock cycles. By periodically monitoring these counters, it is also possible to attach execution time and instruction count to segments of the code, which can be helpful to programmers trying to understand and tune the performance of an application. Often, a designer or programmer will want to understand performance at a more 52 ■ Chapter One Fundamentals of Quantitative Design and Analysis fine-grained level than what is available from the hardware counters. For example, they may want to know why the CPI is what it is. In such cases, simulation techniques used are like those for processors that are being designed. Techniques that help with energy efficiency, such as dynamic voltage frequency scaling and overclocking (see Section 1.5), make this equation harder to use, since the clock speed may vary while we measure the program. A simple approach is to turn off those features to make the results reproducible. Fortunately, as performance and energy efficiency are often highly correlated—taking less time to run a program generally saves energy—it’s probably safe to consider performance without worrying about the impact of DVFS or overclocking on the results. 1.10 Putting It All Together: Performance, Price, and Power In the “Putting It All Together” sections that appear near the end of every chapter, we provide real examples that use the principles in that chapter. In this section, we look at measures of performance and power-performance in small servers using the SPECpower benchmark. Figure 1.18 shows the three multiprocessor servers we are evaluating along with their price. To keep the price comparison fair, all are Dell PowerEdge servers. The first is the PowerEdge R710, which is based on the Intel Xeon X5670 microprocessor with a clock rate of 2.93 GHz. Unlike the Intel Core i7 in Chapters 2 through 5, which has 4 cores and an 8 MB L3 cache, this Intel chip has 6 cores and a 12 MB L3 cache, although the cores themselves are identical. We selected a two-socket system with 12 GB of ECC-protected 1333 MHz DDR3 DRAM. The next server is the PowerEdge R815, which is based on the AMD Opteron 6174 microprocessor. A chip has 6 cores and a 6 MB L3 cache, and it runs at 2.20 GHz, but AMD puts two of these chips into a single socket. Thus, a socket has 12 cores and two 6 MB L3 caches. Our second server has two sockets with 24 cores and 16 GB of ECC-protected 1333 MHz DDR3 DRAM, and our third server (also a PowerEdge R815) has four sockets with 48 cores and 32 GB of DRAM. All are running the IBM J9 JVM and the Microsoft Windows 2008 Server Enterprise x64 Edition operating system. Note that due to the forces of benchmarking (see Section 1.11), these are unusually configured servers. The systems in Figure 1.18 have little memory relative to the amount of computation, and just a tiny 50 GB solid-state disk. It is inexpensive to add cores if you don’t need to add commensurate increases in memory and storage! Rather than run statically linked C programs of SPEC CPU, SPECpower uses a more modern software stack written in Java. It is based on SPECjbb, and it represents the server side of business applications, with performance measured as the number transactions per second, called ssj_ops for server side Java operations per second. It exercises not only the processor of the server, as does SPEC 1.10 Putting It All Together: Performance, Price, and Power ■ 53 System 1 System 2 System 3 Component Base server Power supply Processor Clock rate Total cores Sockets Cores/socket DRAM Ethernet Inter. Disk Windows OS Total Max ssj_ops Max ssj_ops/$ Cost (% Cost) PowerEdge R710 $653 (7%) 570 W Xeon X5670 $3738 (40%) 2.93 GHz 12 2 6 12 GB $484 (5%) Dual 1-Gbit $199 (2%) 50 GB SSD $1279 (14%) $2999 (32%) $9352 (100%) 910,978 97 PowerEdge R815 1100 W Opteron 6174 2.20 GHz 24 2 12 16 GB Dual 1-Gbit 50 GB SSD 926,676 100 Cost (% Cost) $1437 (15%) $2679 (29%) $693 (7%) $199 (2%) $1279 (14%) $2999 (33%) $9286 (100%) Cost (% Cost) PowerEdge R815 $1437 (11%) 1100 W Opteron 6174 $5358 (42%) 2.20 GHz 48 4 12 32 GB $1386 (11%) Dual 1-Gbit $199 (2%) 50 GB SSD $1279 (10%) $2999 (24%) $12,658 (100%) 1,840,450 145 Figure 1.18 Three Dell PowerEdge servers being measured and their prices as of August 2010. We calculated the cost of the processors by subtracting the cost of a second processor. Similarly, we calculated the overall cost of memory by seeing what the cost of extra memory was. Hence, the base cost of the server is adjusted by removing the estimated cost of the default processor and memory. Chapter 5 describes how these multi-socket systems are connected together. CPU, but also the caches, memory system, and even the multiprocessor interconnection system. In addition, it exercises the Java Virtual Machine (JVM), including the JIT runtime compiler and garbage collector, as well as portions of the underlying operating system. As the last two rows of Figure 1.18 show, the performance and price-performance winner is the PowerEdge R815 with four sockets and 48 cores. It hits 1.8M ssj_ops, and the ssj_ops per dollar is highest at 145. Amazingly, the computer with the largest number of cores is the most cost effective. In second place is the two-socket R815 with 24 cores, and the R710 with 12 cores is in last place. While most benchmarks (and most computer architects) care only about performance of systems at peak load, computers rarely run at peak load. Indeed, Figure 6.2 in Chapter 6 shows the results of measuring the utilization of tens of thousands of servers over 6 months at Google, and less than 1% operate at an average utilization of 100%. The majority have an average utilization of between 10% and 50%. Thus, the SPECpower benchmark captures power as the target workload varies from its peak in 10% intervals all the way to 0%, which is called Active Idle. Figure 1.19 plots the ssj_ops (SSJ operations/second) per watt and the average power as the target load varies from 100% to 0%. The Intel R710 always has the lowest power and the best ssj_ops per watt across each target workload level. 54 ■ Chapter One Fundamentals of Quantitative Design and Analysis ssj_ops/watt Watts 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 815 AMD 48 core W 815 AMD 24 core W 550 710 Intel 12 core 815 AMD 24 core 500 815 AMD 48 core 450 400 350 710 Intel 12 core W 300 2000 250 200 1500 150 1000 100 500 50 0 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% Target workload 30% 20% 0 10% Active Idle Figure 1.19 Power-performance of the three servers in Figure 1.18. Ssj_ops/watt values are on the left axis, with the three columns associated with it, and watts are on the right axis, with the three lines associated with it. The horizontal axis shows the target workload, as it varies from 100% to Active Idle. The Intel-based R715 has the best ssj_ops/watt at each workload level, and it also consumes the lowest power at each level. One reason is the much larger power supply for the R815, at 1100 watts versus 570 in the R715. As Chapter 6 shows, power supply efficiency is very important in the overall power efficiency of a computer. Since watts = joules/second, this metric is proportional to SSJ operations per joule: s---s--j--_---o---p---e---r--a--t--i--o---n---s--/--s--e---c- = s---s--j--_---o---p---e---r--a--t--i--o---n---s--/--s--e---c- = s---s--j--_---o---p---e---r--a--t--i--o---n---s Watt Joule/sec Joule To calculate a single number to use to compare the power efficiency of systems, SPECpower uses: ¦ ssj_ops Overall ssj_ops/watt = ------------------------ ¦ power The overall ssj_ops/watt of the three servers is 3034 for the Intel R710, 2357 for the AMD dual-socket R815, and 2696 for the AMD quad-socket R815. Hence, 1.11 Fallacies and Pitfalls ■ 55 the Intel R710 has the best power-performance. Dividing by the price of the servers, the ssj_ops/watt/$1000 is 324 for the Intel R710, 254 for the dualsocket AMD R815, and 213 for the quad-socket MD R815. Thus, adding power reverses the results of the price-performance competition, and the price-power-performance trophy goes to Intel R710; the 48-core R815 comes in last place. 1.11 Fallacies and Pitfalls The purpose of this section, which will be found in every chapter, is to explain some commonly held misbeliefs or misconceptions that you should avoid. We call such misbeliefs fallacies. When discussing a fallacy, we try to give a counterexample. We also discuss pitfalls—easily made mistakes. Often pitfalls are generalizations of principles that are true in a limited context. The purpose of these sections is to help you avoid making these errors in computers that you design. Fallacy Multiprocessors are a silver bullet. The switch to multiple processors per chip around 2005 did not come from some breakthrough that dramatically simplified parallel programming or made it easy to build multicore computers. The change occurred because there was no other option due to the ILP walls and power walls. Multiple processors per chip do not guarantee lower power; it’s certainly possible to design a multicore chip that uses more power. The potential is just that it’s possible to continue to improve performance by replacing a high-clock-rate, inefficient core with several lower-clock-rate, efficient cores. As technology improves to shrink transistors, this can shrink both capacitance and the supply voltage a bit so that we can get a modest increase in the number of cores per generation. For example, for the last few years Intel has been adding two cores per generation. As we shall see in Chapters 4 and 5, performance is now a programmer’s burden. The La-Z-Boy programmer era of relying on hardware designers to make their programs go faster without lifting a finger is officially over. If programmers want their programs to go faster with each generation, they must make their programs more parallel. The popular version of Moore’s law—increasing performance with each generation of technology—is now up to programmers. Pitfall Falling prey to Amdahl’s heartbreaking law. Virtually every practicing computer architect knows Amdahl’s law. Despite this, we almost all occasionally expend tremendous effort optimizing some feature before we measure its usage. Only when the overall speedup is disappointing do we recall that we should have measured first before we spent so much effort enhancing it! 56 ■ Chapter One Fundamentals of Quantitative Design and Analysis Pitfall A single point of failure. The calculations of reliability improvement using Amdahl’s law on page 48 show that dependability is no stronger than the weakest link in a chain. No matter how much more dependable we make the power supplies, as we did in our example, the single fan will limit the reliability of the disk subsystem. This Amdahl’s law observation led to a rule of thumb for fault-tolerant systems to make sure that every component was redundant so that no single component failure could bring down the whole system. Chapter 6 shows how a software layer avoids single points of failure inside warehouse-scale computers. Fallacy Hardware enhancements that increase performance improve energy efficiency or are at worst energy neutral. Esmaeilzadeh et al. [2011] measured SPEC2006 on just one core of a 2.67 GHz Intel Core i7 using Turbo mode (Section 1.5). Performance increased by a factor of 1.07 when the clock rate increased to 2.94 GHz (or a factor of 1.10), but the i7 used a factor of 1.37 more joules and a factor of 1.47 more watt-hours! Fallacy Benchmarks remain valid indefinitely. Several factors influence the usefulness of a benchmark as a predictor of real performance, and some change over time. A big factor influencing the usefulness of a benchmark is its ability to resist “benchmark engineering” or “benchmarketing.” Once a benchmark becomes standardized and popular, there is tremendous pressure to improve performance by targeted optimizations or by aggressive interpretation of the rules for running the benchmark. Small kernels or programs that spend their time in a small amount of code are particularly vulnerable. For example, despite the best intentions, the initial SPEC89 benchmark suite included a small kernel, called matrix300, which consisted of eight different 300 × 300 matrix multiplications. In this kernel, 99% of the execution time was in a single line (see SPEC [1989]). When an IBM compiler optimized this inner loop (using an idea called blocking, discussed in Chapters 2 and 4), performance improved by a factor of 9 over a prior version of the compiler! This benchmark tested compiler tuning and was not, of course, a good indication of overall performance, nor of the typical value of this particular optimization. Over a long period, these changes may make even a well-chosen benchmark obsolete; Gcc is the lone survivor from SPEC89. Figure 1.16 on page 39 lists the status of all 70 benchmarks from the various SPEC releases. Amazingly, almost 70% of all programs from SPEC2000 or earlier were dropped from the next release. Fallacy The rated mean time to failure of disks is 1,200,000 hours or almost 140 years, so disks practically never fail. The current marketing practices of disk manufacturers can mislead users. How is such an MTTF calculated? Early in the process, manufacturers will put thousands 1.11 Fallacies and Pitfalls ■ 57 of disks in a room, run them for a few months, and count the number that fail. They compute MTTF as the total number of hours that the disks worked cumulatively divided by the number that failed. One problem is that this number far exceeds the lifetime of a disk, which is commonly assumed to be 5 years or 43,800 hours. For this large MTTF to make some sense, disk manufacturers argue that the model corresponds to a user who buys a disk and then keeps replacing the disk every 5 years—the planned lifetime of the disk. The claim is that if many customers (and their great-grandchildren) did this for the next century, on average they would replace a disk 27 times before a failure, or about 140 years. A more useful measure would be percentage of disks that fail. Assume 1000 disks with a 1,000,000-hour MTTF and that the disks are used 24 hours a day. If you replaced failed disks with a new one having the same reliability characteristics, the number that would fail in a year (8760 hours) is Failed disks = N-----u---m----b---e---r----o---f---d---Mi--s--k-T--s--T--×-F----T---i--m-----e----p---e---r--i-o---d-- = 1---0---0---10---,-0-d--0-i--s0--k-,--0s---0-×--0---8--h-7--o-6--u-0--r--sh--/-o-f--a-u-i-r-l-s-u--/-rd--e--r--i-v---e- = 9 Stated alternatively, 0.9% would fail per year, or 4.4% over a 5-year lifetime. Moreover, those high numbers are quoted assuming limited ranges of temper- ature and vibration; if they are exceeded, then all bets are off. A survey of disk drives in real environments [Gray and van Ingen 2005] found that 3% to 7% of drives failed per year, for an MTTF of about 125,000 to 300,000 hours. An even larger study found annual disk failure rates of 2% to 10% [Pinheiro, Weber, and Barroso 2007]. Hence, the real-world MTTF is about 2 to 10 times worse than the manufacturer’s MTTF. Fallacy Peak performance tracks observed performance. The only universally true definition of peak performance is “the performance level a computer is guaranteed not to exceed.” Figure 1.20 shows the percentage of peak performance for four programs on four multiprocessors. It varies from 5% to 58%. Since the gap is so large and can vary significantly by benchmark, peak performance is not generally useful in predicting observed performance. Pitfall Fault detection can lower availability. This apparently ironic pitfall is because computer hardware has a fair amount of state that may not always be critical to proper operation. For example, it is not fatal if an error occurs in a branch predictor, as only performance may suffer. In processors that try to aggressively exploit instruction-level parallelism, not all the operations are needed for correct execution of the program. Mukherjee et al. [2003] found that less than 30% of the operations were potentially on the critical path for the SPEC2000 benchmarks running on an Itanium 2. The same observation is true about programs. If a register is “dead” in a program—that is, the program will write it before it is read again—then errors do 58 ■ Chapter One Fundamentals of Quantitative Design and Analysis 70% 60% 50% 58% 54% 54% Power4 Itanium 2 NEC Earth Simulator Cray X1 Percentage of peak performance 40% 30% 33% 34% 34% 20% 20% 10% 0% Paratec plasma physics 10% 6% LBMHD materials science 11% 7% 6% Cactus astrophysics 16% 11% 6% 5% GTC magnetic fusion Figure 1.20 Percentage of peak performance for four programs on four multiprocessors scaled to 64 processors. The Earth Simulator and X1 are vector processors (see Chapter 4 and Appendix G). Not only did they deliver a higher fraction of peak performance, but they also had the highest peak performance and the lowest clock rates. Except for the Paratec program, the Power 4 and Itanium 2 systems delivered between 5% and 10% of their peak. From Oliker et al. [2004]. not matter. If you were to crash the program upon detection of a transient fault in a dead register, it would lower availability unnecessarily. Sun Microsystems lived this pitfall in 2000 with an L2 cache that included parity, but not error correction, in its Sun E3000 to Sun E10000 systems. The SRAMs they used to build the caches had intermittent faults, which parity detected. If the data in the cache were not modified, the processor simply reread the data from the cache. Since the designers did not protect the cache with ECC (error-correcting code), the operating system had no choice but to report an error to dirty data and crash the program. Field engineers found no problems on inspection in more than 90% of the cases. To reduce the frequency of such errors, Sun modified the Solaris operating system to “scrub” the cache by having a process that proactively writes dirty data to memory. Since the processor chips did not have enough pins to add ECC, the only hardware option for dirty data was to duplicate the external cache, using the copy without the parity error to correct the error. The pitfall is in detecting faults without providing a mechanism to correct them. These engineers are unlikely to design another computer without ECC on external caches. 1.12 Concluding Remarks ■ 59 1.12 Concluding Remarks This chapter has introduced a number of concepts and provided a quantitative framework that we will expand upon throughout the book. Starting with this edition, energy efficiency is the new companion to performance. In Chapter 2, we start with the all-important area of memory system design. We will examine a wide range of techniques that conspire to make memory look infinitely large while still being as fast as possible. (Appendix B provides introductory material on caches for readers without much experience and background in them.) As in later chapters, we will see that hardware–software cooperation has become a key to high-performance memory systems, just as it has to highperformance pipelines. This chapter also covers virtual machines, an increasingly important technique for protection. In Chapter 3, we look at instruction-level parallelism (ILP), of which pipelining is the simplest and most common form. Exploiting ILP is one of the most important techniques for building high-speed uniprocessors. Chapter 3 begins with an extensive discussion of basic concepts that will prepare you for the wide range of ideas examined in both chapters. Chapter 3 uses examples that span about 40 years, drawing from one of the first supercomputers (IBM 360/91) to the fastest processors in the market in 2011. It emphasizes what is called the dynamic or run time approach to exploiting ILP. It also talks about the limits to ILP ideas and introduces multithreading, which is further developed in both Chapters 4 and 5. Appendix C provides introductory material on pipelining for readers without much experience and background in pipelining. (We expect it to be a review for many readers, including those of our introductory text, Computer Organization and Design: The Hardware/Software Interface.) Chapter 4 is new to this edition, and it explains three ways to exploit datalevel parallelism. The classic and oldest approach is vector architecture, and we start there to lay down the principles of SIMD design. (Appendix G goes into greater depth on vector architectures.) We next explain the SIMD instruction set extensions found in most desktop microprocessors today. The third piece is an indepth explanation of how modern graphics processing units (GPUs) work. Most GPU descriptions are written from the programmer’s perspective, which usually hides how the computer really works. This section explains GPUs from an insider’s perspective, including a mapping between GPU jargon and more traditional architecture terms. Chapter 5 focuses on the issue of achieving higher performance using multiple processors, or multiprocessors. Instead of using parallelism to overlap individual instructions, multiprocessing uses parallelism to allow multiple instruction streams to be executed simultaneously on different processors. Our focus is on the dominant form of multiprocessors, shared-memory multiprocessors, though we introduce other types as well and discuss the broad issues that arise in any multiprocessor. Here again, we explore a variety of techniques, focusing on the important ideas first introduced in the 1980s and 1990s. 60 ■ Chapter One Fundamentals of Quantitative Design and Analysis Chapter 6 is also new to this edition. We introduce clusters and then go into depth on warehouse-scale computers (WSCs), which computer architects help design. The designers of WSCs are the professional descendents of the pioneers of supercomputers such as Seymour Cray in that they are designing extreme computers. They contain tens of thousands of servers, and the equipment and building that holds them cost nearly $200 M. The concerns of price-performance and energy efficiency of the earlier chapters applies to WSCs, as does the quantitative approach to making decisions. This book comes with an abundance of material online (see Preface for more details), both to reduce cost and to introduce readers to a variety of advanced topics. Figure 1.21 shows them all. Appendices A, B, and C, which appear in the book, will be review for many readers. In Appendix D, we move away from a processor-centric view and discuss issues in storage systems. We apply a similar quantitative approach, but one based on observations of system behavior and using an end-to-end approach to performance analysis. It addresses the important issue of how to efficiently store and retrieve data using primarily lower-cost magnetic storage technologies. Our focus is on examining the performance of disk storage systems for typical I/Ointensive workloads, like the OLTP benchmarks we saw in this chapter. We extensively explore advanced topics in RAID-based systems, which use redundant disks to achieve both high performance and high availability. Finally, the chapter introduces queuing theory, which gives a basis for trading off utilization and latency. Appendix E applies an embedded computing perspective to the ideas of each of the chapters and early appendices. Appendix F explores the topic of system interconnect broadly, including wide area and system area networks that allow computers to communicate. Appendix A B C D E F G H I J K L Title Instruction Set Principles Review of Memory Hierarchies Pipelining: Basic and Intermediate Concepts Storage Systems Embedded Systems Interconnection Networks Vector Processors in More Depth Hardware and Software for VLIW and EPIC Large-Scale Multiprocessors and Scientific Applications Computer Arithmetic Survey of Instruction Set Architectures Historical Perspectives and References Figure 1.21 List of appendices. Case Studies and Exercises by Diana Franklin ■ 61 Appendix H reviews VLIW hardware and software, which, in contrast, are less popular than when EPIC appeared on the scene just before the last edition. Appendix I describes large-scale multiprocessors for use in high-performance computing. Appendix J is the only appendix that remains from the first edition, and it covers computer arithmetic. Appendix K provides a survey of instruction architectures, including the 80x86, the IBM 360, the VAX, and many RISC architectures, including ARM, MIPS, Power, and SPARC. We describe Appendix L below. 1.13 Historical Perspectives and References Appendix L (available online) includes historical perspectives on the key ideas presented in each of the chapters in this text. These historical perspective sections allow us to trace the development of an idea through a series of machines or describe significant projects. If you’re interested in examining the initial development of an idea or machine or interested in further reading, references are provided at the end of each history. For this chapter, see Section L.2, The Early Development of Computers, for a discussion on the early development of digital computers and performance measurement methodologies. As you read the historical material, you’ll soon come to realize that one of the important benefits of the youth of computing, compared to many other engineering fields, is that many of the pioneers are still alive—we can learn the history by simply asking them! Case Studies and Exercises by Diana Franklin Case Study 1: Chip Fabrication Cost Concepts illustrated by this case study ■ Fabrication Cost ■ Fabrication Yield ■ Defect Tolerance through Redundancy There are many factors involved in the price of a computer chip. New, smaller technology gives a boost in performance and a drop in required chip area. In the smaller technology, one can either keep the small area or place more hardware on the chip in order to get more functionality. In this case study, we explore how different design decisions involving fabrication technology, area, and redundancy affect the cost of chips. 62 ■ Chapter One Fundamentals of Quantitative Design and Analysis Chip IBM Power5 Sun Niagara AMD Opteron Die size (mm2) 389 380 199 Estimated defect Manufacturing rate (per cm2) size (nm) .30 130 .75 90 .75 90 Transistors (millions) 276 279 233 Figure 1.22 Manufacturing cost factors for several modern processors. 1.1 [10/10] <1.6> Figure 1.22 gives the relevant chip statistics that influence the cost of several current chips. In the next few exercises, you will be exploring the effect of different possible design decisions for the IBM Power5. a. [10] <1.6> What is the yield for the IBM Power5? b. [10] <1.6> Why does the IBM Power5 have a lower defect rate than the Niagara and Opteron? 1.2 [20/20/20/20] <1.6> It costs $1 billion to build a new fabrication facility. You will be selling a range of chips from that factory, and you need to decide how much capacity to dedicate to each chip. Your Woods chip will be 150 mm2 and will make a profit of $20 per defect-free chip. Your Markon chip will be 250 mm2 and will make a profit of $25 per defect-free chip. Your fabrication facility will be identical to that for the Power5. Each wafer has a 300 mm diameter. a. [20] <1.6> How much profit do you make on each wafer of Woods chip? b. [20] <1.6> How much profit do you make on each wafer of Markon chip? c. [20] <1.6> Which chip should you produce in this facility? d. [20] <1.6> What is the profit on each new Power5 chip? If your demand is 50,000 Woods chips per month and 25,000 Markon chips per month, and your facility can fabricate 150 wafers a month, how many wafers should you make of each chip? 1.3 [20/20] <1.6> Your colleague at AMD suggests that, since the yield is so poor, you might make chips more cheaply if you placed an extra core on the die and only threw out chips on which both processors had failed. We will solve this exercise by viewing the yield as a probability of no defects occurring in a certain area given the defect rate. Calculate probabilities based on each Opteron core separately (this may not be entirely accurate, since the yield equation is based on empirical evidence rather than a mathematical calculation relating the probabilities of finding errors in different portions of the chip). a. [20] <1.6> What is the probability that a defect will occur on no more than one of the two processor cores? b. [20] <1.6> If the old chip cost $20 dollars per chip, what will the cost be of the new chip, taking into account the new area and yield? Case Studies and Exercises by Diana Franklin ■ 63 Case Study 2: Power Consumption in Computer Systems Concepts illustrated by this case study ■ Amdahl’s Law ■ Redundancy ■ MTTF ■ Power Consumption Power consumption in modern systems is dependent on a variety of factors, including the chip clock frequency, efficiency, disk drive speed, disk drive utilization, and DRAM. The following exercises explore the impact on power that different design decisions and use scenarios have. 1.4 [20/10/20] <1.5> Figure 1.23 presents the power consumption of several computer system components. In this exercise, we will explore how the hard drive affects power consumption for the system. a. [20] <1.5> Assuming the maximum load for each component, and a power supply efficiency of 80%, what wattage must the server’s power supply deliver to a system with an Intel Pentium 4 chip, 2 GB 240-pin Kingston DRAM, and one 7200 rpm hard drive? b. [10] <1.5> How much power will the 7200 rpm disk drive consume if it is idle roughly 60% of the time? c. [20] <1.5> Given that the time to read data off a 7200 rpm disk drive will be roughly 75% of a 5400 rpm disk, at what idle time of the 7200 rpm disk will the power consumption be equal, on average, for the two disks? 1.5 [10/10/20] <1.5> One critical factor in powering a server farm is cooling. If heat is not removed from the computer efficiently, the fans will blow hot air back onto the computer, not cold air. We will look at how different design decisions affect the necessary cooling, and thus the price, of a system. Use Figure 1.23 for your power calculations. Component type Product Performance Power Processor DRAM Hard drive Sun Niagara 8-core 1.2 GHz Intel Pentium 4 2 GHz Kingston X64C3AD2 1 GB 184-pin Kingston D2N3 1 GB 240-pin DiamondMax 16 5400 rpm DiamondMax 9 7200 rpm 72–79 W peak 48.9–66 W 3.7 W 2.3 W 7.0 W read/seek, 2.9 W idle 7.9 W read/seek, 4.0 W idle Figure 1.23 Power consumption of several computer components. 64 ■ Chapter One Fundamentals of Quantitative Design and Analysis a. [10] <1.5> A cooling door for a rack costs $4000 and dissipates 14 KW (into the room; additional cost is required to get it out of the room). How many servers with an Intel Pentium 4 processor, 1 GB 240-pin DRAM, and a single 7200 rpm hard drive can you cool with one cooling door? b. [10] <1.5> You are considering providing fault tolerance for your hard drive. RAID 1 doubles the number of disks (see Chapter 6). Now how many systems can you place on a single rack with a single cooler? c. [20] <1.5> Typical server farms can dissipate a maximum of 200 W per square foot. Given that a server rack requires 11 square feet (including front and back clearance), how many servers from part (a) can be placed on a single rack, and how many cooling doors are required? 1.6 [Discussion] <1.8> Figure 1.24 gives a comparison of power and performance for several benchmarks comparing two servers: Sun Fire T2000 (which uses Niagara) and IBM x346 (using Intel Xeon processors). This information was reported on a Sun Web site. There are two pieces of information reported: power and speed on two benchmarks. For the results shown, the Sun Fire T2000 is clearly superior. What other factors might be important and thus cause someone to choose the IBM x346 if it were superior in those areas? 1.7 [20/20/20/20] <1.6, 1.9> Your company’s internal studies show that a single-core system is sufficient for the demand on your processing power; however, you are exploring whether you could save power by using two cores. a. [20] <1.9> Assume your application is 80% parallelizable. By how much could you decrease the frequency and get the same performance? b. [20] <1.6> Assume that the voltage may be decreased linearly with the frequency. Using the equation in Section 1.5, how much dynamic power would the dual-core system require as compared to the single-core system? c. [20] <1.6, 1.9> Now assume the voltage may not decrease below 25% of the original voltage. This voltage is referred to as the voltage floor, and any voltage lower than that will lose the state. What percent of parallelization gives you a voltage at the voltage floor? d. [20] <1.6, 1.9> Using the equation in Section 1.5, how much dynamic power would the dual-core system require as compared to the single-core system when taking into account the voltage floor? Power (watts) SPECjbb (operations/sec) Power (watts) SPECWeb (composite) Sun Fire T2000 298 63,378 330 14,001 IBM x346 438 39,985 438 4348 Figure 1.24 Sun power/performance comparison as selectively reported by Sun. Case Studies and Exercises by Diana Franklin ■ 65 Exercises 1.8 [10/15/15/10/10] <1.4, 1.5> One challenge for architects is that the design created today will require several years of implementation, verification, and testing before appearing on the market. This means that the architect must project what the technology will be like several years in advance. Sometimes, this is difficult to do. a. [10] <1.4> According to the trend in device scaling observed by Moore’s law, the number of transistors on a chip in 2015 should be how many times the number in 2005? b. [15] <1.5> The increase in clock rates once mirrored this trend. Had clock rates continued to climb at the same rate as in the 1990s, approximately how fast would clock rates be in 2015? c. [15] <1.5> At the current rate of increase, what are the clock rates now projected to be in 2015? d. [10] <1.4> What has limited the rate of growth of the clock rate, and what are architects doing with the extra transistors now to increase performance? e. [10] <1.4> The rate of growth for DRAM capacity has also slowed down. For 20 years, DRAM capacity improved by 60% each year. That rate dropped to 40% each year and now improvement is 25 to 40% per year. If this trend continues, what will be the approximate rate of growth for DRAM capacity by 2020? 1.9 [10/10] <1.5> You are designing a system for a real-time application in which specific deadlines must be met. Finishing the computation faster gains nothing. You find that your system can execute the necessary code, in the worst case, twice as fast as necessary. a. [10] <1.5> How much energy do you save if you execute at the current speed and turn off the system when the computation is complete? b. [10] <1.5> How much energy do you save if you set the voltage and frequency to be half as much? 1.10 [10/10/20/20] <1.5> Server farms such as Google and Yahoo! provide enough compute capacity for the highest request rate of the day. Imagine that most of the time these servers operate at only 60% capacity. Assume further that the power does not scale linearly with the load; that is, when the servers are operating at 60% capacity, they consume 90% of maximum power. The servers could be turned off, but they would take too long to restart in response to more load. A new system has been proposed that allows for a quick restart but requires 20% of the maximum power while in this “barely alive” state. a. [10] <1.5> How much power savings would be achieved by turning off 60% of the servers? b. [10] <1.5> How much power savings would be achieved by placing 60% of the servers in the “barely alive” state? 66 ■ Chapter One Fundamentals of Quantitative Design and Analysis c. [20] <1.5> How much power savings would be achieved by reducing the voltage by 20% and frequency by 40%? d. [20] <1.5> How much power savings would be achieved by placing 30% of the servers in the “barely alive” state and 30% off? 1.11 [10/10/20] <1.7> Availability is the most important consideration for designing servers, followed closely by scalability and throughput. a. [10] <1.7> We have a single processor with a failures in time (FIT) of 100. What is the mean time to failure (MTTF) for this system? b. [10] <1.7> If it takes 1 day to get the system running again, what is the availability of the system? c. [20] <1.7> Imagine that the government, to cut costs, is going to build a supercomputer out of inexpensive computers rather than expensive, reliable computers. What is the MTTF for a system with 1000 processors? Assume that if one fails, they all fail. 1.12 [20/20/20] <1.1, 1.2, 1.7> In a server farm such as that used by Amazon or eBay, a single failure does not cause the entire system to crash. Instead, it will reduce the number of requests that can be satisfied at any one time. a. [20] <1.7> If a company has 10,000 computers, each with a MTTF of 35 days, and it experiences catastrophic failure only if 1/3 of the computers fail, what is the MTTF for the system? b. [20] <1.1, 1.7> If it costs an extra $1000, per computer, to double the MTTF, would this be a good business decision? Show your work. c. [20] <1.2> Figure 1.3 shows, on average, the cost of downtimes, assuming that the cost is equal at all times of the year. For retailers, however, the Christmas season is the most profitable (and therefore the most costly time to lose sales). If a catalog sales center has twice as much traffic in the fourth quarter as every other quarter, what is the average cost of downtime per hour during the fourth quarter and the rest of the year? 1.13 [10/20/20] <1.9> Your company is trying to choose between purchasing the Opteron or Itanium 2. You have analyzed your company’s applications, and 60% of the time it will be running applications similar to wupwise, 20% of the time applications similar to ammp, and 20% of the time applications similar to apsi. a. [10] If you were choosing just based on overall SPEC performance, which would you choose and why? b. [20] What is the weighted average of execution time ratios for this mix of applications for the Opteron and Itanium 2? c. [20] What is the speedup of the Opteron over the Itanium 2? 1.14 [20/10/10/10/15] <1.9> In this exercise, assume that we are considering enhancing a machine by adding vector hardware to it. When a computation is run in vector mode on the vector hardware, it is 10 times faster than the normal mode of execution. We call the percentage of time that could be spent using vector mode Case Studies and Exercises by Diana Franklin ■ 67 the percentage of vectorization. Vectors are discussed in Chapter 4, but you don’t need to know anything about how they work to answer this question! a. [20] <1.9> Draw a graph that plots the speedup as a percentage of the computation performed in vector mode. Label the y-axis “Net speedup” and label the x-axis “Percent vectorization.” b. [10] <1.9> What percentage of vectorization is needed to achieve a speedup of 2? c. [10] <1.9> What percentage of the computation run time is spent in vector mode if a speedup of 2 is achieved? d. [10] <1.9> What percentage of vectorization is needed to achieve one-half the maximum speedup attainable from using vector mode? e. [15] <1.9> Suppose you have measured the percentage of vectorization of the program to be 70%. The hardware design group estimates it can speed up the vector hardware even more with significant additional investment. You wonder whether the compiler crew could increase the percentage of vectorization, instead. What percentage of vectorization would the compiler team need to achieve in order to equal an addition 2× speedup in the vector unit (beyond the initial 10×)? 1.15 [15/10] <1.9> Assume that we make an enhancement to a computer that improves some mode of execution by a factor of 10. Enhanced mode is used 50% of the time, measured as a percentage of the execution time when the enhanced mode is in use. Recall that Amdahl’s law depends on the fraction of the original, unenhanced execution time that could make use of enhanced mode. Thus, we cannot directly use this 50% measurement to compute speedup with Amdahl’s law. a. [15] <1.9> What is the speedup we have obtained from fast mode? b. [10] <1.9> What percentage of the original execution time has been converted to fast mode? 1.16 [20/20/15] <1.9> When making changes to optimize part of a processor, it is often the case that speeding up one type of instruction comes at the cost of slowing down something else. For example, if we put in a complicated fast floatingpoint unit, that takes space, and something might have to be moved farther away from the middle to accommodate it, adding an extra cycle in delay to reach that unit. The basic Amdahl’s law equation does not take into account this trade-off. a. [20] <1.9> If the new fast floating-point unit speeds up floating-point operations by, on average, 2×, and floating-point operations take 20% of the original program’s execution time, what is the overall speedup (ignoring the penalty to any other instructions)? b. [20] <1.9> Now assume that speeding up the floating-point unit slowed down data cache accesses, resulting in a 1.5× slowdown (or 2/3 speedup). Data cache accesses consume 10% of the execution time. What is the overall speedup now? 68 ■ Chapter One Fundamentals of Quantitative Design and Analysis c. [15] <1.9> After implementing the new floating-point operations, what percentage of execution time is spent on floating-point operations? What percentage is spent on data cache accesses? 1.17 [10/10/20/20] <1.10> Your company has just bought a new Intel Core i5 dualcore processor, and you have been tasked with optimizing your software for this processor. You will run two applications on this dual core, but the resource requirements are not equal. The first application requires 80% of the resources, and the other only 20% of the resources. Assume that when you parallelize a portion of the program, the speedup for that portion is 2. a. [10] <1.10> Given that 40% of the first application is parallelizable, how much speedup would you achieve with that application if run in isolation? b. [10] <1.10> Given that 99% of the second application is parallelizable, how much speedup would this application observe if run in isolation? c. [20] <1.10> Given that 40% of the first application is parallelizable, how much overall system speedup would you observe if you parallelized it? d. [20] <1.10> Given that 99% of the second application is parallelizable, how much overall system speedup would you observe if you parallelized it? 1.18 [10/20/20/20/25] <1.10> When parallelizing an application, the ideal speedup is speeding up by the number of processors. This is limited by two things: percentage of the application that can be parallelized and the cost of communication. Amdahl’s law takes into account the former but not the latter. a. [10] <1.10> What is the speedup with N processors if 80% of the application is parallelizable, ignoring the cost of communication? b. [20] <1.10> What is the speedup with 8 processors if, for every processor added, the communication overhead is 0.5% of the original execution time. c. [20] <1.10> What is the speedup with 8 processors if, for every time the number of processors is doubled, the communication overhead is increased by 0.5% of the original execution time? d. [20] <1.10> What is the speedup with N processors if, for every time the number of processors is doubled, the communication overhead is increased by 0.5% of the original execution time? e. [25] <1.10> Write the general equation that solves this question: What is the number of processors with the highest speedup in an application in which P% of the original execution time is parallelizable, and, for every time the number of processors is doubled, the communication is increased by 0.5% of the original execution time? This page intentionally left blank 2.1 Introduction 72 2.2 Ten Advanced Optimizations of Cache Performance 78 2.3 Memory Technology and Optimizations 96 2.4 Protection: Virtual Memory and Virtual Machines 105 2.5 Crosscutting Issues: The Design of Memory Hierarchies 112 2.6 Putting It All Together: Memory Hierachies in the ARM Cortex-A8 and Intel Core i7 113 2.7 Fallacies and Pitfalls 125 2.8 Concluding Remarks: Looking Ahead 129 2.9 Historical Perspective and References 131 Case Studies and Exercises by Norman P. Jouppi, Naveen Muralimanohar, and Sheng Li 131 2 Memory Hierarchy Design 1 Ideally one would desire an indefinitely large memory capacity such that any particular … word would be immediately available. … We are … forced to recognize the possibility of constructing a hierarchy of memories, each of which has greater capacity than the preceding but which is less quickly accessible. A. W. Burks, H. H. Goldstine, and J. von Neumann Preliminary Discussion of the Logical Design of an Electronic Computing Instrument (1946) Computer Architecture. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-383872-8.00003-3 © 2012 Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved. 72 ■ Chapter Two Memory Hierarchy Design © Hennessy, John L.; Patterson, David A., Oct 07, 2011, Computer Architecture : A Quantitative Approach Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington, ISBN: 9780123838735 2.1 Introduction Computer pioneers correctly predicted that programmers would want unlimited amounts of fast memory. An economical solution to that desire is a memory hierarchy, which takes advantage of locality and trade-offs in the cost-performance of memory technologies. The principle of locality, presented in the first chapter, says that most programs do not access all code or data uniformly. Locality occurs in time (temporal locality) and in space (spatial locality). This principle, plus the guideline that for a given implementation technology and power budget smaller hardware can be made faster, led to hierarchies based on memories of different speeds and sizes. Figure 2.1 shows a multilevel memory hierarchy, including typical sizes and speeds of access. Since fast memory is expensive, a memory hierarchy is organized into several levels—each smaller, faster, and more expensive per byte than the next lower level, which is farther from the processor. The goal is to provide a memory system with cost per byte almost as low as the cheapest level of memory and speed almost as fast as the fastest level. In most cases (but not all), the data contained in a lower level are a superset of the next higher level. This property, called the inclusion property, is always required for the lowest level of the hierarchy, which consists of main memory in the case of caches and disk memory in the case of virtual memory. CPU Registers Register reference Size: 1000 bytes Speed: 300 ps L1 L2 L3 C C C Memory a a c c a bus c Memory h h h e e e Level 1 Cache reference 64 KB 1 ns Level 2 Cache reference Level 3 Cache reference Memory reference 256 KB 3–10 ns 2 – 4 MB 10 – 20 ns 4 –16 GB 50 –100 ns (a) Memory hierarchy for server I/O bus Disk storage Disk memory reference 4 –16 TB 5 –10 ms CPU Registers Register reference Size: 500 bytes Speed: 500 ps L1 L2 C C Memory a c a bus c Memory h h e e Level 1 Cache reference Level 2 Cache reference Memory reference 64 KB 2 ns 256 KB 10 – 20 ns 256 – 512 MB 50 –100 ns (b) Memory hierarchy for a personal mobile device Storage Flash memory reference 4 – 8 GB 25 – 50 us Figure 2.1 The levels in a typical memory hierarchy in a server computer shown on top (a) and in a personal mobile device (PMD) on the bottom (b). As we move farther away from the processor, the memory in the level below becomes slower and larger. Note that the time units change by a factor of 109—from picoseconds to milliseconds—and that the size units change by a factor of 1012—from bytes to terabytes. The PMD has a slower clock rate and smaller caches and main memory. A key difference is that servers and desktops use disk storage as the lowest level in the hierarchy while PMDs use Flash, which is built from EEPROM technology. 2.1 Introduction ■ 73 The importance of the memory hierarchy has increased with advances in performance of processors. Figure 2.2 plots single processor performance projections against the historical performance improvement in time to access main memory. The processor line shows the increase in memory requests per second on average (i.e., the inverse of the latency between memory references), while the memory line shows the increase in DRAM accesses per second (i.e., the inverse of the DRAM access latency). The situation in a uniprocessor is actually somewhat worse, since the peak memory access rate is faster than the average rate, which is what is plotted. More recently, high-end processors have moved to multiple cores, further increasing the bandwidth requirements versus single cores. In fact, the aggregate peak bandwidth essentially grows as the numbers of cores grows. A modern highend processor such as the Intel Core i7 can generate two data memory references per core each clock cycle; with four cores and a 3.2 GHz clock rate, the i7 can generate a peak of 25.6 billion 64-bit data memory references per second, in addition to a peak instruction demand of about 12.8 billion 128-bit instruction references; this is a total peak bandwidth of 409.6 GB/sec! This incredible bandwidth is achieved by multiporting and pipelining the caches; by the use of multiple levels of caches, using separate first- and sometimes second-level caches per core; and by using a separate instruction and data cache at the first level. In contrast, the peak bandwidth to DRAM main memory is only 6% of this (25 GB/sec). 100,000 10,000 Performance 1000 100 Processor 10 Memory 1 1980 1985 1990 1995 Year 2000 2005 2010 Figure 2.2 Starting with 1980 performance as a baseline, the gap in performance, measured as the difference in the time between processor memory requests (for a single processor or core) and the latency of a DRAM access, is plotted over time. Note that the vertical axis must be on a logarithmic scale to record the size of the processor–DRAM performance gap. The memory baseline is 64 KB DRAM in 1980, with a 1.07 per year performance improvement in latency (see Figure 2.13 on page 99). The processor line assumes a 1.25 improvement per year until 1986, a 1.52 improvement until 2000, a 1.20 improvement between 2000 and 2005, and no change in processor performance (on a per-core basis) between 2005 and 2010; see Figure 1.1 in Chapter 1. 74 ■ Chapter Two Memory Hierarchy Design Traditionally, designers of memory hierarchies focused on optimizing average memory access time, which is determined by the cache access time, miss rate, and miss penalty. More recently, however, power has become a major consideration. In high-end microprocessors, there may be 10 MB or more of on-chip cache, and a large second- or third-level cache will consume significant power both as leakage when not operating (called static power) and as active power, as when performing a read or write (called dynamic power), as described in Section 2.3. The problem is even more acute in processors in PMDs where the CPU is less aggressive and the power budget may be 20 to 50 times smaller. In such cases, the caches can account for 25% to 50% of the total power consumption. Thus, more designs must consider both performance and power trade-offs, and we will examine both in this chapter. Basics of Memory Hierarchies: A Quick Review The increasing size and thus importance of this gap led to the migration of the basics of memory hierarchy into undergraduate courses in computer architecture, and even to courses in operating systems and compilers. Thus, we’ll start with a quick review of caches and their operation. The bulk of the chapter, however, describes more advanced innovations that attack the processor–memory performance gap. When a word is not found in the cache, the word must be fetched from a lower level in the hierarchy (which may be another cache or the main memory) and placed in the cache before continuing. Multiple words, called a block (or line), are moved for efficiency reasons, and because they are likely to be needed soon due to spatial locality. Each cache block includes a tag to indicate which memory address it corresponds to. A key design decision is where blocks (or lines) can be placed in a cache. The most popular scheme is set associative, where a set is a group of blocks in the cache. A block is first mapped onto a set, and then the block can be placed anywhere within that set. Finding a block consists of first mapping the block address to the set and then searching the set—usually in parallel—to find the block. The set is chosen by the address of the data: (Block address) MOD (Number of sets in cache) If there are n blocks in a set, the cache placement is called n-way set associative. The end points of set associativity have their own names. A direct-mapped cache has just one block per set (so a block is always placed in the same location), and a fully associative cache has just one set (so a block can be placed anywhere). Caching data that is only read is easy, since the copy in the cache and memory will be identical. Caching writes is more difficult; for example, how can the copy in the cache and memory be kept consistent? There are two main strategies. A write-through cache updates the item in the cache and writes through to update 2.1 Introduction ■ 75 main memory. A write-back cache only updates the copy in the cache. When the block is about to be replaced, it is copied back to memory. Both write strategies can use a write buffer to allow the cache to proceed as soon as the data are placed in the buffer rather than wait the full latency to write the data into memory. One measure of the benefits of different cache organizations is miss rate. Miss rate is simply the fraction of cache accesses that result in a miss—that is, the number of accesses that miss divided by the number of accesses. To gain insights into the causes of high miss rates, which can inspire better cache designs, the three Cs model sorts all misses into three simple categories: ■ Compulsory—The very first access to a block cannot be in the cache, so the block must be brought into the cache. Compulsory misses are those that occur even if you had an infinite sized cache. ■ Capacity—If the cache cannot contain all the blocks needed during execution of a program, capacity misses (in addition to compulsory misses) will occur because of blocks being discarded and later retrieved. ■ Conflict—If the block placement strategy is not fully associative, conflict misses (in addition to compulsory and capacity misses) will occur because a block may be discarded and later retrieved if multiple blocks map to its set and accesses to the different blocks are intermingled. Figures B.8 and B.9 on pages B-24 and B-25 show the relative frequency of cache misses broken down by the three Cs. As we will see in Chapters 3 and 5, multithreading and multiple cores add complications for caches, both increasing the potential for capacity misses as well as adding a fourth C, for coherency misses due to cache flushes to keep multiple caches coherent in a multiprocessor; we will consider these issues in Chapter 5. Alas, miss rate can be a misleading measure for several reasons. Hence, some designers prefer measuring misses per instruction rather than misses per memory reference (miss rate). These two are related: -----M------i-s---s--e---s----- = -M-----i--s--s----r--a--t--e----×-----M-----e---m-----o---r--y----a---c---c--e---s--s---e--s- = Miss rate × M------e---m----o---r--y-----a--c---c---e--s---s--e---s Instruction Instruction count Instruction (It is often reported as misses per 1000 instructions to use integers instead of fractions.) The problem with both measures is that they don’t factor in the cost of a miss. A better measure is the average memory access time: Average memory access time = Hit time + Miss rate × Miss penalty where hit time is the time to hit in the cache and miss penalty is the time to replace the block from memory (that is, the cost of a miss). Average memory access time is still an indirect measure of performance; although it is a better measure than miss rate, it is not a substitute for execution time. In Chapter 3 we will see that speculative processors may execute other instructions during a miss, thereby reducing the 76 ■ Chapter Two Memory Hierarchy Design effective miss penalty. The use of multithreading (introduced in Chapter 3) also allows a processor to tolerate missses without being forced to idle. As we will examine shortly, to take advantage of such latency tolerating techniques we need caches that can service requests while handling an outstanding miss. If this material is new to you, or if this quick review moves too quickly, see Appendix B. It covers the same introductory material in more depth and includes examples of caches from real computers and quantitative evaluations of their effectiveness. Section B.3 in Appendix B presents six basic cache optimizations, which we quickly review here. The appendix also gives quantitative examples of the benefits of these optimizations. We also comment briefly on the power implications of these trade-offs. 1. Larger block size to reduce miss rate—The simplest way to reduce the miss rate is to take advantage of spatial locality and increase the block size. Larger blocks reduce compulsory misses, but they also increase the miss penalty. Because larger blocks lower the number of tags, they can slightly reduce static power. Larger block sizes can also increase capacity or conflict misses, especially in smaller caches. Choosing the right block size is a complex trade-off that depends on the size of cache and the miss penalty. 2. Bigger caches to reduce miss rate—The obvious way to reduce capacity misses is to increase cache capacity. Drawbacks include potentially longer hit time of the larger cache memory and higher cost and power. Larger caches increase both static and dynamic power. 3. Higher associativity to reduce miss rate—Obviously, increasing associativity reduces conflict misses. Greater associativity can come at the cost of increased hit time. As we will see shortly, associativity also increases power consumption. 4. Multilevel caches to reduce miss penalty—A difficult decision is whether to make the cache hit time fast, to keep pace with the high clock rate of processors, or to make the cache large to reduce the gap between the processor accesses and main memory accesses. Adding another level of cache between the original cache and memory simplifies the decision (see Figure 2.3). The first-level cache can be small enough to match a fast clock cycle time, yet the second-level (or third-level) cache can be large enough to capture many accesses that would go to main memory. The focus on misses in second-level caches leads to larger blocks, bigger capacity, and higher associativity. Multilevel caches are more power efficient than a single aggregate cache. If L1 and L2 refer, respectively, to first- and second-level caches, we can redefine the average memory access time: Hit timeL1 + Miss rateL1 × (Hit timeL2 + Miss rateL2 × Miss penaltyL2) 5. Giving priority to read misses over writes to reduce miss penalty—A write buffer is a good place to implement this optimization. Write buffers create hazards because they hold the updated value of a location needed on a read 2.1 Introduction ■ 77 900 1-way 2-way 4-way 8-way 800 700 Access time in microseconds 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 16 KB 32 KB 64 KB Cache size 128 KB 256 KB Figure 2.3 Access times generally increase as cache size and associativity are increased. These data come from the CACTI model 6.5 by Tarjan, Thoziyoor, and Jouppi [2005]. The data assume a 40 nm feature size (which is between the technology used in Intel’s fastest and second fastest versions of the i7 and the same as the technology used in the fastest ARM embedded processors), a single bank, and 64-byte blocks. The assumptions about cache layout and the complex trade-offs between interconnect delays (that depend on the size of a cache block being accessed) and the cost of tag checks and multiplexing lead to results that are occasionally surprising, such as the lower access time for a 64 KB with two-way set associativity versus direct mapping. Similarly, the results with eight-way set associativity generate unusual behavior as cache size is increased. Since such observations are highly dependent on technology and detailed design assumptions, tools such as CACTI serve to reduce the search space rather than precision analysis of the trade-offs. miss—that is, a read-after-write hazard through memory. One solution is to check the contents of the write buffer on a read miss. If there are no conflicts, and if the memory system is available, sending the read before the writes reduces the miss penalty. Most processors give reads priority over writes. This choice has little effect on power consumption. 6. Avoiding address translation during indexing of the cache to reduce hit time—Caches must cope with the translation of a virtual address from the processor to a physical address to access memory. (Virtual memory is covered in Sections 2.4 and B.4.) A common optimization is to use the page offset—the part that is identical in both virtual and physical addresses—to index the cache, as described in Appendix B, page B-38. This virtual index/ physical tag method introduces some system complications and/or 78 ■ Chapter Two Memory Hierarchy Design limitations on the size and structure of the L1 cache, but the advantages of removing the translation lookaside buffer (TLB) access from the critical path outweigh the disadvantages. Note that each of the six optimizations above has a potential disadvantage that can lead to increased, rather than decreased, average memory access time. The rest of this chapter assumes familiarity with the material above and the details in Appendix B. In the Putting It All Together section, we examine the memory hierarchy for a microprocessor designed for a high-end server, the Intel Core i7, as well as one designed for use in a PMD, the Arm Cortex-A8, which is the basis for the processor used in the Apple iPad and several high-end smartphones. Within each of these classes, there is a significant diversity in approach due to the intended use of the computer. While the high-end processor used in the server has more cores and bigger caches than the Intel processors designed for desktop uses, the processors have similar architectures. The differences are driven by performance and the nature of the workload; desktop computers are primarily running one application at a time on top of an operating system for a single user, whereas server computers may have hundreds of users running potentially dozens of applications simultaneously. Because of these workload differences, desktop computers are generally concerned more with average latency from the memory hierarchy, whereas server computers are also concerned about memory bandwidth. Even within the class of desktop computers there is wide diversity from lower end netbooks with scaled-down processors more similar to those found in high-end PMDs, to high-end desktops whose processors contain multiple cores and whose organization resembles that of a low-end server. In contrast, PMDs not only serve one user but generally also have smaller operating systems, usually less multitasking (running of several applications simultaneously), and simpler applications. PMDs also typically use Flash memory rather than disks, and most consider both performance and energy consumption, which determines battery life. 2.2 Ten Advanced Optimizations of Cache Performance The average memory access time formula above gives us three metrics for cache optimizations: hit time, miss rate, and miss penalty. Given the recent trends, we add cache bandwidth and power consumption to this list. We can classify the ten advanced cache optimizations we examine into five categories based on these metrics: 1. Reducing the hit time—Small and simple first-level caches and wayprediction. Both techniques also generally decrease power consumption. 2. Increasing cache bandwidth—Pipelined caches, multibanked caches, and nonblocking caches. These techniques have varying impacts on power consumption. 2.2 Ten Advanced Optimizations of Cache Performance ■ 79 3. Reducing the miss penalty—Critical word first and merging write buffers. These optimizations have little impact on power. 4. Reducing the miss rate—Compiler optimizations. Obviously any improvement at compile time improves power consumption. 5. Reducing the miss penalty or miss rate via parallelism—Hardware prefetching and compiler prefetching. These optimizations generally increase power consumption, primarily due to prefetched data that are unused. In general, the hardware complexity increases as we go through these optimizations. In addition, several of the optimizations require sophisticated compiler technology. We will conclude with a summary of the implementation complexity and the performance benefits of the ten techniques presented in Figure 2.11 on page 96. Since some of these are straightforward, we cover them briefly; others require more description. First Optimization: Small and Simple First-Level Caches to Reduce Hit Time and Power The pressure of both a fast clock cycle and power limitations encourages limited size for first-level caches. Similarly, use of lower levels of associativity can reduce both hit time and power, although such trade-offs are more complex than those involving size. The critical timing path in a cache hit is the three-step process of addressing the tag memory using the index portion of the address, comparing the read tag value to the address, and setting the multiplexor to choose the correct data item if the cache is set associative. Direct-mapped caches can overlap the tag check with the transmission of the data, effectively reducing hit time. Furthermore, lower levels of associativity will usually reduce power because fewer cache lines must be accessed. Although the total amount of on-chip cache has increased dramatically with new generations of microprocessors, due to the clock rate impact arising from a larger L1 cache, the size of the L1 caches has recently increased either slightly or not at all. In many recent processors, designers have opted for more associativity rather than larger caches. An additional consideration in choosing the associativity is the possibility of eliminating address aliases; we discuss this shortly. One approach to determining the impact on hit time and power consumption in advance of building a chip is to use CAD tools. CACTI is a program to estimate the access time and energy consumption of alternative cache structures on CMOS microprocessors within 10% of more detailed CAD tools. For a given minimum feature size, CACTI estimates the hit time of caches as cache size varies, associativity, number of read/write ports, and more complex parameters. Figure 2.3 shows the estimated impact on hit time as cache size and associativity are varied. Depending on cache size, for these parameters the model suggests that the hit time for direct mapped is slightly faster than two-way set associative and 80 ■ Chapter Two Memory Hierarchy Design that two-way set associative is 1.2 times faster than four-way and four-way is 1.4 times faster than eight-way. Of course, these estimates depend on technology as well as the size of the cache. Example Using the data in Figure B.8 in Appendix B and Figure 2.3, determine whether a 32 KB four-way set associative L1 cache has a faster memory access time than a 32 KB two-way set associative L1 cache. Assume the miss penalty to L2 is 15 times the access time for the faster L1 cache. Ignore misses beyond L2. Which has the faster average memory access time? Answer Let the access time for the two-way set associative cache be 1. Then, for the twoway cache: Average memory access time2-way = Hit time + Miss rate × Miss penalty = 1 + 0.038 × 15 = 1.38 For the four-way cache, the access time is 1.4 times longer. The elapsed time of the miss penalty is 15/1.4 = 10.1. Assume 10 for simplicity: Average memory access time4-way = Hit time2-way × 1.4 + Miss rate × Miss penalty = 1.4 + 0.037 × 10 = 1.77 Clearly, the higher associativity looks like a bad trade-off; however, since cache access in modern processors is often pipelined, the exact impact on the clock cycle time is difficult to assess. Energy consumption is also a consideration in choosing both the cache size and associativity, as Figure 2.4 shows. The energy cost of higher associativity ranges from more than a factor of 2 to negligible in caches of 128 KB or 256 KB when going from direct mapped to two-way set associative. In recent designs, there are three other factors that have led to the use of higher associativity in first-level caches. First, many processors take at least two clock cycles to access the cache and thus the impact of a longer hit time may not be critical. Second, to keep the TLB out of the critical path (a delay that would be larger than that associated with increased associativity), almost all L1 caches should be virtually indexed. This limits the size of the cache to the page size times the associativity, because then only the bits within the page are used for the index. There are other solutions to the problem of indexing the cache before address translation is completed, but increasing the associativity, which also has other benefits, is the most attractive. Third, with the introduction of multithreading (see Chapter 3), conflict misses can increase, making higher associativity more attractive. 2.2 Ten Advanced Optimizations of Cache Performance ■ 81 0.5 0.45 1-way 2-way 4-way 8-way 0.4 Energy per read in nano joules 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 16 KB 32 KB 64 KB Cache size 128 KB 256 KB Figure 2.4 Energy consumption per read increases as cache size and associativity are increased. As in the previous figure, CACTI is used for the modeling with the same technology parameters. The large penalty for eight-way set associative caches is due to the cost of reading out eight tags and the corresponding data in parallel. Second Optimization: Way Prediction to Reduce Hit Time Another approach reduces conflict misses and yet maintains the hit speed of direct-mapped cache. In way prediction, extra bits are kept in the cache to predict the way, or block within the set of the next cache access. This prediction means the multiplexor is set early to select the desired block, and only a single tag comparison is performed that clock cycle in parallel with reading the cache data. A miss results in checking the other blocks for matches in the next clock cycle. Added to each block of a cache are block predictor bits. The bits select which of the blocks to try on the next cache access. If the predictor is correct, the cache access latency is the fast hit time. If not, it tries the other block, changes the way predictor, and has a latency of one extra clock cycle. Simulations suggest that set prediction accuracy is in excess of 90% for a two-way set associative cache and 80% for a four-way set associative cache, with better accuracy on I-caches than D-caches. Way prediction yields lower average memory access time for a twoway set associative cache if it is at least 10% faster, which is quite likely. Way prediction was first used in the MIPS R10000 in the mid-1990s. It is popular in processors that use two-way set associativity and is used in the ARM Cortex-A8 with four-way set associative caches. For very fast processors, it may be challenging to implement the one cycle stall that is critical to keeping the way prediction penalty small. 82 ■ Chapter Two Memory Hierarchy Design An extended form of way prediction can also be used to reduce power consumption by using the way prediction bits to decide which cache block to actually access (the way prediction bits are essentially extra address bits); this approach, which might be called way selection, saves power when the way prediction is correct but adds significant time on a way misprediction, since the access, not just the tag match and selection, must be repeated. Such an optimization is likely to make sense only in low-power processors. Inoue, Ishihara, and Murakami [1999] estimated that using the way selection approach with a fourway set associative cache increases the average access time for the I-cache by 1.04 and for the D-cache by 1.13 on the SPEC95 benchmarks, but it yields an average cache power consumption relative to a normal four-way set associative cache that is 0.28 for the I-cache and 0.35 for the D-cache. One significant drawback for way selection is that it makes it difficult to pipeline the cache access. Example Assume that there are half as many D-cache accesses as I-cache accesses, and that the I-cache and D-cache are responsible for 25% and 15% of the processor’s power consumption in a normal four-way set associative implementation. Determine if way selection improves performance per watt based on the estimates from the study above. Answer For the I-cache, the savings in power is 25 × 0.28 = 0.07 of the total power, while for the D-cache it is 15 × 0.35 = 0.05 for a total savings of 0.12. The way prediction version requires 0.88 of the power requirement of the standard 4-way cache. The increase in cache access time is the increase in I-cache average access time plus one-half the increase in D-cache access time, or 1.04 + 0.5 × 0.13 = 1.11 times longer. This result means that way selection has 0.90 of the performance of a standard four-way cache. Thus, way selection improves performance per joule very slightly by a ratio of 0.90/0.88 = 1.02. This optimization is best used where power rather than performance is the key objective. Third Optimization: Pipelined Cache Access to Increase Cache Bandwidth This optimization is simply to pipeline cache access so that the effective latency of a first-level cache hit can be multiple clock cycles, giving fast clock cycle time and high bandwidth but slow hits. For example, the pipeline for the instruction cache access for Intel Pentium processors in the mid-1990s took 1 clock cycle, for the Pentium Pro through Pentium III in the mid-1990s through 2000 it took 2 clocks, and for the Pentium 4, which became available in 2000, and the current Intel Core i7 it takes 4 clocks. This change increases the number of pipeline stages, leading to a greater penalty on mispredicted branches and more clock cycles between issuing the load and using the data (see Chapter 3), but it does make it easier to incorporate high degrees of associativity. 2.2 Ten Advanced Optimizations of Cache Performance ■ 83 Fourth Optimization: Nonblocking Caches to Increase Cache Bandwidth For pipelined computers that allow out-of-order execution (discussed in Chapter 3), the processor need not stall on a data cache miss. For example, the processor could continue fetching instructions from the instruction cache while waiting for the data cache to return the missing data. A nonblocking cache or lockup-free cache escalates the potential benefits of such a scheme by allowing the data cache to continue to supply cache hits during a miss. This “hit under miss” optimization reduces the effective miss penalty by being helpful during a miss instead of ignoring the requests of the processor. A subtle and complex option is that the cache may further lower the effective miss penalty if it can overlap multiple misses: a “hit under multiple miss” or “miss under miss” optimization. The second option is beneficial only if the memory system can service multiple misses; most high-performance processors (such as the Intel Core i7) usually support both, while lower end processors, such as the ARM A8, provide only limited nonblocking support in L2. To examine the effectiveness of nonblocking caches in reducing the cache miss penalty, Farkas and Jouppi [1994] did a study assuming 8 KB caches with a 14-cycle miss penalty; they observed a reduction in the effective miss penalty of 20% for the SPECINT92 benchmarks and 30% for the SPECFP92 benchmarks when allowing one hit under miss. Li, Chen, Brockman, and Jouppi [2011] recently updated this study to use a multilevel cache, more modern assumptions about miss penalties, and the larger and more demanding SPEC2006 benchmarks. The study was done assuming a model based on a single core of an Intel i7 (see Section 2.6) running the SPEC2006 benchmarks. Figure 2.5 shows the reduction in data cache access latency when allowing 1, 2, and 64 hits under a miss; the caption describes further details of the memory system. The larger caches and the addition of an L3 cache since the earlier study have reduced the benefits with the SPECINT2006 benchmarks showing an average reduction in cache latency of about 9% and the SPECFP2006 benchmarks about 12.5%. Example Which is more important for floating-point programs: two-way set associativity or hit under one miss for the primary data caches? What about integer programs? Assume the following average miss rates for 32 KB data caches: 5.2% for floatingpoint programs with a direct-mapped cache, 4.9% for these programs with a twoway set associative cache, 3.5% for integer programs with a direct-mapped cache, and 3.2% for integer programs with a two-way set associative cache. Assume the miss penalty to L2 is 10 cycles, and the L2 misses and penalties are the same. Answer For floating-point programs, the average memory stall times are Miss rateDM × Miss penalty = 5.2% × 10 = 0.52 Miss rate2-way × Miss penalty = 4.9% × 10 = 0.49 Cache acess latency bzip2 gcc mcf hmmer sjeng libquantum h264ref omnetpp astar gamess zeusmp milc gromacs cactusADM namd soplex povray calculix GemsFDTD tonto lbm wrf sphinx3 84 ■ Chapter Two Memory Hierarchy Design 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% Hit-under-1-miss Hit-under-2-misses Hit-under-64-misses SPECINT SPECFP Figure 2.5 The effectiveness of a nonblocking cache is evaluated by allowing 1, 2, or 64 hits under a cache miss with 9 SPECINT (on the left) and 9 SPECFP (on the right) benchmarks. The data memory system modeled after the Intel i7 consists of a 32KB L1 cache with a four cycle access latency. The L2 cache (shared with instructions) is 256 KB with a 10 clock cycle access latency. The L3 is 2 MB and a 36-cycle access latency. All the caches are eight-way set associative and have a 64-byte block size. Allowing one hit under miss reduces the miss penalty by 9% for the integer benchmarks and 12.5% for the floating point. Allowing a second hit improves these results to 10% and 16%, and allowing 64 results in little additional improvement. The cache access latency (including stalls) for two-way associativity is 0.49/0.52 or 94% of direct-mapped cache. The caption of Figure 2.5 says hit under one miss reduces the average data cache access latency for floating point programs to 87.5% of a blocking cache. Hence, for floating-point programs, the direct mapped data cache supporting one hit under one miss gives better performance than a two-way set-associative cache that blocks on a miss. For integer programs, the calculation is Miss rateDM × Miss penalty = 3.5% × 10 = 0.35 Miss rate2-way × Miss penalty = 3.2% × 10 = 0.32 The data cache access latency of a two-way set associative cache is thus 0.32/0.35 or 91% of direct-mapped cache, while the reduction in access latency when allowing a hit under one miss is 9%, making the two choices about equal. The real difficulty with performance evaluation of nonblocking caches is that a cache miss does not necessarily stall the processor. In this case, it is difficult to judge the impact of any single miss and hence to calculate the average memory access time. The effective miss penalty is not the sum of the misses but the nonoverlapped time that the processor is stalled. The benefit of nonblocking caches is complex, as it depends upon the miss penalty when there are multiple misses, the memory reference pattern, and how many instructions the processor can execute with a miss outstanding. 2.2 Ten Advanced Optimizations of Cache Performance ■ 85 In general, out-of-order processors are capable of hiding much of the miss penalty of an L1 data cache miss that hits in the L2 cache but are not capable of hiding a significant fraction of a lower level cache miss. Deciding how many outstanding misses to support depends on a variety of factors: ■ The temporal and spatial locality in the miss stream, which determines whether a miss can initiate a new access to a lower level cache or to memory ■ The bandwidth of the responding memory or cache ■ To allow more outstanding misses at the lowest level of the cache (where the miss time is the longest) requires supporting at least that many misses at a higher level, since the miss must initiate at the highest level cache ■ The latency of the memory system The following simplified example shows the key idea. Example Assume a main memory access time of 36 ns and a memory system capable of a sustained transfer rate of 16 GB/sec. If the block size is 64 bytes, what is the maximum number of outstanding misses we need to support assuming that we can maintain the peak bandwidth given the request stream and that accesses never conflict. If the probability of a reference colliding with one of the previous four is 50%, and we assume that the access has to wait until the earlier access completes, estimate the number of maximum outstanding references. For simplicity, ignore the time between misses. Answer In the first case, assuming that we can maintain the peak bandwidth, the memory system can support (16 × 10)9/64 = 250 million references per second. Since each reference takes 36 ns, we can support 250 × 106 × 36 × 10−9 = 9 references. If the probability of a collision is greater than 0, then we need more outstanding references, since we cannot start work on those references; the memory system needs more independent references not fewer! To approximate this, we can simply assume that half the memory references need not be issued to the memory. This means that we must support twice as many outstanding references, or 18. In Li, Chen, Brockman, and Jouppi’s study they found that the reduction in CPI for the integer programs was about 7% for one hit under miss and about 12.7% for 64. For the floating point programs, the reductions were 12.7% for one hit under miss and 17.8% for 64. These reductions track fairly closely the reductions in the data cache access latency shown in Figure 2.5. Fifth Optimization: Multibanked Caches to Increase Cache Bandwidth Rather than treat the cache as a single monolithic block, we can divide it into independent banks that can support simultaneous accesses. Banks were originally 86 ■ Chapter Two Memory Hierarchy Design Block address 0 4 8 12 Bank 0 Block address 1 5 9 13 Bank 1 Block address 2 6 10 14 Bank 2 Block address 3 7 11 15 Bank 3 Figure 2.6 Four-way interleaved cache banks using block addressing. Assuming 64 bytes per blocks, each of these addresses would be multiplied by 64 to get byte addressing. used to improve performance of main memory and are now used inside modern DRAM chips as well as with caches. The Arm Cortex-A8 supports one to four banks in its L2 cache; the Intel Core i7 has four banks in L1 (to support up to 2 memory accesses per clock), and the L2 has eight banks. Clearly, banking works best when the accesses naturally spread themselves across the banks, so the mapping of addresses to banks affects the behavior of the memory system. A simple mapping that works well is to spread the addresses of the block sequentially across the banks, called sequential interleaving. For example, if there are four banks, bank 0 has all blocks whose address modulo 4 is 0, bank 1 has all blocks whose address modulo 4 is 1, and so on. Figure 2.6 shows this interleaving. Multiple banks also are a way to reduce power con- sumption both in caches and DRAM. Sixth Optimization: Critical Word First and Early Restart to Reduce Miss Penalty This technique is based on the observation that the processor normally needs just one word of the block at a time. This strategy is impatience: Don’t wait for the full block to be loaded before sending the requested word and restarting the processor. Here are two specific strategies: ■ Critical word first—Request the missed word first from memory and send it to the processor as soon as it arrives; let the processor continue execution while filling the rest of the words in the block. ■ Early restart—Fetch the words in normal order, but as soon as the requested word of the block arrives send it to the processor and let the processor continue execution. Generally, these techniques only benefit designs with large cache blocks, since the benefit is low unless blocks are large. Note that caches normally continue to satisfy accesses to other blocks while the rest of the block is being filled. Alas, given spatial locality, there is a good chance that the next reference is to the rest of the block. Just as with nonblocking caches, the miss penalty is not simple to calculate. When there is a second request in critical word first, the effective miss penalty is the nonoverlapped time from the reference until the 2.2 Ten Advanced Optimizations of Cache Performance ■ 87 second piece arrives. The benefits of critical word first and early restart depend on the size of the block and the likelihood of another access to the portion of the block that has not yet been fetched. Seventh Optimization: Merging Write Buffer to Reduce Miss Penalty Write-through caches rely on write buffers, as all stores must be sent to the next lower level of the hierarchy. Even write-back caches use a simple buffer when a block is replaced. If the write buffer is empty, the data and the full address are written in the buffer, and the write is finished from the processor’s perspective; the processor continues working while the write buffer prepares to write the word to memory. If the buffer contains other modified blocks, the addresses can be checked to see if the address of the new data matches the address of a valid write buffer entry. If so, the new data are combined with that entry. Write merging is the name of this optimization. The Intel Core i7, among many others, uses write merging. If the buffer is full and there is no address match, the cache (and processor) must wait until the buffer has an empty entry. This optimization uses the memory more efficiently since multiword writes are usually faster than writes performed one word at a time. Skadron and Clark [1997] found that even a merging four-entry write buffer generated stalls that led to a 5% to 10% performance loss. The optimization also reduces stalls due to the write buffer being full. Figure 2.7 shows a write buffer with and without write merging. Assume we had four entries in the write buffer, and each entry could hold four 64-bit words. Without this optimization, four stores to sequential addresses would fill the buffer at one word per entry, even though these four words when merged exactly fit within a single entry of the write buffer. Note that input/output device registers are often mapped into the physical address space. These I/O addresses cannot allow write merging because separate I/O registers may not act like an array of words in memory. For example, they may require one address and data word per I/O register rather than use multiword writes using a single address. These side effects are typically implemented by marking the pages as requiring nonmerging write through by the caches. Eighth Optimization: Compiler Optimizations to Reduce Miss Rate Thus far, our techniques have required changing the hardware. This next technique reduces miss rates without any hardware changes. This magical reduction comes from optimized software—the hardware designer’s favorite solution! The increasing performance gap between processors and main memory has inspired compiler writers to scrutinize the memory hierarchy to see if compile time optimizations can improve performance. Once again, research 88 ■ Chapter Two Memory Hierarchy Design Write address V V V V 100 1 Mem[100] 0 0 0 108 1 Mem[108] 0 0 0 116 1 Mem[116] 0 0 0 124 1 Mem[124] 0 0 0 Write address V V V V 100 1 Mem[100] 1 Mem[108] 1 Mem[116] 1 Mem[124] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Figure 2.7 To illustrate write merging, the write buffer on top does not use it while the write buffer on the bottom does. The four writes are merged into a single buffer entry with write merging; without it, the buffer is full even though three-fourths of each entry is wasted. The buffer has four entries, and each entry holds four 64-bit words. The address for each entry is on the left, with a valid bit (V) indicating whether the next sequential 8 bytes in this entry are occupied. (Without write merging, the words to the right in the upper part of the figure would only be used for instructions that wrote multiple words at the same time.) is split between improvements in instruction misses and improvements in data misses. The optimizations presented below are found in many modern compilers. Loop Interchange Some programs have nested loops that access data in memory in nonsequential order. Simply exchanging the nesting of the loops can make the code access the data in the order in which they are stored. Assuming the arrays do not fit in the cache, this technique reduces misses by improving spatial locality; reordering maximizes use of data in a cache block before they are discarded. For example, if x is a two-dimensional array of size [5000,100] allocated so that x[i,j] and x[i,j+1] are adjacent (an order called row major, since the array is laid out by rows), then the two pieces of code below show how the accesses can be optimized: /* Before */ for (j = 0; j < 100; j = j+1) for (i = 0; i < 5000; i = i+1) x[i][j] = 2 * x[i][j]; 2.2 Ten Advanced Optimizations of Cache Performance ■ 89 /* After */ for (i = 0; i < 5000; i = i+1) for (j = 0; j < 100; j = j+1) x[i][j] = 2 * x[i][j]; The original code would skip through memory in strides of 100 words, while the revised version accesses all the words in one cache block before going to the next block. This optimization improves cache performance without affecting the number of instructions executed. Blocking This optimization improves temporal locality to reduce misses. We are again dealing with multiple arrays, with some arrays accessed by rows and some by columns. Storing the arrays row by row (row major order) or column by column (column major order) does not solve the problem because both rows and columns are used in every loop iteration. Such orthogonal accesses mean that transformations such as loop interchange still leave plenty of room for improvement. Instead of operating on entire rows or columns of an array, blocked algorithms operate on submatrices or blocks. The goal is to maximize accesses to the data loaded into the cache before the data are replaced. The code example below, which performs matrix multiplication, helps motivate the optimization: /* Before */ for (i = 0; i < N; i = i+1) for (j = 0; j < N; j = j+1) {r = 0; for (k = 0; k < N; k = k + 1) r = r + y[i][k]*z[k][j]; x[i][j] = r; }; The two inner loops read all N-by-N elements of z, read the same N elements in a row of y repeatedly, and write one row of N elements of x. Figure 2.8 gives a snapshot of the accesses to the three arrays. A dark shade indicates a recent access, a light shade indicates an older access, and white means not yet accessed. The number of capacity misses clearly depends on N and the size of the cache. If it can hold all three N-by-N matrices, then all is well, provided there are no cache conflicts. If the cache can hold one N-by-N matrix and one row of N, then at least the ith row of y and the array z may stay in the cache. Less than that and misses may occur for both x and z. In the worst case, there would be 2N3 + N2 memory words accessed for N3 operations. 90 ■ Chapter Two Memory Hierarchy Design j x 012345 0 1 2 i 3 4 5 k y 012345 0 1 2 i 3 4 5 j z 012345 0 1 2 k 3 4 5 Figure 2.8 A snapshot of the three arrays x, y, and z when N = 6 and i = 1. The age of accesses to the array elements is indicated by shade: white means not yet touched, light means older accesses, and dark means newer accesses. Compared to Figure 2.9, elements of y and z are read repeatedly to calculate new elements of x. The variables i, j, and k are shown along the rows or columns used to access the arrays. To ensure that the elements being accessed can fit in the cache, the original code is changed to compute on a submatrix of size B by B. Two inner loops now compute in steps of size B rather than the full length of x and z. B is called the blocking factor. (Assume x is initialized to zero.) /* After */ for (jj = 0; jj < N; jj = jj+B) for (kk = 0; kk < N; kk = kk+B) for (i = 0; i < N; i = i+1) for (j = jj; j < min(jj+B,N); j = j+1) {r = 0; for (k = kk; k < min(kk+B,N); k = k + 1) r = r + y[i][k]*z[k][j]; x[i][j] = x[i][j] + r; }; Figure 2.9 illustrates the accesses to the three arrays using blocking. Looking only at capacity misses, the total number of memory words accessed is 2N3/B + N2. This total is an improvement by about a factor of B. Hence, blocking exploits a combination of spatial and temporal locality, since y benefits from spatial locality and z benefits from temporal locality. Although we have aimed at reducing cache misses, blocking can also be used to help register allocation. By taking a small blocking size such that the block can be held in registers, we can minimize the number of loads and stores in the program. As we shall see in Section 4.8 of Chapter 4, cache blocking is absolutely necessary to get good performance from cache-based processors running applications using matrices as the primary data structure. 2.2 Ten Advanced Optimizations of Cache Performance ■ 91 j x 012345 0 1 2 i 3 4 5 k y 012345 0 1 2 i 3 4 5 j z 012345 0 1 2 k 3 4 5 Figure 2.9 The age of accesses to the arrays x, y, and z when B = 3. Note that, in contrast to Figure 2.8, a smaller number of elements is accessed. Ninth Optimization: Hardware Prefetching of Instructions and Data to Reduce Miss Penalty or Miss Rate Nonblocking caches effectively reduce the miss penalty by overlapping execution with memory access. Another approach is to prefetch items before the processor requests them. Both instructions and data can be prefetched, either directly into the caches or into an external buffer that can be more quickly accessed than main memory. Instruction prefetch is frequently done in hardware outside of the cache. Typically, the processor fetches two blocks on a miss: the requested block and the next consecutive block. The requested block is placed in the instruction cache when it returns, and the prefetched block is placed into the instruction stream buffer. If the requested block is present in the instruction stream buffer, the original cache request is canceled, the block is read from the stream buffer, and the next prefetch request is issued. A similar approach can be applied to data accesses [Jouppi 1990]. Palacharla and Kessler [1994] looked at a set of scientific programs and considered multiple stream buffers that could handle either instructions or data. They found that eight stream buffers could capture 50% to 70% of all misses from a processor with two 64 KB four-way set associative caches, one for instructions and the other for data. The Intel Core i7 supports hardware prefetching into both L1 and L2 with the most common case of prefetching being accessing the next line. Some earlier Intel processors used more aggressive hardware prefetching, but that resulted in reduced performance for some applications, causing some sophisticated users to turn off the capability. Figure 2.10 shows the overall performance improvement for a subset of SPEC2000 programs when hardware prefetching is turned on. Note that this figure includes only 2 of 12 integer programs, while it includes the majority of the SPEC floating-point programs. 92 ■ Chapter Two Memory Hierarchy Design 2.20 2.00 1.97 Performance improvement 1.80 1.60 1.49 1.45 1.40 1.40 1.26 1.29 1.32 1.20 1.16 1.18 1.20 1.21 1.00 gap mcf fam3d wupwise galgel facerec swim applu lucas mgrid equake SPECint2000 SPECfp2000 Figure 2.10 Speedup due to hardware prefetching on Intel Pentium 4 with hardware prefetching turned on for 2 of 12 SPECint2000 benchmarks and 9 of 14 SPECfp2000 benchmarks. Only the programs that benefit the most from prefetching are shown; prefetching speeds up the missing 15 SPEC benchmarks by less than 15% [Singhal 2004]. Prefetching relies on utilizing memory bandwidth that otherwise would be unused, but if it interferes with demand misses it can actually lower performance. Help from compilers can reduce useless prefetching. When prefetching works well its impact on power is negligible. When prefetched data are not used or useful data are displaced, prefetching will have a very negative impact on power. Tenth Optimization: Compiler-Controlled Prefetching to Reduce Miss Penalty or Miss Rate An alternative to hardware prefetching is for the compiler to insert prefetch instructions to request data before the processor needs it. There are two flavors of prefetch: ■ Register prefetch will load the value into a register. ■ Cache prefetch loads data only into the cache and not the register. Either of these can be faulting or nonfaulting; that is, the address does or does not cause an exception for virtual address faults and protection violations. Using this terminology, a normal load instruction could be considered a “faulting register prefetch instruction.” Nonfaulting prefetches simply turn into no-ops if they would normally result in an exception, which is what we want. 2.2 Ten Advanced Optimizations of Cache Performance ■ 93 The most effective prefetch is “semantically invisible” to a program: It doesn’t change the contents of registers and memory, and it cannot cause virtual memory faults. Most processors today offer nonfaulting cache prefetches. This section assumes nonfaulting cache prefetch, also called nonbinding prefetch. Prefetching makes sense only if the processor can proceed while prefetching the data; that is, the caches do not stall but continue to supply instructions and data while waiting for the prefetched data to return. As you would expect, the data cache for such computers is normally nonblocking. Like hardware-controlled prefetching, the goal is to overlap execution with the prefetching of data. Loops are the important targets, as they lend themselves to prefetch optimizations. If the miss penalty is small, the compiler just unrolls the loop once or twice, and it schedules the prefetches with the execution. If the miss penalty is large, it uses software pipelining (see Appendix H) or unrolls many times to prefetch data for a future iteration. Issuing prefetch instructions incurs an instruction overhead, however, so compilers must take care to ensure that such overheads do not exceed the benefits. By concentrating on references that are likely to be cache misses, programs can avoid unnecessary prefetches while improving average memory access time significantly. Example For the code below, determine which accesses are likely to cause data cache misses. Next, insert prefetch instructions to reduce misses. Finally, calculate the number of prefetch instructions executed and the misses avoided by prefetching. Let’s assume we have an 8 KB direct-mapped data cache with 16-byte blocks, and it is a write-back cache that does write allocate. The elements of a and b are 8 bytes long since they are double-precision floating-point arrays. There are 3 rows and 100 columns for a and 101 rows and 3 columns for b. Let’s also assume they are not in the cache at the start of the program. for (i = 0; i < 3; i = i+1) for (j = 0; j < 100; j = j+1) a[i][j] = b[j][0] * b[j+1][0]; Answer The compiler will first determine which accesses are likely to cause cache misses; otherwise, we will waste time on issuing prefetch instructions for data that would be hits. Elements of a are written in the order that they are stored in memory, so a will benefit from spatial locality: The even values of j will miss and the odd values will hit. Since a has 3 rows and 100 columns, its accesses will lead to 3 × (100/2), or 150 misses. The array b does not benefit from spatial locality since the accesses are not in the order it is stored. The array b does benefit twice from temporal locality: The same elements are accessed for each iteration of i, and each iteration of j uses the same value of b as the last iteration. Ignoring potential conflict misses, the misses due to b will be for b[j+1][0] accesses when i = 0, and also the first 94 ■ Chapter Two Memory Hierarchy Design access to b[j][0] when j = 0. Since j goes from 0 to 99 when i = 0, accesses to b lead to 100 + 1, or 101 misses. Thus, this loop will miss the data cache approximately 150 times for a plus 101 times for b, or 251 misses. To simplify our optimization, we will not worry about prefetching the first accesses of the loop. These may already be in the cache, or we will pay the miss penalty of the first few elements of a or b. Nor will we worry about suppressing the prefetches at the end of the loop that try to prefetch beyond the end of a (a[i][100] . . . a[i][106]) and the end of b (b[101][0] . . . b[107][0]). If these were faulting prefetches, we could not take this luxury. Let’s assume that the miss penalty is so large we need to start prefetching at least, say, seven iterations in advance. (Stated alternatively, we assume prefetching has no benefit until the eighth iteration.) We underline the changes to the code above needed to add prefetching. for (j = 0; j < 100; j = j+1) { prefetch(b[j+7][0]); /* b(j,0) for 7 iterations later */ prefetch(a[0][j+7]); /* a(0,j) for 7 iterations later */ a[0][j] = b[j][0] * b[j+1][0];}; for (i = 1; i < 3; i = i+1) for (j = 0; j < 100; j = j+1) { prefetch(a[i][j+7]); /* a(i,j) for +7 iterations */ a[i][j] = b[j][0] * b[j+1][0];} This revised code prefetches a[i][7] through a[i][99] and b[7][0] through b[100][0], reducing the number of nonprefetched misses to ■ 7 misses for elements b[0][0], b[1][0], . . . , b[6][0] in the first loop ■ 4 misses ([7⁄2]) for elements a[0][0], a[0][1], . . . , a[0][6] in the first loop (spatial locality reduces misses to 1 per 16-byte cache block) ■ 4 misses ([7⁄2]) for elements a[1][0], a[1][1], . . . , a[1][6] in the second loop ■ 4 misses ([7⁄2]) for elements a[2][0], a[2][1], . . . , a[2][6] in the second loop or a total of 19 nonprefetched misses. The cost of avoiding 232 cache misses is executing 400 prefetch instructions, likely a good trade-off. Example Calculate the time saved in the example above. Ignore instruction cache misses and assume there are no conflict or capacity misses in the data cache. Assume that prefetches can overlap with each other and with cache misses, thereby 2.2 Ten Advanced Optimizations of Cache Performance ■ 95 transferring at the maximum memory bandwidth. Here are the key loop times ignoring cache misses: The original loop takes 7 clock cycles per iteration, the first prefetch loop takes 9 clock cycles per iteration, and the second prefetch loop takes 8 clock cycles per iteration (including the overhead of the outer for loop). A miss takes 100 clock cycles. Answer The original doubly nested loop executes the multiply 3 × 100 or 300 times. Since the loop takes 7 clock cycles per iteration, the total is 300 × 7 or 2100 clock cycles plus cache misses. Cache misses add 251 × 100 or 25,100 clock cycles, giving a total of 27,200 clock cycles. The first prefetch loop iterates 100 times; at 9 clock cycles per iteration the total is 900 clock cycles plus cache misses. Now add 11 × 100 or 1100 clock cycles for cache misses, giving a total of 2000. The second loop executes 2 × 100 or 200 times, and at 8 clock cycles per iteration it takes 1600 clock cycles plus 8 × 100 or 800 clock cycles for cache misses. This gives a total of 2400 clock cycles. From the prior example, we know that this code executes 400 prefetch instructions during the 2000 + 2400 or 4400 clock cycles to execute these two loops. If we assume that the prefetches are completely overlapped with the rest of the execution, then the prefetch code is 27,200/4400, or 6.2 times faster. Although array optimizations are easy to understand, modern programs are more likely to use pointers. Luk and Mowry [1999] have demonstrated that compiler-based prefetching can sometimes be extended to pointers as well. Of 10 programs with recursive data structures, prefetching all pointers when a node is visited improved performance by 4% to 31% in half of the programs. On the other hand, the remaining programs were still within 2% of their original performance. The issue is both whether prefetches are to data already in the cache and whether they occur early enough for the data to arrive by the time it is needed. Many processors support instructions for cache prefetch, and high-end processors (such as the Intel Core i7) often also do some type of automated prefetch in hardware. Cache Optimization Summary The techniques to improve hit time, bandwidth, miss penalty, and miss rate generally affect the other components of the average memory access equation as well as the complexity of the memory hierarchy. Figure 2.11 summarizes these techniques and estimates the impact on complexity, with + meaning that the technique improves the factor, – meaning it hurts that factor, and blank meaning it has no impact. Generally, no technique helps more than one category. 96 ■ Chapter Two Memory Hierarchy Design Technique Hit Band- Miss Miss Power Hardware cost/ time width penalty rate consumption complexity Comment Small and simple caches + – + Way-predicting caches + + Pipelined cache access – + Nonblocking caches + + Banked caches + + Critical word first + and early restart Merging write buffer + Compiler techniques to + reduce cache misses Hardware prefetching of instructions and data ++ − Compiler-controlled prefetching ++ 0 Trivial; widely used 1 Used in Pentium 4 1 Widely used 3 Widely used 1 Used in L2 of both i7 and Cortex-A8 2 Widely used 1 0 2 instr., 3 data 3 Widely used with write through Software is a challenge, but many compilers handle common linear algebra calculations Most provide prefetch instructions; modern highend processors also automatically prefetch in hardware. Needs nonblocking cache; possible instruction overhead; in many CPUs Figure 2.11 Summary of 10 advanced cache optimizations showing impact on cache performance, power consumption, and complexity. Although generally a technique helps only one factor, prefetching can reduce misses if done sufficiently early; if not, it can reduce miss penalty. + means that the technique improves the factor, – means it hurts that factor, and blank means it has no impact. The complexity measure is subjective, with 0 being the easiest and 3 being a challenge. 2.3 Memory Technology and Optimizations … the one single development that put computers on their feet was the invention of a reliable form of memory, namely, the core memory. … Its cost was reasonable, it was reliable and, because it was reliable, it could in due course be made large. [p. 209] Maurice Wilkes Memoirs of a Computer Pioneer (1985) Main memory is the next level down in the hierarchy. Main memory satisfies the demands of caches and serves as the I/O interface, as it is the destination of input as well as the source for output. Performance measures of main memory emphasize both latency and bandwidth. Traditionally, main memory latency (which 2.3 Memory Technology and Optimizations ■ 97 affects the cache miss penalty) is the primary concern of the cache, while main memory bandwidth is the primary concern of multiprocessors and I/O. Although caches benefit from low-latency memory, it is generally easier to improve memory bandwidth with new organizations than it is to reduce latency. The popularity of multilevel caches and their larger block sizes make main memory bandwidth important to caches as well. In fact, cache designers increase block size to take advantage of the high memory bandwidth. The previous sections describe what can be done with cache organization to reduce this processor–DRAM performance gap, but simply making caches larger or adding more levels of caches cannot eliminate the gap. Innovations in main memory are needed as well. In the past, the innovation was how to organize the many DRAM chips that made up the main memory, such as multiple memory banks. Higher bandwidth is available using memory banks, by making memory and its bus wider, or by doing both. Ironically, as capacity per memory chip increases, there are fewer chips in the same-sized memory system, reducing possibilities for wider memory systems with the same capacity. To allow memory systems to keep up with the bandwidth demands of modern processors, memory innovations started happening inside the DRAM chips themselves. This section describes the technology inside the memory chips and those innovative, internal organizations. Before describing the technologies and options, let’s go over the performance metrics. With the introduction of burst transfer memories, now widely used in both Flash and DRAM, memory latency is quoted using two measures—access time and cycle time. Access time is the time between when a read is requested and when the desired word arrives, and cycle time is the minimum time between unrelated requests to memory. Virtually all computers since 1975 have used DRAMs for main memory and SRAMs for cache, with one to three levels integrated onto the processor chip with the CPU. In PMDs, the memory technology often balances power and speed, with higher end systems using fast, high-bandwidth memory technology. SRAM Technology The first letter of SRAM stands for static. The dynamic nature of the circuits in DRAM requires data to be written back after being read—hence the difference between the access time and the cycle time as well as the need to refresh. SRAMs don’t need to refresh, so the access time is very close to the cycle time. SRAMs typically use six transistors per bit to prevent the information from being disturbed when read. SRAM needs only minimal power to retain the charge in standby mode. In earlier times, most desktop and server systems used SRAM chips for their primary, secondary, or tertiary caches; today, all three levels of caches are integrated onto the processor chip. Currently, the largest on-chip, third-level caches are 12 MB, while the memory system for such a processor is likely to have 4 to 98 ■ Chapter Two Memory Hierarchy Design 16 GB of DRAM. The access times for large, third-level, on-chip caches are typically two to four times that of a second-level cache, which is still three to five times faster than accessing DRAM memory. DRAM Technology As early DRAMs grew in capacity, the cost of a package with all the necessary address lines was an issue. The solution was to multiplex the address lines, thereby cutting the number of address pins in half. Figure 2.12 shows the basic DRAM organization. One-half of the address is sent first during the row access strobe (RAS). The other half of the address, sent during the column access strobe (CAS), follows it. These names come from the internal chip organization, since the memory is organized as a rectangular matrix addressed by rows and columns. An additional requirement of DRAM derives from the property signified by its first letter, D, for dynamic. To pack more bits per chip, DRAMs use only a single transistor to store a bit. Reading that bit destroys the information, so it must be restored. This is one reason why the DRAM cycle time was traditionally longer than the access time; more recently, DRAMs have introduced multiple banks, which allow the rewrite portion of the cycle to be hidden. In addition, to prevent loss of information when a bit is not read or written, the bit must be “refreshed” periodically. Fortunately, all the bits in a row can be refreshed simultaneously just by reading that row. Hence, every DRAM in the memory system must access every row within a certain time window, such as 8 ms. Memory controllers include hardware to refresh the DRAMs periodically. This requirement means that the memory system is occasionally unavailable because it is sending a signal telling every chip to refresh. The time for a refresh is typically a full memory access (RAS and CAS) for each row of the DRAM. Since the memory matrix in a DRAM is conceptually square, the number of steps Column Rd/Wr Bank Act Pre Row Figure 2.12 Internal organization of a DRAM. Modern DRAMs are organized in banks, typically four for DDR3. Each bank consists of a series of rows. Sending a PRE (precharge) command opens or closes a bank. A row address is sent with an Act (activate), which causes the row to transfer to a buffer. When the row is in the buffer, it can be transferred by successive column addresses at whatever the width of the DRAM is (typically 4, 8, or 16 bits in DDR3) or by specifying a block transfer and the starting address. Each command, as well as block transfers, are synchronized with a clock. 2.3 Memory Technology and Optimizations ■ 99 in a refresh is usually the square root of the DRAM capacity. DRAM designers try to keep time spent refreshing to less than 5% of the total time. So far we have presented main memory as if it operated like a Swiss train, consistently delivering the goods exactly according to schedule. Refresh belies that analogy, since some accesses take much longer than others do. Thus, refresh is another reason for variability of memory latency and hence cache miss penalty. Amdahl suggested as a rule of thumb that memory capacity should grow linearly with processor speed to keep a balanced system, so that a 1000 MIPS processor should have 1000 MB of memory. Processor designers rely on DRAMs to supply that demand. In the past, they expected a fourfold improvement in capacity every three years, or 55% per year. Unfortunately, the performance of DRAMs is growing at a much slower rate. Figure 2.13 shows a performance improvement in row access time, which is related to latency, of about 5% per year. The CAS or data transfer time, which is related to bandwidth, is growing at more than twice that rate. Although we have been talking about individual chips, DRAMs are commonly sold on small boards called dual inline memory modules (DIMMs). DIMMs typically contain 4 to 16 DRAMs, and they are normally organized to be 8 bytes wide (+ ECC) for desktop and server systems. Row access strobe (RAS) Production year 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2010 2012 Chip size 64K bit 256K bit 1M bit 4M bit 16M bit 64M bit 128M bit 256M bit 512M bit 1G bit 2G bit 4G bit 8G bit DRAM type DRAM DRAM DRAM DRAM DRAM SDRAM SDRAM DDR1 DDR1 DDR2 DDR2 DDR3 DDR3 Slowest DRAM (ns) 180 150 120 100 80 70 70 65 60 55 50 36 30 Fastest Column access strobe (CAS)/ Cycle DRAM (ns) data transfer time (ns) time (ns) 150 75 250 120 50 220 100 25 190 80 20 165 60 15 120 50 12 110 50 10 100 45 7 90 40 5 80 35 5 70 30 2.5 60 28 1 37 24 0.5 31 Figure 2.13 Times of fast and slow DRAMs vary with each generation. (Cycle time is defined on page 97.) Performance improvement of row access time is about 5% per year. The improvement by a factor of 2 in column access in 1986 accompanied the switch from NMOS DRAMs to CMOS DRAMs. The introduction of various burst transfer modes in the mid-1990s and SDRAMs in the late 1990s has significantly complicated the calculation of access time for blocks of data; we discuss this later in this section when we talk about SDRAM access time and power. The DDR4 designs are due for introduction in mid- to late 2012. We discuss these various forms of DRAMs in the next few pages. 100 ■ Chapter Two Memory Hierarchy Design In addition to the DIMM packaging and the new interfaces to improve the data transfer time, discussed in the following subsections, the biggest change to DRAMs has been a slowing down in capacity growth. DRAMs obeyed Moore’s law for 20 years, bringing out a new chip with four times the capacity every three years. Due to the manufacturing challenges of a single-bit DRAM, new chips only double capacity every two years since 1998. In 2006, the pace slowed further, with the four years from 2006 to 2010 seeing only a doubling of capacity. Improving Memory Performance Inside a DRAM Chip As Moore’s law continues to supply more transistors and as the processor– memory gap increases pressure on memory performance, the ideas of the previous section have made their way inside the DRAM chip. Generally, innovation has led to greater bandwidth, sometimes at the cost of greater latency. This subsection presents techniques that take advantage of the nature of DRAMs. As mentioned earlier, a DRAM access is divided into row access and column access. DRAMs must buffer a row of bits inside the DRAM for the column access, and this row is usually the square root of the DRAM size—for example, 2 Kb for a 4 Mb DRAM. As DRAMs grew, additional structure and several opportunities for increasing bandwith were added. First, DRAMs added timing signals that allow repeated accesses to the row buffer without another row access time. Such a buffer comes naturally, as each array will buffer 1024 to 4096 bits for each access. Initially, separate column addresses had to be sent for each transfer with a delay after each new set of column addresses. Originally, DRAMs had an asynchronous interface to the memory controller, so every transfer involved overhead to synchronize with the controller. The second major change was to add a clock signal to the DRAM interface, so that the repeated transfers would not bear that overhead. Synchronous DRAM (SDRAM) is the name of this optimization. SDRAMs typically also have a programmable register to hold the number of bytes requested, and hence can send many bytes over several cycles per request. Typically, 8 or more 16-bit transfers can occur without sending any new addresses by placing the DRAM in burst mode; this mode, which supports critical word first transfers, is the only way that the peak bandwidths shown in Figure 2.14 can be achieved. Third, to overcome the problem of getting a wide stream of bits from the memory without having to make the memory system too large as memory system density increased, DRAMS were made wider. Initially, they offered a four-bit transfer mode; in 2010, DDR2 and DDR3 DRAMS had up to 16-bit buses. The fourth major DRAM innovation to increase bandwidth is to transfer data on both the rising edge and falling edge of the DRAM clock signal, thereby doubling the peak data rate. This optimization is called double data rate (DDR). To provide some of the advantages of interleaving, as well to help with power management, SDRAMs also introduced banks, breaking a single SDRAM into 2 to 8 blocks (in current DDR3 DRAMs) that can operate independently. (We have already seen banks used in internal caches, and they were often used in large 2.3 Memory Technology and Optimizations ■ 101 Standard Clock rate (MHz) M transfers per second DRAM name MB/sec /DIMM DIMM name DDR DDR DDR DDR2 DDR2 DDR2 DDR3 DDR3 DDR3 DDR4 133 150 200 266 333 400 533 666 800 1066–1600 266 300 400 533 667 800 1066 1333 1600 2133–3200 DDR266 DDR300 DDR400 DDR2-533 DDR2-667 DDR2-800 DDR3-1066 DDR3-1333 DDR3-1600 DDR4-3200 2128 2400 3200 4264 5336 6400 8528 10,664 12,800 17,056–25,600 PC2100 PC2400 PC3200 PC4300 PC5300 PC6400 PC8500 PC10700 PC12800 PC25600 Figure 2.14 Clock rates, bandwidth, and names of DDR DRAMS and DIMMs in 2010. Note the numerical relationship between the columns. The third column is twice the second, and the fourth uses the number from the third column in the name of the DRAM chip. The fifth column is eight times the third column, and a rounded version of this number is used in the name of the DIMM. Although not shown in this figure, DDRs also specify latency in clock cycles as four numbers, which are specified by the DDR standard. For example, DDR3-2000 CL 9 has latencies of 9-9-9-28. What does this mean? With a 1 ns clock (clock cycle is one-half the transfer rate), this indicates 9 ns for row to columns address (RAS time), 9 ns for column access to data (CAS time), and a minimum read time of 28 ns. Closing the row takes 9 ns for precharge but happens only when the reads from that row are finished. In burst mode, transfers occur on every clock on both edges, when the first RAS and CAS times have elapsed. Furthermore, the precharge is not needed until the entire row is read. DDR4 will be produced in 2012 and is expected to reach clock rates of 1600 MHz in 2014, when DDR5 is expected to take over. The exercises explore these details further. main memories.) Creating multiple banks inside a DRAM effectively adds another segment to the address, which now consists of bank number, row address, and column address. When an address is sent that designates a new bank, that bank must be opened, incurring an additional delay. The management of banks and row buffers is completely handled by modern memory control interfaces, so that when subsequent access specifies the same row for an open bank, the access can happen quickly, sending only the column address. When DDR SDRAMs are packaged as DIMMs, they are confusingly labeled by the peak DIMM bandwidth. Hence, the DIMM name PC2100 comes from 133 MHz × 2 × 8 bytes, or 2100 MB/sec. Sustaining the confusion, the chips themselves are labeled with the number of bits per second rather than their clock rate, so a 133 MHz DDR chip is called a DDR266. Figure 2.14 shows the relationships among clock rate, transfers per second per chip, chip name, DIMM bandwidth, and DIMM name. DDR is now a sequence of standards. DDR2 lowers power by dropping the voltage from 2.5 volts to 1.8 volts and offers higher clock rates: 266 MHz, 333 MHz, and 400 MHz. DDR3 drops voltage to 1.5 volts and has a maximum clock speed of 800 MHz. DDR4, scheduled for production in 2014, drops the voltage to 1 to 1.2 volts and has a maximum expected clock rate of 1600 MHz. DDR5 will follow in about 2014 or 2015. (As we discuss in the next section, GDDR5 is a graphics RAM and is based on DDR3 DRAMs.) 102 ■ Chapter Two Memory Hierarchy Design Graphics Data RAMs GDRAMs or GSDRAMs (Graphics or Graphics Synchronous DRAMs) are a special class of DRAMs based on SDRAM designs but tailored for handling the higher bandwidth demands of graphics processing units. GDDR5 is based on DDR3 with earlier GDDRs based on DDR2. Since Graphics Processor Units (GPUs; see Chapter 4) require more bandwidth per DRAM chip than CPUs, GDDRs have several important differences: 1. GDDRs have wider interfaces: 32-bits versus 4, 8, or 16 in current designs. 2. GDDRs have a higher maximum clock rate on the data pins. To allow a higher transfer rate without incurring signaling problems, GDRAMS normally connect directly to the GPU and are attached by soldering them to the board, unlike DRAMs, which are normally arranged in an expandable array of DIMMs. Altogether, these characteristics let GDDRs run at two to five times the bandwidth per DRAM versus DDR3 DRAMs, a significant advantage in supporting GPUs. Because of the lower locality of memory requests in a GPU, burst mode generally is less useful for a GPU, but keeping open multiple memory banks and managing their use improves effective bandwidth. Reducing Power Consumption in SDRAMs Power consumption in dynamic memory chips consists of both dynamic power used in a read or write and static or standby power; both depend on the operating voltage. In the most advanced DDR3 SDRAMs the operating voltage has been dropped to 1.35 to 1.5 volts, significantly reducing power versus DDR2 SDRAMs. The addition of banks also reduced power, since only the row in a single bank is read and precharged. In addition to these changes, all recent SDRAMs support a power down mode, which is entered by telling the DRAM to ignore the clock. Power down mode disables the SDRAM, except for internal automatic refresh (without which entering power down mode for longer than the refresh time will cause the contents of memory to be lost). Figure 2.15 shows the power consumption for three situations in a 2 Gb DDR3 SDRAM. The exact delay required to return from low power mode depends on the SDRAM, but a typical timing from autorefresh low power mode is 200 clock cycles; additional time may be required for resetting the mode register before the first command. Flash Memory Flash memory is a type of EEPROM (Electronically Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory), which is normally read-only but can be erased. The other key property of Flash memory is that it holds it contents without any power. 2.3 Memory Technology and Optimizations ■ 103 Power in mW 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Low power mode Typical usage Fully active Read, write, terminate power Activate power Background power Figure 2.15 Power consumption for a DDR3 SDRAM operating under three conditions: low power (shutdown) mode, typical system mode (DRAM is active 30% of the time for reads and 15% for writes), and fully active mode, where the DRAM is continuously reading or writing when not in precharge. Reads and writes assume bursts of 8 transfers. These data are based on a Micron 1.5V 2Gb DDR3-1066. Flash is used as the backup storage in PMDs in the same manner that a disk functions in a laptop or server. In addition, because most PMDs have a limited amount of DRAM, Flash may also act as a level of the memory hierarchy, to a much larger extent than it might have to do so in the desktop or server with a main memory that might be 10 to 100 times larger. Flash uses a very different architecture and has different properties than standard DRAM. The most important differences are 1. Flash memory must be erased (hence the name Flash for the “flash” erase process) before it is overwritten, and it is erased in blocks (in high-density Flash, called NAND Flash, which is what is used in most computer applications) rather than individual bytes or words. This means when data must be written to Flash, an entire block must be assembled, either as new data or by merging the data to be written and the rest of the block’s contents. 2. Flash memory is static (i.e., it keeps its contents even when power is not applied) and draws significantly less power when not reading or writing (from less than half in standby mode to zero when completely inactive). 3. Flash memory has a limited number of write cycles for any block, typically at least 100,000. By ensuring uniform distribution of written blocks throughout the memory, a system can maximize the lifetime of a Flash memory system. 4. High-density Flash is cheaper than SDRAM but more expensive than disks: roughly $2/GB for Flash, $20 to $40/GB for SDRAM, and $0.09/GB for magnetic disks. 5. Flash is much slower than SDRAM but much faster than disk. For example, a transfer of 256 bytes from a typical high-density Flash memory takes about 6.5 μs (using burst mode transfer similar to but slower than that used in SDRAM). A comparable transfer from a DDR SDRAM takes about onequarter as long, and for a disk about 1000 times longer. For writes, the 104 ■ Chapter Two Memory Hierarchy Design difference is considerably larger, with the SDRAM being at least 10 and as much as 100 times faster than Flash depending on the circumstances. The rapid improvements in high-density Flash in the past decade have made the technology a viable part of memory hierarchies in mobile devices and as solidstate replacements for disks. As the rate of increase in DRAM density continues to drop, Flash could play an increased role in future memory systems, acting as both a replacement for hard disks and as an intermediate storage between DRAM and disk. Enhancing Dependability in Memory Systems Large caches and main memories significantly increase the possibility of errors occurring both during the fabrication process and dynamically, primarily from cosmic rays striking a memory cell. These dynamic errors, which are changes to a cell’s contents, not a change in the circuitry, are called soft errors. All DRAMs, Flash memory, and many SRAMs are manufactured with spare rows, so that a small number of manufacturing defects can be accommodated by programming the replacement of a defective row by a spare row. In addition to fabrication errors that must be fixed at configuration time, hard errors, which are permanent changes in the operation of one of more memory cells, can occur in operation. Dynamic errors can be detected by parity bits and detected and fixed by the use of Error Correcting Codes (ECCs). Because instruction caches are read-only, parity suffices. In larger data caches and in main memory, ECC is used to allow errors to be both detected and corrected. Parity requires only one bit of overhead to detect a single error in a sequence of bits. Because a multibit error would be undetected with parity, the number of bits protected by a parity bit must be limited. One parity bit per 8 data bits is a typical ratio. ECC can detect two errors and correct a single error with a cost of 8 bits of overhead per 64 data bits. In very large systems, the possibility of multiple errors as well as complete failure of a single memory chip becomes significant. Chipkill was introduced by IBM to solve this problem, and many very large systems, such as IBM and SUN servers and the Google Clusters, use this technology. (Intel calls their version SDDC.) Similar in nature to the RAID approach used for disks, Chipkill distributes the data and ECC information, so that the complete failure of a single memory chip can be handled by supporting the reconstruction of the missing data from the remaining memory chips. Using an analysis by IBM and assuming a 10,000 processor server with 4 GB per processor yields the following rates of unrecoverable errors in three years of operation: ■ Parity only—about 90,000, or one unrecoverable (or undetected) failure every 17 minutes ■ ECC only—about 3500, or about one undetected or unrecoverable failure every 7.5 hours ■ Chipkill—6, or about one undetected or unrecoverable failure every 2 months 2.4 Protection: Virtual Memory and Virtual Machines ■ 105 Another way to look at this is to find the maximum number of servers (each with 4 GB) that can be protected while achieving the same error rate as demonstrated for Chipkill. For parity, even a server with only one processor will have an unrecoverable error rate higher than a 10,000-server Chipkill protected system. For ECC, a 17-server system would have about the same failure rate as a 10,000server Chipkill system. Hence, Chipkill is a requirement for the 50,000 to 100,00 servers in warehouse-scale computers (see Section 6.8 of Chapter 6). 2.4 Protection: Virtual Memory and Virtual Machines A virtual machine is taken to be an efficient, isolated duplicate of the real machine. We explain these notions through the idea of a virtual machine monitor (VMM). . . . a VMM has three essential characteristics. First, the VMM provides an environment for programs which is essentially identical with the original machine; second, programs run in this environment show at worst only minor decreases in speed; and last, the VMM is in complete control of system resources. Gerald Popek and Robert Goldberg “Formal requirements for virtualizable third generation architectures,” Communications of the ACM (July 1974) Security and privacy are two of the most vexing challenges for information technology in 2011. Electronic burglaries, often involving lists of credit card numbers, are announced regularly, and it’s widely believed that many more go unreported. Hence, both researchers and practitioners are looking for new ways to make computing systems more secure. Although protecting information is not limited to hardware, in our view real security and privacy will likely involve innovation in computer architecture as well as in systems software. This section starts with a review of the architecture support for protecting processes from each other via virtual memory. It then describes the added protection provided from virtual machines, the architecture requirements of virtual machines, and the performance of a virtual machine. As we will see in Chapter 6, virtual machines are a foundational technology for cloud computing. Protection via Virtual Memory Page-based virtual memory, including a translation lookaside buffer that caches page table entries, is the primary mechanism that protects processes from each other. Sections B.4 and B.5 in Appendix B review virtual memory, including a detailed description of protection via segmentation and paging in the 80x86. This subsection acts as a quick review; refer to those sections if it’s too quick. Multiprogramming, where several programs running concurrently would share a computer, led to demands for protection and sharing among programs and 106 ■ Chapter Two Memory Hierarchy Design to the concept of a process. Metaphorically, a process is a program’s breathing air and living space—that is, a running program plus any state needed to continue running it. At any instant, it must be possible to switch from one process to another. This exchange is called a process switch or context switch. The operating system and architecture join forces to allow processes to share the hardware yet not interfere with each other. To do this, the architecture must limit what a process can access when running a user process yet allow an operating system process to access more. At a minimum, the architecture must do the following: 1. Provide at least two modes, indicating whether the running process is a user process or an operating system process. This latter process is sometimes called a kernel process or a supervisor process. 2. Provide a portion of the processor state that a user process can use but not write. This state includes a user/supervisor mode bit, an exception enable/disable bit, and memory protection information. Users are prevented from writing this state because the operating system cannot control user processes if users can give themselves supervisor privileges, disable exceptions, or change memory protection. 3. Provide mechanisms whereby the processor can go from user mode to supervisor mode and vice versa. The first direction is typically accomplished by a system call, implemented as a special instruction that transfers control to a dedicated location in supervisor code space. The PC is saved from the point of the system call, and the processor is placed in supervisor mode. The return to user mode is like a subroutine return that restores the previous user/supervisor mode. 4. Provide mechanisms to limit memory accesses to protect the memory state of a process without having to swap the process to disk on a context switch. Appendix A describes several memory protection schemes, but by far the most popular is adding protection restrictions to each page of virtual memory. Fixed-sized pages, typically 4 KB or 8 KB long, are mapped from the virtual address space into physical address space via a page table. The protection restrictions are included in each page table entry. The protection restrictions might determine whether a user process can read this page, whether a user process can write to this page, and whether code can be executed from this page. In addition, a process can neither read nor write a page if it is not in the page table. Since only the OS can update the page table, the paging mechanism provides total access protection. Paged virtual memory means that every memory access logically takes at least twice as long, with one memory access to obtain the physical address and a second access to get the data. This cost would be far too dear. The solution is to rely on the principle of locality; if the accesses have locality, then the address translations for the accesses must also have locality. By keeping these address translations in a special cache, a memory access rarely requires a second access to translate the address. This special address translation cache is referred to as a translation lookaside buffer (TLB). 2.4 Protection: Virtual Memory and Virtual Machines ■ 107 A TLB entry is like a cache entry where the tag holds portions of the virtual address and the data portion holds a physical page address, protection field, valid bit, and usually a use bit and a dirty bit. The operating system changes these bits by changing the value in the page table and then invalidating the corresponding TLB entry. When the entry is reloaded from the page table, the TLB gets an accurate copy of the bits. Assuming the computer faithfully obeys the restrictions on pages and maps virtual addresses to physical addresses, it would seem that we are done. Newspaper headlines suggest otherwise. The reason we’re not done is that we depend on the accuracy of the operating system as well as the hardware. Today’s operating systems consist of tens of millions of lines of code. Since bugs are measured in number per thousand lines of code, there are thousands of bugs in production operating systems. Flaws in the OS have led to vulnerabilities that are routinely exploited. This problem and the possibility that not enforcing protection could be much more costly than in the past have led some to look for a protection model with a much smaller code base than the full OS, such as Virtual Machines. Protection via Virtual Machines An idea related to virtual memory that is almost as old are Virtual Machines (VMs). They were first developed in the late 1960s, and they have remained an important part of mainframe computing over the years. Although largely ignored in the domain of single-user computers in the 1980s and 1990s, they have recently gained popularity due to ■ The increasing importance of isolation and security in modern systems ■ The failures in security and reliability of standard operating systems ■ The sharing of a single computer among many unrelated users, such as in a datacenter or cloud ■ The dramatic increases in the raw speed of processors, which make the overhead of VMs more acceptable The broadest definition of VMs includes basically all emulation methods that provide a standard software interface, such as the Java VM. We are interested in VMs that provide a complete system-level environment at the binary instruction set architecture (ISA) level. Most often, the VM supports the same ISA as the underlying hardware; however, it is also possible to support a different ISA, and such approaches are often employed when migrating between ISAs, so as to allow software from the departing ISA to be used until it can be ported to the new ISA. Our focus here will be in VMs where the ISA presented by the VM and the underlying hardware match. Such VMs are called (Operating) System Virtual Machines. IBM VM/370, VMware ESX Server, and Xen are examples. They present the illusion that the users of a VM have an entire computer to themselves, 108 ■ Chapter Two Memory Hierarchy Design including a copy of the operating system. A single computer runs multiple VMs and can support a number of different operating systems (OSes). On a conventional platform, a single OS “owns” all the hardware resources, but with a VM multiple OSes all share the hardware resources. The software that supports VMs is called a virtual machine monitor (VMM) or hypervisor; the VMM is the heart of virtual machine technology. The underlying hardware platform is called the host, and its resources are shared among the guest VMs. The VMM determines how to map virtual resources to physical resources: A physical resource may be time-shared, partitioned, or even emulated in software. The VMM is much smaller than a traditional OS; the isolation portion of a VMM is perhaps only 10,000 lines of code. In general, the cost of processor virtualization depends on the workload. User-level processor-bound programs, such as SPEC CPU2006, have zero virtualization overhead because the OS is rarely invoked so everything runs at native speeds. Conversely, I/O-intensive workloads generally are also OS-intensive and execute many system calls (which doing I/O requires) and privileged instructions that can result in high virtualization overhead. The overhead is determined by the number of instructions that must be emulated by the VMM and how slowly they are emulated. Hence, when the guest VMs run the same ISA as the host, as we assume here, the goal of the architecture and the VMM is to run almost all instructions directly on the native hardware. On the other hand, if the I/O-intensive workload is also I/O-bound, the cost of processor virtualization can be completely hidden by low processor utilization since it is often waiting for I/O. Although our interest here is in VMs for improving protection, VMs provide two other benefits that are commercially significant: 1. Managing software—VMs provide an abstraction that can run the complete software stack, even including old operating systems such as DOS. A typical deployment might be some VMs running legacy OSes, many running the current stable OS release, and a few testing the next OS release. 2. Managing hardware—One reason for multiple servers is to have each application running with its own compatible version of the operating system on separate computers, as this separation can improve dependability. VMs allow these separate software stacks to run independently yet share hardware, thereby consolidating the number of servers. Another example is that some VMMs support migration of a running VM to a different computer, either to balance load or to evacuate from failing hardware. These two reasons are why cloud-based servers, such as Amazon’s, rely on virtual machines. Requirements of a Virtual Machine Monitor What must a VM monitor do? It presents a software interface to guest software, it must isolate the state of guests from each other, and it must protect itself from guest software (including guest OSes). The qualitative requirements are 2.4 Protection: Virtual Memory and Virtual Machines ■ 109 ■ Guest software should behave on a VM exactly as if it were running on the native hardware, except for performance-related behavior or limitations of fixed resources shared by multiple VMs. ■ Guest software should not be able to change allocation of real system resources directly. To “virtualize” the processor, the VMM must control just about everything— access to privileged state, address translation, I/O, exceptions and interrupts— even though the guest VM and OS currently running are temporarily using them. For example, in the case of a timer interrupt, the VMM would suspend the currently running guest VM, save its state, handle the interrupt, determine which guest VM to run next, and then load its state. Guest VMs that rely on a timer interrupt are provided with a virtual timer and an emulated timer interrupt by the VMM. To be in charge, the VMM must be at a higher privilege level than the guest VM, which generally runs in user mode; this also ensures that the execution of any privileged instruction will be handled by the VMM. The basic requirements of system virtual machines are almost identical to those for paged virtual memory listed above: ■ At least two processor modes, system and user. ■ A privileged subset of instructions that is available only in system mode, resulting in a trap if executed in user mode. All system resources must be controllable only via these instructions. (Lack of) Instruction Set Architecture Support for Virtual Machines If VMs are planned for during the design of the ISA, it’s relatively easy to both reduce the number of instructions that must be executed by a VMM and how long it takes to emulate them. An architecture that allows the VM to execute directly on the hardware earns the title virtualizable, and the IBM 370 architecture proudly bears that label. Alas, since VMs have been considered for desktop and PC-based server applications only fairly recently, most instruction sets were created without virtualization in mind. These culprits include 80x86 and most RISC architectures. Because the VMM must ensure that the guest system only interacts with virtual resources, a conventional guest OS runs as a user mode program on top of the VMM. Then, if a guest OS attempts to access or modify information related to hardware resources via a privileged instruction—for example, reading or writing the page table pointer—it will trap to the VMM. The VMM can then effect the appropriate changes to corresponding real resources. Hence, if any instruction that tries to read or write such sensitive information traps when executed in user mode, the VMM can intercept it and support a virtual version of the sensitive information as the guest OS expects. 110 ■ Chapter Two Memory Hierarchy Design In the absence of such support, other measures must be taken. A VMM must take special precautions to locate all problematic instructions and ensure that they behave correctly when executed by a guest OS, thereby increasing the complexity of the VMM and reducing the performance of running the VM. Sections 2.5 and 2.7 give concrete examples of problematic instructions in the 80x86 architecture. Impact of Virtual Machines on Virtual Memory and I/O Another challenge is virtualization of virtual memory, as each guest OS in every VM manages its own set of page tables. To make this work, the VMM separates the notions of real and physical memory (which are often treated synonymously) and makes real memory a separate, intermediate level between virtual memory and physical memory. (Some use the terms virtual memory, physical memory, and machine memory to name the same three levels.) The guest OS maps virtual memory to real memory via its page tables, and the VMM page tables map the guests’ real memory to physical memory. The virtual memory architecture is specified either via page tables, as in IBM VM/370 and the 80x86, or via the TLB structure, as in many RISC architectures. Rather than pay an extra level of indirection on every memory access, the VMM maintains a shadow page table that maps directly from the guest virtual address space to the physical address space of the hardware. By detecting all modifications to the guest’s page table, the VMM can ensure the shadow page table entries being used by the hardware for translations correspond to those of the guest OS environment, with the exception of the correct physical pages substituted for the real pages in the guest tables. Hence, the VMM must trap any attempt by the guest OS to change its page table or to access the page table pointer. This is commonly done by write protecting the guest page tables and trapping any access to the page table pointer by a guest OS. As noted above, the latter happens naturally if accessing the page table pointer is a privileged operation. The IBM 370 architecture solved the page table problem in the 1970s with an additional level of indirection that is managed by the VMM. The guest OS keeps its page tables as before, so the shadow pages are unnecessary. AMD has proposed a similar scheme for their Pacifica revision to the 80x86. To virtualize the TLB in many RISC computers, the VMM manages the real TLB and has a copy of the contents of the TLB of each guest VM. To pull this off, any instructions that access the TLB must trap. TLBs with Process ID tags can support a mix of entries from different VMs and the VMM, thereby avoiding flushing of the TLB on a VM switch. Meanwhile, in the background, the VMM supports a mapping between the VMs’ virtual Process IDs and the real Process IDs. The final portion of the architecture to virtualize is I/O. This is by far the most difficult part of system virtualization because of the increasing number of I/O devices attached to the computer and the increasing diversity of I/O device types. Another difficulty is the sharing of a real device among multiple VMs, and yet another comes from supporting the myriad of device drivers that are required, 2.4 Protection: Virtual Memory and Virtual Machines ■ 111 especially if different guest OSes are supported on the same VM system. The VM illusion can be maintained by giving each VM generic versions of each type of I/O device driver, and then leaving it to the VMM to handle real I/O. The method for mapping a virtual to physical I/O device depends on the type of device. For example, physical disks are normally partitioned by the VMM to create virtual disks for guest VMs, and the VMM maintains the mapping of virtual tracks and sectors to the physical ones. Network interfaces are often shared between VMs in very short time slices, and the job of the VMM is to keep track of messages for the virtual network addresses to ensure that guest VMs receive only messages intended for them. An Example VMM: The Xen Virtual Machine Early in the development of VMs, a number of inefficiencies became apparent. For example, a guest OS manages its virtual to real page mapping, but this mapping is ignored by the VMM, which performs the actual mapping to physical pages. In other words, a significant amount of wasted effort is expended just to keep the guest OS happy. To reduce such inefficiencies, VMM developers decided that it may be worthwhile to allow the guest OS to be aware that it is running on a VM. For example, a guest OS could assume a real memory as large as its virtual memory so that no memory management is required by the guest OS. Allowing small modifications to the guest OS to simplify virtualization is referred to as paravirtualization, and the open source Xen VMM is a good example. The Xen VMM, which is used in Amazon’s Web services data centers, provides a guest OS with a virtual machine abstraction that is similar to the physical hardware, but it drops many of the troublesome pieces. For example, to avoid flushing the TLB, Xen maps itself into the upper 64 MB of the address space of each VM. It allows the guest OS to allocate pages, just checking to be sure it does not violate protection restrictions. To protect the guest OS from the user programs in the VM, Xen takes advantage of the four protection levels available in the 80x86. The Xen VMM runs at the highest privilege level (0), the guest OS runs at the next level (1), and the applications run at the lowest privilege level (3). Most OSes for the 80x86 keep everything at privilege levels 0 or 3. For subsetting to work properly, Xen modifies the guest OS to not use problematic portions of the architecture. For example, the port of Linux to Xen changes about 3000 lines, or about 1% of the 80x86-specific code. These changes, however, do not affect the application-binary interfaces of the guest OS. To simplify the I/O challenge of VMs, Xen assigned privileged virtual machines to each hardware I/O device. These special VMs are called driver domains. (Xen calls its VMs “domains.”) Driver domains run the physical device drivers, although interrupts are still handled by the VMM before being sent to the appropriate driver domain. Regular VMs, called guest domains, run simple virtual device drivers that must communicate with the physical device drivers in the driver domains over a channel to access the physical I/O hardware. Data are sent between guest and driver domains by page remapping. 112 ■ Chapter Two Memory Hierarchy Design 2.5 Crosscutting Issues: The Design of Memory Hierarchies This section describes three topics discussed in other chapters that are fundamental to memory hierarchies. Protection and Instruction Set Architecture Protection is a joint effort of architecture and operating systems, but architects had to modify some awkward details of existing instruction set architectures when virtual memory became popular. For example, to support virtual memory in the IBM 370, architects had to change the successful IBM 360 instruction set architecture that had been announced just 6 years before. Similar adjustments are being made today to accommodate virtual machines. For example, the 80x86 instruction POPF loads the flag registers from the top of the stack in memory. One of the flags is the Interrupt Enable (IE) flag. Until recent changes to support virtualization, running the POPF instruction in user mode, rather than trapping it, simply changed all the flags except IE. In system mode, it does change the IE flag. Since a guest OS runs in user mode inside a VM, this was a problem, as it would expect to see a changed IE. Extensions of the 80x86 architecture to support virtualization eliminated this problem. Historically, IBM mainframe hardware and VMM took three steps to improve performance of virtual machines: 1. Reduce the cost of processor virtualization. 2. Reduce interrupt overhead cost due to the virtualization. 3. Reduce interrupt cost by steering interrupts to the proper VM without invok- ing VMM. IBM is still the gold standard of virtual machine technology. For example, an IBM mainframe ran thousands of Linux VMs in 2000, while Xen ran 25 VMs in 2004 [Clark et al. 2004]. Recent versions of Intel and AMD chipsets have added special instructions to support devices in a VM, to mask interrupts at lower levels from each VM, and to steer interrupts to the appropriate VM. Coherency of Cached Data Data can be found in memory and in the cache. As long as the processor is the sole component changing or reading the data and the cache stands between the processor and memory, there is little danger in the processor seeing the old or stale copy. As we will see, multiple processors and I/O devices raise the opportunity for copies to be inconsistent and to read the wrong copy. The frequency of the cache coherency problem is different for multiprocessors than I/O. Multiple data copies are a rare event for I/O—one to be 2.6 Putting It All Together: Memory Hierachies in the ARM Cortex-A8 and Intel Core i7 ■ 113 avoided whenever possible—but a program running on multiple processors will want to have copies of the same data in several caches. Performance of a multiprocessor program depends on the performance of the system when sharing data. The I/O cache coherency question is this: Where does the I/O occur in the computer—between the I/O device and the cache or between the I/O device and main memory? If input puts data into the cache and output reads data from the cache, both I/O and the processor see the same data. The difficulty in this approach is that it interferes with the processor and can cause the processor to stall for I/O. Input may also interfere with the cache by displacing some information with new data that are unlikely to be accessed soon. The goal for the I/O system in a computer with a cache is to prevent the stale data problem while interfering as little as possible. Many systems, therefore, prefer that I/O occur directly to main memory, with main memory acting as an I/O buffer. If a write-through cache were used, then memory would have an up-to-date copy of the information, and there would be no stale data issue for output. (This benefit is a reason processors used write through.) Alas, write through is usually found today only in first-level data caches backed by an L2 cache that uses write back. Input requires some extra work. The software solution is to guarantee that no blocks of the input buffer are in the cache. A page containing the buffer can be marked as noncachable, and the operating system can always input to such a page. Alternatively, the operating system can flush the buffer addresses from the cache before the input occurs. A hardware solution is to check the I/O addresses on input to see if they are in the cache. If there is a match of I/O addresses in the cache, the cache entries are invalidated to avoid stale data. All of these approaches can also be used for output with write-back caches. Processor cache coherency is a critical subject in the age of multicore processors, and we will examine it in detail in Chapter 5. 2.6 Putting It All Together: Memory Hierachies in the ARM Cortex-A8 and Intel Core i7 This section reveals the ARM Cortex-A8 (hereafter called the Cortex-A8) and Intel Core i7 (hereafter called i7) memory hierarchies and shows the performance of their components on a set of single threaded benchmarks. We examine the Cortex-A8 first because it has a simpler memory system; we go into more detail for the i7, tracing out a memory reference in detail. This section presumes that readers are familiar with the organization of a two-level cache hierarchy using virtually indexed caches. The basics of such a memory system are explained in detail in Appendix B, and readers who are uncertain of the organization of such a system are strongly advised to review the Opteron example in Appendix B. Once they understand the organization of the Opteron, the brief explanation of the Cortex-A8 system, which is similar, will be easy to follow. 114 ■ Chapter Two Memory Hierarchy Design The ARM Cortex-A8 The Cortex-A8 is a configurable core that supports the ARMv7 instruction set architecture. It is delivered as an IP (Intellectual Property) core. IP cores are the dominant form of technology delivery in the embedded, PMD, and related markets; billions of ARM and MIPS processors have been created from these IP cores. Note that IP cores are different than the cores in the Intel i7 or AMD Athlon multicores. An IP core (which may itself be a multicore) is designed to be incorporated with other logic (hence it is the core of a chip), including application-specific processors (such as an encoder or decoder for video), I/O interfaces, and memory interfaces, and then fabricated to yield a processor optimized for a particular application. For example, the Cortex-A8 IP core is used in the Apple iPad and smartphones by several manufacturers including Motorola and Samsung. Although the processor core is almost identical, the resultant chips have many differences. Generally, IP cores come in two flavors. Hard cores are optimized for a particular semiconductor vendor and are black boxes with external (but still on-chip) interfaces. Hard cores typically allow parametrization only of logic outside the core, such as L2 cache sizes, and the IP core cannot be modified. Soft cores are usually delivered in a form that uses a standard library of logic elements. A soft core can be compiled for different semiconductor vendors and can also be modified, although extensive modifications are very difficult due to the complexity of modern-day IP cores. In general, hard cores provide higher performance and smaller die area, while soft cores allow retargeting to other vendors and can be more easily modified. The Cortex-A8 can issue two instructions per clock at clock rates up to 1GHz. It can support a two-level cache hierarchy with the first level being a pair of caches (for I & D), each 16 KB or 32 KB organized as four-way set associative and using way prediction and random replacement. The goal is to have singlecycle access latency for the caches, allowing the Cortex-A8 to maintain a loadto-use delay of one cycle, simpler instruction fetch, and a lower penalty for fetching the correct instruction when a branch miss causes the wrong instruction to be prefetched. The optional second-level cache when present is eight-way set associative and can be configured with 128 KB up to 1 MB; it is organized into one to four banks to allow several transfers from memory to occur concurrently. An external bus of 64 to 128 bits handles memory requests. The first-level cache is virtually indexed and physically tagged, and the second-level cache is physically indexed and tagged; both levels use a 64-byte block size. For the D-cache of 32 KB and a page size of 4 KB, each physical page could map to two different cache addresses; such aliases are avoided by hardware detection on a miss as in Section B.3 of Appendix B. Memory management is handled by a pair of TLBs (I and D), each of which are fully associative with 32 entries and a variable page size (4 KB, 16 KB, 64 KB, 1 MB, and 16 MB); replacement in the TLB is done by a round robin algorithm. TLB misses are handled in hardware, which walks a page table structure in 2.6 Putting It All Together: Memory Hierachies in the ARM Cortex-A8 and Intel Core i7 ■ 115 memory. Figure 2.16 shows how the 32-bit virtual address is used to index the TLB and the caches, assuming 32 KB primary caches and a 512 KB secondary cache with 16 KB page size. Performance of the Cortex-A8 Memory Hierarchy The memory hierarchy of the Cortex-A8 was simulated with 32 KB primary caches and a 1 MB eight-way set associative L2 cache using the integer Minnespec benchmarks (see KleinOsowski and Lilja [2002]). Minnespec is a set of benchmarks consisting of the SPEC2000 benchmarks but with different inputs that reduce the running times by several orders of magnitude. Although the use of smaller inputs does not change the instruction mix, it does affect the Virtual add ress <32> Virtual page number <18> Page offset <14> TLB tag <19> TLB data <19> L1 cache index <7> Block offset <6> To CPU L1 cache tag <19> L1 data <64> To CPU =? P h ysical address <32> L2 tag compare address <15> L2 cache index <11> Block offset <6> To CPU L2 cache tag <15> L2 data <512> =? To L1 cache or CPU Figure 2.16 The virtual address, physical address, indexes, tags, and data blocks for the ARM Cortex-A8 data caches and data TLB. Since the instruction and data hierarchies are symmetric, we show only one. The TLB (instruction or data) is fully associative with 32 entries. The L1 cache is four-way set associative with 64-byte blocks and 32 KB capacity. The L2 cache is eight-way set associative with 64-byte blocks and 1 MB capacity. This figure doesn’t show the valid bits and protection bits for the caches and TLB, nor the use of the way prediction bits that would dictate the predicted bank of the L1 cache. 116 ■ Chapter Two Memory Hierarchy Design cache behavior. For example, on mcf, the most memory-intensive SPEC2000 integer benchmark, Minnespec has a miss rate for a 32 KB cache that is only 65% of the miss rate for the full SPEC version. For a 1 MB cache the difference is a factor of 6! On many other benchmarks the ratios are similar to those on mcf, but the absolute miss rates are much smaller. For this reason, one cannot compare the Minniespec benchmarks against the SPEC2000 benchmarks. Instead, the data are useful for looking at the relative impact of L1 and L2 misses and on overall CPI, as we do in the next chapter. The instruction cache miss rates for these benchmarks (and also for the full SPEC2000 versions on which Minniespec is based) are very small even for just the L1: close to zero for most and under 1% for all of them. This low rate probably results from the computationally intensive nature of the SPEC programs and the four-way set associative cache that eliminates most conflict misses. Figure 2.17 shows the data cache results, which have significant L1 and L2 miss rates. The L1 miss penalty for a 1 GHz Cortex-A8 is 11 clock cycles, while the 25% L1 data miss rate L2 global data miss rate 20% Data miss rate 15% 10% 5% 0% gzip vpr gcc mcf craf ty parser eon perlbmk gap vortex bzip2 Figure 2.17 The data miss rate for ARM with a 32 KB L1 and the global data miss rate for a 1 MB L2 using the integer Minnespec benchmarks are significantly affected by the applications. Applications with larger memory footprints tend to have higher miss rates in both L1 and L2. Note that the L2 rate is the global miss rate, that is counting all references, including those that hit in L1. Mcf is known as a cache buster. 2.6 Putting It All Together: Memory Hierachies in the ARM Cortex-A8 and Intel Core i7 ■ 117 5 4.5 L2 data average memory penalty L1 data average memory penalty 4 Miss penalty per data reference 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 gzip vpr gcc mcf crafty parser eon perlbmk gap vortex bzip2 Figure 2.18 The average memory access penalty per data memory reference coming from L1 and L2 is shown for the ARM processor when running Minniespec. Although the miss rates for L1 are significantly higher, the L2 miss penalty, which is more than five times higher, means that the L2 misses can contribute significantly. L2 miss penalty is 60 clock cycles, using DDR SDRAMs for the main memory. Using these miss penalties, Figure 2.18 shows the average penalty per data access. In the next chapter, we will examine the impact of the cache misses on overall CPI. The Intel Core i7 The i7 supports the x86-64 instruction set architecture, a 64-bit extension of the 80x86 architecture. The i7 is an out-of-order execution processor that includes four cores. In this chapter, we focus on the memory system design and performance from the viewpoint of a single core. The system performance of multiprocessor designs, including the i7 multicore, is examined in detail in Chapter 5. Each core in an i7 can execute up to four 80x86 instructions per clock cycle, using a multiple issue, dynamically scheduled, 16-stage pipeline, which we describe in detail in Chapter 3. The i7 can also support up to two simultaneous threads per processor, using a technique called simultaneous multithreading, 118 ■ Chapter Two Memory Hierarchy Design described in Chapter 4. In 2010, the fastest i7 had a clock rate of 3.3 GHz, which yields a peak instruction execution rate of 13.2 billion instructions per second, or over 50 billion instructions per second for the four-core design. The i7 can support up to three memory channels, each consisting of a separate set of DIMMs, and each of which can transfer in parallel. Using DDR3-1066 (DIMM PC8500), the i7 has a peak memory bandwith of just over 25 GB/sec. i7 uses 48-bit virtual addresses and 36-bit physical addresses, yielding a maximum physical memory of 36 GB. Memory management is handled with a twolevel TLB (see Appendix B, Section B.4), summarized in Figure 2.19. Figure 2.20 summarizes the i7’s three-level cache hierarchy. The first-level caches are virtually indexed and physically tagged (see Appendix B, Section B.3), while the L2 and L3 caches are physically indexed. Figure 2.21 is labeled with the Characteristic Size Associativity Replacement Access latency Miss Instruction TLB 128 4-way Pseudo-LRU 1 cycle 7 cycles Data DLB 64 4-way Pseudo-LRU 1 cycle 7 cycles Second-level TLB 512 4-way Pseudo-LRU 6 cycles Hundreds of cycles to access page table Figure 2.19 Characteristics of the i7’s TLB structure, which has separate first-level instruction and data TLBs, both backed by a joint second-level TLB. The first-level TLBs support the standard 4 KB page size, as well as having a limited number of entries of large 2 to 4 MB pages; only 4 KB pages are supported in the second-level TLB. Characteristic L1 L2 L3 Size Associativity Access latency Replacement scheme 32 KB I/32 KB D 4-way I/8-way D 4 cycles, pipelined Pseudo-LRU 256 KB 8-way 10 cycles PseudoLRU 2 MB per core 16-way 35 cycles Pseudo-LRU but with an ordered selection algorihtm Figure 2.20 Characteristics of the three-level cache hierarchy in the i7. All three caches use write-back and a block size of 64 bytes. The L1 and L2 caches are separate for each core, while the L3 cache is shared among the cores on a chip and is a total of 2 MB per core. All three caches are nonblocking and allow multiple outstanding writes. A merging write buffer is used for the L1 cache, which holds data in the event that the line is not present in L1 when it is written. (That is, an L1 write miss does not cause the line to be allocated.) L3 is inclusive of L1 and L2; we explore this property in further detail when we explain multiprocessor caches. Replacement is by a variant on pseudoLRU; in the case of L3 the block replaced is always the lowest numbered way whose access bit is turned off. This is not quite random but is easy to compute. 2.6 Putting It All Together: Memory Hierachies in the ARM Cortex-A8 and Intel Core i7 ■ 119 Virtual page number <36> PC Page offset <12> CPU Instruction Data <128> <64> <4> <1> 1 <31> Prot V Tag I T L3 B (128 PTEs in 4 banks) 4 <24> <24> Physical address 4:1 mux 2 <128> D T L B <64> <4> <1> <29> <24> L2 Prot V Tag Physical address <7> <7> T L B =? (512 PTEs in 4 banks) 4:1 mux Data virtual page number <36> Page offset <12> Data in <64> <4> <1> <31> Prot V Tag <24> Physical address (64 PTEs in 4 banks) <28> 4:1 mux <7> <6> Index Block offset I VD Data 16 C <1> <1> <23> <128x4> A 5 C 5 H E 6 =? 7 (512 blocks in 4 banks) 4:1 mux <6> <6> Index Block offset D V D Tag Data C <1> <1> <21> <128× 4> A C H E =? (512 blocks in 8 banks) 4:1 mux 2:1 mux <30> V D Tag L2 8 <21> Tag <9> Index <1> <1> <21> C 9 A C H E 10 =? (4K blocks in 8 banks) Data <512> 8:1 mux V D Tag L3 11 <17> Tag <13> Index <1> <1> <17> C A 12 C H E 13 =? (128K blocks in 16 banks) Data <512> 16 16:1 mux MM AE IM NO R Y DIMM 14 Memory Interface <64> DIMM 15 <64> DIMM <64> Figure 2.21 The Intel i7 memory hierarchy and the steps in both instruction and data access. We show only reads for data. Writes are similar, in that they begin with a read (since caches are write back). Misses are handled by simply placing the data in a write buffer, since the L1 cache is not write allocated. 120 ■ Chapter Two Memory Hierarchy Design steps of an access to the memory hierarchy. First, the PC is sent to the instruction cache. The instruction cache index is 2Index = B-----l-o---c---k----s---i-z---eC----a×---c--Sh---ee---t--s-a-i--zs--es---o---c--i--a---t-i--v---i--t-y-- = 6---34---2--×-K----4- = 128 = 27 or 7 bits. The page frame of the instruction’s address (36 = 48 – 12 bits) is sent to the instruction TLB (step 1). At the same time the 7-bit index (plus an additional 2 bits from the block offset to select the appropriate 16 bytes, the instruction fetch amount) from the virtual address is sent to the instruction cache (step 2). Notice that for the four-way associative instruction cache, 13 bits are needed for the cache address: 7 bits to index the cache plus 6 bits of block offset for the 64-byte block, but the page size is 4 KB = 212, which means that 1 bit of the cache index must come from the virtual address. This use of 1 bit of virtual address means that the corresponding block could actually be in two different places in the cache, since the corresponding physical address could have either a 0 or 1 in this location. For instructions this does not pose a problem, since even if an instruction appeared in the cache in two different locations, the two versions must be the same. If such duplication, or aliasing, of data is allowed, the cache must be checked when the page map is changed, which is an infrequent event. Note that a very simple use of page coloring (see Appendix B, Section B.3) can eliminate the possibility of these aliases. If even-address virtual pages are mapped to even-address physical pages (and the same for odd pages), then these aliases can never occur because the low-order bit in the virtual and physical page number will be identical. The instruction TLB is accessed to find a match between the address and a valid Page Table Entry (PTE) (steps 3 and 4). In addition to translating the address, the TLB checks to see if the PTE demands that this access result in an exception due to an access violation. An instruction TLB miss first goes to the L2 TLB, which contains 512 PTEs of 4 KB page sizes and is four-way set associative. It takes two clock cycles to load the L1 TLB from the L2 TLB. If the L2 TLB misses, a hardware algorithm is used to walk the page table and update the TLB entry. In the worst case, the page is not in memory, and the operating system gets the page from disk. Since millions of instructions could execute during a page fault, the operating system will swap in another process if one is waiting to run. Otherwise, if there is no TLB exception, the instruction cache access continues. The index field of the address is sent to all four banks of the instruction cache (step 5). The instruction cache tag is 36 – 7 bits (index) – 6 bits (block offset), or 23 bits. The four tags and valid bits are compared to the physical page frame from the instruction TLB (step 6). As the i7 expects 16 bytes each instruction fetch, an additional 2 bits are used from the 6-bit block offset to select the appropriate 16 bytes. Hence, 7 + 2 or 9 bits are used to send 16 bytes of instructions to the processor. The L1 cache is pipelined, and the latency of a hit is 4 clock cycles (step 7). A miss goes to the second-level cache. As mentioned earlier, the instruction cache is virtually addressed and physically tagged. Because the second-level caches are physically addressed, the 2.6 Putting It All Together: Memory Hierachies in the ARM Cortex-A8 and Intel Core i7 ■ 121 physical page address from the TLB is composed with the page offset to make an address to access the L2 cache. The L2 index is 2Index = B-----l-o---c---k----s---i-z---Ce----a×---c--Sh---ee---t--s-a-i--zs--es---o---c--i--a---t-i--v---i--t-y-- = 6-2--4-5---6-×---K--8- = 512 = 29 so the 30-bit block address (36-bit physical address – 6-bit block offset) is divided into a 21-bit tag and a 9-bit index (step 8). Once again, the index and tag are sent to all eight banks of the unified L2 cache (step 9), which are compared in parallel. If one matches and is valid (step 10), it returns the block in sequential order after the initial 10-cycle latency at a rate of 8 bytes per clock cycle. If the L2 cache misses, the L3 cache is accessed. For a four-core i7, which has an 8 MB L3, the index size is 2Index = B-----l-o---c---k----s---i-z---eC----a×---c--Sh---ee---t--s-a-i--zs--es---o---c--i--a---t-i--v---i--t-y-- = 6---4--8---×-M----1---6- = 8192 = 213 The 13-bit index (step 11) is sent to all 16 banks of the L3 (step 12). The L3 tag, which is 36 − (13 + 6) = 17 bits, is compared against the physical address from the TLB (step 13). If a hit occurs, the block is returned after an initial latency at a rate of 16 bytes per clock and placed into both L1 and L3. If L3 misses, a memory access is initiated. If the instruction is not found in the L3 cache, the on-chip memory controller must get the block from main memory. The i7 has three 64-bit memory channels that can act as one 192-bit channel, since there is only one memory controller and the same address is sent on both channels (step 14). Wide transfers happen when both channels have identical DIMMs. Each channel supports up to four DDR DIMMs (step 15). When the data return they are placed into L3 and L1 (step 16) because L3 is inclusive. The total latency of the instruction miss that is serviced by main memory is approximately 35 processor cycles to determine that an L3 miss has occurred, plus the DRAM latency for the critical instructions. For a single-bank DDR1600 SDRAM and 3.3 GHz CPU, the DRAM latency is about 35 ns or 100 clock cycles to the first 16 bytes, leading to a total miss penalty of 135 clock cycles. The memory controller fills the remainder of the 64-byte cache block at a rate of 16 bytes per memory clock cycle, which takes another 15 ns or 45 clock cycles. Since the second-level cache is a write-back cache, any miss can lead to an old block being written back to memory. The i7 has a 10-entry merging write buffer that writes back dirty cache lines when the next level in the cache is unused for a read. The write buffer is snooped by any miss to see if the cache line exists in the buffer; if so, the miss is filled from the buffer. A similar buffer is used between the L1 and L2 caches. If this initial instruction is a load, the data address is sent to the data cache and data TLBs, acting very much like an instruction cache access with one key difference. The first-level data cache is eight-way set associative, meaning that the index is 6 bits (versus 7 for the instruction cache) and the address used to access the cache is the same as the page offset. Hence aliases in the data cache are not a worry. 122 ■ Chapter Two Memory Hierarchy Design Suppose the instruction is a store instead of a load. When the store issues, it does a data cache lookup just like a load. A miss causes the block to be placed in a write buffer, since the L1 cache does not allocate the block on a write miss. On a hit, the store does not update the L1 (or L2) cache until later, after it is known to be nonspeculative. During this time the store resides in a load-store queue, part of the out-of-order control mechanism of the processor. The I7 also supports prefetching for L1 and L2 from the next level in the hierarchy. In most cases, the prefetched line is simply the next block in the cache. By prefetching only for L1 and L2, high-cost unnecessary fetches to memory are avoided. Performance of the i7 Memory System We evaluate the performance of the i7 cache structure using 19 of the SPECCPU2006 benchmarks (12 integer and 7 floating point), which were described in Chapter 1. The data in this section were collected by Professor Lu Peng and Ph.D. student Ying Zhang, both of Louisiana State University. We begin with the L1 cache. The 32 KB, four-way set associative instruction cache leads to a very low instruction miss rate, especially because the instruction prefetch in the i7 is quite effective. Of course, how we evaluate the miss rate is a bit tricky, since the i7 does not generate individual requests for single instruction units, but instead prefetches 16 bytes of instruction data (between four and five instructions typically). If, for simplicity, we examine the instruction cache miss rate as if single instruction references were handled, then the L1 instruction cache miss rate varies from 0.1% to 1.8%, averaging just over 0.4%. This rate is in keeping with other studies of instruction cache behavior for the SPECCPU2006 benchmarks, which showed low instruction cache miss rates. The L1 data cache is more interesting and even trickier to evaluate for three reasons: 1. Because the L1 data cache is not write allocated, writes can hit but never really miss, in the sense that a write that does not hit simply places its data in the write buffer and does not record as a miss. 2. Because speculation may sometimes be wrong (see Chapter 3 for an extensive discussion), there are references to the L1 data cache that do not correspond to loads or stores that eventually complete execution. How should such misses be treated? 3. Finally, the L1 data cache does automatic prefetching. Should prefetches that miss be counted, and, if so, how? To address these issues, while keeping the amount of data reasonable, Figure 2.22 shows the L1 data cache misses in two ways: relative to the number of loads that actually complete (often called graduation or retirement) and relative to all the L1 data cache accesses from any source. As we can see, the miss rate when measured against only completed loads is 1.6 times higher (an average of 9.5% versus 5.9%). Figure 2.23 shows the same data in table form. 2.6 Putting It All Together: Memory Hierachies in the ARM Cortex-A8 and Intel Core i7 ■ 123 50% 45% 40% L1 D misses/L1 D cache references L1 D misses/graduated loads 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% PERLBENCHBZIP2GCC MGCFOBMHKMMLEISBRJQEUNAGNTHU2M6O4MRENFETPXPAASLTAANRCBMK MILCNAMDDEASLOII PLPEOXVRAYLBSMPHINX3 Figure 2.22 The L1 data cache miss rate for 17 SPECCPU2006 benchmarks is shown in two ways: relative to the actual loads that complete execution successfully and relative to all the references to L1, which also includes prefetches, speculative loads that do not complete, and writes, which count as references, but do not generate misses. These data, like the rest in this section, were collected by Professor Lu Peng and Ph.D. student Ying Zhang, both of Louisiana State University, based on earlier studies of the Intel Core Duo and other processors (see Peng et al. [2008]). Benchmark PERLBENCH BZIP2 GCC MCF GOBMK HMMER SJENG LIBQUANTUM H264REF OMNETPP ASTAR XALANCBMK MILC NAMD DEALII SOPLEX POVRAY LBM SPHINX3 L1 data misses/ graduated loads 2% 5% 14% 46% 3% 4% 2% 18% 4% 13% 9% 9% 8% 4% 6% 13% 7% 7% 10% L1 data misses/ L1 data cache references 1% 3% 6% 24% 2% 3% 1% 10% 3% 8% 6% 7% 5% 3% 5% 9% 5% 4% 8% Figure 2.23 The primary data cache misses are shown versus all loads that complete and all references (which includes speculative and prefetch requests). 124 ■ Chapter Two Memory Hierarchy Design With L1 data cache miss rates running 5% to 10%, and sometimes higher, the importance of the L2 and L3 caches should be obvious. Figure 2.24 shows the miss rates of the L2 and L3 caches versus the number of L1 references (and Figure 2.25 shows the data in tabular form). Since the cost for a miss to memory is over 100 cycles and the average data miss rate in L2 is 4%, L3 is obviously critical. Without L3 and assuming about half the instructions are loads or stores, L2 cache misses could add two cycles per instruction to the CPI! In comparison, the average L3 data miss rate of 1% is still significant but four times lower than the L2 miss rate and six times less than the L1 miss rate. In the next chapter, we will examine the relationship between the i7 CPI and cache misses, as well as other pipeline effects. 16% 14% L2 misses/all D cache references L3 misses/all D cache references 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% PERLBEBZNICP2H GCC LIXBAQLOHAUM2HGNASAN6MCNJO4SETBEBMTMTRUNEAMMPCEKFKPFGRMR PSOODNVPEMALRIALMEALIDYCIX SPHILNBXM3 Figure 2.24 The L2 and L3 data cache miss rates for 17 SPECCPU2006 benchmarks are shown relative to all the references to L1, which also includes prefetches, speculative loads that do not complete, and program–generated loads and stores. These data, like the rest in this section, were collected by Professor Lu Peng and Ph.D. student Ying Zhang, both of Louisiana State University. 2.7 Fallacies and Pitfalls ■ 125 PERLBENCH BZIP2 GCC MCF GOBMK HMMER SJENG LIBQUANTUM H264REF OMNETPP ASTAR XALANCBMK MILC NAMD DEALII SOPLEX POVRAY LBM SPHINX3 L2 misses/all data cache references 1% 2% 6% 15% 1% 2% 0% 3% 1% 7% 3% 4% 6% 0% 4% 9% 0% 4% 7% L3 misses/all data cache references 0% 0% 1% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 4% 0% Figure 2.25 The L2 and L3 miss rates shown in table form versus the number of data requests. 2.7 Fallacies and Pitfalls As the most naturally quantitative of the computer architecture disciplines, memory hierarchy would seem to be less vulnerable to fallacies and pitfalls. Yet we were limited here not by lack of warnings, but by lack of space! Fallacy Predicting cache performance of one program from another. Figure 2.26 shows the instruction miss rates and data miss rates for three programs from the SPEC2000 benchmark suite as cache size varies. Depending on the program, the data misses per thousand instructions for a 4096 KB cache are 9, 2, or 90, and the instruction misses per thousand instructions for a 4 KB cache are 55, 19, or 0.0004. Commercial programs such as databases will have significant miss rates even in large second-level caches, which is generally not the case for the SPEC programs. Clearly, generalizing cache performance from one program to another is unwise. As Figure 2.24 reminds us, there is a great deal of variation, 126 ■ Chapter Two Memory Hierarchy Design Misses per 1000 instructions 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 4 D: lucas D: gap D: gcc I: gap I: gcc I: lucas 16 64 256 1024 4096 Cache size (KB) Figure 2.26 Instruction and data misses per 1000 instructions as cache size varies from 4 KB to 4096 KB. Instruction misses for gcc are 30,000 to 40,000 times larger than lucas, and, conversely, data misses for lucas are 2 to 60 times larger than gcc. The programs gap, gcc, and lucas are from the SPEC2000 benchmark suite. and even predictions about the relative miss rates of integer and floating-pointintensive programs can be wrong as mcf and sphnix3 remind us! Pitfall Simulating enough instructions to get accurate performance measures of the memory hierarchy. There are really three pitfalls here. One is trying to predict performance of a large cache using a small trace. Another is that a program’s locality behavior is not constant over the run of the entire program. The third is that a program’s locality behavior may vary depending on the input. Figure 2.27 shows the cumulative average instruction misses per thousand instructions for five inputs to a single SPEC2000 program. For these inputs, the average memory rate for the first 1.9 billion instructions is very different from the average miss rate for the rest of the execution. Pitfall Not delivering high memory bandwidth in a cache-based system. Caches help with average cache memory latency but may not deliver high memory bandwidth to an application that must go to main memory. The architect must design a high bandwidth memory behind the cache for such applications. We will revisit this pitfall in Chapters 4 and 5. Pitfall Implementing a virtual machine monitor on an instruction set architecture that wasn’t designed to be virtualizable. Many architects in the 1970s and 1980s weren’t careful to make sure that all instructions reading or writing information related to hardware resource information were privileged. This laissez faire attitude causes problems for VMMs 2.7 Fallacies and Pitfalls ■ 127 Instruction misses per 1000 references 9 8 7 6 5 1 4 2, 3, 4, 5 3 2 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 Instructions (billions) Instruction misses per 1000 references 9 8 3 7 4 6 5 2 5 4 3 1 2 1 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 Instructions (billions) Figure 2.27 Instruction misses per 1000 references for five inputs to the perl benchmark from SPEC2000. There is little variation in misses and little difference between the five inputs for the first 1.9 billion instructions. Running to completion shows how misses vary over the life of the program and how they depend on the input. The top graph shows the running average misses for the first 1.9 billion instructions, which starts at about 2.5 and ends at about 4.7 misses per 1000 references for all five inputs. The bottom graph shows the running average misses to run to completion, which takes 16 to 41 billion instructions depending on the input. After the first 1.9 billion instructions, the misses per 1000 references vary from 2.4 to 7.9 depending on the input. The simulations were for the Alpha processor using separate L1 caches for instructions and data, each two-way 64 KB with LRU, and a unified 1 MB direct-mapped L2 cache. 128 ■ Chapter Two Memory Hierarchy Design for all of these architectures, including the 80x86, which we use here as an example. Figure 2.28 describes the 18 instructions that cause problems for virtualization [Robin and Irvine 2000]. The two broad classes are instructions that ■ Read control registers in user mode that reveal that the guest operating system is running in a virtual machine (such as POPF mentioned earlier) ■ Check protection as required by the segmented architecture but assume that the operating system is running at the highest privilege level. Virtual memory is also challenging. Because the 80x86 TLBs do not support process ID tags, as do most RISC architectures, it is more expensive for the VMM and guest OSes to share the TLB; each address space change typically requires a TLB flush. Problem category Problem 80x86 instructions Access sensitive registers without Store global descriptor table register (SGDT) trapping when running in user mode Store local descriptor table register (SLDT) Store interrupt descriptor table register (SIDT) Store machine status word (SMSW) Push flags (PUSHF, PUSHFD) Pop flags (POPF, POPFD) When accessing virtual memory mechanisms in user mode, instructions fail the 80x86 protection checks Load access rights from segment descriptor (LAR) Load segment limit from segment descriptor (LSL) Verify if segment descriptor is readable (VERR) Verify if segment descriptor is writable (VERW) Pop to segment register (POP CS, POP SS, …) Push segment register (PUSH CS, PUSH SS, …) Far call to different privilege level (CALL) Far return to different privilege level (RET) Far jump to different privilege level (JMP) Software interrupt (INT) Store segment selector register (STR) Move to/from segment registers (MOVE) Figure 2.28 Summary of 18 80x86 instructions that cause problems for virtualization [Robin and Irvine 2000]. The first five instructions of the top group allow a program in user mode to read a control register, such as a descriptor table register, without causing a trap. The pop flags instruction modifies a control register with sensitive information but fails silently when in user mode. The protection checking of the segmented architecture of the 80x86 is the downfall of the bottom group, as each of these instructions checks the privilege level implicitly as part of instruction execution when reading a control register. The checking assumes that the OS must be at the highest privilege level, which is not the case for guest VMs. Only the MOVE to segment register tries to modify control state, and protection checking foils it as well. 2.8 Concluding Remarks: Looking Ahead ■ 129 Virtualizing I/O is also a challenge for the 80x86, in part because it both supports memory-mapped I/O and has separate I/O instructions, but more importantly because there are a very large number and variety of types of devices and device drivers of PCs for the VMM to handle. Third-party vendors supply their own drivers, and they may not properly virtualize. One solution for conventional VM implementations is to load real device drivers directly into the VMM. To simplify implementations of VMMs on the 80x86, both AMD and Intel have proposed extensions to the architecture. Intel’s VT-x provides a new execution mode for running VMs, a architected definition of the VM state, instructions to swap VMs rapidly, and a large set of parameters to select the circumstances where a VMM must be invoked. Altogether, VT-x adds 11 new instructions for the 80x86. AMD’s Secure Virtual Machine (SVM) provides similar functionality. After turning on the mode that enables VT-x support (via the new VMXON instruction), VT-x offers four privilege levels for the guest OS that are lower in priority than the original four (and fix issues like the problem with the POPF instruction mentioned earlier). VT-x captures all the states of a Virtual Machine in the Virtual Machine Control State (VMCS), and then provides atomic instructions to save and restore a VMCS. In addition to critical state, the VMCS includes configuration information to determine when to invoke the VMM and then specifically what caused the VMM to be invoked. To reduce the number of times the VMM must be invoked, this mode adds shadow versions of some sensitive registers and adds masks that check to see whether critical bits of a sensitive register will be changed before trapping. To reduce the cost of virtualizing virtual memory, AMD’s SVM adds an additional level of indirection, called nested page tables. It makes shadow page tables unnecessary. 2.8 Concluding Remarks: Looking Ahead Over the past thirty years there have been several predictions of the eminent [sic] cessation of the rate of improvement in computer performance. Every such prediction was wrong. They were wrong because they hinged on unstated assumptions that were overturned by subsequent events. So, for example, the failure to foresee the move from discrete components to integrated circuits led to a prediction that the speed of light would limit computer speeds to several orders of magnitude slower than they are now. Our prediction of the memory wall is probably wrong too but it suggests that we have to start thinking "out of the box." Wm. A. Wulf and Sally A. McKee Hitting the Memory Wall: Implications of the Obvious Department of Computer Science, University of Virginia (December 1994) This paper introduced the term memory wall. The possibility of using a memory hierarchy dates back to the earliest days of general-purpose digital computers in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Virtual 130 ■ Chapter Two Memory Hierarchy Design memory was introduced in research computers in the early 1960s and into IBM mainframes in the 1970s. Caches appeared around the same time. The basic concepts have been expanded and enhanced over time to help close the access time gap between main memory and processors, but the basic concepts remain. One trend that could cause a significant change in the design of memory hierarchies is a continued slowdown in both density and access time of DRAMs. In the last decade, both these trends have been observed. While some increases in DRAM bandwidth have been achieved, decreases in access time have come much more slowly, partly because to limit power consumption voltage levels have been going down. One concept being explored to increase bandwidth is to have multiple overlapped accesses per bank. This provides an alternative to increasing the number of banks while allowing higher bandwidth. Manufacturing challenges to the conventional DRAM design that uses a capacitor in each cell, typically placed in a deep trench, have also led to slowdowns in the rate of increase in density. As this book was going to press, one manufacturer announced a new DRAM that does not require the capacitor, perhaps providing the opportunity for continued enhancement of DRAM technology. Independently of improvements in DRAM, Flash memory is likely to play a larger role because of potential advantages in power and density. Of course, in PMDs, Flash has already replaced disk drives and offers advantages such as “instant on” that many desktop computers do not provide. Flash’s potential advantage over DRAMs—the absence of a per-bit transistor to control writing— is also its Achilles heel. Flash must use bulk erase-rewrite cycles that are considerably slower. As a result, several PMDs, such as the Apple iPad, use a relatively small SDRAM main memory combined with Flash, which acts as both the file system and the page storage system to handle virtual memory. In addition, several completely new approaches to memory are being explored. These include MRAMs, which use magnetic storage of data, and phase change RAMs (known as PCRAM, PCME, and PRAM), which use a glass that can be changed between amorphous and crystalline states. Both types of memories are nonvolatile and offer potentially higher densities than DRAMs. These are not new ideas; magnetoresistive memory technologies and phase change memories have been around for decades. Either technology may become an alternative to current Flash; replacing DRAM is a much tougher task. Although the improvements in DRAMs have slowed down, the possibility of a capacitor-free cell and other potential improvements make it hard to bet against DRAMs at least for the next decade. For some years, a variety of predictions have been made about the coming memory wall (see quote and paper cited above), which would lead to fundamental decreases in processor performance. However, the extension of caches to multiple levels, more sophisticated refill and prefetch schemes, greater compiler and programmer awareness of the importance of locality, and the use of parallelism to hide what latency remains have helped keep the memory wall at bay. The introduction of out-of-order pipelines with multiple outstanding misses allowed available instruction-level parallelism to hide the memory latency remaining in a cache-based system. The introduction of multithreading and more thread-level Case Studies and Exercises by Norman P. Jouppi, Naveen Muralimanohar, and Sheng Li ■ 131 parallelism took this a step further by providing more parallelism and hence more latency-hiding opportunities. It is likely that the use of instruction- and threadlevel parallelism will be the primary tool to combat whatever memory delays are encountered in modern multilevel cache systems. One idea that periodically arises is the use of programmer-controlled scratchpad or other high-speed memories, which we will see are used in GPUs. Such ideas have never made the mainstream for several reasons: First, they break the memory model by introducing address spaces with different behavior. Second, unlike compiler-based or programmer-based cache optimizations (such as prefetching), memory transformations with scratchpads must completely handle the remapping from main memory address space to the scratchpad address space. This makes such transformations more difficult and limited in applicability. In GPUs (see Chapter 4), where local scratchpad memories are heavily used, the burden for managing them currently falls on the programmer. Although one should be cautious about predicting the future of computing technology, history has shown that caching is a powerful and highly extensible idea that is likely to allow us to continue to build faster computers and ensure that the memory hierarchy can deliver the instructions and data needed to keep such systems working well. 2.9 Historical Perspective and References In Section L.3 (available online) we examine the history of caches, virtual memory, and virtual machines. IBM plays a prominent role in the history of all three. References for further reading are included. Case Studies and Exercises by Norman P. Jouppi, Naveen Muralimanohar, and Sheng Li Case Study 1: Optimizing Cache Performance via Advanced Techniques Concepts illustrated by this case study ■ Non-blocking Caches ■ Compiler Optimizations for Caches ■ Software and Hardware Prefetching ■ Calculating Impact of Cache Performance on More Complex Processors 132 ■ Chapter Two Memory Hierarchy Design The transpose of a matrix interchanges its rows and columns; this is illustrated below: A11 A12 A13 A14 A11 A21 A31 A41 A21 A22 A23 A24 Ÿ A12 A22 A32 A42 A31 A32 A33 A34 A13 A23 A33 A43 A41 A42 A43 A44 A14 A24 A34 A44 Here is a simple C loop to show the transpose: for (i = 0; i < 3; i++) { for (j = 0; j < 3; j++) { output[j][i] = input[i][j]; } } Assume that both the input and output matrices are stored in the row major order (row major order means that the row index changes fastest). Assume that you are executing a 256 × 256 double-precision transpose on a processor with a 16 KB fully associative (don’t worry about cache conflicts) least recently used (LRU) replacement L1 data cache with 64 byte blocks. Assume that the L1 cache misses or prefetches require 16 cycles and always hit in the L2 cache, and that the L2 cache can process a request every two processor cycles. Assume that each iteration of the inner loop above requires four cycles if the data are present in the L1 cache. Assume that the cache has a write-allocate fetch-on-write policy for write misses. Unrealistically, assume that writing back dirty cache blocks requires 0 cycles. 2.1 [10/15/15/12/20] <2.2> For the simple implementation given above, this execution order would be nonideal for the input matrix; however, applying a loop interchange optimization would create a nonideal order for the output matrix. Because loop interchange is not sufficient to improve its performance, it must be blocked instead. a. [10] <2.2> What should be the minimum size of the cache to take advantage of blocked execution? b. [15] <2.2> How do the relative number of misses in the blocked and unblocked versions compare in the minimum sized cache above? c. [15] <2.2> Write code to perform a transpose with a block size parameter B which uses B × B blocks. d. [12] <2.2> What is the minimum associativity required of the L1 cache for consistent performance independent of both arrays’ position in memory? Case Studies and Exercises by Norman P. Jouppi, Naveen Muralimanohar, and Sheng Li ■ 133 e. [20] <2.2> Try out blocked and nonblocked 256 × 256 matrix transpositions on a computer. How closely do the results match your expectations based on what you know about the computer’s memory system? Explain any discrepancies if possible. 2.2 [10] <2.2> Assume you are designing a hardware prefetcher for the unblocked matrix transposition code above. The simplest type of hardware prefetcher only prefetches sequential cache blocks after a miss. More complicated “non-unit stride” hardware prefetchers can analyze a miss reference stream and detect and prefetch non-unit strides. In contrast, software prefetching can determine nonunit strides as easily as it can determine unit strides. Assume prefetches write directly into the cache and that there is no “pollution” (overwriting data that must be used before the data that are prefetched). For best performance given a nonunit stride prefetcher, in the steady state of the inner loop how many prefetches must be outstanding at a given time? 2.3 [15/20] <2.2> With software prefetching it is important to be careful to have the prefetches occur in time for use but also to minimize the number of outstanding prefetches to live within the capabilities of the microarchitecture and minimize cache pollution. This is complicated by the fact that different processors have different capabilities and limitations. a. [15] <2.2> Create a blocked version of the matrix transpose with software prefetching. b. [20] <2.2> Estimate and compare the performance of the blocked and unblocked transpose codes both with and without software prefetching. Case Study 2: Putting It All Together: Highly Parallel Memory Systems Concept illustrated by this case study ■ Crosscutting Issues: The Design of Memory Hierarchies The program in Figure 2.29 can be used to evaluate the behavior of a memory system. The key is having accurate timing and then having the program stride through memory to invoke different levels of the hierarchy. Figure 2.29 shows the code in C. The first part is a procedure that uses a standard utility to get an accurate measure of the user CPU time; this procedure may have to be changed to work on some systems. The second part is a nested loop to read and write memory at different strides and cache sizes. To get accurate cache timing, this code is repeated many times. The third part times the nested loop overhead only so that it can be subtracted from overall measured times to see how long the accesses were. The results are output in .csv file format to facilitate importing into spreadsheets. You may need to change CACHE_MAX depending on the question you are answering and the size of memory on the system you are measuring. Running the program in single-user mode or at least without other active applications will give more consistent results. The code in Figure 2.29 was derived from a program written by Andrea Dusseau at the University of California–Berkeley 134 ■ Chapter Two Memory Hierarchy Design #include "stdafx.h" #include #include #define ARRAY_MIN (1024) /* 1/4 smallest cache */ #define ARRAY_MAX (4096*4096) /* 1/4 largest cache */ int x[ARRAY_MAX]; /* array going to stride through */ double get_seconds() { /* routine to read time in seconds */ __time64_t ltime; _time64( <ime ); return (double) ltime; } int label(int i) {/* generate text labels */ if (i<1e3) printf("%1dB,",i); else if (i<1e6) printf("%1dK,",i/1024); else if (i<1e9) printf("%1dM,",i/1048576); else printf("%1dG,",i/1073741824); return 0; } int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[]) { int register nextstep, i, index, stride; int csize; double steps, tsteps; double loadtime, lastsec, sec0, sec1, sec; /* timing variables */ /* Initialize output */ printf(" ,"); for (stride=1; stride <= ARRAY_MAX/2; stride=stride*2) label(stride*sizeof(int)); printf("\n"); /* Main loop for each configuration */ for (csize=ARRAY_MIN; csize <= ARRAY_MAX; csize=csize*2) { label(csize*sizeof(int)); /* print cache size this loop */ for (stride=1; stride <= csize/2; stride=stride*2) { /* Lay out path of memory references in array */ for (index=0; index < csize; index=index+stride) x[index] = index + stride; /* pointer to next */ x[index-stride] = 0; /* loop back to beginning */ /* Wait for timer to roll over */ lastsec = get_seconds(); sec0 = get_seconds(); while (sec0 == lastsec); /* Walk through path in array for twenty seconds */ /* This gives 5% accuracy with second resolution */ steps = 0.0; /* number of steps taken */ nextstep = 0; /* start at beginning of path */ sec0 = get_seconds(); /* start timer */ { /* repeat until collect 20 seconds */ (i=stride;i!=0;i=i-1) { /* keep samples same */ nextstep = 0; do nextstep = x[nextstep]; /* dependency */ while (nextstep != 0); } steps = steps + 1.0; /* count loop iterations */ sec1 = get_seconds(); /* end timer */ } while ((sec1 - sec0) < 20.0); /* collect 20 seconds */ sec = sec1 - sec0; /* Repeat empty loop to loop subtract overhead */ tsteps = 0.0; /* used to match no. while iterations */ sec0 = get_seconds(); /* start timer */ { /* repeat until same no. iterations as above */ (i=stride;i!=0;i=i-1) { /* keep samples same */ index = 0; do index = index + stride; while (index < csize); } tsteps = tsteps + 1.0; sec1 = get_seconds(); /* - overhead */ } while (tsteps Using the sample program results in Figure 2.30: a. [12] <2.6> What are the overall size and block size of the second-level cache? b. [12] <2.6> What is the miss penalty of the second-level cache? 136 ■ Chapter Two Memory Hierarchy Design c. [12] <2.6> What is the associativity of the second-level cache? d. [10] <2.6> What is the size of the main memory? e. [12] <2.6> What is the paging time if the page size is 4 KB? 2.5 [12/15/15/20] <2.6> If necessary, modify the code in Figure 2.29 to measure the following system characteristics. Plot the experimental results with elapsed time on the y-axis and the memory stride on the x-axis. Use logarithmic scales for both axes, and draw a line for each cache size. a. [12] <2.6> What is the system page size? b. [15] <2.6> How many entries are there in the translation lookaside buffer (TLB)? c. [15] <2.6> What is the miss penalty for the TLB? d. [20] <2.6> What is the associativity of the TLB? 2.6 [20/20] <2.6> In multiprocessor memory systems, lower levels of the memory hierarchy may not be able to be saturated by a single processor but should be able to be saturated by multiple processors working together. Modify the code in Figure 2.29, and run multiple copies at the same time. Can you determine: a. [20] <2.6> How many actual processors are in your computer system and how many system processors are just additional multithreaded contexts? b. [20] <2.6> How many memory controllers does your system have? 2.7 [20] <2.6> Can you think of a way to test some of the characteristics of an instruction cache using a program? Hint: The compiler may generate a large number of non obvious instructions from a piece of code. Try to use simple arithmetic instructions of known length in your instruction set architecture (ISA). Exercises 2.8 [12/12/15] <2.2> The following questions investigate the impact of small and simple caches using CACTI and assume a 65 nm (0.065 μm) technology. (CACTI is available in an online form at http://quid.hpl.hp.com:9081/cacti/.) a. [12] <2.2> Compare the access times of 64 KB caches with 64 byte blocks and a single bank. What are the relative access times of two-way and fourway set associative caches in comparison to a direct mapped organization? b. [12] <2.2> Compare the access times of four-way set associative caches with 64 byte blocks and a single bank. What are the relative access times of 32 KB and 64 KB caches in comparison to a 16 KB cache? c. [15] <2.2> For a 64 KB cache, find the cache associativity between 1 and 8 with the lowest average memory access time given that misses per instruction for a certain workload suite is 0.00664 for direct mapped, 0.00366 for twoway set associative, 0.000987 for four-way set associative, and 0.000266 for Case Studies and Exercises by Norman P. Jouppi, Naveen Muralimanohar, and Sheng Li ■ 137 eight-way set associative cache. Overall, there are 0.3 data references per instruction. Assume cache misses take 10 ns in all models. To calculate the hit time in cycles, assume the cycle time output using CACTI, which corresponds to the maximum frequency a cache can operate without any bubbles in the pipeline. 2.9 [12/15/15/10] <2.2> You are investigating the possible benefits of a waypredicting L1 cache. Assume that a 64 KB four-way set associative singlebanked L1 data cache is the cycle time limiter in a system. As an alternative cache organization you are considering a way-predicted cache modeled as a 64 KB direct-mapped cache with 80% prediction accuracy. Unless stated otherwise, assume that a mispredicted way access that hits in the cache takes one more cycle. Assume the miss rates and the miss penalties in question 2.8 part (c). a. [12] <2.2> What is the average memory access time of the current cache (in cycles) versus the way-predicted cache? b. [15] <2.2> If all other components could operate with the faster waypredicted cache cycle time (including the main memory), what would be the impact on performance from using the way-predicted cache? c. [15] <2.2> Way-predicted caches have usually been used only for instruction caches that feed an instruction queue or buffer. Imagine that you want to try out way prediction on a data cache. Assume that you have 80% prediction accuracy and that subsequent operations (e.g., data cache access of other instructions, dependent operations) are issued assuming a correct way prediction. Thus, a way misprediction necessitates a pipe flush and replay trap, which requires 15 cycles. Is the change in average memory access time per load instruction with data cache way prediction positive or negative, and how much is it? d. [10] <2.2> As an alternative to way prediction, many large associative L2 caches serialize tag and data access, so that only the required dataset array needs to be activated. This saves power but increases the access time. Use CACTI’s detailed Web interface for a 0.065 μm process 1 MB four-way set associative cache with 64 byte blocks, 144 bits read out, 1 bank, only 1 read/ write port, 30 bit tags, and ITRS-HP technology with global wires. What is the ratio of the access times for serializing tag and data access in comparison to parallel access? 2.10 [10/12] <2.2> You have been asked to investigate the relative performance of a banked versus pipelined L1 data cache for a new microprocessor. Assume a 64 KB two-way set associative cache with 64 byte blocks. The pipelined cache would consist of three pipestages, similar in capacity to the Alpha 21264 data cache. A banked implementation would consist of two 32 KB two-way set associative banks. Use CACTI and assume a 65 nm (0.065 μm) technology to answer the following questions. The cycle time output in the Web version shows at what frequency a cache can operate without any bubbles in the pipeline. a. [10] <2.2> What is the cycle time of the cache in comparison to its access time, and how many pipestages will the cache take up (to two decimal places)? 138 ■ Chapter Two Memory Hierarchy Design b. [12] <2.2> Compare the area and total dynamic read energy per access of the pipelined design versus the banked design. State which takes up less area and which requires more power, and explain why that might be. 2.11 [12/15] <2.2> Consider the usage of critical word first and early restart on L2 cache misses. Assume a 1 MB L2 cache with 64 byte blocks and a refill path that is 16 bytes wide. Assume that the L2 can be written with 16 bytes every 4 processor cycles, the time to receive the first 16 byte block from the memory controller is 120 cycles, each additional 16 byte block from main memory requires 16 cycles, and data can be bypassed directly into the read port of the L2 cache. Ignore any cycles to transfer the miss request to the L2 cache and the requested data to the L1 cache. a. [12] <2.2> How many cycles would it take to service an L2 cache miss with and without critical word first and early restart? b. [15] <2.2> Do you think critical word first and early restart would be more important for L1 caches or L2 caches, and what factors would contribute to their relative importance? 2.12 [12/12] <2.2> You are designing a write buffer between a write-through L1 cache and a write-back L2 cache. The L2 cache write data bus is 16 B wide and can perform a write to an independent cache address every 4 processor cycles. a. [12] <2.2> How many bytes wide should each write buffer entry be? b. [15] <2.2> What speedup could be expected in the steady state by using a merging write buffer instead of a nonmerging buffer when zeroing memory by the execution of 64-bit stores if all other instructions could be issued in parallel with the stores and the blocks are present in the L2 cache? c. [15] <2.2> What would the effect of possible L1 misses be on the number of required write buffer entries for systems with blocking and nonblocking caches? 2.13 [10/10/10] <2.3> Consider a desktop system with a processor connected to a 2 GB DRAM with error-correcting code (ECC). Assume that there is only one memory channel of width 72 bits to 64 bits for data and 8 bits for ECC. a. [10] <2.3> How many DRAM chips are on the DIMM if 1 GB DRAM chips are used, and how many data I/Os must each DRAM have if only one DRAM connects to each DIMM data pin? b. [10] <2.3> What burst length is required to support 32 B L2 cache blocks? c. [10] <2.3> Calculate the peak bandwidth for DDR2-667 and DDR2-533 DIMMs for reads from an active page excluding the ECC overhead. 2.14 [10/10] <2.3> A sample DDR2 SDRAM timing diagram is shown in Figure 2.31. tRCD is the time required to activate a row in a bank, and column address strobe (CAS) latency (CL) is the number of cycles required to read out a column in a row Assume that the RAM is on a standard DDR2 DIMM with ECC, having 72 data lines. Also assume burst lengths of 8 which read out 8 bits, or a total of 64 B from Case Studies and Exercises by Norman P. Jouppi, Naveen Muralimanohar, and Sheng Li ■ 139 Clock CMD/ ACT ADD B0, Rx Data t RCD RD B0, Cx CAS latency Data out Data out Figure 2.31 DDR2 SDRAM timing diagram. the DIMM. Assume tRCD = CAS (or CL) * clock_frequency, and clock_frequency = transfers_per_second/2. The on-chip latency on a cache miss through levels 1 and 2 and back, not including the DRAM access, is 20 ns. a. [10] <2.3> How much time is required from presentation of the activate command until the last requested bit of data from the DRAM transitions from valid to invalid for the DDR2-667 1 GB CL = 5 DIMM? Assume that for every request we automatically prefetch another adjacent cacheline in the same page. b. [10] <2.3> What is the relative latency when using the DDR2-667 DIMM of a read requiring a bank activate versus one to an already open page, including the time required to process the miss inside the processor? 2.15 [15] <2.3> Assume that a DDR2-667 2 GB DIMM with CL = 5 is available for $130 and a DDR2-533 2 GB DIMM with CL = 4 is available for $100. Assume that two DIMMs are used in a system, and the rest of the system costs $800. Consider the performance of the system using the DDR2-667 and DDR2-533 DIMMs on a workload with 3.33 L2 misses per 1K instructions, and assume that 80% of all DRAM reads require an activate. What is the cost-performance of the entire system when using the different DIMMs, assuming only one L2 miss is outstanding at a time and an in-order core with a CPI of 1.5 not including L2 cache miss memory access time? 2.16 [12] <2.3> You are provisioning a server with eight-core 3 GHz CMP, which can execute a workload with an overall CPI of 2.0 (assuming that L2 cache miss refills are not delayed). The L2 cache line size is 32 bytes. Assuming the system uses DDR2-667 DIMMs, how many independent memory channels should be provided so the system is not limited by memory bandwidth if the bandwidth required is sometimes twice the average? The workloads incur, on an average, 6.67 L2 misses per 1K instructions. 2.17 [12/12] <2.3> A large amount (more than a third) of DRAM power can be due to page activation (see http://download.micron.com/pdf/technotes/ddr2/TN4704.pdf and www.micron.com/systemcalc). Assume you are building a system with 2 GB of memory using either 8-bank 2 GB x8 DDR2 DRAMs or 8-bank 1 GB x8 DRAMs, both with the same speed grade. Both use a page size of 1 KB, and the 140 ■ Chapter Two Memory Hierarchy Design last level cacheline size is 64 bytes. Assume that DRAMs that are not active are in precharged standby and dissipate negligible power. Assume that the time to transition from standby to active is not significant. a. [12] <2.3> Which type of DRAM would be expected to provide the higher system performance? Explain why. b. [12] <2.3> How does a 2 GB DIMM made of 1 GB x8 DDR2 DRAMs compare against a DIMM with similar capacity made of 1 Gb x4 DDR2 DRAMs in terms of power? 2.18 [20/15/12] <2.3> To access data from a typical DRAM, we first have to activate the appropriate row. Assume that this brings an entire page of size 8 KB to the row buffer. Then we select a particular column from the row buffer. If subsequent accesses to DRAM are to the same page, then we can skip the activation step; otherwise, we have to close the current page and precharge the bitlines for the next activation. Another popular DRAM policy is to proactively close a page and precharge bitlines as soon as an access is over. Assume that every read or write to DRAM is of size 64 bytes and DDR bus latency (Data out in Figure 2.30) for sending 512 bits is Tddr. a. [20] <2.3> Assuming DDR2-667, if it takes five cycles to precharge, five cycles to activate, and four cycles to read a column, for what value of the row buffer hit rate (r) will you choose one policy over another to get the best access time? Assume that every access to DRAM is separated by enough time to finish a random new access. b. [15] <2.3> If 10% of the total accesses to DRAM happen back to back or contiguously without any time gap, how will your decision change? c. [12] <2.3> Calculate the difference in average DRAM energy per access between the two policies using the row buffer hit rate calculated above. Assume that precharging requires 2 nJ and activation requires 4 nJ and that 100 pJ/bit are required to read or write from the row buffer. 2.19 [15] <2.3> Whenever a computer is idle, we can either put it in stand by (where DRAM is still active) or we can let it hibernate. Assume that, to hibernate, we have to copy just the contents of DRAM to a nonvolatile medium such as Flash. If reading or writing a cacheline of size 64 bytes to Flash requires 2.56 μJ and DRAM requires 0.5 nJ, and if idle power consumption for DRAM is 1.6 W (for 8 GB), how long should a system be idle to benefit from hibernating? Assume a main memory of size 8 GB. 2.20 [10/10/10/10/10] <2.4> Virtual Machines (VMs) have the potential for adding many beneficial capabilities to computer systems, such as improved total cost of ownership (TCO) or availability. Could VMs be used to provide the following capabilities? If so, how could they facilitate this? a. [10] <2.4> Test applications in production environments using development machines? b. [10] <2.4> Quick redeployment of applications in case of disaster or failure? Case Studies and Exercises by Norman P. Jouppi, Naveen Muralimanohar, and Sheng Li ■ 141 c. [10] <2.4> Higher performance in I/O-intensive applications? d. [10] <2.4> Fault isolation between different applications, resulting in higher availability for services? e. [10] <2.4> Performing software maintenance on systems while applications are running without significant interruption? 2.21 [10/10/12/12] <2.4> Virtual machines can lose performance from a number of events, such as the execution of privileged instructions, TLB misses, traps, and I/O. These events are usually handled in system code. Thus, one way of estimating the slowdown when running under a VM is the percentage of application execution time in system versus user mode. For example, an application spending 10% of its execution in system mode might slow down by 60% when running on a VM. Figure 2.32 lists the early performance of various system calls under native execution, pure virtualization, and paravirtualization for LMbench using Xen on an Itanium system with times measured in microseconds (courtesy of Matthew Chapman of the University of New South Wales). a. [10] <2.4> What types of programs would be expected to have smaller slowdowns when running under VMs? b. [10] <2.4> If slowdowns were linear as a function of system time, given the slowdown above, how much slower would a program spending 20% of its execution in system time be expected to run? c. [12] <2.4> What is the median slowdown of the system calls in the table above under pure virtualization and paravirtualization? d. [12] <2.4> Which functions in the table above have the largest slowdowns? What do you think the cause of this could be? Benchmark Null call Null I/O Stat Open/close Install sighandler Handle signal Fork Exec Fork + exec sh Native 0.04 0.27 1.10 1.99 0.33 1.69 56.00 316.00 1451.00 Pure 0.96 6.32 10.69 20.43 7.34 19.26 513.00 2084.00 7790.00 Para 0.50 2.91 4.14 7.71 2.89 2.36 164.00 578.00 2360.00 Figure 2.32 Early performance of various system calls under native execution, pure virtualization, and paravirtualization. 142 ■ Chapter Two Memory Hierarchy Design 2.22 [12] <2.4> Popek and Goldberg’s definition of a virtual machine said that it would be indistinguishable from a real machine except for its performance. In this question, we will use that definition to find out if we have access to native execution on a processor or are running on a virtual machine. The Intel VT-x technology effectively provides a second set of privilege levels for the use of the virtual machine. What would a virtual machine running on top of another virtual machine have to do, assuming VT-x technology? 2.23 [20/25] <2.4> With the adoption of virtualization support on the x86 architecture, virtual machines are actively evolving and becoming mainstream. Compare and contrast the Intel VT-x and AMD’s AMD-V virtualization technologies. (Information on AMD-V can be found at http://sites.amd.com/us/business/it-solutions/ virtualization/Pages/resources.aspx.) a. [20] <2.4> Which one could provide higher performance for memory-intensive applications with large memory footprints? b. [25] <2.4> Information on AMD’s IOMMU support for virtualized I/O can be found in http://developer.amd.com/documentation/articles/pages/892006101.aspx. What do Virtualization Technology and an input/output memory management unit (IOMMU) do to improve virtualized I/O performance? 2.24 [30] <2.2, 2.3> Since instruction-level parallelism can also be effectively exploited on in-order superscalar processors and very long instruction word (VLIW) processors with speculation, one important reason for building an out-oforder (OOO) superscalar processor is the ability to tolerate unpredictable memory latency caused by cache misses. Hence, you can think about hardware supporting OOO issue as being part of the memory system! Look at the floorplan of the Alpha 21264 in Figure 2.33 to find the relative area of the integer and floating-point issue queues and mappers versus the caches. The queues schedule instructions for issue, and the mappers rename register specifiers. Hence, these are necessary additions to support OOO issue. The 21264 only has L1 data and instruction caches on chip, and they are both 64 KB two-way set associative. Use an OOO superscalar simulator such as SimpleScalar (www.cs.wisc.edu/~mscalar/ simplescalar.html) on memory-intensive benchmarks to find out how much performance is lost if the area of the issue queues and mappers is used for additional L1 data cache area in an in-order superscalar processor, instead of OOO issue in a model of the 21264. Make sure the other aspects of the machine are as similar as possible to make the comparison fair. Ignore any increase in access or cycle time from larger caches and effects of the larger data cache on the floorplan of the chip. (Note that this comparison will not be totally fair, as the code will not have been scheduled for the in-order processor by the compiler.) 2.25 [20/20/20] <2.6> The Intel performance analyzer VTune can be used to make many measurements of cache behavior. A free evaluation version of VTune on both Windows and Linux can be downloaded from http://software.intel.com/enus/articles/intel-vtune-amplifier-xe/. The program (aca_ch2_cs2.c) used in Case Study 2 has been modified so that it can work with VTune out of the box on Microsoft Visual C++. The program can be downloaded from www.hpl.hp.com/ Case Studies and Exercises by Norman P. Jouppi, Naveen Muralimanohar, and Sheng Li ■ 143 Floating-point units Instruction fetch BIU Integer unit (cluster 1) Integer unit (cluster 0) Float map and queue Bus interface unit Integer mapper Memory controller Integer queue Data and control buses Memory controller Instruction cache Data cache Figure 2.33 Floorplan of the Alpha 21264 [Kessler 1999]. research/cacti/aca_ch2_cs2_vtune.c. Special VTune functions have been inserted to exclude initialization and loop overhead during the performance analysis process. Detailed VTune setup directions are given in the README section in the program. The program keeps looping for 20 seconds for every configuration. In the following experiment you can find the effects of data size on cache and overall processor performance. Run the program in VTune on an Intel processor with the input dataset sizes of 8 KB, 128 KB, 4 MB, and 32 MB, and keep a stride of 64 bytes (stride one cache line on Intel i7 processors). Collect statistics on overall performance and L1 data cache, L2, and L3 cache performance. a. [20] <2.6> List the number of misses per 1K instruction of L1 data cache, L2, and L3 for each dataset size and your processor model and speed. Based on the results, what can you say about the L1 data cache, L2, and L3 cache sizes on your processor? Explain your observations. b. [20] <2.6> List the instructions per clock (IPC) for each dataset size and your processor model and speed. Based on the results, what can you say about the L1, L2, and L3 miss penalties on your processor? Explain your observations. 144 ■ Chapter Two Memory Hierarchy Design c. [20] <2.6> Run the program in VTune with input dataset size of 8 KB and 128 KB on an Intel OOO processor. List the number of L1 data cache and L2 cache misses per 1K instructions and the CPI for both configurations. What can you say about the effectiveness of memory latency hiding techniques in high-performance OOO processors? Hint: You need to find the L1 data cache miss latency for your processor. For recent Intel i7 processors, it is approximately 11 cycles. This page intentionally left blank 3.1 Instruction-Level Parallelism: Concepts and Challenges 148 3.2 Basic Compiler Techniques for Exposing ILP 156 3.3 Reducing Branch Costs with Advanced Branch Prediction 162 3.4 Overcoming Data Hazards with Dynamic Scheduling 167 3.5 Dynamic Scheduling: Examples and the Algorithm 176 3.6 Hardware-Based Speculation 183 3.7 Exploiting ILP Using Multiple Issue and Static Scheduling 192 3.8 Exploiting ILP Using Dynamic Scheduling, Multiple Issue, and Speculation 197 3.9 Advanced Techniques for Instruction Delivery and Speculation 202 3.10 Studies of the Limitations of ILP 213 3.11 Cross-Cutting Issues: ILP Approaches and the Memory System 221 3.12 Multithreading: Exploiting Thread-Level Parallelism to Improve Uniprocessor Throughput 223 3.13 Putting It All Together: The Intel Core i7 and ARM Cortex-A8 233 3.14 Fallacies and Pitfalls 241 3.15 Concluding Remarks: What’s Ahead? 245 3.16 Historical Perspective and References 247 Case Studies and Exercises by Jason D. Bakos and Robert P. Colwell 247 3 Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation 1 “Who’s first?” “America.” “Who’s second?” “Sir, there is no second.” Dialog between two observers of the sailing race later named “The America’s Cup” and run every few years—the inspiration for John Cocke’s naming of the IBM research processor as “America.” This processor was the precursor to the RS/6000 series and the first superscalar microprocessor. Computer Architecture. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-383872-8.00004-5 © 2012 Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved. 148 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation 3.1 Instruction-Level Parallelism: Concepts and Challenges All processors since about 1985 use pipelining to overlap the execution of instructions and improve performance. This potential overlap among instructions is called instruction-level parallelism (ILP), since the instructions can be evaluated in parallel. In this chapter and Appendix H, we look at a wide range of techniques for extending the basic pipelining concepts by increasing the amount of parallelism exploited among instructions. This chapter is at a considerably more advanced level than the material on basic pipelining in Appendix C. If you are not thoroughly familiar with the ideas in Appendix C, you should review that appendix before venturing into this chapter. We start this chapter by looking at the limitation imposed by data and control hazards and then turn to the topic of increasing the ability of the compiler and the processor to exploit parallelism. These sections introduce a large number of concepts, which we build on throughout this chapter and the next. While some of the more basic material in this chapter could be understood without all of the ideas in the first two sections, this basic material is important to later sections of this chapter. There are two largely separable approaches to exploiting ILP: (1) an approach that relies on hardware to help discover and exploit the parallelism dynamically, and (2) an approach that relies on software technology to find parallelism statically at compile time. Processors using the dynamic, hardware-based approach, including the Intel Core series, dominate in the desktop and server markets. In the personal mobile device market, where energy efficiency is often the key objective, designers exploit lower levels of instruction-level parallelism. Thus, in 2011, most processors for the PMD market use static approaches, as we will see in the ARM Cortex-A8; however, future processors (e.g., the new ARM Cortex-A9) are using dynamic approaches. Aggressive compiler-based approaches have been attempted numerous times beginning in the 1980s and most recently in the Intel Itanium series. Despite enormous efforts, such approaches have not been successful outside of the narrow range of scientific applications. In the past few years, many of the techniques developed for one approach have been exploited within a design relying primarily on the other. This chapter introduces the basic concepts and both approaches. A discussion of the limitations on ILP approaches is included in this chapter, and it was such limitations that directly led to the movement to multicore. Understanding the limitations remains important in balancing the use of ILP and thread-level parallelism. In this section, we discuss features of both programs and processors that limit the amount of parallelism that can be exploited among instructions, as well as the critical mapping between program structure and hardware structure, which is key to understanding whether a program property will actually limit performance and under what circumstances. The value of the CPI (cycles per instruction) for a pipelined processor is the sum of the base CPI and all contributions from stalls: Pipeline CPI = Ideal pipeline CPI + Structural stalls + Data hazard stalls + Control stalls 3.1 Instruction-Level Parallelism: Concepts and Challenges ■ 149 Technique Reduces Section Forwarding and bypassing Delayed branches and simple branch scheduling Basic compiler pipeline scheduling Basic dynamic scheduling (scoreboarding) Loop unrolling Branch prediction Dynamic scheduling with renaming Hardware speculation Dynamic memory disambiguation Issuing multiple instructions per cycle Compiler dependence analysis, software pipelining, trace scheduling Hardware support for compiler speculation Potential data hazard stalls Control hazard stalls Data hazard stalls Data hazard stalls from true dependences Control hazard stalls Control stalls Stalls from data hazards, output dependences, and antidependences Data hazard and control hazard stalls Data hazard stalls with memory Ideal CPI Ideal CPI, data hazard stalls Ideal CPI, data hazard stalls, branch hazard stalls C.2 C.2 C.2, 3.2 C.7 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.6 3.6 3.7, 3.8 H.2, H.3 H.4, H.5 Figure 3.1 The major techniques examined in Appendix C, Chapter 3, and Appendix H are shown together with the component of the CPI equation that the technique affects. The ideal pipeline CPI is a measure of the maximum performance attainable by the implementation. By reducing each of the terms of the right-hand side, we decrease the overall pipeline CPI or, alternatively, increase the IPC (instructions per clock). The equation above allows us to characterize various techniques by what component of the overall CPI a technique reduces. Figure 3.1 shows the techniques we examine in this chapter and in Appendix H, as well as the topics covered in the introductory material in Appendix C. In this chapter, we will see that the techniques we introduce to decrease the ideal pipeline CPI can increase the importance of dealing with hazards. What Is Instruction-Level Parallelism? All the techniques in this chapter exploit parallelism among instructions. The amount of parallelism available within a basic block—a straight-line code sequence with no branches in except to the entry and no branches out except at the exit—is quite small. For typical MIPS programs, the average dynamic branch frequency is often between 15% and 25%, meaning that between three and six instructions execute between a pair of branches. Since these instructions are likely to depend upon one another, the amount of overlap we can exploit within a basic block is likely to be less than the average basic block size. To obtain substantial performance enhancements, we must exploit ILP across multiple basic blocks. The simplest and most common way to increase the ILP is to exploit parallelism among iterations of a loop. This type of parallelism is often called loop-level parallelism. Here is a simple example of a loop that adds two 1000-element arrays and is completely parallel: 150 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation for (i=0; i<=999; i=i+1) x[i] = x[i] + y[i]; Every iteration of the loop can overlap with any other iteration, although within each loop iteration there is little or no opportunity for overlap. We will examine a number of techniques for converting such loop-level parallelism into instruction-level parallelism. Basically, such techniques work by unrolling the loop either statically by the compiler (as in the next section) or dynamically by the hardware (as in Sections 3.5 and 3.6). An important alternative method for exploiting loop-level parallelism is the use of SIMD in both vector processors and Graphics Processing Units (GPUs), both of which are covered in Chapter 4. A SIMD instruction exploits data-level parallelism by operating on a small to moderate number of data items in parallel (typically two to eight). A vector instruction exploits data-level parallelism by operating on many data items in parallel using both parallel execution units and a deep pipeline. For example, the above code sequence, which in simple form requires seven instructions per iteration (two loads, an add, a store, two address updates, and a branch) for a total of 7000 instructions, might execute in one-quarter as many instructions in some SIMD architecture where four data items are processed per instruction. On some vector processors, this sequence might take only four instructions: two instructions to load the vectors x and y from memory, one instruction to add the two vectors, and an instruction to store back the result vector. Of course, these instructions would be pipelined and have relatively long latencies, but these latencies may be overlapped. Data Dependences and Hazards Determining how one instruction depends on another is critical to determining how much parallelism exists in a program and how that parallelism can be exploited. In particular, to exploit instruction-level parallelism we must determine which instructions can be executed in parallel. If two instructions are parallel, they can execute simultaneously in a pipeline of arbitrary depth without causing any stalls, assuming the pipeline has sufficient resources (and hence no structural hazards exist). If two instructions are dependent, they are not parallel and must be executed in order, although they may often be partially overlapped. The key in both cases is to determine whether an instruction is dependent on another instruction. Data Dependences There are three different types of dependences: data dependences (also called true data dependences), name dependences, and control dependences. An instruction j is data dependent on instruction i if either of the following holds: ■ Instruction i produces a result that may be used by instruction j. ■ Instruction j is data dependent on instruction k, and instruction k is data dependent on instruction i. 3.1 Instruction-Level Parallelism: Concepts and Challenges ■ 151 The second condition simply states that one instruction is dependent on another if there exists a chain of dependences of the first type between the two instructions. This dependence chain can be as long as the entire program. Note that a dependence within a single instruction (such as ADDD R1,R1,R1) is not considered a dependence. For example, consider the following MIPS code sequence that increments a vector of values in memory (starting at 0(R1) and with the last element at 8(R2)) by a scalar in register F2. (For simplicity, throughout this chapter, our examples ignore the effects of delayed branches.) Loop: L.D F0,0(R1) ;F0=array element ADD.D F4,F0,F2 ;add scalar in F2 S.D F4,0(R1) ;store result DADDUI R1,R1,#-8 ;decrement pointer 8 bytes BNE R1,R2,LOOP ;branch R1!=R2 The data dependences in this code sequence involve both floating-point data: Loop: L.D ADD.D S.D F0,0(R1) F4,F0,F2 F4,0(R1) ;F0=array element ;add scalar in F2 ;store result and integer data: DADDIU BNE R1,R1,#-8 ;decrement pointer ;8 bytes (per DW) R1,R2,Loop ;branch R1!=R2 In both of the above dependent sequences, as shown by the arrows, each instruction depends on the previous one. The arrows here and in following examples show the order that must be preserved for correct execution. The arrow points from an instruction that must precede the instruction that the arrowhead points to. If two instructions are data dependent, they must execute in order and cannot execute simultaneously or be completely overlapped. The dependence implies that there would be a chain of one or more data hazards between the two instructions. (See Appendix C for a brief description of data hazards, which we will define precisely in a few pages.) Executing the instructions simultaneously will cause a processor with pipeline interlocks (and a pipeline depth longer than the distance between the instructions in cycles) to detect a hazard and stall, thereby reducing or eliminating the overlap. In a processor without interlocks that relies on compiler scheduling, the compiler cannot schedule dependent instructions in such a way that they completely overlap, since the program will not execute correctly. The presence of a data dependence in an instruction sequence reflects a data dependence in the source code from which the instruction sequence was generated. The effect of the original data dependence must be preserved. 152 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation Dependences are a property of programs. Whether a given dependence results in an actual hazard being detected and whether that hazard actually causes a stall are properties of the pipeline organization. This difference is critical to understanding how instruction-level parallelism can be exploited. A data dependence conveys three things: (1) the possibility of a hazard, (2) the order in which results must be calculated, and (3) an upper bound on how much parallelism can possibly be exploited. Such limits are explored in Section 3.10 and in Appendix H in more detail. Since a data dependence can limit the amount of instruction-level parallelism we can exploit, a major focus of this chapter is overcoming these limitations. A dependence can be overcome in two different ways: (1) maintaining the dependence but avoiding a hazard, and (2) eliminating a dependence by transforming the code. Scheduling the code is the primary method used to avoid a hazard without altering a dependence, and such scheduling can be done both by the compiler and by the hardware. A data value may flow between instructions either through registers or through memory locations. When the data flow occurs in a register, detecting the dependence is straightforward since the register names are fixed in the instructions, although it gets more complicated when branches intervene and correctness concerns force a compiler or hardware to be conservative. Dependences that flow through memory locations are more difficult to detect, since two addresses may refer to the same location but look different: For example, 100(R4) and 20(R6) may be identical memory addresses. In addition, the effective address of a load or store may change from one execution of the instruction to another (so that 20(R4) and 20(R4) may be different), further complicating the detection of a dependence. In this chapter, we examine hardware for detecting data dependences that involve memory locations, but we will see that these techniques also have limitations. The compiler techniques for detecting such dependences are critical in uncovering loop-level parallelism. Name Dependences The second type of dependence is a name dependence. A name dependence occurs when two instructions use the same register or memory location, called a name, but there is no flow of data between the instructions associated with that name. There are two types of name dependences between an instruction i that precedes instruction j in program order: 1. An antidependence between instruction i and instruction j occurs when instruction j writes a register or memory location that instruction i reads. The original ordering must be preserved to ensure that i reads the correct value. In the example on page 151, there is an antidependence between S.D and DADDIU on register R1. 2. An output dependence occurs when instruction i and instruction j write the same register or memory location. The ordering between the instructions 3.1 Instruction-Level Parallelism: Concepts and Challenges ■ 153 must be preserved to ensure that the value finally written corresponds to instruction j. Both antidependences and output dependences are name dependences, as opposed to true data dependences, since there is no value being transmitted between the instructions. Because a name dependence is not a true dependence, instructions involved in a name dependence can execute simultaneously or be reordered, if the name (register number or memory location) used in the instructions is changed so the instructions do not conflict. This renaming can be more easily done for register operands, where it is called register renaming. Register renaming can be done either statically by a compiler or dynamically by the hardware. Before describing dependences arising from branches, let’s examine the relationship between dependences and pipeline data hazards. Data Hazards A hazard exists whenever there is a name or data dependence between instructions, and they are close enough that the overlap during execution would change the order of access to the operand involved in the dependence. Because of the dependence, we must preserve what is called program order—that is, the order that the instructions would execute in if executed sequentially one at a time as determined by the original source program. The goal of both our software and hardware techniques is to exploit parallelism by preserving program order only where it affects the outcome of the program. Detecting and avoiding hazards ensures that necessary program order is preserved. Data hazards, which are informally described in Appendix C, may be classified as one of three types, depending on the order of read and write accesses in the instructions. By convention, the hazards are named by the ordering in the program that must be preserved by the pipeline. Consider two instructions i and j, with i preceding j in program order. The possible data hazards are ■ RAW (read after write)—j tries to read a source before i writes it, so j incorrectly gets the old value. This hazard is the most common type and corresponds to a true data dependence. Program order must be preserved to ensure that j receives the value from i. ■ WAW (write after write)—j tries to write an operand before it is written by i. The writes end up being performed in the wrong order, leaving the value written by i rather than the value written by j in the destination. This hazard corresponds to an output dependence. WAW hazards are present only in pipelines that write in more than one pipe stage or allow an instruction to proceed even when a previous instruction is stalled. ■ WAR (write after read)—j tries to write a destination before it is read by i, so i incorrectly gets the new value. This hazard arises from an antidependence (or name dependence). WAR hazards cannot occur in most static issue pipelines— even deeper pipelines or floating-point pipelines—because all reads are early 154 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation (in ID in the pipeline in Appendix C) and all writes are late (in WB in the pipeline in Appendix C). A WAR hazard occurs either when there are some instructions that write results early in the instruction pipeline and other instructions that read a source late in the pipeline, or when instructions are reordered, as we will see in this chapter. Note that the RAR (read after read) case is not a hazard. Control Dependences The last type of dependence is a control dependence. A control dependence determines the ordering of an instruction, i, with respect to a branch instruction so that instruction i is executed in correct program order and only when it should be. Every instruction, except for those in the first basic block of the program, is control dependent on some set of branches, and, in general, these control dependences must be preserved to preserve program order. One of the simplest examples of a control dependence is the dependence of the statements in the “then” part of an if statement on the branch. For example, in the code segment if p1 { S1; }; if p2 { S2; } S1 is control dependent on p1, and S2 is control dependent on p2 but not on p1. In general, two constraints are imposed by control dependences: 1. An instruction that is control dependent on a branch cannot be moved before the branch so that its execution is no longer controlled by the branch. For example, we cannot take an instruction from the then portion of an if statement and move it before the if statement. 2. An instruction that is not control dependent on a branch cannot be moved after the branch so that its execution is controlled by the branch. For example, we cannot take a statement before the if statement and move it into the then portion. When processors preserve strict program order, they ensure that control dependences are also preserved. We may be willing to execute instructions that should not have been executed, however, thereby violating the control dependences, if we can do so without affecting the correctness of the program. Thus, control dependence is not the critical property that must be preserved. Instead, the two properties critical to program correctness—and normally preserved by maintaining both data and control dependences—are the exception behavior and the data flow. Preserving the exception behavior means that any changes in the ordering of instruction execution must not change how exceptions are raised in the program. 3.1 Instruction-Level Parallelism: Concepts and Challenges ■ 155 Often this is relaxed to mean that the reordering of instruction execution must not cause any new exceptions in the program. A simple example shows how maintaining the control and data dependences can prevent such situations. Consider this code sequence: DADDU R2,R3,R4 BEQZ R2,L1 LW R1,0(R2) L1: In this case, it is easy to see that if we do not maintain the data dependence involving R2, we can change the result of the program. Less obvious is the fact that if we ignore the control dependence and move the load instruction before the branch, the load instruction may cause a memory protection exception. Notice that no data dependence prevents us from interchanging the BEQZ and the LW; it is only the control dependence. To allow us to reorder these instructions (and still preserve the data dependence), we would like to just ignore the exception when the branch is taken. In Section 3.6, we will look at a hardware technique, speculation, which allows us to overcome this exception problem. Appendix H looks at software techniques for supporting speculation. The second property preserved by maintenance of data dependences and control dependences is the data flow. The data flow is the actual flow of data values among instructions that produce results and those that consume them. Branches make the data flow dynamic, since they allow the source of data for a given instruction to come from many points. Put another way, it is insufficient to just maintain data dependences because an instruction may be data dependent on more than one predecessor. Program order is what determines which predecessor will actually deliver a data value to an instruction. Program order is ensured by maintaining the control dependences. For example, consider the following code fragment: DADDU R1,R2,R3 BEQZ R4,L DSUBU R1,R5,R6 L: ... OR R7,R1,R8 In this example, the value of R1 used by the OR instruction depends on whether the branch is taken or not. Data dependence alone is not sufficient to preserve correctness. The OR instruction is data dependent on both the DADDU and DSUBU instructions, but preserving that order alone is insufficient for correct execution. Instead, when the instructions execute, the data flow must be preserved: If the branch is not taken, then the value of R1 computed by the DSUBU should be used by the OR, and, if the branch is taken, the value of R1 computed by the DADDU should be used by the OR. By preserving the control dependence of the OR on the branch, we prevent an illegal change to the data flow. For similar reasons, 156 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation the DSUBU instruction cannot be moved above the branch. Speculation, which helps with the exception problem, will also allow us to lessen the impact of the control dependence while still maintaining the data flow, as we will see in Section 3.6. Sometimes we can determine that violating the control dependence cannot affect either the exception behavior or the data flow. Consider the following code sequence: skip: DADDU BEQZ DSUBU DADDU OR R1,R2,R3 R12,skip R4,R5,R6 R5,R4,R9 R7,R8,R9 Suppose we knew that the register destination of the DSUBU instruction (R4) was unused after the instruction labeled skip. (The property of whether a value will be used by an upcoming instruction is called liveness.) If R4 were unused, then changing the value of R4 just before the branch would not affect the data flow since R4 would be dead (rather than live) in the code region after skip. Thus, if R4 were dead and the existing DSUBU instruction could not generate an exception (other than those from which the processor resumes the same process), we could move the DSUBU instruction before the branch, since the data flow cannot be affected by this change. If the branch is taken, the DSUBU instruction will execute and will be useless, but it will not affect the program results. This type of code scheduling is also a form of speculation, often called software speculation, since the compiler is betting on the branch outcome; in this case, the bet is that the branch is usually not taken. More ambitious compiler speculation mechanisms are discussed in Appendix H. Normally, it will be clear when we say speculation or speculative whether the mechanism is a hardware or software mechanism; when it is not clear, it is best to say “hardware speculation” or “software speculation.” Control dependence is preserved by implementing control hazard detection that causes control stalls. Control stalls can be eliminated or reduced by a variety of hardware and software techniques, which we examine in Section 3.3. 3.2 Basic Compiler Techniques for Exposing ILP This section examines the use of simple compiler technology to enhance a processor’s ability to exploit ILP. These techniques are crucial for processors that use static issue or static scheduling. Armed with this compiler technology, we will shortly examine the design and performance of processors using static issuing. Appendix H will investigate more sophisticated compiler and associated hardware schemes designed to enable a processor to exploit more instructionlevel parallelism. 3.2 Basic Compiler Techniques for Exposing ILP ■ 157 Basic Pipeline Scheduling and Loop Unrolling To keep a pipeline full, parallelism among instructions must be exploited by finding sequences of unrelated instructions that can be overlapped in the pipeline. To avoid a pipeline stall, the execution of a dependent instruction must be separated from the source instruction by a distance in clock cycles equal to the pipeline latency of that source instruction. A compiler’s ability to perform this scheduling depends both on the amount of ILP available in the program and on the latencies of the functional units in the pipeline. Figure 3.2 shows the FP unit latencies we assume in this chapter, unless different latencies are explicitly stated. We assume the standard five-stage integer pipeline, so that branches have a delay of one clock cycle. We assume that the functional units are fully pipelined or replicated (as many times as the pipeline depth), so that an operation of any type can be issued on every clock cycle and there are no structural hazards. In this subsection, we look at how the compiler can increase the amount of available ILP by transforming loops. This example serves both to illustrate an important technique as well as to motivate the more powerful program transformations described in Appendix H. We will rely on the following code segment, which adds a scalar to a vector: for (i=999; i>=0; i=i–1) x[i] = x[i] + s; We can see that this loop is parallel by noticing that the body of each iteration is independent. We formalize this notion in Appendix H and describe how we can test whether loop iterations are independent at compile time. First, let’s look at the performance of this loop, showing how we can use the parallelism to improve its performance for a MIPS pipeline with the latencies shown above. The first step is to translate the above segment to MIPS assembly language. In the following code segment, R1 is initially the address of the element in the array with the highest address, and F2 contains the scalar value s. Register R2 is precomputed, so that 8(R2) is the address of the last element to operate on. Instruction producing result FP ALU op FP ALU op Load double Load double Instruction using result Another FP ALU op Store double FP ALU op Store double Latency in clock cycles 3 2 1 0 Figure 3.2 Latencies of FP operations used in this chapter. The last column is the number of intervening clock cycles needed to avoid a stall. These numbers are similar to the average latencies we would see on an FP unit. The latency of a floating-point load to a store is 0, since the result of the load can be bypassed without stalling the store. We will continue to assume an integer load latency of 1 and an integer ALU operation latency of 0. 158 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation The straightforward MIPS code, not scheduled for the pipeline, looks like this: Loop: L.D ADD.D S.D DADDUI BNE F0,0(R1) F4,F0,F2 F4,0(R1) R1,R1,#-8 R1,R2,Loop ;F0=array element ;add scalar in F2 ;store result ;decrement pointer ;8 bytes (per DW) ;branch R1!=R2 Let’s start by seeing how well this loop will run when it is scheduled on a simple pipeline for MIPS with the latencies from Figure 3.2. Example Show how the loop would look on MIPS, both scheduled and unscheduled, including any stalls or idle clock cycles. Schedule for delays from floating-point operations, but remember that we are ignoring delayed branches. Answer Without any scheduling, the loop will execute as follows, taking nine cycles: Clock cycle issued Loop: L.D F0,0(R1) 1 stall 2 ADD.D F4,F0,F2 3 stall 4 stall 5 S.D F4,0(R1) 6 DADDUI R1,R1,#-8 7 stall 8 BNE R1,R2,Loop 9 We can schedule the loop to obtain only two stalls and reduce the time to seven cycles: Loop: L.D DADDUI ADD.D stall stall S.D BNE F0,0(R1) R1,R1,#-8 F4,F0,F2 F4,8(R1) R1,R2,Loop The stalls after ADD.D are for use by the S.D. In the previous example, we complete one loop iteration and store back one array element every seven clock cycles, but the actual work of operating on the array element takes just three (the load, add, and store) of those seven clock 3.2 Basic Compiler Techniques for Exposing ILP ■ 159 cycles. The remaining four clock cycles consist of loop overhead—the DADDUI and BNE—and two stalls. To eliminate these four clock cycles we need to get more operations relative to the number of overhead instructions. A simple scheme for increasing the number of instructions relative to the branch and overhead instructions is loop unrolling. Unrolling simply replicates the loop body multiple times, adjusting the loop termination code. Loop unrolling can also be used to improve scheduling. Because it eliminates the branch, it allows instructions from different iterations to be scheduled together. In this case, we can eliminate the data use stalls by creating additional independent instructions within the loop body. If we simply replicated the instructions when we unrolled the loop, the resulting use of the same registers could prevent us from effectively scheduling the loop. Thus, we will want to use different registers for each iteration, increasing the required number of registers. Example Show our loop unrolled so that there are four copies of the loop body, assuming R1 – R2 (that is, the size of the array) is initially a multiple of 32, which means that the number of loop iterations is a multiple of 4. Eliminate any obviously redundant computations and do not reuse any of the registers. Answer Here is the result after merging the DADDUI instructions and dropping the unnecessary BNE operations that are duplicated during unrolling. Note that R2 must now be set so that 32(R2) is the starting address of the last four elements. Loop: L.D ADD.D S.D L.D ADD.D S.D L.D ADD.D S.D L.D ADD.D S.D DADDUI BNE F0,0(R1) F4,F0,F2 F4,0(R1) F6,-8(R1) F8,F6,F2 F8,-8(R1) F10,-16(R1) F12,F10,F2 F12,-16(R1) F14,-24(R1) F16,F14,F2 F16,-24(R1) R1,R1,#-32 R1,R2,Loop ;drop DADDUI & BNE ;drop DADDUI & BNE ;drop DADDUI & BNE We have eliminated three branches and three decrements of R1. The addresses on the loads and stores have been compensated to allow the DADDUI instructions on R1 to be merged. This optimization may seem trivial, but it is not; it requires symbolic substitution and simplification. Symbolic substitution and simplification will rearrange expressions so as to allow constants to be collapsed, allowing an expression such as ((i + 1) + 1) to be rewritten as (i + (1 + 1)) and then simplified to (i + 2). We will see more general forms of these optimizations that eliminate dependent computations in Appendix H. 160 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation Without scheduling, every operation in the unrolled loop is followed by a dependent operation and thus will cause a stall. This loop will run in 27 clock cycles—each LD has 1 stall, each ADDD 2, the DADDUI 1, plus 14 instruction issue cycles—or 6.75 clock cycles for each of the four elements, but it can be scheduled to improve performance significantly. Loop unrolling is normally done early in the compilation process, so that redundant computations can be exposed and eliminated by the optimizer. In real programs we do not usually know the upper bound on the loop. Suppose it is n, and we would like to unroll the loop to make k copies of the body. Instead of a single unrolled loop, we generate a pair of consecutive loops. The first executes (n mod k) times and has a body that is the original loop. The second is the unrolled body surrounded by an outer loop that iterates (n/k) times. (As we shall see in Chapter 4, this technique is similar to a technique called strip mining, used in compilers for vector processors.) For large values of n, most of the execution time will be spent in the unrolled loop body. In the previous example, unrolling improves the performance of this loop by eliminating overhead instructions, although it increases code size substantially. How will the unrolled loop perform when it is scheduled for the pipeline described earlier? Example Show the unrolled loop in the previous example after it has been scheduled for the pipeline with the latencies from Figure 3.2. Answer Loop: L.D L.D L.D L.D ADD.D ADD.D ADD.D ADD.D S.D S.D DADDUI S.D S.D BNE F0,0(R1) F6,-8(R1) F10,-16(R1) F14,-24(R1) F4,F0,F2 F8,F6,F2 F12,F10,F2 F16,F14,F2 F4,0(R1) F8,-8(R1) R1,R1,#-32 F12,16(R1) F16,8(R1) R1,R2,Loop The execution time of the unrolled loop has dropped to a total of 14 clock cycles, or 3.5 clock cycles per element, compared with 9 cycles per element before any unrolling or scheduling and 7 cycles when scheduled but not unrolled. The gain from scheduling on the unrolled loop is even larger than on the original loop. This increase arises because unrolling the loop exposes more computation 3.2 Basic Compiler Techniques for Exposing ILP ■ 161 that can be scheduled to minimize the stalls; the code above has no stalls. Scheduling the loop in this fashion necessitates realizing that the loads and stores are independent and can be interchanged. Summary of the Loop Unrolling and Scheduling Throughout this chapter and Appendix H, we will look at a variety of hardware and software techniques that allow us to take advantage of instruction-level parallelism to fully utilize the potential of the functional units in a processor. The key to most of these techniques is to know when and how the ordering among instructions may be changed. In our example we made many such changes, which to us, as human beings, were obviously allowable. In practice, this process must be performed in a methodical fashion either by a compiler or by hardware. To obtain the final unrolled code we had to make the following decisions and transformations: ■ Determine that unrolling the loop would be useful by finding that the loop iterations were independent, except for the loop maintenance code. ■ Use different registers to avoid unnecessary constraints that would be forced by using the same registers for different computations (e.g., name dependences). ■ Eliminate the extra test and branch instructions and adjust the loop termination and iteration code. ■ Determine that the loads and stores in the unrolled loop can be interchanged by observing that the loads and stores from different iterations are independent. This transformation requires analyzing the memory addresses and finding that they do not refer to the same address. ■ Schedule the code, preserving any dependences needed to yield the same result as the original code. The key requirement underlying all of these transformations is an understanding of how one instruction depends on another and how the instructions can be changed or reordered given the dependences. Three different effects limit the gains from loop unrolling: (1) a decrease in the amount of overhead amortized with each unroll, (2) code size limitations, and (3) compiler limitations. Let’s consider the question of loop overhead first. When we unrolled the loop four times, it generated sufficient parallelism among the instructions that the loop could be scheduled with no stall cycles. In fact, in 14 clock cycles, only 2 cycles were loop overhead: the DADDUI, which maintains the index value, and the BNE, which terminates the loop. If the loop is unrolled eight times, the overhead is reduced from 1/ 2 cycle per original iteration to 1/ 4. A second limit to unrolling is the growth in code size that results. For larger loops, the code size growth may be a concern particularly if it causes an increase in the instruction cache miss rate. Another factor often more important than code size is the potential shortfall in registers that is created by aggressive unrolling and scheduling. This secondary 162 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation effect that results from instruction scheduling in large code segments is called register pressure. It arises because scheduling code to increase ILP causes the number of live values to increase. After aggressive instruction scheduling, it may not be possible to allocate all the live values to registers. The transformed code, while theoretically faster, may lose some or all of its advantage because it generates a shortage of registers. Without unrolling, aggressive scheduling is sufficiently limited by branches so that register pressure is rarely a problem. The combination of unrolling and aggressive scheduling can, however, cause this problem. The problem becomes especially challenging in multiple-issue processors that require the exposure of more independent instruction sequences whose execution can be overlapped. In general, the use of sophisticated high-level transformations, whose potential improvements are difficult to measure before detailed code generation, has led to significant increases in the complexity of modern compilers. Loop unrolling is a simple but useful method for increasing the size of straight-line code fragments that can be scheduled effectively. This transformation is useful in a variety of processors, from simple pipelines like those we have examined so far to the multiple-issue superscalars and VLIWs explored later in this chapter. 3.3 Reducing Branch Costs with Advanced Branch Prediction Because of the need to enforce control dependences through branch hazards and stalls, branches will hurt pipeline performance. Loop unrolling is one way to reduce the number of branch hazards; we can also reduce the performance losses of branches by predicting how they will behave. In Appendix C, we examine simple branch predictors that rely either on compile-time information or on the observed dynamic behavior of a branch in isolation. As the number of instructions in flight has increased, the importance of more accurate branch prediction has grown. In this section, we examine techniques for improving dynamic prediction accuracy. Correlating Branch Predictors The 2-bit predictor schemes use only the recent behavior of a single branch to predict the future behavior of that branch. It may be possible to improve the prediction accuracy if we also look at the recent behavior of other branches rather than just the branch we are trying to predict. Consider a small code fragment from the eqntott benchmark, a member of early SPEC benchmark suites that displayed particularly bad branch prediction behavior: if (aa==2) aa=0; if (bb==2) bb=0; if (aa!=bb) { 3.3 Reducing Branch Costs with Advanced Branch Prediction ■ 163 Here is the MIPS code that we would typically generate for this code fragment assuming that aa and bb are assigned to registers R1 and R2: DADDIU R3,R1,#–2 BNEZ R3,L1 DADD R1,R0,R0 L1: DADDIU R3,R2,#–2 BNEZ R3,L2 DADD R2,R0,R0 L2: DSUBU R3,R1,R2 BEQZ R3,L3 ;branch b1 (aa!=2) ;aa=0 ;branch b2 ;bb=0 ;R3=aa-bb ;branch b3 (bb!=2) (aa==bb) Let’s label these branches b1, b2, and b3. The key observation is that the behavior of branch b3 is correlated with the behavior of branches b1 and b2. Clearly, if branches b1 and b2 are both not taken (i.e., if the conditions both evaluate to true and aa and bb are both assigned 0), then b3 will be taken, since aa and bb are clearly equal. A predictor that uses only the behavior of a single branch to predict the outcome of that branch can never capture this behavior. Branch predictors that use the behavior of other branches to make a prediction are called correlating predictors or two-level predictors. Existing correlating predictors add information about the behavior of the most recent branches to decide how to predict a given branch. For example, a (1,2) predictor uses the behavior of the last branch to choose from among a pair of 2-bit branch predictors in predicting a particular branch. In the general case, an (m,n) predictor uses the behavior of the last m branches to choose from 2m branch predictors, each of which is an n-bit predictor for a single branch. The attraction of this type of correlating branch predictor is that it can yield higher prediction rates than the 2-bit scheme and requires only a trivial amount of additional hardware. The simplicity of the hardware comes from a simple observation: The global history of the most recent m branches can be recorded in an m-bit shift register, where each bit records whether the branch was taken or not taken. The branch-prediction buffer can then be indexed using a concatenation of the loworder bits from the branch address with the m-bit global history. For example, in a (2,2) buffer with 64 total entries, the 4 low-order address bits of the branch (word address) and the 2 global bits representing the behavior of the two most recently executed branches form a 6-bit index that can be used to index the 64 counters. How much better do the correlating branch predictors work when compared with the standard 2-bit scheme? To compare them fairly, we must compare predictors that use the same number of state bits. The number of bits in an (m,n) predictor is 2m × n × Number of prediction entries selected by the branch address A 2-bit predictor with no global history is simply a (0,2) predictor. 164 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation Example How many bits are in the (0,2) branch predictor with 4K entries? How many entries are in a (2,2) predictor with the same number of bits? Answer The predictor with 4K entries has 20 × 2 × 4K = 8K bits How many branch-selected entries are in a (2,2) predictor that has a total of 8K bits in the prediction buffer? We know that 22 × 2 × Number of prediction entries selected by the branch = 8K Hence, the number of prediction entries selected by the branch = 1K. Figure 3.3 compares the misprediction rates of the earlier (0,2) predictor with 4K entries and a (2,2) predictor with 1K entries. As you can see, this correlating predictor not only outperforms a simple 2-bit predictor with the same total number of state bits, but it also often outperforms a 2-bit predictor with an unlimited number of entries. Tournament Predictors: Adaptively Combining Local and Global Predictors The primary motivation for correlating branch predictors came from the observation that the standard 2-bit predictor using only local information failed on some important branches and that, by adding global information, the performance could be improved. Tournament predictors take this insight to the next level, by using multiple predictors, usually one based on global information and one based on local information, and combining them with a selector. Tournament predictors can achieve both better accuracy at medium sizes (8K–32K bits) and also make use of very large numbers of prediction bits effectively. Existing tournament predictors use a 2-bit saturating counter per branch to choose among two different predictors based on which predictor (local, global, or even some mix) was most effective in recent predictions. As in a simple 2-bit predictor, the saturating counter requires two mispredictions before changing the identity of the preferred predictor. The advantage of a tournament predictor is its ability to select the right predictor for a particular branch, which is particularly crucial for the integer benchmarks. A typical tournament predictor will select the global predictor almost 40% of the time for the SPEC integer benchmarks and less than 15% of the time for the SPEC FP benchmarks. In addition to the Alpha processors that pioneered tournament predictors, recent AMD processors, including both the Opteron and Phenom, have used tournament-style predictors. Figure 3.4 looks at the performance of three different predictors (a local 2-bit predictor, a correlating predictor, and a tournament predictor) for different 3.3 Reducing Branch Costs with Advanced Branch Prediction ■ 165 SPEC89 benchmarks 1% nASA7 0% 1% 0% matrix300 0% 0% 1% tomcatv 0% 1% 5% doduc 5% 5% 4096 entries: 2 bits per entry Unlimited entries: 2 bits per entry 1024 entries: (2,2) spice 9% 9% 5% fpppp 9% 9% 5% gcc espresso 5% 5% 4% 12% 11% 11% eqntott 6% 18% 18% 10% li 10% 5% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% Frequency of mispredictions Figure 3.3 Comparison of 2-bit predictors. A noncorrelating predictor for 4096 bits is first, followed by a noncorrelating 2-bit predictor with unlimited entries and a 2-bit predictor with 2 bits of global history and a total of 1024 entries. Although these data are for an older version of SPEC, data for more recent SPEC benchmarks would show similar differences in accuracy. numbers of bits using SPEC89 as the benchmark. As we saw earlier, the prediction capability of the local predictor does not improve beyond a certain size. The correlating predictor shows a significant improvement, and the tournament predictor generates slightly better performance. For more recent versions of the SPEC, the results would be similar, but the asymptotic behavior would not be reached until slightly larger predictor sizes. The local predictor consists of a two-level predictor. The top level is a local history table consisting of 1024 10-bit entries; each 10-bit entry corresponds to the most recent 10 branch outcomes for the entry. That is, if the branch was taken 10 or more times in a row, the entry in the local history table will be all 1s. If the branch is alternately taken and untaken, the history entry consists of alternating 0s and 1s. This 10-bit history allows patterns of up to 10 branches to be discovered and predicted. The selected entry from the local history table is used to 166 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation 8% Conditional branch misprediction rate 7% Local 2-bit predictors 6% 5% 4% Correlating predictors 3% Tournament predictors 2% 1% 0% 0 32 64 96 128 160 192 224 256 288 320 352 384 416 448 480 512 Total predictor size Figure 3.4 The misprediction rate for three different predictors on SPEC89 as the total number of bits is increased. The predictors are a local 2-bit predictor, a correlating predictor that is optimally structured in its use of global and local information at each point in the graph, and a tournament predictor. Although these data are for an older version of SPEC, data for more recent SPEC benchmarks would show similar behavior, perhaps converging to the asymptotic limit at slightly larger predictor sizes. index a table of 1K entries consisting of 3-bit saturating counters, which provide the local prediction. This combination, which uses a total of 29K bits, leads to high accuracy in branch prediction. The Intel Core i7 Branch Predictor Intel has released only limited amounts of information about the Core i7’s branch predictor, which is based on earlier predictors used in the Core Duo chip. The i7 uses a two-level predictor that has a smaller first-level predictor, designed to meet the cycle constraints of predicting a branch every clock cycle, and a larger second-level predictor as a backup. Each predictor combines three different predictors: (1) the simple two-bit predictor, which was introduced in Appendix C (and used in the tournament predictor discussed above); (2) a global history predictor, like those we just saw; and (3) a loop exit predictor. The loop exit predictor uses a counter to predict the exact number of taken branches (which is the number of loop iterations) for a branch that is detected as a loop branch. For each branch, the best prediction is chosen from among the three predictors by tracking the accuracy of each prediction, like a tournament predictor. In addition to this multilevel main predictor, a separate unit predicts target addresses for indirect branches, and a stack to predict return addresses is also used. Misprediction rate Perlbench Bzip2 Gcc LibqOHuHmG2anSo6mnjetb4teMmurpncmeefmpfgrk XalancAbstmark PSDNooevaprlaMlimaelIyxdIc SphiLnbx3m 3.4 Overcoming Data Hazards with Dynamic Scheduling ■ 167 10% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% Figure 3.5 The misprediction rate for 19 of the SPECCPU2006 benchmarks versus the number of successfully retired branches is slightly higher on average for the integer benchmarks than for the FP (4% versus 3%). More importantly, it is much higher for a few benchmarks. As in other cases, speculation causes some challenges in evaluating the predictor, since a mispredicted branch may easily lead to another branch being fetched and mispredicted. To keep things simple, we look at the number of mispredictions as a percentage of the number of successfully completed branches (those that were not the result of misspeculation). Figure 3.5 shows these data for 19 of the SPECCPU 2006 benchmarks. These benchmarks are considerably larger than SPEC89 or SPEC2000, with the result being that the misprediction rates are slightly higher than those in Figure 3.4 even with a more elaborate combination of predictors. Because branch misprediction leads to ineffective speculation, it contributes to the wasted work, as we will see later in this chapter. 3.4 Overcoming Data Hazards with Dynamic Scheduling A simple statically scheduled pipeline fetches an instruction and issues it, unless there is a data dependence between an instruction already in the pipeline and the fetched instruction that cannot be hidden with bypassing or forwarding. (Forwarding logic reduces the effective pipeline latency so that the certain dependences do not result in hazards.) If there is a data dependence that cannot be 168 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation hidden, then the hazard detection hardware stalls the pipeline starting with the instruction that uses the result. No new instructions are fetched or issued until the dependence is cleared. In this section, we explore dynamic scheduling, in which the hardware rearranges the instruction execution to reduce the stalls while maintaining data flow and exception behavior. Dynamic scheduling offers several advantages. First, it allows code that was compiled with one pipeline in mind to run efficiently on a different pipeline, eliminating the need to have multiple binaries and recompile for a different microarchitecture. In today’s computing environment, where much of the software is from third parties and distributed in binary form, this advantage is significant. Second, it enables handling some cases when dependences are unknown at compile time; for example, they may involve a memory reference or a data-dependent branch, or they may result from a modern programming environment that uses dynamic linking or dispatching. Third, and perhaps most importantly, it allows the processor to tolerate unpredictable delays, such as cache misses, by executing other code while waiting for the miss to resolve. In Section 3.6, we explore hardware speculation, a technique with additional performance advantages, which builds on dynamic scheduling. As we will see, the advantages of dynamic scheduling are gained at a cost of significant increase in hardware complexity. Although a dynamically scheduled processor cannot change the data flow, it tries to avoid stalling when dependences are present. In contrast, static pipeline scheduling by the compiler (covered in Section 3.2) tries to minimize stalls by separating dependent instructions so that they will not lead to hazards. Of course, compiler pipeline scheduling can also be used on code destined to run on a processor with a dynamically scheduled pipeline. Dynamic Scheduling: The Idea A major limitation of simple pipelining techniques is that they use in-order instruction issue and execution: Instructions are issued in program order, and if an instruction is stalled in the pipeline no later instructions can proceed. Thus, if there is a dependence between two closely spaced instructions in the pipeline, this will lead to a hazard and a stall will result. If there are multiple functional units, these units could lie idle. If instruction j depends on a long-running instruction i, currently in execution in the pipeline, then all instructions after j must be stalled until i is finished and j can execute. For example, consider this code: DIV.D ADD.D SUB.D F0,F2,F4 F10,F0,F8 F12,F8,F14 The SUB.D instruction cannot execute because the dependence of ADD.D on DIV.D causes the pipeline to stall; yet, SUB.D is not data dependent on anything in the pipeline. This hazard creates a performance limitation that can be eliminated by not requiring instructions to execute in program order. 3.4 Overcoming Data Hazards with Dynamic Scheduling ■ 169 In the classic five-stage pipeline, both structural and data hazards could be checked during instruction decode (ID): When an instruction could execute without hazards, it was issued from ID knowing that all data hazards had been resolved. To allow us to begin executing the SUB.D in the above example, we must separate the issue process into two parts: checking for any structural hazards and waiting for the absence of a data hazard. Thus, we still use in-order instruction issue (i.e., instructions issued in program order), but we want an instruction to begin execution as soon as its data operands are available. Such a pipeline does out-of-order execution, which implies out-of-order completion. Out-of-order execution introduces the possibility of WAR and WAW hazards, which do not exist in the five-stage integer pipeline and its logical extension to an in-order floating-point pipeline. Consider the following MIPS floating-point code sequence: DIV.D ADD.D SUB.D MUL.D F0,F2,F4 F6,F0,F8 F8,F10,F14 F6,F10,F8 There is an antidependence between the ADD.D and the SUB.D, and if the pipeline executes the SUB.D before the ADD.D (which is waiting for the DIV.D), it will violate the antidependence, yielding a WAR hazard. Likewise, to avoid violating output dependences, such as the write of F6 by MUL.D, WAW hazards must be handled. As we will see, both these hazards are avoided by the use of register renaming. Out-of-order completion also creates major complications in handling exceptions. Dynamic scheduling with out-of-order completion must preserve exception behavior in the sense that exactly those exceptions that would arise if the program were executed in strict program order actually do arise. Dynamically scheduled processors preserve exception behavior by delaying the notification of an associated exception until the processor knows that the instruction should be the next one completed. Although exception behavior must be preserved, dynamically scheduled processors could generate imprecise exceptions. An exception is imprecise if the processor state when an exception is raised does not look exactly as if the instructions were executed sequentially in strict program order. Imprecise exceptions can occur because of two possibilities: 1. The pipeline may have already completed instructions that are later in program order than the instruction causing the exception. 2. The pipeline may have not yet completed some instructions that are earlier in program order than the instruction causing the exception. Imprecise exceptions make it difficult to restart execution after an exception. Rather than address these problems in this section, we will discuss a solution that 170 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation provides precise exceptions in the context of a processor with speculation in Section 3.6. For floating-point exceptions, other solutions have been used, as discussed in Appendix J. To allow out-of-order execution, we essentially split the ID pipe stage of our simple five-stage pipeline into two stages: 1. Issue—Decode instructions, check for structural hazards. 2. Read operands—Wait until no data hazards, then read operands. An instruction fetch stage precedes the issue stage and may fetch either into an instruction register or into a queue of pending instructions; instructions are then issued from the register or queue. The execution stage follows the read operands stage, just as in the five-stage pipeline. Execution may take multiple cycles, depending on the operation. We distinguish when an instruction begins execution and when it completes execution; between the two times, the instruction is in execution. Our pipeline allows multiple instructions to be in execution at the same time; without this capability, a major advantage of dynamic scheduling is lost. Having multiple instructions in execution at once requires multiple functional units, pipelined functional units, or both. Since these two capabilities—pipelined functional units and multiple functional units—are essentially equivalent for the purposes of pipeline control, we will assume the processor has multiple functional units. In a dynamically scheduled pipeline, all instructions pass through the issue stage in order (in-order issue); however, they can be stalled or bypass each other in the second stage (read operands) and thus enter execution out of order. Scoreboarding is a technique for allowing instructions to execute out of order when there are sufficient resources and no data dependences; it is named after the CDC 6600 scoreboard, which developed this capability. Here, we focus on a more sophisticated technique, called Tomasulo’s algorithm. The primary difference is that Tomasulo’s algorithm handles antidependences and output dependences by effectively renaming the registers dynamically. Additionally, Tomasulo’s algorithm can be extended to handle speculation, a technique to reduce the effect of control dependences by predicting the outcome of a branch, executing instructions at the predicted destination address, and taking corrective actions when the prediction was wrong. While the use of scoreboarding is probably sufficient to support a simple two-issue superscalar like the ARM A8, a more aggressive processor, like the four-issue Intel i7, benefits from the use of out-of-order execution. Dynamic Scheduling Using Tomasulo’s Approach The IBM 360/91 floating-point unit used a sophisticated scheme to allow out-oforder execution. This scheme, invented by Robert Tomasulo, tracks when operands for instructions are available to minimize RAW hazards and introduces register renaming in hardware to minimize WAW and WAR hazards. There are 3.4 Overcoming Data Hazards with Dynamic Scheduling ■ 171 many variations on this scheme in modern processors, although the key concepts of tracking instruction dependences to allow execution as soon as operands are available and renaming registers to avoid WAR and WAW hazards are common characteristics. IBM’s goal was to achieve high floating-point performance from an instruction set and from compilers designed for the entire 360 computer family, rather than from specialized compilers for the high-end processors. The 360 architecture had only four double-precision floating-point registers, which limits the effectiveness of compiler scheduling; this fact was another motivation for the Tomasulo approach. In addition, the IBM 360/91 had long memory accesses and long floating-point delays, which Tomasulo’s algorithm was designed to overcome. At the end of the section, we will see that Tomasulo’s algorithm can also support the overlapped execution of multiple iterations of a loop. We explain the algorithm, which focuses on the floating-point unit and loadstore unit, in the context of the MIPS instruction set. The primary difference between MIPS and the 360 is the presence of register-memory instructions in the latter architecture. Because Tomasulo’s algorithm uses a load functional unit, no significant changes are needed to add register-memory addressing modes. The IBM 360/91 also had pipelined functional units, rather than multiple functional units, but we describe the algorithm as if there were multiple functional units. It is a simple conceptual extension to also pipeline those functional units. As we will see, RAW hazards are avoided by executing an instruction only when its operands are available, which is exactly what the simpler scoreboarding approach provides. WAR and WAW hazards, which arise from name dependences, are eliminated by register renaming. Register renaming eliminates these hazards by renaming all destination registers, including those with a pending read or write for an earlier instruction, so that the out-of-order write does not affect any instructions that depend on an earlier value of an operand. To better understand how register renaming eliminates WAR and WAW hazards, consider the following example code sequence that includes potential WAR and WAW hazards: DIV.D ADD.D S.D SUB.D MUL.D F0,F2,F4 F6,F0,F8 F6,0(R1) F8,F10,F14 F6,F10,F8 There are two antidependences: between the ADD.D and the SUB.D and between the S.D and the MUL.D. There is also an output dependence between the ADD.D and the MUL.D, leading to three possible hazards: WAR hazards on the use of F8 by ADD.D and the use of F6 by the SUB.D, as well as a WAW hazard since the ADD.D may finish later than the MUL.D. There are also three true data dependences: between the DIV.D and the ADD.D, between the SUB.D and the MUL.D, and between the ADD.D and the S.D. 172 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation These three name dependences can all be eliminated by register renaming. For simplicity, assume the existence of two temporary registers, S and T. Using S and T, the sequence can be rewritten without any dependences as: DIV.D ADD.D S.D SUB.D MUL.D F0,F2,F4 S,F0,F8 S,0(R1) T,F10,F14 F6,F10,T In addition, any subsequent uses of F8 must be replaced by the register T. In this code segment, the renaming process can be done statically by the compiler. Finding any uses of F8 that are later in the code requires either sophisticated compiler analysis or hardware support, since there may be intervening branches between the above code segment and a later use of F8. As we will see, Tomasulo’s algorithm can handle renaming across branches. In Tomasulo’s scheme, register renaming is provided by reservation stations, which buffer the operands of instructions waiting to issue. The basic idea is that a reservation station fetches and buffers an operand as soon as it is available, eliminating the need to get the operand from a register. In addition, pending instructions designate the reservation station that will provide their input. Finally, when successive writes to a register overlap in execution, only the last one is actually used to update the register. As instructions are issued, the register specifiers for pending operands are renamed to the names of the reservation station, which provides register renaming. Since there can be more reservation stations than real registers, the technique can even eliminate hazards arising from name dependences that could not be eliminated by a compiler. As we explore the components of Tomasulo’s scheme, we will return to the topic of register renaming and see exactly how the renaming occurs and how it eliminates WAR and WAW hazards. The use of reservation stations, rather than a centralized register file, leads to two other important properties. First, hazard detection and execution control are distributed: The information held in the reservation stations at each functional unit determines when an instruction can begin execution at that unit. Second, results are passed directly to functional units from the reservation stations where they are buffered, rather than going through the registers. This bypassing is done with a common result bus that allows all units waiting for an operand to be loaded simultaneously (on the 360/91 this is called the common data bus, or CDB). In pipelines with multiple execution units and issuing multiple instructions per clock, more than one result bus will be needed. Figure 3.6 shows the basic structure of a Tomasulo-based processor, including both the floating-point unit and the load/store unit; none of the execution control tables is shown. Each reservation station holds an instruction that has been issued and is awaiting execution at a functional unit and either the operand values for that instruction, if they have already been computed, or else the names of the reservation stations that will provide the operand values. 3.4 Overcoming Data Hazards with Dynamic Scheduling ■ 173 From instruction unit Instruction queue FP registers Load /store operations Address unit Store buffers Load buffers Floating-point operations Operand buses Operation bus 3 2 1 Data Address Memory unit FP adders 2 Reservation 1 stations FP multipliers Common data bus (CDB) Figure 3.6 The basic structure of a MIPS floating-point unit using Tomasulo’s algorithm. Instructions are sent from the instruction unit into the instruction queue from which they are issued in first-in, first-out (FIFO) order. The reservation stations include the operation and the actual operands, as well as information used for detecting and resolving hazards. Load buffers have three functions: (1) hold the components of the effective address until it is computed, (2) track outstanding loads that are waiting on the memory, and (3) hold the results of completed loads that are waiting for the CDB. Similarly, store buffers have three functions: (1) hold the components of the effective address until it is computed, (2) hold the destination memory addresses of outstanding stores that are waiting for the data value to store, and (3) hold the address and value to store until the memory unit is available. All results from either the FP units or the load unit are put on the CDB, which goes to the FP register file as well as to the reservation stations and store buffers. The FP adders implement addition and subtraction, and the FP multipliers do multiplication and division. The load buffers and store buffers hold data or addresses coming from and going to memory and behave almost exactly like reservation stations, so we distinguish them only when necessary. The floating-point registers are connected by a pair of buses to the functional units and by a single bus to the store buffers. All results from the functional units and from memory are sent on the common data bus, which goes everywhere except to the load buffer. All reservation stations have tag fields, employed by the pipeline control. Before we describe the details of the reservation stations and the algorithm, let’s look at the steps an instruction goes through. There are only three steps, although each one can now take an arbitrary number of clock cycles: 174 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation 1. Issue—Get the next instruction from the head of the instruction queue, which is maintained in FIFO order to ensure the maintenance of correct data flow. If there is a matching reservation station that is empty, issue the instruction to the station with the operand values, if they are currently in the registers. If there is not an empty reservation station, then there is a structural hazard and the instruction stalls until a station or buffer is freed. If the operands are not in the registers, keep track of the functional units that will produce the operands. This step renames registers, eliminating WAR and WAW hazards. (This stage is sometimes called dispatch in a dynamically scheduled processor.) 2. Execute—If one or more of the operands is not yet available, monitor the common data bus while waiting for it to be computed. When an operand becomes available, it is placed into any reservation station awaiting it. When all the operands are available, the operation can be executed at the corresponding functional unit. By delaying instruction execution until the operands are available, RAW hazards are avoided. (Some dynamically scheduled processors call this step “issue,” but we use the name “execute,” which was used in the first dynamically scheduled processor, the CDC 6600.) Notice that several instructions could become ready in the same clock cycle for the same functional unit. Although independent functional units could begin execution in the same clock cycle for different instructions, if more than one instruction is ready for a single functional unit, the unit will have to choose among them. For the floating-point reservation stations, this choice may be made arbitrarily; loads and stores, however, present an additional complication. Loads and stores require a two-step execution process. The first step computes the effective address when the base register is available, and the effective address is then placed in the load or store buffer. Loads in the load buffer execute as soon as the memory unit is available. Stores in the store buffer wait for the value to be stored before being sent to the memory unit. Loads and stores are maintained in program order through the effective address calculation, which will help to prevent hazards through memory, as we will see shortly. To preserve exception behavior, no instruction is allowed to initiate execution until all branches that precede the instruction in program order have completed. This restriction guarantees that an instruction that causes an exception during execution really would have been executed. In a processor using branch prediction (as all dynamically scheduled processors do), this means that the processor must know that the branch prediction was correct before allowing an instruction after the branch to begin execution. If the processor records the occurrence of the exception, but does not actually raise it, an instruction can start execution but not stall until it enters write result. As we will see, speculation provides a more flexible and more complete method to handle exceptions, so we will delay making this enhancement and show how speculation handles this problem later. 3.4 Overcoming Data Hazards with Dynamic Scheduling ■ 175 3. Write result—When the result is available, write it on the CDB and from there into the registers and into any reservation stations (including store buffers) waiting for this result. Stores are buffered in the store buffer until both the value to be stored and the store address are available, then the result is written as soon as the memory unit is free. The data structures that detect and eliminate hazards are attached to the reservation stations, to the register file, and to the load and store buffers with slightly different information attached to different objects. These tags are essentially names for an extended set of virtual registers used for renaming. In our example, the tag field is a 4-bit quantity that denotes one of the five reservation stations or one of the five load buffers. As we will see, this produces the equivalent of 10 registers that can be designated as result registers (as opposed to the four doubleprecision registers that the 360 architecture contains). In a processor with more real registers, we would want renaming to provide an even larger set of virtual registers. The tag field describes which reservation station contains the instruction that will produce a result needed as a source operand. Once an instruction has issued and is waiting for a source operand, it refers to the operand by the reservation station number where the instruction that will write the register has been assigned. Unused values, such as zero, indicate that the operand is already available in the registers. Because there are more reservation stations than actual register numbers, WAW and WAR hazards are eliminated by renaming results using reservation station numbers. Although in Tomasulo’s scheme the reservation stations are used as the extended virtual registers, other approaches could use a register set with additional registers or a structure like the reorder buffer, which we will see in Section 3.6. In Tomasulo’s scheme, as well as the subsequent methods we look at for supporting speculation, results are broadcast on a bus (the CDB), which is monitored by the reservation stations. The combination of the common result bus and the retrieval of results from the bus by the reservation stations implements the forwarding and bypassing mechanisms used in a statically scheduled pipeline. In doing so, however, a dynamically scheduled scheme introduces one cycle of latency between source and result, since the matching of a result and its use cannot be done until the Write Result stage. Thus, in a dynamically scheduled pipeline, the effective latency between a producing instruction and a consuming instruction is at least one cycle longer than the latency of the functional unit producing the result. It is important to remember that the tags in the Tomasulo scheme refer to the buffer or unit that will produce a result; the register names are discarded when an instruction issues to a reservation station. (This is a key difference between Tomasulo’s scheme and scoreboarding: In scoreboarding, operands stay in the registers and are only read after the producing instruction completes and the consuming instruction is ready to execute.) 176 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation Each reservation station has seven fields: ■ Op—The operation to perform on source operands S1 and S2. ■ Qj, Qk—The reservation stations that will produce the corresponding source operand; a value of zero indicates that the source operand is already available in Vj or Vk, or is unnecessary. ■ Vj, Vk—The value of the source operands. Note that only one of the V fields or the Q field is valid for each operand. For loads, the Vk field is used to hold the offset field. ■ A—Used to hold information for the memory address calculation for a load or store. Initially, the immediate field of the instruction is stored here; after the address calculation, the effective address is stored here. ■ Busy—Indicates that this reservation station and its accompanying functional unit are occupied. The register file has a field, Qi: ■ Qi—The number of the reservation station that contains the operation whose result should be stored into this register. If the value of Qi is blank (or 0), no currently active instruction is computing a result destined for this register, meaning that the value is simply the register contents. The load and store buffers each have a field, A, which holds the result of the effective address once the first step of execution has been completed. In the next section, we will first consider some examples that show how these mechanisms work and then examine the detailed algorithm. 3.5 Dynamic Scheduling: Examples and the Algorithm Before we examine Tomasulo’s algorithm in detail, let’s consider a few examples that will help illustrate how the algorithm works. Example Show what the information tables look like for the following code sequence when only the first load has completed and written its result: 1. L.D F6,32(R2) 2. L.D F2,44(R3) 3. MUL.D F0,F2,F4 4. SUB.D F8,F2,F6 5. DIV.D F10,F0,F6 6. ADD.D F6,F8,F2 Answer Figure 3.7 shows the result in three tables. The numbers appended to the names Add, Mult, and Load stand for the tag for that reservation station—Add1 is the tag for the result from the first add unit. In addition, we have included an 3.5 Dynamic Scheduling: Examples and the Algorithm ■ 177 Instruction L.D F6,32(R2) L.D F2,44(R3) MUL.D F0,F2,F4 SUB.D F8,F2,F6 DIV.D F10,F0,F6 ADD.D F6,F8,F2 Issue √ √ √ √ √ √ Instruction status Execute √ √ Write result √ Name Load1 Load2 Add1 Add2 Add3 Mult1 Mult2 Busy Op Vj No Yes Load Yes SUB Yes ADD No Yes MUL Yes DIV Reservation stations Vk Qj Qk A Mem[32 + Regs[R2]] Load2 Add1 Regs[F4] Load2 Mem[32 + Regs[R2]] Mult1 44 + Regs[R3] Load2 Register status Field Qi F0 Mult1 F2 F4 Load2 F6 Add2 F8 Add1 F10 F12 Mult2 . . . F30 Figure 3.7 Reservation stations and register tags shown when all of the instructions have issued, but only the first load instruction has completed and written its result to the CDB. The second load has completed effective address calculation but is waiting on the memory unit. We use the array Regs[ ] to refer to the register file and the array Mem[ ] to refer to the memory. Remember that an operand is specified by either a Q field or a V field at any time. Notice that the ADD.D instruction, which has a WAR hazard at the WB stage, has issued and could complete before the DIV.D initiates. instruction status table. This table is included only to help you understand the algorithm; it is not actually a part of the hardware. Instead, the reservation station keeps the state of each operation that has issued. Tomasulo’s scheme offers two major advantages over earlier and simpler schemes: (1) the distribution of the hazard detection logic, and (2) the elimination of stalls for WAW and WAR hazards. 178 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation The first advantage arises from the distributed reservation stations and the use of the CDB. If multiple instructions are waiting on a single result, and each instruction already has its other operand, then the instructions can be released simultaneously by the broadcast of the result on the CDB. If a centralized register file were used, the units would have to read their results from the registers when register buses are available. The second advantage, the elimination of WAW and WAR hazards, is accomplished by renaming registers using the reservation stations and by the process of storing operands into the reservation station as soon as they are available. For example, the code sequence in Figure 3.7 issues both the DIV.D and the ADD.D, even though there is a WAR hazard involving F6. The hazard is eliminated in one of two ways. First, if the instruction providing the value for the DIV.D has completed, then Vk will store the result, allowing DIV.D to execute independent of the ADD.D (this is the case shown). On the other hand, if the L.D had not completed, then Qk would point to the Load1 reservation station, and the DIV.D instruction would be independent of the ADD.D. Thus, in either case, the ADD.D can issue and begin executing. Any uses of the result of the DIV.D would point to the reservation station, allowing the ADD.D to complete and store its value into the registers without affecting the DIV.D. We’ll see an example of the elimination of a WAW hazard shortly. But let’s first look at how our earlier example continues execution. In this example, and the ones that follow in this chapter, assume the following latencies: load is 1 clock cycle, add is 2 clock cycles, multiply is 6 clock cycles, and divide is 12 clock cycles. Example Using the same code segment as in the previous example (page 176), show what the status tables look like when the MUL.D is ready to write its result. Answer The result is shown in the three tables in Figure 3.8. Notice that ADD.D has completed since the operands of DIV.D were copied, thereby overcoming the WAR hazard. Notice that even if the load of F6 was delayed, the add into F6 could be executed without triggering a WAW hazard. Tomasulo’s Algorithm: The Details Figure 3.9 specifies the checks and steps that each instruction must go through. As mentioned earlier, loads and stores go through a functional unit for effective address computation before proceeding to independent load or store buffers. Loads take a second execution step to access memory and then go to write result to send the value from memory to the register file and/or any waiting reservation stations. Stores complete their execution in the write result stage, which writes the result to memory. Notice that all writes occur in write result, whether the destination is a register or memory. This restriction simplifies Tomasulo’s algorithm and is critical to its extension with speculation in Section 3.6. 3.5 Dynamic Scheduling: Examples and the Algorithm ■ 179 Instruction L.D F6,32(R2) L.D F2,44(R3) MUL.D F0,F2,F4 SUB.D F8,F2,F6 DIV.D F10,F0,F6 ADD.D F6,F8,F2 Instruction status Issue √ √ √ √ √ √ Execute √ √ √ √ √ Write result √ √ √ √ Reservation stations Name Busy Op Vj Vk Qj Qk A Load1 No Load2 No Add1 No Add2 No Add3 No Mult1 Yes Mult2 Yes MUL Mem[44 + Regs[R3]] Regs[F4] DIV Mem[32 + Regs[R2]] Mult1 Register status Field Qi F0 F2 Mult1 F4 F6 F8 F10 F12 . . . F30 Mult2 Figure 3.8 Multiply and divide are the only instructions not finished. Tomasulo’s Algorithm: A Loop-Based Example To understand the full power of eliminating WAW and WAR hazards through dynamic renaming of registers, we must look at a loop. Consider the following simple sequence for multiplying the elements of an array by a scalar in F2: Loop: L.D MUL.D S.D DADDIU BNE F0,0(R1) F4,F0,F2 F4,0(R1) R1,R1,-8 R1,R2,Loop; branches if R1¦R2 If we predict that branches are taken, using reservation stations will allow multiple executions of this loop to proceed at once. This advantage is gained without changing the code—in effect, the loop is unrolled dynamically by the hardware using the reservation stations obtained by renaming to act as additional registers. 180 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation Instruction state Issue FP operation Load or store Load only Store only Execute FP operation Load/store step 1 Load step 2 Write result FP operation or load Store Wait until Action or bookkeeping Station r empty Buffer r empty (RS[r].Qj = 0) and (RS[r].Qk = 0) RS[r].Qj = 0 & r is head of load-store queue Load step 1 complete Execution complete at r & CDB available Execution complete at r & RS[r].Qk = 0 if (RegisterStat[rs].Qi¦0) {RS[r].Qj ← RegisterStat[rs].Qi} else {RS[r].Vj ← Regs[rs]; RS[r].Qj ← 0}; if (RegisterStat[rt].Qi¦0) {RS[r].Qk ← RegisterStat[rt].Qi else {RS[r].Vk ← Regs[rt]; RS[r].Qk ← 0}; RS[r].Busy ← yes; RegisterStat[rd].Q ← r; if (RegisterStat[rs].Qi¦0) {RS[r].Qj ← RegisterStat[rs].Qi} else {RS[r].Vj ← Regs[rs]; RS[r].Qj ← 0}; RS[r].A ← imm; RS[r].Busy ← yes; RegisterStat[rt].Qi ← r; if (RegisterStat[rt].Qi¦0) {RS[r].Qk ← RegisterStat[rs].Qi} else {RS[r].Vk ← Regs[rt]; RS[r].Qk ← 0}; Compute result: operands are in Vj and Vk RS[r].A ← RS[r].Vj + RS[r].A; Read from Mem[RS[r].A] ∀x(if (RegisterStat[x].Qi=r) {Regs[x] ← result; RegisterStat[x].Qi ← 0}); ∀x(if (RS[x].Qj=r) {RS[x].Vj ← result;RS[x].Qj ← 0}); ∀x(if (RS[x].Qk=r) {RS[x].Vk ← result;RS[x].Qk ← 0}); RS[r].Busy ← no; Mem[RS[r].A] ← RS[r].Vk; RS[r].Busy ← no; Figure 3.9 Steps in the algorithm and what is required for each step. For the issuing instruction, rd is the destination, rs and rt are the source register numbers, imm is the sign-extended immediate field, and r is the reservation station or buffer that the instruction is assigned to. RS is the reservation station data structure. The value returned by an FP unit or by the load unit is called result. RegisterStat is the register status data structure (not the register file, which is Regs[]). When an instruction is issued, the destination register has its Qi field set to the number of the buffer or reservation station to which the instruction is issued. If the operands are available in the registers, they are stored in the V fields. Otherwise, the Q fields are set to indicate the reservation station that will produce the values needed as source operands. The instruction waits at the reservation station until both its operands are available, indicated by zero in the Q fields. The Q fields are set to zero either when this instruction is issued or when an instruction on which this instruction depends completes and does its write back. When an instruction has finished execution and the CDB is available, it can do its write back. All the buffers, registers, and reservation stations whose values of Qj or Qk are the same as the completing reservation station update their values from the CDB and mark the Q fields to indicate that values have been received. Thus, the CDB can broadcast its result to many destinations in a single clock cycle, and if the waiting instructions have their operands they can all begin execution on the next clock cycle. Loads go through two steps in execute, and stores perform slightly differently during write result, where they may have to wait for the value to store. Remember that, to preserve exception behavior, instructions should not be allowed to execute if a branch that is earlier in program order has not yet completed. Because any concept of program order is not maintained after the issue stage, this restriction is usually implemented by preventing any instruction from leaving the issue step, if there is a pending branch already in the pipeline. In Section 3.6, we will see how speculation support removes this restriction. 3.5 Dynamic Scheduling: Examples and the Algorithm ■ 181 Let’s assume we have issued all the instructions in two successive iterations of the loop, but none of the floating-point load/stores or operations has completed. Figure 3.10 shows reservation stations, register status tables, and load and store buffers at this point. (The integer ALU operation is ignored, and it is assumed the branch was predicted as taken.) Once the system reaches this state, two copies of the loop could be sustained with a CPI close to 1.0, provided the multiplies could complete in four clock cycles. With a latency of six cycles, additional iterations will need to be processed before the steady state can be reached. This requires more reservation stations to hold instructions that are in execution. Instruction L.D F0,0(R1) MUL.D F4,F0,F2 S.D F4,0(R1) L.D F0,0(R1) MUL.D F4,F0,F2 S.D F4,0(R1) From iteration 1 1 1 2 2 2 Instruction status Issue √ √ √ √ √ √ Execute √ √ Write result Name Load1 Load2 Add1 Add2 Add3 Mult1 Mult2 Store1 Store2 Busy Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Op Load Load Reservation stations Vj Vk Qj Qk A Regs[R1] + 0 Regs[R1] – 8 MUL MUL Store Store Regs[F2] Regs[F2] Regs[R1] Regs[R1] – 8 Load1 Load2 Mult1 Mult2 Register status Field Qi F0 F2 Load2 F4 F6 F8 F10 F12 ... F30 Mult2 Figure 3.10 Two active iterations of the loop with no instruction yet completed. Entries in the multiplier reservation stations indicate that the outstanding loads are the sources. The store reservation stations indicate that the multiply destination is the source of the value to store. 182 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation As we will see later in this chapter, when extended with multiple instruction issue, Tomasulo’s approach can sustain more than one instruction per clock. A load and a store can safely be done out of order, provided they access different addresses. If a load and a store access the same address, then either ■ The load is before the store in program order and interchanging them results in a WAR hazard, or ■ The store is before the load in program order and interchanging them results in a RAW hazard. Similarly, interchanging two stores to the same address results in a WAW hazard. Hence, to determine if a load can be executed at a given time, the processor can check whether any uncompleted store that precedes the load in program order shares the same data memory address as the load. Similarly, a store must wait until there are no unexecuted loads or stores that are earlier in program order and share the same data memory address. We consider a method to eliminate this restriction in Section 3.9. To detect such hazards, the processor must have computed the data memory address associated with any earlier memory operation. A simple, but not necessarily optimal, way to guarantee that the processor has all such addresses is to perform the effective address calculations in program order. (We really only need to keep the relative order between stores and other memory references; that is, loads can be reordered freely.) Let’s consider the situation of a load first. If we perform effective address calculation in program order, then when a load has completed effective address calculation, we can check whether there is an address conflict by examining the A field of all active store buffers. If the load address matches the address of any active entries in the store buffer, that load instruction is not sent to the load buffer until the conflicting store completes. (Some implementations bypass the value directly to the load from a pending store, reducing the delay for this RAW hazard.) Stores operate similarly, except that the processor must check for conflicts in both the load buffers and the store buffers, since conflicting stores cannot be reordered with respect to either a load or a store. A dynamically scheduled pipeline can yield very high performance, provided branches are predicted accurately—an issue we addressed in the last section. The major drawback of this approach is the complexity of the Tomasulo scheme, which requires a large amount of hardware. In particular, each reservation station must contain an associative buffer, which must run at high speed, as well as complex control logic. The performance can also be limited by the single CDB. Although additional CDBs can be added, each CDB must interact with each reservation station, and the associative tag-matching hardware would have to be duplicated at each station for each CDB. In Tomasulo’s scheme, two different techniques are combined: the renaming of the architectural registers to a larger set of registers and the buffering of source operands from the register file. Source operand buffering resolves WAR hazards that arise when the operand is available in the registers. As we will see later, it is 3.6 Hardware-Based Speculation ■ 183 also possible to eliminate WAR hazards by the renaming of a register together with the buffering of a result until no outstanding references to the earlier version of the register remain. This approach will be used when we discuss hardware speculation. Tomasulo’s scheme was unused for many years after the 360/91, but was widely adopted in multiple-issue processors starting in the 1990s for several reasons: 1. Although Tomasulo’s algorithm was designed before caches, the presence of caches, with the inherently unpredictable delays, has become one of the major motivations for dynamic scheduling. Out-of-order execution allows the processors to continue executing instructions while awaiting the completion of a cache miss, thus hiding all or part of the cache miss penalty. 2. As processors became more aggressive in their issue capability and designers are concerned with the performance of difficult-to-schedule code (such as most nonnumeric code), techniques such as register renaming, dynamic scheduling, and speculation became more important. 3. It can achieve high performance without requiring the compiler to target code to a specific pipeline structure, a valuable property in the era of shrinkwrapped mass market software. 3.6 Hardware-Based Speculation As we try to exploit more instruction-level parallelism, maintaining control dependences becomes an increasing burden. Branch prediction reduces the direct stalls attributable to branches, but for a processor executing multiple instructions per clock, just predicting branches accurately may not be sufficient to generate the desired amount of instruction-level parallelism. A wide issue processor may need to execute a branch every clock cycle to maintain maximum performance. Hence, exploiting more parallelism requires that we overcome the limitation of control dependence. Overcoming control dependence is done by speculating on the outcome of branches and executing the program as if our guesses were correct. This mechanism represents a subtle, but important, extension over branch prediction with dynamic scheduling. In particular, with speculation, we fetch, issue, and execute instructions, as if our branch predictions were always correct; dynamic scheduling only fetches and issues such instructions. Of course, we need mechanisms to handle the situation where the speculation is incorrect. Appendix H discusses a variety of mechanisms for supporting speculation by the compiler. In this section, we explore hardware speculation, which extends the ideas of dynamic scheduling. Hardware-based speculation combines three key ideas: (1) dynamic branch prediction to choose which instructions to execute, (2) speculation to allow the execution of instructions before the control dependences are resolved (with the ability to undo the effects of an incorrectly speculated sequence), and (3) dynamic scheduling to deal with the scheduling of different combinations of 184 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation basic blocks. (In comparison, dynamic scheduling without speculation only partially overlaps basic blocks because it requires that a branch be resolved before actually executing any instructions in the successor basic block.) Hardware-based speculation follows the predicted flow of data values to choose when to execute instructions. This method of executing programs is essentially a data flow execution: Operations execute as soon as their operands are available. To extend Tomasulo’s algorithm to support speculation, we must separate the bypassing of results among instructions, which is needed to execute an instruction speculatively, from the actual completion of an instruction. By making this separation, we can allow an instruction to execute and to bypass its results to other instructions, without allowing the instruction to perform any updates that cannot be undone, until we know that the instruction is no longer speculative. Using the bypassed value is like performing a speculative register read, since we do not know whether the instruction providing the source register value is providing the correct result until the instruction is no longer speculative. When an instruction is no longer speculative, we allow it to update the register file or memory; we call this additional step in the instruction execution sequence instruction commit. The key idea behind implementing speculation is to allow instructions to execute out of order but to force them to commit in order and to prevent any irrevocable action (such as updating state or taking an exception) until an instruction commits. Hence, when we add speculation, we need to separate the process of completing execution from instruction commit, since instructions may finish execution considerably before they are ready to commit. Adding this commit phase to the instruction execution sequence requires an additional set of hardware buffers that hold the results of instructions that have finished execution but have not committed. This hardware buffer, which we call the reorder buffer, is also used to pass results among instructions that may be speculated. The reorder buffer (ROB) provides additional registers in the same way as the reservation stations in Tomasulo’s algorithm extend the register set. The ROB holds the result of an instruction between the time the operation associated with the instruction completes and the time the instruction commits. Hence, the ROB is a source of operands for instructions, just as the reservation stations provide operands in Tomasulo’s algorithm. The key difference is that in Tomasulo’s algorithm, once an instruction writes its result, any subsequently issued instructions will find the result in the register file. With speculation, the register file is not updated until the instruction commits (and we know definitively that the instruction should execute); thus, the ROB supplies operands in the interval between completion of instruction execution and instruction commit. The ROB is similar to the store buffer in Tomasulo’s algorithm, and we integrate the function of the store buffer into the ROB for simplicity. Each entry in the ROB contains four fields: the instruction type, the destination field, the value field, and the ready field. The instruction type field indicates whether the instruction is a branch (and has no destination result), a store (which 3.6 Hardware-Based Speculation ■ 185 has a memory address destination), or a register operation (ALU operation or load, which has register destinations). The destination field supplies the register number (for loads and ALU operations) or the memory address (for stores) where the instruction result should be written. The value field is used to hold the value of the instruction result until the instruction commits. We will see an example of ROB entries shortly. Finally, the ready field indicates that the instruction has completed execution, and the value is ready. Figure 3.11 shows the hardware structure of the processor including the ROB. The ROB subsumes the store buffers. Stores still execute in two steps, but the second step is performed by instruction commit. Although the renaming From instruction unit Reorder buffer Instruction queue Load/store operations Address unit Load buffers Floating-point operations Operation bus Reg # Data FP registers Operand buses Store data Store 3 address 2 1 Address Memory unit FP adders 2 Reservation 1 stations FP multipliers Load data Common data bus (CDB) Figure 3.11 The basic structure of a FP unit using Tomasulo’s algorithm and extended to handle speculation. Comparing this to Figure 3.6 on page 173, which implemented Tomasulo’s algorithm, the major change is the addition of the ROB and the elimination of the store buffer, whose function is integrated into the ROB. This mechanism can be extended to multiple issue by making the CDB wider to allow for multiple completions per clock. 186 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation function of the reservation stations is replaced by the ROB, we still need a place to buffer operations (and operands) between the time they issue and the time they begin execution. This function is still provided by the reservation stations. Since every instruction has a position in the ROB until it commits, we tag a result using the ROB entry number rather than using the reservation station number. This tagging requires that the ROB assigned for an instruction must be tracked in the reservation station. Later in this section, we will explore an alternative implementation that uses extra registers for renaming and a queue that replaces the ROB to decide when instructions can commit. Here are the four steps involved in instruction execution: 1. Issue—Get an instruction from the instruction queue. Issue the instruction if there is an empty reservation station and an empty slot in the ROB; send the operands to the reservation station if they are available in either the registers or the ROB. Update the control entries to indicate the buffers are in use. The number of the ROB entry allocated for the result is also sent to the reservation station, so that the number can be used to tag the result when it is placed on the CDB. If either all reservations are full or the ROB is full, then instruction issue is stalled until both have available entries. 2. Execute—If one or more of the operands is not yet available, monitor the CDB while waiting for the register to be computed. This step checks for RAW hazards. When both operands are available at a reservation station, execute the operation. Instructions may take multiple clock cycles in this stage, and loads still require two steps in this stage. Stores need only have the base register available at this step, since execution for a store at this point is only effective address calculation. 3. Write result—When the result is available, write it on the CDB (with the ROB tag sent when the instruction issued) and from the CDB into the ROB, as well as to any reservation stations waiting for this result. Mark the reservation station as available. Special actions are required for store instructions. If the value to be stored is available, it is written into the Value field of the ROB entry for the store. If the value to be stored is not available yet, the CDB must be monitored until that value is broadcast, at which time the Value field of the ROB entry of the store is updated. For simplicity we assume that this occurs during the write results stage of a store; we discuss relaxing this requirement later. 4. Commit—This is the final stage of completing an instruction, after which only its result remains. (Some processors call this commit phase “completion” or “graduation.”) There are three different sequences of actions at commit depending on whether the committing instruction is a branch with an incorrect prediction, a store, or any other instruction (normal commit). The normal commit case occurs when an instruction reaches the head of the ROB and its result is present in the buffer; at this point, the processor updates the register with the result and removes the instruction from the ROB. Committing a store is similar except that memory is updated rather than a result register. When a branch with incorrect prediction reaches the head of the ROB, it indicates that the speculation 3.6 Hardware-Based Speculation ■ 187 was wrong. The ROB is flushed and execution is restarted at the correct successor of the branch. If the branch was correctly predicted, the branch is finished. Once an instruction commits, its entry in the ROB is reclaimed and the register or memory destination is updated, eliminating the need for the ROB entry. If the ROB fills, we simply stop issuing instructions until an entry is made free. Now, let’s examine how this scheme would work with the same example we used for Tomasulo’s algorithm. Example Assume the same latencies for the floating-point functional units as in earlier examples: add is 2 clock cycles, multiply is 6 clock cycles, and divide is 12 clock cycles. Using the code segment below, the same one we used to generate Figure 3.8, show what the status tables look like when the MUL.D is ready to go to commit. L.D L.D MUL.D SUB.D DIV.D ADD.D F6,32(R2) F2,44(R3) F0,F2,F4 F8,F2,F6 F10,F0,F6 F6,F8,F2 Answer Figure 3.12 shows the result in the three tables. Notice that although the SUB.D instruction has completed execution, it does not commit until the MUL.D commits. The reservation stations and register status field contain the same basic information that they did for Tomasulo’s algorithm (see page 176 for a description of those fields). The differences are that reservation station numbers are replaced with ROB entry numbers in the Qj and Qk fields, as well as in the register status fields, and we have added the Dest field to the reservation stations. The Dest field designates the ROB entry that is the destination for the result produced by this reservation station entry. The above example illustrates the key important difference between a processor with speculation and a processor with dynamic scheduling. Compare the content of Figure 3.12 with that of Figure 3.8 on page 179, which shows the same code sequence in operation on a processor with Tomasulo’s algorithm. The key difference is that, in the example above, no instruction after the earliest uncompleted instruction (MUL.D above) is allowed to complete. In contrast, in Figure 3.8 the SUB.D and ADD.D instructions have also completed. One implication of this difference is that the processor with the ROB can dynamically execute code while maintaining a precise interrupt model. For example, if the MUL.D instruction caused an interrupt, we could simply wait until it reached the head of the ROB and take the interrupt, flushing any other pending instructions from the ROB. Because instruction commit happens in order, this yields a precise exception. By contrast, in the example using Tomasulo’s algorithm, the SUB.D and ADD.D instructions could both complete before the MUL.D raised the exception. 188 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation Entry 1 2 3 4 5 6 Busy No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Instruction L.D L.D MUL.D SUB.D DIV.D ADD.D F6,32(R2) F2,44(R3) F0,F2,F4 F8,F2,F6 F10,F0,F6 F6,F8,F2 Reorder buffer State Commit Commit Write result Write result Execute Write result Destination F6 F2 F0 F8 F10 F6 Value Mem[32 + Regs[R2]] Mem[44 + Regs[R3]] #2 × Regs[F4] #2 – #1 #4 + #2 Name Load1 Load2 Add1 Add2 Add3 Mult1 Mult2 Busy No No No No No No Yes Op MUL.D DIV.D Reservation stations Vj Vk Qj Mem[44 + Regs[R3]] Regs[F4] Mem[32 + Regs[R2]] #3 Qk Dest A #3 #5 FP register status Field Reorder # Busy F0 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 3 6 Yes No No No No No Yes ... F8 F10 4 5 Yes Yes Figure 3.12 At the time the MUL.D is ready to commit, only the two L.D instructions have committed, although several others have completed execution. The MUL.D is at the head of the ROB, and the two L.D instructions are there only to ease understanding. The SUB.D and ADD.D instructions will not commit until the MUL.D instruction commits, although the results of the instructions are available and can be used as sources for other instructions. The DIV.D is in execution, but has not completed solely due to its longer latency than MUL.D. The Value column indicates the value being held; the format #X is used to refer to a value field of ROB entry X. Reorder buffers 1 and 2 are actually completed but are shown for informational purposes. We do not show the entries for the load/store queue, but these entries are kept in order. The result is that the registers F8 and F6 (destinations of the SUB.D and ADD.D instructions) could be overwritten, and the interrupt would be imprecise. Some users and architects have decided that imprecise floating-point exceptions are acceptable in high-performance processors, since the program will likely terminate; see Appendix J for further discussion of this topic. Other types of exceptions, such as page faults, are much more difficult to accommodate if they are imprecise, since the program must transparently resume execution after handling such an exception. The use of a ROB with in-order instruction commit provides precise exceptions, in addition to supporting speculative execution, as the next example shows. 3.6 Hardware-Based Speculation ■ 189 Example Consider the code example used earlier for Tomasulo’s algorithm and shown in Figure 3.10 in execution: Loop: L.D MUL.D S.D DADDIU BNE F0,0(R1) F4,F0,F2 F4,0(R1) R1,R1,#-8 R1,R2,Loop ;branches if R1¦R2 Assume that we have issued all the instructions in the loop twice. Let’s also assume that the L.D and MUL.D from the first iteration have committed and all other instructions have completed execution. Normally, the store would wait in the ROB for both the effective address operand (R1 in this example) and the value (F4 in this example). Since we are only considering the floating-point pipeline, assume the effective address for the store is computed by the time the instruction is issued. Answer Figure 3.13 shows the result in two tables. Entry 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Busy No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Instruction L.D F0,0(R1) MUL.D F4,F0,F2 S.D F4,0(R1) DADDIU R1,R1,#-8 BNE R1,R2,Loop L.D F0,0(R1) MUL.D F4,F0,F2 S.D F4,0(R1) DADDIU R1,R1,#-8 BNE R1,R2,Loop Reorder buffer State Commit Commit Write result Write result Write result Write result Write result Write result Write result Write result Destination F0 F4 0 + Regs[R1] R1 F0 F4 0 + #4 R1 Value Mem[0 + Regs[R1]] #1 × Regs[F2] #2 Regs[R1] – 8 Mem[#4] #6 × Regs[F2] #7 #4 – 8 FP register status Field Reorder # Busy F0 F1 6 Yes No F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 7 No No Yes No No F7 F8 ... N o Figure 3.13 Only the L.D and MUL.D instructions have committed, although all the others have completed execution. Hence, no reservation stations are busy and none is shown. The remaining instructions will be committed as quickly as possible. The first two reorder buffers are empty, but are shown for completeness. 190 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation Because neither the register values nor any memory values are actually written until an instruction commits, the processor can easily undo its speculative actions when a branch is found to be mispredicted. Suppose that the branch BNE is not taken the first time in Figure 3.13. The instructions prior to the branch will simply commit when each reaches the head of the ROB; when the branch reaches the head of that buffer, the buffer is simply cleared and the processor begins fetching instructions from the other path. In practice, processors that speculate try to recover as early as possible after a branch is mispredicted. This recovery can be done by clearing the ROB for all entries that appear after the mispredicted branch, allowing those that are before the branch in the ROB to continue, and restarting the fetch at the correct branch successor. In speculative processors, performance is more sensitive to the branch prediction, since the impact of a misprediction will be higher. Thus, all the aspects of handling branches—prediction accuracy, latency of misprediction detection, and misprediction recovery time—increase in importance. Exceptions are handled by not recognizing the exception until it is ready to commit. If a speculated instruction raises an exception, the exception is recorded in the ROB. If a branch misprediction arises and the instruction should not have been executed, the exception is flushed along with the instruction when the ROB is cleared. If the instruction reaches the head of the ROB, then we know it is no longer speculative and the exception should really be taken. We can also try to handle exceptions as soon as they arise and all earlier branches are resolved, but this is more challenging in the case of exceptions than for branch mispredict and, because it occurs less frequently, not as critical. Figure 3.14 shows the steps of execution for an instruction, as well as the conditions that must be satisfied to proceed to the step and the actions taken. We show the case where mispredicted branches are not resolved until commit. Although speculation seems like a simple addition to dynamic scheduling, a comparison of Figure 3.14 with the comparable figure for Tomasulo’s algorithm in Figure 3.9 shows that speculation adds significant complications to the control. In addition, remember that branch mispredictions are somewhat more complex as well. There is an important difference in how stores are handled in a speculative processor versus in Tomasulo’s algorithm. In Tomasulo’s algorithm, a store can update memory when it reaches write result (which ensures that the effective address has been calculated) and the data value to store is available. In a speculative processor, a store updates memory only when it reaches the head of the ROB. This difference ensures that memory is not updated until an instruction is no longer speculative. Figure 3.14 has one significant simplification for stores, which is unneeded in practice. Figure 3.14 requires stores to wait in the write result stage for the register source operand whose value is to be stored; the value is then moved from the Vk field of the store’s reservation station to the Value field of the store’s ROB entry. In reality, however, the value to be stored need not arrive 3.6 Hardware-Based Speculation ■ 191 Status Wait until Action or bookkeeping Issue all instructions FP operations and stores Reservation station (r) and ROB (b) both available if (RegisterStat[rs].Busy)/*in-flight instr. writes rs*/ {h ← RegisterStat[rs].Reorder; if (ROB[h].Ready)/* Instr completed already */ {RS[r].Vj ← ROB[h].Value; RS[r].Qj ← 0;} else {RS[r].Qj ← h;} /* wait for instruction */ } else {RS[r].Vj ← Regs[rs]; RS[r].Qj ← 0;}; RS[r].Busy ← yes; RS[r].Dest ← b; ROB[b].Instruction ← opcode; ROB[b].Dest ← rd;ROB[b].Ready ← no; if (RegisterStat[rt].Busy) /*in-flight instr writes rt*/ {h ← RegisterStat[rt].Reorder; if (ROB[h].Ready)/* Instr completed already */ {RS[r].Vk ← ROB[h].Value; RS[r].Qk ← 0;} else {RS[r].Qk ← h;} /* wait for instruction */ } else {RS[r].Vk ← Regs[rt]; RS[r].Qk ← 0;}; FP operations RegisterStat[rd].Reorder ← b; RegisterStat[rd].Busy ← yes; ROB[b].Dest ← rd; Loads RS[r].A ← imm; RegisterStat[rt].Reorder ← b; RegisterStat[rt].Busy ← yes; ROB[b].Dest ← rt; Stores RS[r].A ← imm; Execute FP op (RS[r].Qj == 0) and Compute results—operands are in Vj and Vk (RS[r].Qk == 0) Load step 1 (RS[r].Qj == 0) and RS[r].A ← RS[r].Vj + RS[r].A; there are no stores earlier in the queue Load step 2 Load step 1 done and Read from Mem[RS[r].A] all stores earlier in ROB have different address Store (RS[r].Qj == 0) and ROB[h].Address ← RS[r].Vj + RS[r].A; store at queue head Write result Execution done at r all but store and CDB available b ← RS[r].Dest; RS[r].Busy ← no; ∀x(if (RS[x].Qj==b) {RS[x].Vj ← result; RS[x].Qj ← 0}); ∀x(if (RS[x].Qk==b) {RS[x].Vk ← result; RS[x].Qk ← 0}); ROB[b].Value ← result; ROB[b].Ready ← yes; Store Execution done at r ROB[h].Value ← RS[r].Vk; and (RS[r].Qk == 0) Commit Instruction is at the head of the ROB (entry h) and ROB[h].ready == yes d ← ROB[h].Dest; /* register dest, if exists */ if (ROB[h].Instruction==Branch) {if (branch is mispredicted) {clear ROB[h], RegisterStat; fetch branch dest;};} else if (ROB[h].Instruction==Store) {Mem[ROB[h].Destination] ← ROB[h].Value;} else /* put the result in the register destination */ {Regs[d] ← ROB[h].Value;}; ROB[h].Busy ← no; /* free up ROB entry */ /* free up dest register if no one else writing it */ if (RegisterStat[d].Reorder==h) {RegisterStat[d].Busy ← no;}; Figure 3.14 Steps in the algorithm and what is required for each step. For the issuing instruction, rd is the destination, rs and rt are the sources, r is the reservation station allocated, b is the assigned ROB entry, and h is the head entry of the ROB. RS is the reservation station data structure. The value returned by a reservation station is called the result. RegisterStat is the register data structure, Regs represents the actual registers, and ROB is the reorder buffer data structure. 192 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation until just before the store commits and can be placed directly into the store’s ROB entry by the sourcing instruction. This is accomplished by having the hardware track when the source value to be stored is available in the store’s ROB entry and searching the ROB on every instruction completion to look for dependent stores. This addition is not complicated, but adding it has two effects: We would need to add a field to the ROB, and Figure 3.14, which is already in a small font, would be even longer! Although Figure 3.14 makes this simplification, in our examples, we will allow the store to pass through the write result stage and simply wait for the value to be ready when it commits. Like Tomasulo’s algorithm, we must avoid hazards through memory. WAW and WAR hazards through memory are eliminated with speculation because the actual updating of memory occurs in order, when a store is at the head of the ROB, and, hence, no earlier loads or stores can still be pending. RAW hazards through memory are maintained by two restrictions: 1. Not allowing a load to initiate the second step of its execution if any active ROB entry occupied by a store has a Destination field that matches the value of the A field of the load. 2. Maintaining the program order for the computation of an effective address of a load with respect to all earlier stores. Together, these two restrictions ensure that any load that accesses a memory location written to by an earlier store cannot perform the memory access until the store has written the data. Some speculative processors will actually bypass the value from the store to the load directly, when such a RAW hazard occurs. Another approach is to predict potential collisions using a form of value prediction; we consider this in Section 3.9. Although this explanation of speculative execution has focused on floating point, the techniques easily extend to the integer registers and functional units. Indeed, speculation may be more useful in integer programs, since such programs tend to have code where the branch behavior is less predictable. Additionally, these techniques can be extended to work in a multiple-issue processor by allowing multiple instructions to issue and commit every clock. In fact, speculation is probably most interesting in such processors, since less ambitious techniques can probably exploit sufficient ILP within basic blocks when assisted by a compiler. 3.7 Exploiting ILP Using Multiple Issue and Static Scheduling The techniques of the preceding sections can be used to eliminate data, control stalls, and achieve an ideal CPI of one. To improve performance further we would like to decrease the CPI to less than one, but the CPI cannot be reduced below one if we issue only one instruction every clock cycle. 3.7 Exploiting ILP Using Multiple Issue and Static Scheduling ■ 193 The goal of the multiple-issue processors, discussed in the next few sections, is to allow multiple instructions to issue in a clock cycle. Multiple-issue processors come in three major flavors: 1. Statically scheduled superscalar processors 2. VLIW (very long instruction word) processors 3. Dynamically scheduled superscalar processors The two types of superscalar processors issue varying numbers of instructions per clock and use in-order execution if they are statically scheduled or out-oforder execution if they are dynamically scheduled. VLIW processors, in contrast, issue a fixed number of instructions formatted either as one large instruction or as a fixed instruction packet with the parallelism among instructions explicitly indicated by the instruction. VLIW processors are inherently statically scheduled by the compiler. When Intel and HP created the IA-64 architecture, described in Appendix H, they also introduced the name EPIC—explicitly parallel instruction computer—for this architectural style. Although statically scheduled superscalars issue a varying rather than a fixed number of instructions per clock, they are actually closer in concept to VLIWs, since both approaches rely on the compiler to schedule code for the processor. Because of the diminishing advantages of a statically scheduled superscalar as the issue width grows, statically scheduled superscalars are used primarily for narrow issue widths, normally just two instructions. Beyond that width, most designers choose to implement either a VLIW or a dynamically scheduled superscalar. Because of the similarities in hardware and required compiler technology, we focus on VLIWs in this section. The insights of this section are easily extrapolated to a statically scheduled superscalar. Figure 3.15 summarizes the basic approaches to multiple issue and their distinguishing characteristics and shows processors that use each approach. The Basic VLIW Approach VLIWs use multiple, independent functional units. Rather than attempting to issue multiple, independent instructions to the units, a VLIW packages the multiple operations into one very long instruction, or requires that the instructions in the issue packet satisfy the same constraints. Since there is no fundamental difference in the two approaches, we will just assume that multiple operations are placed in one instruction, as in the original VLIW approach. Since the advantage of a VLIW increases as the maximum issue rate grows, we focus on a wider issue processor. Indeed, for simple two-issue processors, the overhead of a superscalar is probably minimal. Many designers would probably argue that a four-issue processor has manageable overhead, but as we will see later in this chapter, the growth in overhead is a major factor limiting wider issue processors. 194 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation Common name Superscalar (static) Issue structure Dynamic Superscalar (dynamic) Superscalar (speculative) VLIW/LIW EPIC Dynamic Dynamic Static Primarily static Hazard detection Hardware Hardware Hardware Primarily software Primarily software Distinguishing Scheduling characteristic Examples Static Dynamic Dynamic with speculation Static Mostly static In-order execution Some out-of-order execution, but no speculation Out-of-order execution with speculation All hazards determined and indicated by compiler (often implicitly) All hazards determined and indicated explicitly by the compiler Mostly in the embedded space: MIPS and ARM, including the ARM Cortex-A8 None at the present Intel Core i3, i5, i7; AMD Phenom; IBM Power 7 Most examples are in signal processing, such as the TI C6x Itanium Figure 3.15 The five primary approaches in use for multiple-issue processors and the primary characteristics that distinguish them. This chapter has focused on the hardware-intensive techniques, which are all some form of superscalar. Appendix H focuses on compiler-based approaches. The EPIC approach, as embodied in the IA-64 architecture, extends many of the concepts of the early VLIW approaches, providing a blend of static and dynamic approaches. Let’s consider a VLIW processor with instructions that contain five operations, including one integer operation (which could also be a branch), two floating-point operations, and two memory references. The instruction would have a set of fields for each functional unit—perhaps 16 to 24 bits per unit, yielding an instruction length of between 80 and 120 bits. By comparison, the Intel Itanium 1 and 2 contain six operations per instruction packet (i.e., they allow concurrent issue of two three-instruction bundles, as Appendix H describes). To keep the functional units busy, there must be enough parallelism in a code sequence to fill the available operation slots. This parallelism is uncovered by unrolling loops and scheduling the code within the single larger loop body. If the unrolling generates straight-line code, then local scheduling techniques, which operate on a single basic block, can be used. If finding and exploiting the parallelism require scheduling code across branches, a substantially more complex global scheduling algorithm must be used. Global scheduling algorithms are not only more complex in structure, but they also must deal with significantly more complicated trade-offs in optimization, since moving code across branches is expensive. In Appendix H, we will discuss trace scheduling, one of these global scheduling techniques developed specifically for VLIWs; we will also explore special hardware support that allows some conditional branches to be eliminated, extending the usefulness of local scheduling and enhancing the performance of global scheduling. 3.7 Exploiting ILP Using Multiple Issue and Static Scheduling ■ 195 For now, we will rely on loop unrolling to generate long, straight-line code sequences, so that we can use local scheduling to build up VLIW instructions and focus on how well these processors operate. Example Suppose we have a VLIW that could issue two memory references, two FP operations, and one integer operation or branch in every clock cycle. Show an unrolled version of the loop x[i] = x[i] + s (see page 158 for the MIPS code) for such a processor. Unroll as many times as necessary to eliminate any stalls. Ignore delayed branches. Answer Figure 3.16 shows the code. The loop has been unrolled to make seven copies of the body, which eliminates all stalls (i.e., completely empty issue cycles), and runs in 9 cycles. This code yields a running rate of seven results in 9 cycles, or 1.29 cycles per result, nearly twice as fast as the two-issue superscalar of Section 3.2 that used unrolled and scheduled code. For the original VLIW model, there were both technical and logistical problems that make the approach less efficient. The technical problems are the increase in code size and the limitations of lockstep operation. Two different elements combine to increase code size substantially for a VLIW. First, generating enough operations in a straight-line code fragment requires ambitiously unrolling loops (as in earlier examples), thereby increasing code size. Second, whenever instructions are not full, the unused functional units translate to wasted bits in the instruction encoding. In Appendix H, we examine software scheduling Memory reference 1 L.D F0,0(R1) L.D F10,-16(R1) L.D F18,-32(R1) L.D F26,-48(R1) S.D F4,0(R1) S.D F12,-16(R1) S.D F20,24(R1) S.D F28,8(R1) Memory reference 2 L.D F6,-8(R1) L.D F14,-24(R1) L.D F22,-40(R1) S.D F8,-8(R1) S.D F16,-24(R1) S.D F24,16(R1) FP operation 1 FP operation 2 ADD.D F4,F0,F2 ADD.D F12,F10,F2 ADD.D F20,F18,F2 ADD.D F28,F26,F2 ADD.D F8,F6,F2 ADD.D F16,F14,F2 ADD.D F24,F22,F2 Integer operation/branch DADDUI R1,R1,#-56 BNE R1,R2,Loop Figure 3.16 VLIW instructions that occupy the inner loop and replace the unrolled sequence. This code takes 9 cycles assuming no branch delay; normally the branch delay would also need to be scheduled. The issue rate is 23 operations in 9 clock cycles, or 2.5 operations per cycle. The efficiency, the percentage of available slots that contained an operation, is about 60%. To achieve this issue rate requires a larger number of registers than MIPS would normally use in this loop. The VLIW code sequence above requires at least eight FP registers, while the same code sequence for the base MIPS processor can use as few as two FP registers or as many as five when unrolled and scheduled. 196 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation approaches, such as software pipelining, that can achieve the benefits of unrolling without as much code expansion. To combat this code size increase, clever encodings are sometimes used. For example, there may be only one large immediate field for use by any functional unit. Another technique is to compress the instructions in main memory and expand them when they are read into the cache or are decoded. In Appendix H, we show other techniques, as well as document the significant code expansion seen on IA-64. Early VLIWs operated in lockstep; there was no hazard-detection hardware at all. This structure dictated that a stall in any functional unit pipeline must cause the entire processor to stall, since all the functional units must be kept synchronized. Although a compiler may be able to schedule the deterministic functional units to prevent stalls, predicting which data accesses will encounter a cache stall and scheduling them are very difficult. Hence, caches needed to be blocking and to cause all the functional units to stall. As the issue rate and number of memory references becomes large, this synchronization restriction becomes unacceptable. In more recent processors, the functional units operate more independently, and the compiler is used to avoid hazards at issue time, while hardware checks allow for unsynchronized execution once instructions are issued. Binary code compatibility has also been a major logistical problem for VLIWs. In a strict VLIW approach, the code sequence makes use of both the instruction set definition and the detailed pipeline structure, including both functional units and their latencies. Thus, different numbers of functional units and unit latencies require different versions of the code. This requirement makes migrating between successive implementations, or between implementations with different issue widths, more difficult than it is for a superscalar design. Of course, obtaining improved performance from a new superscalar design may require recompilation. Nonetheless, the ability to run old binary files is a practical advantage for the superscalar approach. The EPIC approach, of which the IA-64 architecture is the primary example, provides solutions to many of the problems encountered in early VLIW designs, including extensions for more aggressive software speculation and methods to overcome the limitation of hardware dependence while preserving binary compatibility. The major challenge for all multiple-issue processors is to try to exploit large amounts of ILP. When the parallelism comes from unrolling simple loops in FP programs, the original loop probably could have been run efficiently on a vector processor (described in the next chapter). It is not clear that a multiple-issue processor is preferred over a vector processor for such applications; the costs are similar, and the vector processor is typically the same speed or faster. The potential advantages of a multiple-issue processor versus a vector processor are their ability to extract some parallelism from less structured code and their ability to easily cache all forms of data. For these reasons multiple-issue approaches have become the primary method for taking advantage of instruction-level parallelism, and vectors have become primarily an extension to these processors. 3.8 Exploiting ILP Using Dynamic Scheduling, Multiple Issue, and Speculation ■ 197 3.8 Exploiting ILP Using Dynamic Scheduling, Multiple Issue, and Speculation So far, we have seen how the individual mechanisms of dynamic scheduling, multiple issue, and speculation work. In this section, we put all three together, which yields a microarchitecture quite similar to those in modern microprocessors. For simplicity, we consider only an issue rate of two instructions per clock, but the concepts are no different from modern processors that issue three or more instructions per clock. Let’s assume we want to extend Tomasulo’s algorithm to support multipleissue superscalar pipeline with separate integer, load/store, and floating-point units (both FP multiply and FP add), each of which can initiate an operation on every clock. We do not want to issue instructions to the reservation stations out of order, since this could lead to a violation of the program semantics. To gain the full advantage of dynamic scheduling we will allow the pipeline to issue any combination of two instructions in a clock, using the scheduling hardware to actually assign operations to the integer and floating-point unit. Because the interaction of the integer and floating-point instructions is crucial, we also extend Tomasulo’s scheme to deal with both the integer and floating-point functional units and registers, as well as incorporating speculative execution. As Figure 3.17 shows, the basic organization is similar to that of a processor with speculation with one issue per clock, except that the issue and completion logic must be enhanced to allow multiple instructions to be processed per clock. Issuing multiple instructions per clock in a dynamically scheduled processor (with or without speculation) is very complex for the simple reason that the multiple instructions may depend on one another. Because of this the tables must be updated for the instructions in parallel; otherwise, the tables will be incorrect or the dependence may be lost. Two different approaches have been used to issue multiple instructions per clock in a dynamically scheduled processor, and both rely on the observation that the key is assigning a reservation station and updating the pipeline control tables. One approach is to run this step in half a clock cycle, so that two instructions can be processed in one clock cycle; this approach cannot be easily extended to handle four instructions per clock, unfortunately. A second alternative is to build the logic necessary to handle two or more instructions at once, including any possible dependences between the instructions. Modern superscalar processors that issue four or more instructions per clock may include both approaches: They both pipeline and widen the issue logic. A key observation is that we cannot simply pipeline away the problem. By making instruction issues take multiple clocks because new instructions are issuing every clock cycle, we must be able to assign the reservation station and to update the pipeline tables, so that a dependent instruction issuing on the next clock can use the updated information. This issue step is one of the most fundamental bottlenecks in dynamically scheduled superscalars. To illustrate the complexity of this process, Figure 3.18 198 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation © Hennessy, John L.; Patterson, David A., Oct 07, 2011, Computer Architecture : A Quantitative Approach Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington, ISBN: 9780123838735 From instruction unit Reorder buffer Instruction queue Load/store operations Address unit Load buffers Floating-point operations Operation bus Reg # Data Integer and FP registers Operand buses Store address Store data Memory unit 3 2 1 Address FP adders 2 Reservation 1 stations FP multipliers Load data Common data bus (CDB) 2 1 Integer unit Figure 3.17 The basic organization of a multiple issue processor with speculation. In this case, the organization could allow a FP multiply, FP add, integer, and load/store to all issues simultaneously (assuming one issue per clock per functional unit). Note that several datapaths must be widened to support multiple issues: the CDB, the operand buses, and, critically, the instruction issue logic, which is not shown in this figure. The last is a difficult problem, as we discuss in the text. shows the issue logic for one case: issuing a load followed by a dependent FP operation. The logic is based on that in Figure 3.14 on page 191, but represents only one case. In a modern superscalar, every possible combination of dependent instructions that is allowed to issue in the same clock cycle must be considered. Since the number of possibilities climbs as the square of the number of instructions that can be issued in a clock, the issue step is a likely bottleneck for attempts to go beyond four instructions per clock. We can generalize the detail of Figure 3.18 to describe the basic strategy for updating the issue logic and the reservation tables in a dynamically scheduled superscalar with up to n issues per clock as follows: 3.8 Exploiting ILP Using Dynamic Scheduling, Multiple Issue, and Speculation ■ 199 Action or bookkeeping Comments if (RegisterStat[rs1].Busy)/*in-flight instr. writes rs*/ Updating the reservation tables for the load {h ← RegisterStat[rs1].Reorder; instruction, which has a single source operand. if (ROB[h].Ready)/* Instr completed already */ Because this is the first instruction in this issue {RS[r1].Vj ← ROB[h].Value; RS[r1].Qj ← 0;} bundle, it looks no different than what would else {RS[r1].Qj ← h;} /* wait for instruction */ normally happen for a load. } else {RS[r1].Vj ← Regs[rs]; RS[r1].Qj ← 0;}; RS[r1].Busy ← yes; RS[r1].Dest ← b1; ROB[b1].Instruction ← Load; ROB[b1].Dest ← rd1; ROB[b1].Ready ← no; RS[r].A ← imm1; RegisterStat[rt1].Reorder ← b1; RegisterStat[rt1].Busy ← yes; ROB[b1].Dest ← rt1; RS[r2].Qj ← b1;} /* wait for load instruction */ Since we know that the first operand of the FP operation is from the load, this step simply updates the reservation station to point to the load. Notice that the dependence must be analyzed on the fly and the ROB entries must be allocated during this issue step so that the reservation tables can be correctly updated. if (RegisterStat[rt2].Busy) /*in-flight instr writes rt*/ Since we assumed that the second operand of {h ← RegisterStat[rt2].Reorder; the FP instruction was from a prior issue bundle, if (ROB[h].Ready)/* Instr completed already */ this step looks like it would in the single-issue {RS[r2].Vk ← ROB[h].Value; RS[r2].Qk ← 0;} case. Of course, if this instruction was else {RS[r2].Qk ← h;} /* wait for instruction */ dependent on something in the same issue } else {RS[r2].Vk ← Regs[rt2]; RS[r2].Qk ← 0;}; bundle the tables would need to be updated RegisterStat[rd2].Reorder ← b2; using the assigned reservation buffer. RegisterStat[rd2].Busy ← yes; ROB[b2].Dest ← rd2; RS[r2].Busy ← yes; RS[r2].Dest ← b2; This section simply updates the tables for the FP ROB[b2].Instruction ← FP operation; ROB[b2].Dest ← rd2; operation, and is independent of the load. Of ROB[b2].Ready ← no; course, if further instructions in this issue bundle depended on the FP operation (as could happen with a four-issue superscalar), the updates to the reservation tables for those instructions would be effected by this instruction. Figure 3.18 The issue steps for a pair of dependent instructions (called 1 and 2) where instruction 1 is FP load and instruction 2 is an FP operation whose first operand is the result of the load instruction; r1 and r2 are the assigned reservation stations for the instructions; and b1 and b2 are the assigned reorder buffer entries. For the issuing instructions, rd1 and rd2 are the destinations; rs1, rs2, and rt2 are the sources (the load only has one source); r1 and r2 are the reservation stations allocated; and b1 and b2 are the assigned ROB entries. RS is the reservation station data structure. RegisterStat is the register data structure, Regs represents the actual registers, and ROB is the reorder buffer data structure. Notice that we need to have assigned reorder buffer entries for this logic to operate properly and recall that all these updates happen in a single clock cycle in parallel, not sequentially! 1. Assign a reservation station and a reorder buffer for every instruction that might be issued in the next issue bundle. This assignment can be done before the instruction types are known, by simply preallocating the reorder buffer entries sequentially to the instructions in the packet using n available reorder buffer entries and by ensuring that enough reservation stations are available to issue the whole bundle, independent of what it contains. By limiting the number of instructions of a given class (say, one FP, one integer, one load, 200 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation one store), the necessary reservation stations can be preallocated. Should sufficient reservation stations not be available (such as when the next few instructions in the program are all of one instruction type), the bundle is broken, and only a subset of the instructions, in the original program order, is issued. The remainder of the instructions in the bundle can be placed in the next bundle for potential issue. 2. Analyze all the dependences among the instructions in the issue bundle. 3. If an instruction in the bundle depends on an earlier instruction in the bundle, use the assigned reorder buffer number to update the reservation table for the dependent instruction. Otherwise, use the existing reservation table and reorder buffer information to update the reservation table entries for the issuing instruction. Of course, what makes the above very complicated is that it is all done in parallel in a single clock cycle! At the back-end of the pipeline, we must be able to complete and commit multiple instructions per clock. These steps are somewhat easier than the issue problems since multiple instructions that can actually commit in the same clock cycle must have already dealt with and resolved any dependences. As we will see, designers have figured out how to handle this complexity: The Intel i7, which we examine in Section 3.13, uses essentially the scheme we have described for speculative multiple issue, including a large number of reservation stations, a reorder buffer, and a load and store buffer that is also used to handle nonblocking cache misses. From a performance viewpoint, we can show how the concepts fit together with an example. Example Consider the execution of the following loop, which increments each element of an integer array, on a two-issue processor, once without speculation and once with speculation: Loop: LD DADDIU SD DADDIU BNE R2,0(R1) R2,R2,#1 R2,0(R1) R1,R1,#8 R2,R3,LOOP ;R2=array element ;increment R2 ;store result ;increment pointer ;branch if not last element Assume that there are separate integer functional units for effective address calculation, for ALU operations, and for branch condition evaluation. Create a table for the first three iterations of this loop for both processors. Assume that up to two instructions of any type can commit per clock. Answer Figures 3.19 and 3.20 show the performance for a two-issue dynamically scheduled processor, without and with speculation. In this case, where a branch can be a critical performance limiter, speculation helps significantly. The third branch in 3.8 Exploiting ILP Using Dynamic Scheduling, Multiple Issue, and Speculation ■ 201 Iteration number 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 Instructions LD R2,0(R1) DADDIU R2,R2,#1 SD R2,0(R1) DADDIU R1,R1,#8 BNE R2,R3,LOOP LD R2,0(R1) DADDIU R2,R2,#1 SD R2,0(R1) DADDIU R1,R1,#8 BNE R2,R3,LOOP LD R2,0(R1) DADDIU R2,R2,#1 SD R2,0(R1) DADDIU R1,R1,#8 BNE R2,R3,LOOP Issues at Executes at clock cycle clock cycle number number Memory access at clock cycle number 1 2 3 1 5 2 3 7 2 3 3 7 4 8 9 4 11 5 9 13 5 8 6 13 7 14 15 7 17 8 15 19 8 14 9 19 Write CDB at clock cycle number Comment 4 First issue 6 Wait for LW Wait for DADDIU 4 Execute directly Wait for DADDIU 10 Wait for BNE 12 Wait for LW Wait for DADDIU 9 Wait for BNE Wait for DADDIU 16 Wait for BNE 18 Wait for LW Wait for DADDIU 15 Wait for BNE Wait for DADDIU Figure 3.19 The time of issue, execution, and writing result for a dual-issue version of our pipeline without speculation. Note that the LD following the BNE cannot start execution earlier because it must wait until the branch outcome is determined. This type of program, with data-dependent branches that cannot be resolved earlier, shows the strength of speculation. Separate functional units for address calculation, ALU operations, and branch-condition evaluation allow multiple instructions to execute in the same cycle. Figure 3.20 shows this example with speculation. the speculative processor executes in clock cycle 13, while it executes in clock cycle 19 on the nonspeculative pipeline. Because the completion rate on the nonspeculative pipeline is falling behind the issue rate rapidly, the nonspeculative pipeline will stall when a few more iterations are issued. The performance of the nonspeculative processor could be improved by allowing load instructions to complete effective address calculation before a branch is decided, but unless speculative memory accesses are allowed, this improvement will gain only 1 clock per iteration. This example clearly shows how speculation can be advantageous when there are data-dependent branches, which otherwise would limit performance. This advantage depends, however, on accurate branch prediction. Incorrect speculation does not improve performance; in fact, it typically harms performance and, as we shall see, dramatically lowers energy efficiency. 202 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation Iteration number 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 Instructions LD R2,0(R1) DADDIU R2,R2,#1 SD R2,0(R1) DADDIU R1,R1,#8 BNE R2,R3,LOOP LD R2,0(R1) DADDIU R2,R2,#1 SD R2,0(R1) DADDIU R1,R1,#8 BNE R2,R3,LOOP LD R2,0(R1) DADDIU R2,R2,#1 SD R2,0(R1) DADDIU R1,R1,#8 BNE R2,R3,LOOP Issues at clock number Executes at clock number Read access at clock number Write CDB at clock number 1 2 1 5 2 3 2 3 3 7 4 5 4 8 5 6 5 6 6 10 7 8 7 11 8 9 8 9 9 13 3 4 6 4 6 7 9 7 9 10 12 10 Commits at clock number Comment 5 First issue 7 Wait for LW 7 Wait for DADDIU 8 Commit in order 8 Wait for DADDIU 9 No execute delay 10 Wait for LW 10 Wait for DADDIU 11 Commit in order 11 Wait for DADDIU 12 Earliest possible 13 Wait for LW 13 Wait for DADDIU 14 Executes earlier 14 Wait for DADDIU Figure 3.20 The time of issue, execution, and writing result for a dual-issue version of our pipeline with speculation. Note that the LD following the BNE can start execution early because it is speculative. 3.9 Advanced Techniques for Instruction Delivery and Speculation In a high-performance pipeline, especially one with multiple issues, predicting branches well is not enough; we actually have to be able to deliver a highbandwidth instruction stream. In recent multiple-issue processors, this has meant delivering 4 to 8 instructions every clock cycle. We look at methods for increasing instruction delivery bandwidth first. We then turn to a set of key issues in implementing advanced speculation techniques, including the use of register renaming versus reorder buffers, the aggressiveness of speculation, and a technique called value prediction, which attempts to predict the result of a computation and which could further enhance ILP. Increasing Instruction Fetch Bandwidth A multiple-issue processor will require that the average number of instructions fetched every clock cycle be at least as large as the average throughput. Of course, fetching these instructions requires wide enough paths to the instruction cache, but the most difficult aspect is handling branches. In this section, we look 3.9 Advanced Techniques for Instruction Delivery and Speculation ■ 203 at two methods for dealing with branches and then discuss how modern processors integrate the instruction prediction and prefetch functions. Branch-Target Buffers To reduce the branch penalty for our simple five-stage pipeline, as well as for deeper pipelines, we must know whether the as-yet-undecoded instruction is a branch and, if so, what the next program counter (PC) should be. If the instruction is a branch and we know what the next PC should be, we can have a branch penalty of zero. A branch-prediction cache that stores the predicted address for the next instruction after a branch is called a branch-target buffer or branch-target cache. Figure 3.21 shows a branch-target buffer. Because a branch-target buffer predicts the next instruction address and will send it out before decoding the instruction, we must know whether the fetched instruction is predicted as a taken branch. If the PC of the fetched instruction matches an address in the prediction buffer, then the corresponding predicted PC is used as the next PC. The hardware for this branch-target buffer is essentially identical to the hardware for a cache. PC of instruction to fetch Look up Predicted PC Number of entries in branchtarget buffer No: instruction is = not predicted to be branch; proceed normally Yes: then instruction is branch and predicted PC should be used as the next PC Branch predicted taken or untaken Figure 3.21 A branch-target buffer. The PC of the instruction being fetched is matched against a set of instruction addresses stored in the first column; these represent the addresses of known branches. If the PC matches one of these entries, then the instruction being fetched is a taken branch, and the second field, predicted PC, contains the prediction for the next PC after the branch. Fetching begins immediately at that address. The third field, which is optional, may be used for extra prediction state bits. 204 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation If a matching entry is found in the branch-target buffer, fetching begins immediately at the predicted PC. Note that unlike a branch-prediction buffer, the predictive entry must be matched to this instruction because the predicted PC will be sent out before it is known whether this instruction is even a branch. If the processor did not check whether the entry matched this PC, then the wrong PC would be sent out for instructions that were not branches, resulting in worse performance. We only need to store the predicted-taken branches in the branchtarget buffer, since an untaken branch should simply fetch the next sequential instruction, as if it were not a branch. Figure 3.22 shows the steps when using a branch-target buffer for a simple five-stage pipeline. From this figure we can see that there will be no branch delay Send PC to memory and branch-target buffer IF No Entry found in Yes branch-target buffer? Is No instruction Yes a taken branch? ID Normal instruction execution Send out predicted PC No Taken Yes branch? Enter Mispredicted branch, Branch correctly branch instruction kill fetched instruction; predicted; EX address and next restart fetch at other continue execution PC into branch- target; delete entry with no stalls target buffer from target buffer Figure 3.22 The steps involved in handling an instruction with a branch-target buffer. 3.9 Advanced Techniques for Instruction Delivery and Speculation ■ 205 Instruction in buffer Prediction Actual branch Penalty cycles Yes Taken Taken 0 Yes Taken Not taken 2 No Taken 2 No Not taken 0 Figure 3.23 Penalties for all possible combinations of whether the branch is in the buffer and what it actually does, assuming we store only taken branches in the buffer. There is no branch penalty if everything is correctly predicted and the branch is found in the target buffer. If the branch is not correctly predicted, the penalty is equal to one clock cycle to update the buffer with the correct information (during which an instruction cannot be fetched) and one clock cycle, if needed, to restart fetching the next correct instruction for the branch. If the branch is not found and taken, a two-cycle penalty is encountered, during which time the buffer is updated. if a branch-prediction entry is found in the buffer and the prediction is correct. Otherwise, there will be a penalty of at least two clock cycles. Dealing with the mispredictions and misses is a significant challenge, since we typically will have to halt instruction fetch while we rewrite the buffer entry. Thus, we would like to make this process fast to minimize the penalty. To evaluate how well a branch-target buffer works, we first must determine the penalties in all possible cases. Figure 3.23 contains this information for a simple five-stage pipeline. Example Determine the total branch penalty for a branch-target buffer assuming the penalty cycles for individual mispredictions from Figure 3.23. Make the following assumptions about the prediction accuracy and hit rate: ■ Prediction accuracy is 90% (for instructions in the buffer). ■ Hit rate in the buffer is 90% (for branches predicted taken). Answer We compute the penalty by looking at the probability of two events: the branch is predicted taken but ends up being not taken, and the branch is taken but is not found in the buffer. Both carry a penalty of two cycles. Probability (branch in buffer, but actually not taken) = Percent buffer hit rate × Percent incorrect predictions = 90% × 10% = 0.09 Probability (branch not in buffer, but actually taken) = 10% Branch penalty = (0.09 + 0.10) × 2 Branch penalty = 0.38 This penalty compares with a branch penalty for delayed branches, which we evaluate in Appendix C, of about 0.5 clock cycles per branch. Remember, though, that the improvement from dynamic branch prediction will grow as the 206 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation pipeline length and, hence, the branch delay grows; in addition, better predictors will yield a larger performance advantage. Modern high-performance processors have branch misprediction delays on the order of 15 clock cycles; clearly, accurate prediction is critical! One variation on the branch-target buffer is to store one or more target instructions instead of, or in addition to, the predicted target address. This variation has two potential advantages. First, it allows the branch-target buffer access to take longer than the time between successive instruction fetches, possibly allowing a larger branch-target buffer. Second, buffering the actual target instructions allows us to perform an optimization called branch folding. Branch folding can be used to obtain 0-cycle unconditional branches and sometimes 0-cycle conditional branches. Consider a branch-target buffer that buffers instructions from the predicted path and is being accessed with the address of an unconditional branch. The only function of the unconditional branch is to change the PC. Thus, when the branchtarget buffer signals a hit and indicates that the branch is unconditional, the pipeline can simply substitute the instruction from the branch-target buffer in place of the instruction that is returned from the cache (which is the unconditional branch). If the processor is issuing multiple instructions per cycle, then the buffer will need to supply multiple instructions to obtain the maximum benefit. In some cases, it may be possible to eliminate the cost of a conditional branch. Return Address Predictors As we try to increase the opportunity and accuracy of speculation we face the challenge of predicting indirect jumps, that is, jumps whose destination address varies at runtime. Although high-level language programs will generate such jumps for indirect procedure calls, select or case statements, and FORTRANcomputed gotos, the vast majority of the indirect jumps come from procedure returns. For example, for the SPEC95 benchmarks, procedure returns account for more than 15% of the branches and the vast majority of the indirect jumps on average. For object-oriented languages such as C++ and Java, procedure returns are even more frequent. Thus, focusing on procedure returns seems appropriate. Though procedure returns can be predicted with a branch-target buffer, the accuracy of such a prediction technique can be low if the procedure is called from multiple sites and the calls from one site are not clustered in time. For example, in SPEC CPU95, an aggressive branch predictor achieves an accuracy of less than 60% for such return branches. To overcome this problem, some designs use a small buffer of return addresses operating as a stack. This structure caches the most recent return addresses: pushing a return address on the stack at a call and popping one off at a return. If the cache is sufficiently large (i.e., as large as the maximum call depth), it will predict the returns perfectly. Figure 3.24 shows the performance of such a return buffer with 0 to 16 elements for a number of the SPEC CPU95 benchmarks. We will use a similar return predictor when we examine the studies of 3.9 Advanced Techniques for Instruction Delivery and Speculation ■ 207 70% 60% 50% 40% Go m88ksim cc1 Compress Xlisp Ijpeg Perl Vortex Misprediction frequency 30% 20% 10% 0% 0 1 2 4 8 16 Return address buffer entries Figure 3.24 Prediction accuracy for a return address buffer operated as a stack on a number of SPEC CPU95 benchmarks. The accuracy is the fraction of return addresses predicted correctly. A buffer of 0 entries implies that the standard branch prediction is used. Since call depths are typically not large, with some exceptions, a modest buffer works well. These data come from Skadron et al. [1999] and use a fix-up mechanism to prevent corruption of the cached return addresses. ILP in Section 3.10. Both the Intel Core processors and the AMD Phenom processors have return address predictors. Integrated Instruction Fetch Units To meet the demands of multiple-issue processors, many recent designers have chosen to implement an integrated instruction fetch unit as a separate autonomous unit that feeds instructions to the rest of the pipeline. Essentially, this amounts to recognizing that characterizing instruction fetch as a simple single pipe stage given the complexities of multiple issue is no longer valid. Instead, recent designs have used an integrated instruction fetch unit that integrates several functions: 1. Integrated branch prediction—The branch predictor becomes part of the instruction fetch unit and is constantly predicting branches, so as to drive the fetch pipeline. 208 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation 2. Instruction prefetch—To deliver multiple instructions per clock, the instruction fetch unit will likely need to fetch ahead. The unit autonomously manages the prefetching of instructions (see Chapter 2 for a discussion of techniques for doing this), integrating it with branch prediction. 3. Instruction memory access and buffering—When fetching multiple instructions per cycle a variety of complexities are encountered, including the difficulty that fetching multiple instructions may require accessing multiple cache lines. The instruction fetch unit encapsulates this complexity, using prefetch to try to hide the cost of crossing cache blocks. The instruction fetch unit also provides buffering, essentially acting as an on-demand unit to provide instructions to the issue stage as needed and in the quantity needed. Virtually all high-end processors now use a separate instruction fetch unit connected to the rest of the pipeline by a buffer containing pending instructions. Speculation: Implementation Issues and Extensions In this section we explore four issues that involve the design trade-offs in speculation, starting with the use of register renaming, the approach that is often used instead of a reorder buffer. We then discuss one important possible extension to speculation on control flow: an idea called value prediction. Speculation Support: Register Renaming versus Reorder Buffers One alternative to the use of a reorder buffer (ROB) is the explicit use of a larger physical set of registers combined with register renaming. This approach builds on the concept of renaming used in Tomasulo’s algorithm and extends it. In Tomasulo’s algorithm, the values of the architecturally visible registers (R0, …, R31 and F0, …, F31) are contained, at any point in execution, in some combination of the register set and the reservation stations. With the addition of speculation, register values may also temporarily reside in the ROB. In either case, if the processor does not issue new instructions for a period of time, all existing instructions will commit, and the register values will appear in the register file, which directly corresponds to the architecturally visible registers. In the register-renaming approach, an extended set of physical registers is used to hold both the architecturally visible registers as well as temporary values. Thus, the extended registers replace most of the function of the ROB and the reservation stations; only a queue to ensure that instructions complete in order is needed. During instruction issue, a renaming process maps the names of architectural registers to physical register numbers in the extended register set, allocating a new unused register for the destination. WAW and WAR hazards are avoided by renaming of the destination register, and speculation recovery is handled because a physical register holding an instruction destination does not become the architectural register until the instruction commits. The renaming map is a simple data structure that supplies the physical register number of the register 3.9 Advanced Techniques for Instruction Delivery and Speculation ■ 209 that currently corresponds to the specified architectural register, a function performed by the register status table in Tomasulo’s algorithm. When an instruction commits, the renaming table is permanently updated to indicate that a physical register corresponds to the actual architectural register, thus effectively finalizing the update to the processor state. Although an ROB is not necessary with register renaming, the hardware must still track instructions in a queue-like structure and update the renaming table in strict order. An advantage of the renaming approach versus the ROB approach is that instruction commit is slightly simplified, since it requires only two simple actions: (1) record that the mapping between an architectural register number and physical register number is no longer speculative, and (2) free up any physical registers being used to hold the “older” value of the architectural register. In a design with reservation stations, a station is freed up when the instruction using it completes execution, and a ROB entry is freed up when the corresponding instruction commits. With register renaming, deallocating registers is more complex, since before we free up a physical register, we must know that it no longer corresponds to an architectural register and that no further uses of the physical register are outstanding. A physical register corresponds to an architectural register until the architectural register is rewritten, causing the renaming table to point elsewhere. That is, if no renaming entry points to a particular physical register, then it no longer corresponds to an architectural register. There may, however, still be uses of the physical register outstanding. The processor can determine whether this is the case by examining the source register specifiers of all instructions in the functional unit queues. If a given physical register does not appear as a source and it is not designated as an architectural register, it may be reclaimed and reallocated. Alternatively, the processor can simply wait until another instruction that writes the same architectural register commits. At that point, there can be no further uses of the older value outstanding. Although this method may tie up a physical register slightly longer than necessary, it is easy to implement and is used in most recent superscalars. One question you may be asking is how do we ever know which registers are the architectural registers if they are constantly changing? Most of the time when the program is executing, it does not matter. There are clearly cases, however, where another process, such as the operating system, must be able to know exactly where the contents of a certain architectural register reside. To understand how this capability is provided, assume the processor does not issue instructions for some period of time. Eventually all instructions in the pipeline will commit, and the mapping between the architecturally visible registers and physical registers will become stable. At that point, a subset of the physical registers contains the architecturally visible registers, and the value of any physical register not associated with an architectural register is unneeded. It is then easy to move the architectural registers to a fixed subset of physical registers so that the values can be communicated to another process. 210 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation Both register renaming and reorder buffers continue to be used in high-end processors, which now feature the ability to have as many as 40 or 50 instructions (including loads and stores waiting on the cache) in flight. Whether renaming or a reorder buffer is used, the key complexity bottleneck for a dynamically schedule superscalar remains issuing bundles of instructions with dependences within the bundle. In particular, dependent instructions in an issue bundle must be issued with the assigned virtual registers of the instructions on which they depend. A strategy for instruction issue with register renaming similar to that used for multiple issue with reorder buffers (see page 198) can be deployed, as follows: 1. The issue logic pre-reserves enough physical registers for the entire issue bundle (say, four registers for a four-instruction bundle with at most one register result per instruction). 2. The issue logic determines what dependences exist within the bundle. If a dependence does not exist within the bundle, the register renaming structure is used to determine the physical register that holds, or will hold, the result on which instruction depends. When no dependence exists within the bundle the result is from an earlier issue bundle, and the register renaming table will have the correct register number. 3. If an instruction depends on an instruction that is earlier in the bundle, then the pre-reserved physical register in which the result will be placed is used to update the information for the issuing instruction. Note that just as in the reorder buffer case, the issue logic must both determine dependences within the bundle and update the renaming tables in a single clock, and, as before, the complexity of doing this for a larger number of instructions per clock becomes a chief limitation in the issue width. How Much to Speculate One of the significant advantages of speculation is its ability to uncover events that would otherwise stall the pipeline early, such as cache misses. This potential advantage, however, comes with a significant potential disadvantage. Speculation is not free. It takes time and energy, and the recovery of incorrect speculation further reduces performance. In addition, to support the higher instruction execution rate needed to benefit from speculation, the processor must have additional resources, which take silicon area and power. Finally, if speculation causes an exceptional event to occur, such as a cache or translation lookaside buffer (TLB) miss, the potential for significant performance loss increases, if that event would not have occurred without speculation. To maintain most of the advantage, while minimizing the disadvantages, most pipelines with speculation will allow only low-cost exceptional events (such as a first-level cache miss) to be handled in speculative mode. If an expensive exceptional event occurs, such as a second-level cache miss or a TLB miss, the processor will wait until the instruction causing the event is no longer 3.9 Advanced Techniques for Instruction Delivery and Speculation ■ 211 speculative before handling the event. Although this may slightly degrade the performance of some programs, it avoids significant performance losses in others, especially those that suffer from a high frequency of such events coupled with less-than-excellent branch prediction. In the 1990s, the potential downsides of speculation were less obvious. As processors have evolved, the real costs of speculation have become more apparent, and the limitations of wider issue and speculation have been obvious. We return to this issue shortly. Speculating through Multiple Branches In the examples we have considered in this chapter, it has been possible to resolve a branch before having to speculate on another. Three different situations can benefit from speculating on multiple branches simultaneously: (1) a very high branch frequency, (2) significant clustering of branches, and (3) long delays in functional units. In the first two cases, achieving high performance may mean that multiple branches are speculated, and it may even mean handling more than one branch per clock. Database programs, and other less structured integer computations, often exhibit these properties, making speculation on multiple branches important. Likewise, long delays in functional units can raise the importance of speculating on multiple branches as a way to avoid stalls from the longer pipeline delays. Speculating on multiple branches slightly complicates the process of speculation recovery but is straightforward otherwise. As of 2011, no processor has yet combined full speculation with resolving multiple branches per cycle, and it is unlikely that the costs of doing so would be justified in terms of performance versus complexity and power. Speculation and the Challenge of Energy Efficiency What is the impact of speculation on energy efficiency? At first glance, one might argue that using speculation always decreases energy efficiency, since whenever speculation is wrong it consumes excess energy in two ways: 1. The instructions that were speculated and whose results were not needed generated excess work for the processor, wasting energy. 2. Undoing the speculation and restoring the state of the processor to continue execution at the appropriate address consumes additional energy that would not be needed without speculation. Certainly, speculation will raise the power consumption and, if we could control speculation, it would be possible to measure the cost (or at least the dynamic power cost). But, if speculation lowers the execution time by more than it increases the average power consumption, then the total energy consumed may be less. 212 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation 45% 40% 35% 30% Misspeculation 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 164.gzip 175.vpr 176.gcc 181.mcf 186.crafty168.wupwise 171.swim 172.mgrid 173.applu 177.mesa Figure 3.25 The fraction of instructions that are executed as a result of misspeculation is typically much higher for integer programs (the first five) versus FP programs (the last five). Thus, to understand the impact of speculation on energy efficiency, we need to look at how often speculation is leading to unnecessary work. If a significant number of unneeded instructions is executed, it is unlikely that speculation will improve running time by a comparable amount! Figure 3.25 shows the fraction of instructions that are executed from misspeculation. As we can see, this fraction is small in scientific code and significant (about 30% on average) in integer code. Thus, it is unlikely that speculation is energy efficient for integer applications. Designers could avoid speculation, try to reduce the misspeculation, or think about new approaches, such as only speculating on branches that are known to be highly predictable. Value Prediction One technique for increasing the amount of ILP available in a program is value prediction. Value prediction attempts to predict the value that will be produced by an instruction. Obviously, since most instructions produce a different value every time they are executed (or at least a different value from a set of values), value prediction can have only limited success. There are, however, certain instructions for which it is easier to predict the resulting value—for example, loads that load from a constant pool or that load a value that changes infrequently. In addition, 3.10 Studies of the Limitations of ILP ■ 213 when an instruction produces a value chosen from a small set of potential values, it may be possible to predict the resulting value by correlating it with other program behavior. Value prediction is useful if it significantly increases the amount of available ILP. This possibility is most likely when a value is used as the source of a chain of dependent computations, such as a load. Because value prediction is used to enhance speculations and incorrect speculation has detrimental performance impact, the accuracy of the prediction is critical. Although many researchers have focused on value prediction in the past ten years, the results have never been sufficiently attractive to justify their incorporation in real processors. Instead, a simpler and older idea, related to value prediction, has been used: address aliasing prediction. Address aliasing prediction is a simple technique that predicts whether two stores or a load and a store refer to the same memory address. If two such references do not refer to the same address, then they may be safely interchanged. Otherwise, we must wait until the memory addresses accessed by the instructions are known. Because we need not actually predict the address values, only whether such values conflict, the prediction is both more stable and simpler. This limited form of address value speculation has been used in several processors already and may become universal in the future. 3.10 Studies of the Limitations of ILP Exploiting ILP to increase performance began with the first pipelined processors in the 1960s. In the 1980s and 1990s, these techniques were key to achieving rapid performance improvements. The question of how much ILP exists was critical to our long-term ability to enhance performance at a rate that exceeds the increase in speed of the base integrated circuit technology. On a shorter scale, the critical question of what is needed to exploit more ILP is crucial to both computer designers and compiler writers. The data in this section also provide us with a way to examine the value of ideas that we have introduced in this chapter, including memory disambiguation, register renaming, and speculation. In this section we review a portion of one of the studies done of these questions (based on Wall’s 1993 study). All of these studies of available parallelism operate by making a set of assumptions and seeing how much parallelism is available under those assumptions. The data we examine here are from a study that makes the fewest assumptions; in fact, the ultimate hardware model is probably unrealizable. Nonetheless, all such studies assume a certain level of compiler technology, and some of these assumptions could affect the results, despite the use of incredibly ambitious hardware. As we will see, for hardware models that have reasonable cost, it is unlikely that the costs of very aggressive speculation can be justified: the inefficiencies in power and use of silicon are simply too high. While many in the research community and the major processor manufacturers were betting in favor of much greater exploitable ILP and were initially reluctant to accept this possibility, by 2005 they were forced to change their minds. 214 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation The Hardware Model To see what the limits of ILP might be, we first need to define an ideal processor. An ideal processor is one where all constraints on ILP are removed. The only limits on ILP in such a processor are those imposed by the actual data flows through either registers or memory. The assumptions made for an ideal or perfect processor are as follows: 1. Infinite register renaming—There are an infinite number of virtual registers available, and hence all WAW and WAR hazards are avoided and an unbounded number of instructions can begin execution simultaneously. 2. Perfect branch prediction—Branch prediction is perfect. All conditional branches are predicted exactly. 3. Perfect jump prediction—All jumps (including jump register used for return and computed jumps) are perfectly predicted. When combined with perfect branch prediction, this is equivalent to having a processor with perfect speculation and an unbounded buffer of instructions available for execution. 4. Perfect memory address alias analysis—All memory addresses are known exactly, and a load can be moved before a store provided that the addresses are not identical. Note that this implements perfect address alias analysis. 5. Perfect caches—All memory accesses take one clock cycle. In practice, superscalar processors will typically consume large amounts of ILP hiding cache misses, making these results highly optimistic. Assumptions 2 and 3 eliminate all control dependences. Likewise, assumptions 1 and 4 eliminate all but the true data dependences. Together, these four assumptions mean that any instruction in the program’s execution can be scheduled on the cycle immediately following the execution of the predecessor on which it depends. It is even possible, under these assumptions, for the last dynamically executed instruction in the program to be scheduled on the very first cycle! Thus, this set of assumptions subsumes both control and address speculation and implements them as if they were perfect. Initially, we examine a processor that can issue an unlimited number of instructions at once, looking arbitrarily far ahead in the computation. For all the processor models we examine, there are no restrictions on what types of instructions can execute in a cycle. For the unlimited-issue case, this means there may be an unlimited number of loads or stores issuing in one clock cycle. In addition, all functional unit latencies are assumed to be one cycle, so that any sequence of dependent instructions can issue on successive cycles. Latencies longer than one cycle would decrease the number of issues per cycle, although not the number of instructions under execution at any point. (The instructions in execution at any point are often referred to as in flight.) Of course, this ideal processor is probably unrealizable. For example, the IBM Power7 (see Wendell et. al. [2010]) is the most advanced superscalar processor 3.10 Studies of the Limitations of ILP ■ 215 announced to date. The Power7 issues up to six instructions per clock and initiates execution on up to 8 of 12 execution units (only two of which are load/store units), supports a large set of renaming registers (allowing hundreds of instructions to be in flight), uses a large aggressive branch predictor, and employs dynamic memory disambiguation. The Power7 continued the move toward using more thread-level parallelism by increasing the width of simultaneous multithreading (SMT) support (to four threads per core) and the number of cores per chip to eight. After looking at the parallelism available for the perfect processor, we will examine what might be achievable in any processor likely to be designed in the near future. To measure the available parallelism, a set of programs was compiled and optimized with the standard MIPS optimizing compilers. The programs were instrumented and executed to produce a trace of the instruction and data references. Every instruction in the trace is then scheduled as early as possible, limited only by the data dependences. Since a trace is used, perfect branch prediction and perfect alias analysis are easy to do. With these mechanisms, instructions may be scheduled much earlier than they would otherwise, moving across large numbers of instructions on which they are not data dependent, including branches, since branches are perfectly predicted. Figure 3.26 shows the average amount of parallelism available for six of the SPEC92 benchmarks. Throughout this section the parallelism is measured by the average instruction issue rate. Remember that all instructions have a one-cycle latency; a longer latency would reduce the average number of instructions per clock. Three of these benchmarks (fpppp, doduc, and tomcatv) are floating-point intensive, and the other three are integer programs. Two of the floating-point benchmarks (fpppp and tomcatv) have extensive parallelism, which could be exploited by a vector computer or by a multiprocessor (the structure in fpppp is quite messy, however, since some hand transformations have been done on the code). The doduc program has extensive parallelism, but the parallelism does not occur in simple parallel loops as it does in fpppp and tomcatv. The program li is a LISP interpreter that has many short dependences. SPEC benchmarks gcc espresso li fpppp doduc tomcatv 0 55 63 18 75 119 150 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Instruction issues per cycle Figure 3.26 ILP available in a perfect processor for six of the SPEC92 benchmarks. The first three programs are integer programs, and the last three are floating-point programs. The floating-point programs are loop intensive and have large amounts of loop-level parallelism. 216 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation Limitations on ILP for Realizable Processors In this section we look at the performance of processors with ambitious levels of hardware support equal to or better than what is available in 2011 or, given the events and lessons of the last decade, likely to be available in the near future. In particular, we assume the following fixed attributes: 1. Up to 64 instruction issues per clock with no issue restrictions, or more than 10 times the total issue width of the widest processor in 2011. As we discuss later, the practical implications of very wide issue widths on clock rate, logic complexity, and power may be the most important limitations on exploiting ILP. 2. A tournament predictor with 1K entries and a 16-entry return predictor. This predictor is comparable to the best predictors in 2011; the predictor is not a primary bottleneck. 3. Perfect disambiguation of memory references done dynamically—this is ambitious but perhaps attainable for small window sizes (and hence small issue rates and load/store buffers) or through address aliasing prediction. 4. Register renaming with 64 additional integer and 64 additional FP registers, which is slightly less than the most aggressive processor in 2011. The Intel Core i7 has 128 entries in its reorder buffer, although they are not split between integer and FP, while the IBM Power7 has almost 200. Note that we assume a pipeline latency of one cycle, which significantly reduces the need for reorder buffer entries. Both the Power7 and the i7 have latencies of 10 cycles or greater. Figure 3.27 shows the result for this configuration as we vary the window size. This configuration is more complex and expensive than any existing implementations, especially in terms of the number of instruction issues, which is more than 10 times larger than the largest number of issues available on any processor in 2011. Nonetheless, it gives a useful bound on what future implementations might yield. The data in these figures are likely to be very optimistic for another reason. There are no issue restrictions among the 64 instructions: They may all be memory references. No one would even contemplate this capability in a processor in the near future. Unfortunately, it is quite difficult to bound the performance of a processor with reasonable issue restrictions; not only is the space of possibilities quite large, but the existence of issue restrictions requires that the parallelism be evaluated with an accurate instruction scheduler, making the cost of studying processors with large numbers of issues very expensive. In addition, remember that in interpreting these results cache misses and nonunit latencies have not been taken into account, and both these effects will have significant impact! 3.10 Studies of the Limitations of ILP ■ 217 gcc espresso 10 10 10 9 8 15 15 13 10 8 Window size Infinite 256 128 64 32 12 12 li 11 11 9 Benchmarks fpppp 22 14 52 47 35 doduc 17 16 15 12 9 tomcatv 22 14 56 45 34 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Instruction issues per cycle Figure 3.27 The amount of parallelism available versus the window size for a variety of integer and floating-point programs with up to 64 arbitrary instruction issues per clock. Although there are fewer renaming registers than the window size, the fact that all operations have one-cycle latency and the number of renaming registers equals the issue width allows the processor to exploit parallelism within the entire window. In a real implementation, the window size and the number of renaming registers must be balanced to prevent one of these factors from overly constraining the issue rate. The most startling observation from Figure 3.27 is that, with the realistic processor constraints listed above, the effect of the window size for the integer programs is not as severe as for FP programs. This result points to the key difference between these two types of programs. The availability of loop-level parallelism in two of the FP programs means that the amount of ILP that can be exploited is higher, but for integer programs other factors—such as branch prediction, register renaming, and less parallelism, to start with—are all important limitations. This observation is critical because of the increased emphasis on integer 218 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation performance since the explosion of the World Wide Web and cloud computing starting in the mid-1990s. Indeed, most of the market growth in the last decade— transaction processing, Web servers, and the like—depended on integer performance, rather than floating point. As we will see in the next section, for a realistic processor in 2011, the actual performance levels are much lower than those shown in Figure 3.27. Given the difficulty of increasing the instruction rates with realistic hardware designs, designers face a challenge in deciding how best to use the limited resources available on an integrated circuit. One of the most interesting trade-offs is between simpler processors with larger caches and higher clock rates versus more emphasis on instruction-level parallelism with a slower clock and smaller caches. The following example illustrates the challenges, and in the next chapter we will see an alternative approach to exploiting fine-grained parallelism in the form of GPUs. Example Consider the following three hypothetical, but not atypical, processors, which we run with the SPEC gcc benchmark: 1. A simple MIPS two-issue static pipe running at a clock rate of 4 GHz and achieving a pipeline CPI of 0.8. This processor has a cache system that yields 0.005 misses per instruction. 2. A deeply pipelined version of a two-issue MIPS processor with slightly smaller caches and a 5 GHz clock rate. The pipeline CPI of the processor is 1.0, and the smaller caches yield 0.0055 misses per instruction on average. 3. A speculative superscalar with a 64-entry window. It achieves one-half of the ideal issue rate measured for this window size. (Use the data in Figure 3.27.) This processor has the smallest caches, which lead to 0.01 misses per instruction, but it hides 25% of the miss penalty on every miss by dynamic scheduling. This processor has a 2.5 GHz clock. Assume that the main memory time (which sets the miss penalty) is 50 ns. Determine the relative performance of these three processors. Answer First, we use the miss penalty and miss rate information to compute the contribution to CPI from cache misses for each configuration. We do this with the following formula: Cache CPI = Misses per instruction × Miss penalty We need to compute the miss penalties for each system: Miss penalty = M------e---m--C--o--l-r-o-y--c--k-a--c--c-c--y-e--cs--l-s-e---t-i--m-----e- 3.10 Studies of the Limitations of ILP ■ 219 The clock cycle times for the processors are 250 ps, 200 ps, and 400 ps, respectively. Hence, the miss penalties are Miss penalty1 = --5---0-----n---s-250 ps = 200 cycles Miss penalty2 = --5---0-----n---s-200 ps = 250 cycles Miss penalty3 = 0---.--7---5-----×----5----0----n---s400 ps = 94 cycles Applying this for each cache: Cache CPI1 = 0.005 × 200 = 1.0 Cache CPI2 = 0.0055 × 250 = 1.4 Cache CPI3 = 0.01 × 94 = 0.94 We know the pipeline CPI contribution for everything but processor 3; its pipeline CPI is given by: Pipeline CPI3 = -----------1----------Issue rate = 9-----×--1---0---.-5-- = ---1--4.5 = 0.22 Now we can find the CPI for each processor by adding the pipeline and cache CPI contributions: CPI1 = 0.8 + 1.0 = 1.8 CPI2 = 1.0 + 1.4 = 2.4 CPI3 = 0.22 + 0.94 = 1.16 Since this is the same architecture, we can compare instruction execution rates in millions of instructions per second (MIPS) to determine relative performance: Instruction execution rate = C-C----PR---I Instruction execution rate1 = 4---0---0---0-----M------H----z1.8 = 2222 MIPS Instruction execution rate2 = 5---0---0---0-2---.-M4------H----z- = 2083 MIPS Instruction execution rate3 = 2---5---0---0-----M------H----z1.16 = 2155 MIPS In this example, the simple two-issue static superscalar looks best. In practice, performance depends on both the CPI and clock rate assumptions. Beyond the Limits of This Study Like any limit study, the study we have examined in this section has its own limitations. We divide these into two classes: limitations that arise even for the 220 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation perfect speculative processor, and limitations that arise for one or more realistic models. Of course, all the limitations in the first class apply to the second. The most important limitations that apply even to the perfect model are 1. WAW and WAR hazards through memory—The study eliminated WAW and WAR hazards through register renaming, but not in memory usage. Although at first glance it might appear that such circumstances are rare (especially WAW hazards), they arise due to the allocation of stack frames. A called procedure reuses the memory locations of a previous procedure on the stack, and this can lead to WAW and WAR hazards that are unnecessarily limiting. Austin and Sohi [1992] examined this issue. 2. Unnecessary dependences—With infinite numbers of registers, all but true register data dependences are removed. There are, however, dependences arising from either recurrences or code generation conventions that introduce unnecessary true data dependences. One example of these is the dependence on the control variable in a simple for loop. Since the control variable is incremented on every loop iteration, the loop contains at least one dependence. As we show in Appendix H, loop unrolling and aggressive algebraic optimization can remove such dependent computation. Wall’s study includes a limited amount of such optimizations, but applying them more aggressively could lead to increased amounts of ILP. In addition, certain code generation conventions introduce unneeded dependences, in particular the use of return address registers and a register for the stack pointer (which is incremented and decremented in the call/return sequence). Wall removes the effect of the return address register, but the use of a stack pointer in the linkage convention can cause “unnecessary” dependences. Postiff et al. [1999] explored the advantages of removing this constraint. 3. Overcoming the data flow limit—If value prediction worked with high accuracy, it could overcome the data flow limit. As of yet, none of the more than 100 papers on the subject has achieved a significant enhancement in ILP when using a realistic prediction scheme. Obviously, perfect data value prediction would lead to effectively infinite parallelism, since every value of every instruction could be predicted a priori. For a less-than-perfect processor, several ideas have been proposed that could expose more ILP. One example is to speculate along multiple paths. This idea was discussed by Lam and Wilson [1992] and explored in the study covered in this section. By speculating on multiple paths, the cost of incorrect recovery is reduced and more parallelism can be uncovered. It only makes sense to evaluate this scheme for a limited number of branches because the hardware resources required grow exponentially. Wall [1993] provided data for speculating in both directions on up to eight branches. Given the costs of pursuing both paths, knowing that one will be thrown away (and the growing amount of useless computation as such a process is followed through multiple branches), every commercial design has instead devoted additional hardware to better speculation on the correct path. 3.11 Cross-Cutting Issues: ILP Approaches and the Memory System ■ 221 It is critical to understand that none of the limits in this section is fundamental in the sense that overcoming them requires a change in the laws of physics! Instead, they are practical limitations that imply the existence of some formidable barriers to exploiting additional ILP. These limitations—whether they be window size, alias detection, or branch prediction—represent challenges for designers and researchers to overcome. Attempts to break through these limits in the first five years of this century met with frustration. Some techniques produced small improvements, but often at significant increases in complexity, increases in the clock cycle, and disproportionate increases in power. In summary, designers discovered that trying to extract more ILP was simply too inefficient. We will return to this discussion in our concluding remarks. 3.11 Cross-Cutting Issues: ILP Approaches and the Memory System Hardware versus Software Speculation The hardware-intensive approaches to speculation in this chapter and the software approaches of Appendix H provide alternative approaches to exploiting ILP. Some of the trade-offs, and the limitations, for these approaches are listed below: ■ To speculate extensively, we must be able to disambiguate memory references. This capability is difficult to do at compile time for integer programs that contain pointers. In a hardware-based scheme, dynamic runtime disambiguation of memory addresses is done using the techniques we saw earlier for Tomasulo’s algorithm. This disambiguation allows us to move loads past stores at runtime. Support for speculative memory references can help overcome the conservatism of the compiler, but unless such approaches are used carefully, the overhead of the recovery mechanisms may swamp the advantages. ■ Hardware-based speculation works better when control flow is unpredictable and when hardware-based branch prediction is superior to software-based branch prediction done at compile time. These properties hold for many integer programs. For example, a good static predictor has a misprediction rate of about 16% for four major integer SPEC92 programs, and a hardware predictor has a misprediction rate of under 10%. Because speculated instructions may slow down the computation when the prediction is incorrect, this difference is significant. One result of this difference is that even statically scheduled processors normally include dynamic branch predictors. ■ Hardware-based speculation maintains a completely precise exception model even for speculated instructions. Recent software-based approaches have added special support to allow this as well. 222 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation ■ Hardware-based speculation does not require compensation or bookkeeping code, which is needed by ambitious software speculation mechanisms. ■ Compiler-based approaches may benefit from the ability to see further in the code sequence, resulting in better code scheduling than a purely hardwaredriven approach. ■ Hardware-based speculation with dynamic scheduling does not require different code sequences to achieve good performance for different implementations of an architecture. Although this advantage is the hardest to quantify, it may be the most important in the long run. Interestingly, this was one of the motivations for the IBM 360/91. On the other hand, more recent explicitly parallel architectures, such as IA-64, have added flexibility that reduces the hardware dependence inherent in a code sequence. The major disadvantage of supporting speculation in hardware is the complexity and additional hardware resources required. This hardware cost must be evaluated against both the complexity of a compiler for a software-based approach and the amount and usefulness of the simplifications in a processor that relies on such a compiler. Some designers have tried to combine the dynamic and compiler-based approaches to achieve the best of each. Such a combination can generate interesting and obscure interactions. For example, if conditional moves are combined with register renaming, a subtle side effect appears. A conditional move that is annulled must still copy a value to the destination register, since it was renamed earlier in the instruction pipeline. These subtle interactions complicate the design and verification process and can also reduce performance. The Intel Itanium processor was the most ambitious computer ever designed based on the software support for ILP and speculation. It did not deliver on the hopes of the designers, especially for general-purpose, nonscientific code. As designers’ ambitions for exploiting ILP were reduced in light of the difficulties discussed in Section 3.10, most architectures settled on hardware-based mechanisms with issue rates of three to four instructions per clock. Speculative Execution and the Memory System Inherent in processors that support speculative execution or conditional instructions is the possibility of generating invalid addresses that would not occur without speculative execution. Not only would this be incorrect behavior if protection exceptions were taken, but the benefits of speculative execution would be swamped by false exception overhead. Hence, the memory system must identify speculatively executed instructions and conditionally executed instructions and suppress the corresponding exception. By similar reasoning, we cannot allow such instructions to cause the cache to stall on a miss because again unnecessary stalls could overwhelm the benefits of speculation. Hence, these processors must be matched with nonblocking caches. 3.12 Multithreading: Exploiting Thread-Level Parallelism to Improve Uniprocessor Throughput ■ 223 In reality, the penalty of an L2 miss is so large that compilers normally only speculate on L1 misses. Figure 2.5 on page 84 shows that for some well-behaved scientific programs the compiler can sustain multiple outstanding L2 misses to cut the L2 miss penalty effectively. Once again, for this to work the memory system behind the cache must match the goals of the compiler in number of simultaneous memory accesses. 3.12 Multithreading: Exploiting Thread-Level Parallelism to Improve Uniprocessor Throughput The topic we cover in this section, multithreading, is truly a cross-cutting topic, since it has relevance to pipelining and superscalars, to graphics processing units (Chapter 4), and to multiprocessors (Chapter 5). We introduce the topic here and explore the use of multithreading to increase uniprocessor throughput by using multiple threads to hide pipeline and memory latencies. In the next chapter, we will see how multithreading provides the same advantages in GPUs, and finally, Chapter 5 will explore the combination of multithreading and multiprocessing. These topics are closely interwoven, since multithreading is a primary technique for exposing more parallelism to the hardware. In a strict sense, multithreading uses thread-level parallelism, and thus is properly the subject of Chapter 5, but its role in both improving pipeline utilization and in GPUs motivates us to introduce the concept here. Although increasing performance by using ILP has the great advantage that it is reasonably transparent to the programmer, as we have seen ILP can be quite limited or difficult to exploit in some applications. In particular, with reasonable instruction issue rates, cache misses that go to memory or off-chip caches are unlikely to be hidden by available ILP. Of course, when the processor is stalled waiting on a cache miss, the utilization of the functional units drops dramatically. Since attempts to cover long memory stalls with more ILP have limited effectiveness, it is natural to ask whether other forms of parallelism in an application could be used to hide memory delays. For example, an online transaction-processing system has natural parallelism among the multiple queries and updates that are presented by requests. Of course, many scientific applications contain natural parallelism since they often model the three-dimensional, parallel structure of nature, and that structure can be exploited by using separate threads. Even desktop applications that use modern Windows-based operating systems often have multiple active applications running, providing a source of parallelism. Multithreading allows multiple threads to share the functional units of a single processor in an overlapping fashion. In contrast, a more general method to exploit thread-level parallelism (TLP) is with a multiprocessor that has multiple independent threads operating at once and in parallel. Multithreading, however, does not duplicate the entire processor as a multiprocessor does. Instead, multithreading shares most of the processor core among a set of threads, duplicating only private state, such as the registers and program counter. As we will see in 224 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation Chapter 5, many recent processors incorporate both multiple processor cores on a single chip and provide multithreading within each core. Duplicating the per-thread state of a processor core means creating a separate register file, a separate PC, and a separate page table for each thread. The memory itself can be shared through the virtual memory mechanisms, which already support multiprogramming. In addition, the hardware must support the ability to change to a different thread relatively quickly; in particular, a thread switch should be much more efficient than a process switch, which typically requires hundreds to thousands of processor cycles. Of course, for multithreading hardware to achieve performance improvements, a program must contain multiple threads (we sometimes say that the application is multithreaded) that could execute in concurrent fashion. These threads are identified either by a compiler (typically from a language with parallelism constructs) or by the programmer. There are three main hardware approaches to multithreading. Fine-grained multithreading switches between threads on each clock, causing the execution of instructions from multiple threads to be interleaved. This interleaving is often done in a round-robin fashion, skipping any threads that are stalled at that time. One key advantage of fine-grained multithreading is that it can hide the throughput losses that arise from both short and long stalls, since instructions from other threads can be executed when one thread stalls, even if the stall is only for a few cycles. The primary disadvantage of fine-grained multithreading is that it slows down the execution of an individual thread, since a thread that is ready to execute without stalls will be delayed by instructions from other threads. It trades an uncrease in multithreaded throughput for a loss in the performance (as measured by latency) of a single thread. The Sun Niagara processor, which we examine shortly, uses simple fine-grained multithreading, as do the Nvidia GPUs, which we look at in the next chapter. Coarse-grained multithreading was invented as an alternative to fine-grained multithreading. Coarse-grained multithreading switches threads only on costly stalls, such as level two or three cache misses. This change relieves the need to have thread-switching be essentially free and is much less likely to slow down the execution of any one thread, since instructions from other threads will only be issued when a thread encounters a costly stall. Coarse-grained multithreading suffers, however, from a major drawback: It is limited in its ability to overcome throughput losses, especially from shorter stalls. This limitation arises from the pipeline start-up costs of coarse-grained multithreading. Because a CPU with coarse-grained multithreading issues instructions from a single thread, when a stall occurs the pipeline will see a bubble before the new thread begins executing. Because of this start-up overhead, coarse-grained multithreading is much more useful for reducing the penalty of very high-cost stalls, where pipeline refill is negligible compared to the stall time. Several research projects have explored coarse grained multithreading, but no major current processors use this technique. The most common implementation of multithreading is called Simultaneous multithreading (SMT). Simultaneous multithreading is a variation on finegrained multithreading that arises naturally when fine-grained multithreading is implemented on top of a multiple-issue, dynamically scheduled processor. As 3.12 Multithreading: Exploiting Thread-Level Parallelism to Improve Uniprocessor Throughput ■ 225 with other forms of multithreading, SMT uses thread-level parallelism to hide long-latency events in a processor, thereby increasing the usage of the functional units. The key insight in SMT is that register renaming and dynamic scheduling allow multiple instructions from independent threads to be executed without regard to the dependences among them; the resolution of the dependences can be handled by the dynamic scheduling capability. Figure 3.28 conceptually illustrates the differences in a processor’s ability to exploit the resources of a superscalar for the following processor configurations: ■ A superscalar with no multithreading support ■ A superscalar with coarse-grained multithreading ■ A superscalar with fine-grained multithreading ■ A superscalar with simultaneous multithreading In the superscalar without multithreading support, the use of issue slots is limited by a lack of ILP, including ILP to hide memory latency. Because of the length of L2 and L3 cache misses, much of the processor can be left idle. Execution slots Superscalar Coarse MT Fine MT SMT Time Figure 3.28 How four different approaches use the functional unit execution slots of a superscalar processor. The horizontal dimension represents the instruction execution capability in each clock cycle. The vertical dimension represents a sequence of clock cycles. An empty (white) box indicates that the corresponding execution slot is unused in that clock cycle. The shades of gray and black correspond to four different threads in the multithreading processors. Black is also used to indicate the occupied issue slots in the case of the superscalar without multithreading support. The Sun T1 and T2 (aka Niagara) processors are fine-grained multithreaded processors, while the Intel Core i7 and IBM Power7 processors use SMT. The T2 has eight threads, the Power7 has four, and the Intel i7 has two. In all existing SMTs, instructions issue from only one thread at a time. The difference in SMT is that the subsequent decision to execute an instruction is decoupled and could execute the operations coming from several different instructions in the same clock cycle. 226 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation In the coarse-grained multithreaded superscalar, the long stalls are partially hidden by switching to another thread that uses the resources of the processor. This switching reduces the number of completely idle clock cycles. In a coarsegrained multithreaded processor, however, thread switching only occurs when there is a stall. Because the new thread has a start-up period, there are likely to be some fully idle cycles remaining. In the fine-grained case, the interleaving of threads can eliminate fully empty slots. In addition, because the issuing thread is changed on every clock cycle, longer latency operations can be hidden. Because instruction issue and execution are connected, a thread can only issue as many instructions as are ready. With a narrow issue width this is not a problem (a cycle is either occupied or not), which is why fine-grained multithreading works perfectly for a single issue processor, and SMT would make no sense. Indeed, in the Sun T2, there are two issues per clock, but they are from different threads. This eliminates the need to implement the complex dynamic scheduling approach and relies instead on hiding latency with more threads. If one implements fine-grained threading on top of a multiple-issue dynamically schedule processor, the result is SMT. In all existing SMT implementations, all issues come from one thread, although instructions from different threads can initiate execution in the same cycle, using the dynamic scheduling hardware to determine what instructions are ready. Although Figure 3.28 greatly simplifies the real operation of these processors, it does illustrate the potential performance advantages of multithreading in general and SMT in wider issue, dynamically scheduled processors. Simultaneous multithreading uses the insight that a dynamically scheduled processor already has many of the hardware mechanisms needed to support the mechanism, including a large virtual register set. Multithreading can be built on top of an out-of-order processor by adding a per-thread renaming table, keeping separate PCs, and providing the capability for instructions from multiple threads to commit. Effectiveness of Fine-Grained Multithreading on the Sun T1 In this section, we use the Sun T1 processor to examine the ability of multithreading to hide latency. The T1 is a fine-grained multithreaded multicore microprocessor introduced by Sun in 2005. What makes T1 especially interesting is that it is almost totally focused on exploiting thread-level parallelism (TLP) rather than instruction-level parallelism (ILP). The T1 abandoned the intense focus on ILP (just shortly after the most aggressive ILP processors ever were introduced), returned to a simple pipeline strategy, and focused on exploiting TLP, using both multiple cores and multithreading to produce throughput. Each T1 processor contains eight processor cores, each supporting four threads. Each processor core consists of a simple six-stage, single-issue pipeline (a standard five-stage RISC pipeline like that of Appendix C, with one stage added for thread switching). T1 uses fine-grained multithreading (but not SMT), switching to a new thread on each clock cycle, and threads that are idle because they are waiting due to 3.12 Multithreading: Exploiting Thread-Level Parallelism to Improve Uniprocessor Throughput ■ 227 Characteristic Sun T1 Multiprocessor and multithreading support Eight cores per chip; four threads per core. Fine-grained thread scheduling. One shared floating-point unit for eight cores. Supports only on-chip multiprocessing. Pipeline structure Simple, in-order, six-deep pipeline with three-cycle delays for loads and branches. L1 caches 16 KB instructions; 8 KB data. 64-byte block size. Miss to L2 is 23 cycles, assuming no contention. L2 caches Four separate L2 caches, each 750 KB and associated with a memory bank. 64-byte block size. Miss to main memory is 110 clock cycles assuming no contention. Initial implementation 90 nm process; maximum clock rate of 1.2 GHz; power 79 W; 300 M transistors; 379 mm2 die. Figure 3.29 A summary of the T1 processor. a pipeline delay or cache miss are bypassed in the scheduling. The processor is idle only when all four threads are idle or stalled. Both loads and branches incur a threecycle delay that can only be hidden by other threads. A single set of floating-point functional units is shared by all eight cores, as floating-point performance was not a focus for T1. Figure 3.29 summarizes the T1 processor. T1 Multithreading Unicore Performance The T1 makes TLP its focus, both through the multithreading on an individual core and through the use of many simple cores on a single die. In this section, we will look at the effectiveness of the T1 in increasing the performance of a single core through fine-grained multithreading. In Chapter 5, we will return to examine the effectiveness of combining multithreading with multiple cores. To examine the performance of the T1, we use three server-oriented benchmarks: TPC-C, SPECJBB (the SPEC Java Business Benchmark), and SPECWeb99. Since multiple threads increase the memory demands from a single processor, they could overload the memory system, leading to reductions in the potential gain from multithreading. Figure 3.30 shows the relative increase in the miss rate and the observed miss latency when executing with one thread per core versus executing four threads per core for TPC-C. Both the miss rates and the miss latencies increase, due to increased contention in the memory system. The relatively small increase in miss latency indicates that the memory system still has unused capacity. By looking at the behavior of an average thread, we can understand the interaction among the threads and their ability to keep a core busy. Figure 3.31 shows the percentage of cycles for which a thread is executing, ready but not executing, and not ready. Remember that not ready does not imply that the core with that thread is stalled; it is only when all four threads are not ready that the core will stall. Threads can be not ready due to cache misses, pipeline delays (arising from long latency instructions such as branches, loads, floating point, or integer multiply/divide), and a variety of smaller effects. Figure 3.32 shows the relative 228 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation Relative increase in miss rate or latency q 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1 L1 I miss L1 D miss L2 miss L1 I miss L1 D miss L2 miss rate rate rate latency latency latency Figure 3.30 The relative change in the miss rates and miss latencies when executing with one thread per core versus four threads per core on the TPC-C benchmark. The latencies are the actual time to return the requested data after a miss. In the four-thread case, the execution of other threads could potentially hide much of this latency. Percentage of cycles 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% TPC-C-like Not ready Ready, not chosen Executing SPECJBB00 SPECWeb99 Figure 3.31 Breakdown of the status on an average thread. “Executing” indicates the thread issues an instruction in that cycle. “Ready but not chosen” means it could issue but another thread has been chosen, and “not ready” indicates that the thread is awaiting the completion of an event (a pipeline delay or cache miss, for example). frequency of these various causes. Cache effects are responsible for the thread not being ready from 50% to 75% of the time, with L1 instruction misses, L1 data misses, and L2 misses contributing roughly equally. Potential delays from the pipeline (called “pipeline delay”) are most severe in SPECJBB and may arise from its higher branch frequency. 3.12 Multithreading: Exploiting Thread-Level Parallelism to Improve Uniprocessor Throughput ■ 229 100% 90% Percentage of cycles 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% Other Pipeline delay L2 miss L1 D miss L1 I miss 20% 10% 0% TPC-C-like SPECJBB SPECWeb99 Figure 3.32 The breakdown of causes for a thread being not ready. The contribution to the “other” category varies. In TPC-C, store buffer full is the largest contributor; in SPEC-JBB, atomic instructions are the largest contributor; and in SPECWeb99, both factors contribute. Benchmark TPC-C SPECJBB SPECWeb99 Per-thread CPI 7.2 5.6 6.6 Per-core CPI 1.80 1.40 1.65 Figure 3.33 The per-thread CPI, the per-core CPI, the effective eight-core CPI, and the effective IPC (inverse of CPI) for the eight-core T1 processor. Figure 3.33 shows the per-thread and per-core CPI. Because T1 is a finegrained multithreaded processor with four threads per core, with sufficient parallelism the ideal effective CPI per thread would be four, since that would mean that each thread was consuming one cycle out of every four. The ideal CPI per core would be one. In 2005, the IPC for these benchmarks running on aggressive ILP cores would have been similar to that seen on a T1 core. The T1 core, however, was very modest in size compared to the aggressive ILP cores of 2005, which is why the T1 had eight cores compared to the two to four offered on other processors of the same vintage. As a result, in 2005 when it was introduced, the Sun T1 processor had the best performance on integer applications with extensive TLP and demanding memory performance, such as SPECJBB and transaction processing workloads. 230 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation Effectiveness of Simultaneous Multithreading on Superscalar Processors A key question is, How much performance can be gained by implementing SMT? When this question was explored in 2000–2001, researchers assumed that dynamic superscalars would get much wider in the next five years, supporting six to eight issues per clock with speculative dynamic scheduling, many simultaneous loads and stores, large primary caches, and four to eight contexts with simultaneous issue and retirement from multiple contexts. No processor has gotten close to this level. As a result, simulation research results that showed gains for multiprogrammed workloads of two or more times are unrealistic. In practice, the existing implementations of SMT offer only two to four contexts with fetching and issue from only one, and up to four issues per clock. The result is that the gain from SMT is also more modest. For example, in the Pentium 4 Extreme, as implemented in HP-Compaq servers, the use of SMT yields a performance improvement of 1.01 when running the SPECintRate benchmark and about 1.07 when running the SPECfpRate benchmark. Tuck and Tullsen [2003] reported that, on the SPLASH parallel benchmarks, they found single-core multithreaded speedups ranging from 1.02 to 1.67, with an average speedup of about 1.22. With the availability of recent extensive and insightful measurements done by Esmaeilzadeh et al. [2011], we can look at the performance and energy benefits of using SMT in a single i7 core using a set of multithreaded applications. The benchmarks we use consist of a collection of parallel scientific applications and a set of multithreaded Java programs from the DaCapo and SPEC Java suite, as summarized in Figure 3.34. The Intel i7 supports SMT with two threads. Figure 3.35 shows the performance ratio and the energy efficiency ratio of the these benchmarks run on one core of the i7 with SMT turned off and on. (We plot the energy efficiency ratio, which is the inverse of energy consumption, so that, like speedup, a higher ratio is better.) The harmonic mean of the speedup for the Java benchmarks is 1.28, despite the two benchmarks that see small gains. These two benchmarks, pjbb2005 and tradebeans, while multithreaded, have limited parallelism. They are included because they are typical of a multithreaded benchmark that might be run on an SMT processor with the hope of extracting some performance, which they find in limited amounts. The PARSEC benchmarks obtain somewhat better speedups than the full set of Java benchmarks (harmonic mean of 1.31). If tradebeans and pjbb2005 were omitted, the Java workload would actually have significantly better speedup (1.39) than the PARSEC benchmarks. (See the discussion of the implication of using harmonic mean to summarize the results in the caption of Figure 3.36.) Energy consumption is determined by the combination of speedup and increase in power consumption. For the Java benchmarks, on average, SMT delivers the same energy efficiency as non-SMT (average of 1.0), but it is brought down by the two poor performing benchmarks; without tradebeans and pjbb2005, the average 3.12 Multithreading: Exploiting Thread-Level Parallelism to Improve Uniprocessor Throughput ■ 231 blackscholes bodytrack canneal facesim ferret fluidanimate raytrace streamcluster swaptions vips x264 Prices a portfolio of options with the Black-Scholes PDE Tracks a markerless human body Minimizes routing cost of a chip with cache-aware simulated annealing Simulates motions of a human face for visualization purposes Search engine that finds a set of images similar to a query image Simulates physics of fluid motion for animation with SPH algorithm Uses physical simulation for visualization Computes an approximation for the optimal clustering of data points Prices a portfolio of swap options with the Heath–Jarrow–Morton framework Applies a series of transformations to an image MPG-4 AVC/H.264 video encoder eclipse lusearch sunflow tomcat tradebeans xalan pjbb2005 Integrated development environment Text search tool Photo-realistic rendering system Tomcat servlet container Tradebeans Daytrader benchmark An XSLT processor for transforming XML documents Version of SPEC JBB2005 (but fixed in problem size rather than time) Figure 3.34 The parallel benchmarks used here to examine multithreading, as well as in Chapter 5 to examine multiprocessing with an i7. The top half of the chart consists of PARSEC benchmarks collected by Biena et al. [2008]. The PARSEC benchmarks are meant to be indicative of compute-intensive, parallel applications that would be appropriate for multicore processors. The lower half consists of multithreaded Java benchmarks from the DaCapo collection (see Blackburn et al. [2006]) and pjbb2005 from SPEC. All of these benchmarks contain some parallelism; other Java benchmarks in the DaCapo and SPEC Java workloads use multiple threads but have little or no true parallelism and, hence, are not used here. See Esmaeilzadeh et al. [2011] for additional information on the characteristics of these benchmarks, relative to the measurements here and in Chapter 5. energy efficiency for the Java benchmarks is 1.06, which is almost as good as the PARSEC benchmarks. In the PARSEC benchmarks, SMT reduces energy by 1 − (1/1.08) = 7%. Such energy-reducing performance enhancements are very difficult to find. Of course, the static power associated with SMT is paid in both cases, thus the results probably slightly overstate the energy gains. These results clearly show that SMT in an aggressive speculative processor with extensive support for SMT can improve performance in an energy efficient fashion, which the more aggressive ILP approaches have failed to do. In 2011, the balance between offering multiple simpler cores and fewer more sophisticated cores has shifted in favor of more cores, with each core typically being a three- to four-issue superscalar with SMT supporting two to four threads. Indeed, Esmaeilzadeh et al. [2011] show that the energy improvements from SMT are even larger on the Intel i5 (a processor similar to the i7, but with smaller caches and a lower clock rate) and the Intel Atom (an 80×86 processor designed for the netbook market and described in Section 3.14). 232 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation 2.00 1.75 Speedup Energy efficiency i7 SMT performance and energy efficiency ratio 1.50 1.25 1.00 0.75 EclipLsuesearcShunflowTomcat XTarlaadnebeanPsjbb2005BlackschoBleosdytracCkanneaFlacesim FFleuridreatnimaRteaSyttrreaacemcluSstwear ptions Vips ×264 Figure 3.35 The speedup from using multithreading on one core on an i7 processor averages 1.28 for the Java benchmarks and 1.31 for the PARSEC benchmarks (using an unweighted harmonic mean, which implies a workload where the total time spent executing each benchmark in the single-threaded base set was the same). The energy efficiency averages 0.99 and 1.07, respectively (using the harmonic mean). Recall that anything above 1.0 for energy efficiency indicates that the feature reduces execution time by more than it increases average power. Two of the Java benchmarks experience little speedup and have significant negative energy efficiency because of this. Turbo Boost is off in all cases. These data were collected and analyzed by Esmaeilzadeh et al. [2011] using the Oracle (Sun) HotSpot build 16.3-b01 Java 1.6.0 Virtual Machine and the gcc v4.4.1 native compiler. F0 F1 F2 D0 D1 D2 D3 D4 Branch mispredict penalty =13 cycles E0 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 Instruction execute and load/store Architectural register file Instruction fetch AGU RAM + TLB BTB GHB RS 12-entry fetch queue Instruction decode ALU/MUL pipe 0 BP update ALU pipe 1 LS pipe 0 or 1 BP update BP update Figure 3.36 The basic structure of the A8 pipeline is 13 stages. Three cycles are used for instruction fetch and four for instruction decode, in addition to a five-cycle integer pipeline. This yields a 13-cycle branch misprediction penalty. The instruction fetch unit tries to keep the 12-entry instruction queue filled. 3.13 Putting It All Together: The Intel Core i7 and ARM Cortex-A8 ■ 233 3.13 Putting It All Together: The Intel Core i7 and ARM Cortex-A8 In this section we explore the design of two multiple issue processors: the ARM Cortex-A8 core, which is used as the basis for the Apple A9 processor in the iPad, as well as the processor in the Motorola Droid and the iPhones 3GS and 4, and the Intel Core i7, a high-end, dynamically scheduled, speculative processor, intended for high-end desktops and server applications. We begin with the simpler processor. The ARM Cortex-A8 The A8 is a dual-issue, statically scheduled superscalar with dynamic issue detection, which allows the processor to issue one or two instructions per clock. Figure 3.36 shows the basic pipeline structure of the 13-stage pipeline. The A8 uses a dynamic branch predictor with a 512-entry two-way set associative branch target buffer and a 4K-entry global history buffer, which is indexed by the branch history and the current PC. In the event that the branch target buffer misses, a prediction is obtained from the global history buffer, which can then be used to compute the branch address. In addition, an eight-entry return stack is kept to track return addresses. An incorrect prediction results in a 13cycle penalty as the pipeline is flushed. Figure 3.37 shows the instruction decode pipeline. Up to two instructions per clock can be issued using an in-order issue mechanism. A simple scoreboard structure is used to track when an instruction can issue. A pair of dependent instructions can be processed through the issue logic, but, of course, they will be serialized at the scoreboard, unless they can be issued so that the forwarding paths can resolve the dependence. Figure 3.38 shows the execution pipeline for the A8 processor. Either instruction 1 or instruction 2 can go to the load/store pipeline. Fully bypassing is supported among the pipelines. The ARM Cortex-A8 pipeline uses a simple twoissue statically scheduled superscalar to allow reasonably high clock rate with lower power. In contrast, the i7 uses a reasonably aggressive, four-issue dynamically scheduled speculative pipeline structure. Performance of the A8 Pipeline The A8 has an ideal CPI of 0.5 due to its dual-issue structure. Pipeline stalls can arise from three sources: 1. Functional hazards, which occur because two adjacent instructions selected for issue simultaneously use the same functional pipeline. Since the A8 is statically scheduled, it is the compiler’s task to try to avoid such conflicts. When they cannot be avoided, the A8 can issue at most one instruction in that cycle. 234 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation D0 Early Dec Early Dec D1 D2 D3 D4 Instruction decode Dec/seq Dec Dec queue read/write Score board + issue logic RegFile ID remap Figure 3.37 The five-stage instruction decode of the A8. In the first stage, a PC produced by the fetch unit (either from the branch target buffer or the PC incrementer) is used to retrieve an 8-byte block from the cache. Up to two instructions are decoded and placed into the decode queue; if neither instruction is a branch, the PC is incremented for the next fetch. Once in the decode queue, the scoreboard logic decides when the instructions can issue. In the issue, the register operands are read; recall that in a simple scoreboard, the operands always come from the registers. The register operands and opcode are sent to the instruction execution portion of the pipeline. E0 INST 0 INST 1 Architectural register file E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 Instruction execute Integer register write back Shft MUL 1 ALU + flags MUL 2 Sat BP update WB MUL ACC WB 3 ALU multiply pipe 0 ALU Shft + Sat BP WB ALU pipe 1 flags update ALU LS pipeline WB Load/store pipe 0 or 1 Figure 3.38 The five-stage instruction decode of the A8. Multiply operations are always performed in ALU pipeline 0. 3.13 Putting It All Together: The Intel Core i7 and ARM Cortex-A8 ■ 235 2. Data hazards, which are detected early in the pipeline and may stall either both instructions (if the first cannot issue, the second is always stalled) or the second of a pair. The compiler is responsible for preventing such stalls when possible. 3. Control hazards, which arise only when branches are mispredicted. In addition to pipeline stalls, L1 and L2 misses both cause stalls. Figure 3.39 shows an estimate of the factors that contribute to the actual CPI for the Minnespec benchmarks, which we saw in Chapter 2. As we can see, pipeline delays rather than memory stalls are the major contributor to the CPI. This result is partially due to the effect that Minnespec has a smaller cache footprint than full SPEC or other large programs. 6 L2 stalls/instruction L1 stalls/instruction Pipeline stalls/instruction 5 Ideal CPI 4 3 2 1 0 gzip vpr gcc mcf crafty parser eon perlbmk gap vortex bzip2 Figure 3.39 The estimated composition of the CPI on the ARM A8 shows that pipeline stalls are the primary addition to the base CPI. eon deserves some special mention, as it does integer-based graphics calculations (ray tracing) and has very few cache misses. It is computationally intensive with heavy use of multiples, and the single multiply pipeline becomes a major bottleneck. This estimate is obtained by using the L1 and L2 miss rates and penalties to compute the L1 and L2 generated stalls per instruction. These are subtracted from the CPI measured by a detailed simulator to obtain the pipeline stalls. Pipeline stalls include all three hazards plus minor effects such as way misprediction. Cycles per instruction A9 performance/A8 performance 236 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation 2 .2 5 2 1 .7 5 1 .5 1 .2 5 1 gzip vpr gcc mcf crafty parser eon perlbmk gap vortex bzip2 twolf 0 .7 5 Figure 3.40 The performance ratio for the A9 compared to the A8, both using a 1 GHz clock and the same size caches for L1 and L2, shows that the A9 is about 1.28 times faster. Both runs use a 32 KB primary cache and a 1 MB secondary cache, which is 8-way set associative for the A8 and 16-way for the A9. The block sizes in the caches are 64 bytes for the A8 and 32 bytes for the A9. As mentioned in the caption of Figure 3.39, eon makes intensive use of integer multiply, and the combination of dynamic scheduling and a faster multiply pipeline significantly improves performance on the A9. twolf experiences a small slowdown, likely due to the fact that its cache behavior is worse with the smaller L1 block size of the A9. The insight that the pipeline stalls created significant performance losses probably played a key role in the decision to make the ARM Cortex-A9 a dynamically scheduled superscalar. The A9, like the A8, issues up to two instructions per clock, but it uses dynamic scheduling and speculation. Up to four pending instructions (two ALUs, one load/store or FP/multimedia, and one branch) can begin execution in a clock cycle. The A9 uses a more powerful branch predictor, instruction cache prefetch, and a nonblocking L1 data cache. Figure 3.40 shows that the A9 outperforms the A8 by a factor of 1.28 on average, assuming the same clock rate and virtually identical cache configurations. The Intel Core i7 The i7 uses an aggressive out-of-order speculative microarchitecture with reasonably deep pipelines with the goal of achieving high instruction throughput by combining multiple issue and high clock rates. Figure 3.41 shows the overall structure of the i7 pipeline. We will examine the pipeline by starting with 3.13 Putting It All Together: The Intel Core i7 and ARM Cortex-A8 ■ 237 128-Entry inst. TLB (four-way) Instruction fetch hardware 32 KB Inst. cache (four-way associative) 16-Byte pre-decode + macro-op fusion, fetch buffer 18-Entry instruction queue Micro -code Complex macro-op decoder Simple macro-op decoder Simple macro-op decoder Simple macro-op decoder 28-Entry micro-op loop stream detect buffer Retirement register file ALU shift SSE shuffle ALU 128-bit FMUL FDIV Register alias table and allocator 128-Entry reorder buffer 36-Entry reservation station ALU shift SSE shuffle ALU 128-bit FMUL FDIV Load Store address address Store data Memory order buffer Store & load ALU shift SSE shuffle ALU 128-bit FMUL FDIV 512-Entry unified L2 TLB (4-way) 64-Entry data TLB 32-KB dual-ported data (4-way associative) cache (8-way associative) 256 KB unified l2 cache (eight-way) 8 MB all core shared and inclusive L3 cache (16-way associative) Uncore arbiter (handles scheduling and clock/power state differences) Figure 3.41 The Intel Core i7 pipeline structure shown with the memory system components. The total pipeline depth is 14 stages, with branch mispredictions costing 17 cycles. There are 48 load and 32 store buffers. The six independent functional units can each begin execution of a ready micro-op in the same cycle. instruction fetch and continuing on to instruction commit, following steps labeled on the figure. 1. Instruction fetch—The processor uses a multilevel branch target buffer to achieve a balance between speed and prediction accuracy. There is also a return address stack to speed up function return. Mispredictions cause a penalty of about 15 cycles. Using the predicted address, the instruction fetch unit fetches 16 bytes from the instruction cache. 2. The 16 bytes are placed in the predecode instruction buffer—In this step, a process called macro-op fusion is executed. Macro-op fusion takes instruction combinations such as compare followed by a branch and fuses them into a single operation. The predecode stage also breaks the 16 bytes into individual x86 instructions. This predecode is nontrivial since the length of an x86 238 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation instruction can be from 1 to 17 bytes and the predecoder must look through a number of bytes before it knows the instruction length. Individual x86 instructions (including some fused instructions) are placed into the 18-entry instruction queue. 3. Micro-op decode—Individual x86 instructions are translated into micro-ops. Micro-ops are simple MIPS-like instructions that can be executed directly by the pipeline; this approach of translating the x86 instruction set into simple operations that are more easily pipelined was introduced in the Pentium Pro in 1997 and has been used since. Three of the decoders handle x86 instructions that translate directly into one micro-op. For x86 instructions that have more complex semantics, there is a microcode engine that is used to produce the micro-op sequence; it can produce up to four micro-ops every cycle and continues until the necessary micro-op sequence has been generated. The micro-ops are placed according to the order of the x86 instructions in the 28entry micro-op buffer. 4. The micro-op buffer preforms loop stream detection and microfusion—If there is a small sequence of instructions (less than 28 instructions or 256 bytes in length) that comprises a loop, the loop stream detector will find the loop and directly issue the micro-ops from the buffer, eliminating the need for the instruction fetch and instruction decode stages to be activated. Microfusion combines instruction pairs such as load/ALU operation and ALU operation/store and issues them to a single reservation station (where they can still issue independently), thus increasing the usage of the buffer. In a study of the Intel Core architecture, which also incorporated microfusion and macrofusion, Bird et al. [2007] discovered that microfusion had little impact on performance, while macrofusion appears to have a modest positive impact on integer performance and little impact on floating-point performance. 5. Perform the basic instruction issue—Looking up the register location in the register tables, renaming the registers, allocating a reorder buffer entry, and fetching any results from the registers or reorder buffer before sending the micro-ops to the reservation stations. 6. The i7 uses a 36-entry centralized reservation station shared by six functional units. Up to six micro-ops may be dispatched to the functional units every clock cycle. 7. Micro-ops are executed by the individual function units and then results are sent back to any waiting reservation station as well as to the register retirement unit, where they will update the register state, once it is known that the instruction is no longer speculative. The entry corresponding to the instruction in the reorder buffer is marked as complete. 8. When one or more instructions at the head of the reorder buffer have been marked as complete, the pending writes in the register retirement unit are executed, and the instructions are removed from the reorder buffer. 3.13 Putting It All Together: The Intel Core i7 and ARM Cortex-A8 ■ 239 Performance of the i7 In earlier sections, we examined the performance of the i7’s branch predictor and also the performance of SMT. In this section, we look at single-thread pipeline performance. Because of the presence of aggressive speculation as well as nonblocking caches, it is difficult to attribute the gap between idealized performance and actual performance accurately. As we will see, relatively few stalls occur because instructions cannot issue. For example, only about 3% of the loads are delayed because no reservation station is available. Most losses come either from branch mispredicts or cache misses. The cost of a branch mispredict is 15 cycles, while the cost of an L1 miss is about 10 cycles; L2 misses are slightly more than three times as costly as an L1 miss, and L3 misses cost about 13 times what an L1 miss costs (130–135 cycles)! Although the processor will attempt to find alternative instructions to execute for L3 misses and some L2 misses, it is likely that some of the buffers will fill before the miss completes, causing the processor to stop issuing instructions. To examine the cost of mispredicts and incorrect speculation, Figure 3.42 shows the fraction of the work (measured by the numbers of micro-ops dispatched into the pipeline) that do not retire (i.e., their results are annulled), 40% 35% 30% Work wasted/total work 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Perlbench Bzip2 Gcc McfGobmkHmmer LSijbeqnugantumH264rOefmnetpp XAasltaanrcbmk MilcNamd DealiiSoplePx ovray LbmSphinx3 Figure 3.42 The amount of “wasted work” is plotted by taking the ratio of dispatched micro-ops that do not graduate to all dispatched micro-ops. For example, the ratio is 25% for sjeng, meaning that 25% of the dispatched and executed micro-ops are thrown away. The data in this section were collected by Professor Lu Peng and Ph.D. student Ying Zhang, both of Louisiana State University. 240 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation relative to all micro-op dispatches. For sjeng, for example, 25% of the work is wasted, since 25% of the dispatched micro-ops are never retired. Notice that the wasted work in some cases closely matches the branch misprediction rates shown in Figure 3.5 on page 167, but in several instances, such as mcf, the wasted work seems relatively larger than the misprediction rate. In such cases, a likely explanation arises from the memory behavior. With the very high data cache miss rates, mcf will dispatch many instructions during an incorrect speculation as long as sufficient reservation stations are available for the stalled memory references. When the branch misprediction is detected, the micro-ops corresponding to these instructions will be flushed, but there will be congestion around the caches, as speculated memory references try to complete. There is no simple way for the processor to halt such cache requests once they are initiated. Figure 3.43 shows the overall CPI for the 19 SPECCPU2006 benchmarks. The integer benchmarks have a CPI of 1.06 with very large variance (0.67 standard deviation). MCF and OMNETPP are the major outliers, both having a CPI over 2.0 while most other benchmarks are close to, or less than, 1.0 (gcc, the next highest, is 1.23). This variance derives from differences in the accuracy of branch 3 2.5 2 CPI 1.5 1 0.5 0 Perlbench Bzip2 Gcc McfGobmkHmmer LSijbeqnugantumH264rOefmnetpp XAasltaanrcbmk MilcNamd DealiiSoplePx ovray LbmSphinx3 Figure 3.43 The CPI for the 19 SPECCPU2006 benchmarks shows an average CPI for 0.83 for both the FP and integer benchmarks, although the behavior is quite different. In the integer case, the CPI values range from 0.44 to 2.66 with a standard deviation of 0.77, while the variation in the FP case is from 0.62 to 1.38 with a standard deviation of 0.25. The data in this section were collected by Professor Lu Peng and Ph.D. student Ying Zhang, both of Louisiana State University. 3.14 Fallacies and Pitfalls ■ 241 prediction and in cache miss rates. For the integer benchmarks, the L2 miss rate is the best predictor of CPI, and the L3 miss rate (which is very small) has almost no effect. The FP benchmarks achieve higher performance with a lower average CPI (0.89) and a lower standard deviation (0.25). For the FP benchmarks, L1 and L2 are equally important in determining the CPI, while L3 plays a smaller but significant role. While the dynamic scheduling and nonblocking capabilities of the i7 can hide some miss latency, cache memory behavior is still a major contributor. This reinforces the role of multithreading as another way to hide memory latency. 3.14 Fallacies and Pitfalls Our few fallacies focus on the difficulty of predicting performance and energy efficiency and extrapolating from single measures such as clock rate or CPI. We also show that different architectural approaches can have radically different behaviors for different benchmarks. Fallacy It is easy to predict the performance and energy efficiency of two different versions of the same instruction set architecture, if we hold the technology constant. Intel manufactures a processor for the low-end Netbook and PMD space that is quite similar in its microarchitecture of the ARM A8, called the Atom 230. Interestingly, the Atom 230 and the Core i7 920 have both been fabricated in the same 45 nm Intel technology. Figure 3.44 summarizes the Intel Core i7, the ARM Cortex-A8, and Intel Atom 230. These similarities provide a rare opportunity to directly compare two radically different microarchitectures for the same instruction set while holding constant the underlying fabrication technology. Before we do the comparison, we need to say a little more about the Atom 230. The Atom processors implement the x86 architecture using the standard technique of translating x86 instructions into RISC-like instructions (as every x86 implementation since the mid-1990s has done). Atom uses a slightly more powerful microoperation, which allows an arithmetic operation to be paired with a load or a store. This means that on average for a typical instruction mix only 4% of the instructions require more than one microoperation. The microoperations are then executed in a 16-deep pipeline capable of issuing two instructions per clock, in order, as in the ARM A8. There are dual-integer ALUs, separate pipelines for FP add and other FP operations, and two memory operation pipelines, supporting more general dual execution than the ARM A8 but still limited by the in-order issue capability. The Atom 230 has a 32 KB instruction cache and a 24 KB data cache, both backed by a shared 512 KB L2 on the same die. (The Atom 230 also supports multithreading with two threads, but we will consider only one single threaded comparisons.) Figure 3.46 summarizes the i7, A8, and Atom processors and their key characteristics. We might expect that these two processors, implemented in the same technology and with the same instruction set, would exhibit predictable behavior, in 242 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation Area Physical chip properties Memory system Pipeline structure Specific characteristic Clock rate Thermal design power Package TLB Caches Peak memory BW Peak issue rate Pipeline scheduling Branch prediction Intel i7 920 ARM A8 Intel Atom 230 Four cores, each with FP One core, no FP One core, with FP 2.66 GHz 130 W 1366-pin BGA Two-level All four-way set associative 128 I/64 D 512 L2 Three-level 32 KB/32 KB 256 KB 2–8 MB 17 GB/sec 4 ops/clock with fusion Speculating out of order Two-level 1 GHz 2W 522-pin BGA One-level fully associative 32 I/32 D Two-level 16/16 or 32/32 KB 128 KB–1MB 12 GB/sec 2 ops/clock In-order dynamic issue Two-level 512-entry BTB 4K global history 8-entry return stack 1.66 GHz 4W 437-pin BGA Two-level All four-way set associative 16 I/16 D 64 L2 Two-level 32/24 KB 512 KB 8 GB/sec 2 ops/clock In-order dynamic issue Two-level Figure 3.44 An overview of the four-core Intel i7 920, an example of a typical Arm A8 processor chip (with a 256 MB L2, 32K L1s, and no floating point), and the Intel ARM 230 clearly showing the difference in design philosophy between a processor intended for the PMD (in the case of ARM) or netbook space (in the case of Atom) and a processor for use in servers and high-end desktops. Remember, the i7 includes four cores, each of which is several times higher in performance than the one-core A8 or Atom. All these processors are implemented in a comparable 45 nm technology. terms of relative performance and energy consumption, meaning that power and performance would scale close to linearly. We examine this hypothesis using three sets of benchmarks. The first sets is a group of Java, single-threaded benchmarks that come from the DaCapo benchmarks, and the SPEC JVM98 benchmarks (see Esmaeilzadeh et al. [2011] for a discussion of the benchmarks and measurements). The second and third sets of benchmarks are from SPEC CPU2006 and consist of the integer and FP benchmarks, respectively. As we can see in Figure 3.45, the i7 significantly outperforms the Atom. All benchmarks are at least four times faster on the i7, two SPECFP benchmarks are over ten times faster, and one SPECINT benchmark runs over eight times faster! i7 920 and Atom 230 performance and energy ratio Fop Luindex antlr Bloat _201_compress _202_jess _209_db _213_javac _212_mpegaudio _228_jack 400.perlbench 401.bzip2 403.gcc 429.mcf 445.gobmk 456.hmmer 458.sjeng 462.libquantum 464.h264ref 470.omnetpp 473.astar 483.xalancbmk 416.gamess 433.milc 434.zeusmp 435.gromacs 436.cactus ADM 437.leslie3d 444.namd 447.dealll 450.soplex 453.povray 454.calculix 459.gams FDTD 465.tonto 470.ibm 482.sphinx3 11 10 Speedup Energy efficiency 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 3.14 Fallacies and Pitfalls ■ 243 Figure 3.45 The relative performance and energy efficiency for a set of single-threaded benchmarks shows the i7 920 is 4 to over 10 times faster than the Atom 230 but that it is about 2 times less power efficient on average! Performance is shown in the columns as i7 relative to Atom, which is execution time (i7)/execution time (Atom). Energy is shown with the line as Energy (Atom)/Energy (i7). The i7 never beats the Atom in energy efficiency, although it is essentially as good on four benchmarks, three of which are floating point. The data shown here were collected by Esmaeilzadeh et al. [2011]. The SPEC benchmarks were compiled with optimization on using the standard Intel compiler, while the Java benchmarks use the Sun (Oracle) Hotspot Java VM. Only one core is active on the i7, and the rest are in deep power saving mode. Turbo Boost is used on the i7, which increases its performance advantage but slightly decreases its relative energy efficiency. Since the ratio of clock rates of these two processors is 1.6, most of the advantage comes from a much lower CPI for the i7: a factor of 2.8 for the Java benchmarks, a factor of 3.1 for the SPECINT benchmarks, and a factor of 4.3 for the SPECFP benchmarks. But, the average power consumption for the i7 is just under 43 W, while the average power consumption of the Atom is 4.2 W, or about one-tenth of the power! Combining the performance and power leads to a energy efficiency advantage for the Atom that is typically more than 1.5 times better and often 2 times better! This comparison of two processors using the same underlying technology makes it clear that the performance advantages of an aggressive superscalar with dynamic scheduling and speculation come with a significant disadvantage in energy efficiency. 244 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation Fallacy Processors with lower CPIs will always be faster. Fallacy Processors with faster clock rates will always be faster. The key is that it is the product of CPI and clock rate that determines performance. A high clock rate obtained by deeply pipelining the CPU must maintain a low CPI to get the full benefit of the faster clock. Similarly, a simple processor with a high clock rate but a low CPI may be slower. As we saw in the previous fallacy, performance and energy efficiency can diverge significantly among processors designed for different environments even when they have the same ISA. In fact, large differences in performance can show up even within a family of processors from the same company all designed for high-end applications. Figure 3.46 shows the integer and FP performance of two different implementations of the x86 architecture from Intel, as well as a version of the Itanium architecture, also by Intel. The Pentium 4 was the most aggressively pipelined processor ever built by Intel. It used a pipeline with over 20 stages, had seven functional units, and cached micro-ops rather than x86 instructions. Its relatively inferior performance given the aggressive implementation, was a clear indication that the attempt to exploit more ILP (there could easily be 50 instructions in flight) had failed. The Pentium’s power consumption was similar to the i7, although its transistor count was lower, as its primary caches were half as large as the i7, and it included only a 2 MB secondary cache with no tertiary cache. The Intel Itanium is a VLIW-style architecture, which despite the potential decrease in complexity compared to dynamically scheduled superscalars, never attained competitive clock rates with the mainline x86 processors (although it appears to achieve an overall CPI similar to that of the i7). In examining these results, the reader should be aware that they use different implementation technologies, giving the i7 an advantage in terms of transistor speed and hence clock rate for an equivalently pipelined processor. Nonetheless, the wide variation in performance—more than three times between the Pentium and i7—is astonishing. The next pitfall explains where a significant amount of this advantage comes from. Processor Clock rate SPECCInt2006 SPECCFP2006 base baseline Intel Pentium 4 670 3.8 GHz 11.5 12.2 Intel Itanium -2 1.66 GHz 14.5 17.3 Intel i7 3.3 GHz 35.5 38.4 Figure 3.46 Three different Intel processors vary widely. Although the Itanium processor has two cores and the i7 four, only one core is used in the benchmarks. 3.15 Concluding Remarks: What’s Ahead? ■ 245 Pitfall Sometimes bigger and dumber is better. Much of the attention in the early 2000s went to building aggressive processors to exploit ILP, including the Pentium 4 architecture, which used the deepest pipeline ever seen in a microprocessor, and the Intel Itanium, which had the highest peak issue rate per clock ever seen. What quickly became clear was that the main limitation in exploiting ILP often turned out to be the memory system. Although speculative out-of-order pipelines were fairly good at hiding a significant fraction of the 10- to 15-cycle miss penalties for a first-level miss, they could do very little to hide the penalties for a second-level miss that, when going to main memory, were likely to be 50 to100 clock cycles. The result was that these designs never came close to achieving the peak instruction throughput despite the large transistor counts and extremely sophisticated and clever techniques. The next section discusses this dilemma and the turning away from more aggressive ILP schemes to multicore, but there was another change that exemplifies this pitfall. Instead of trying to hide even more memory latency with ILP, designers simply used the transistors to build much larger caches. Both the Itanium 2 and the i7 use three-level caches compared to the two-level cache of the Pentium 4, and the third-level caches are 9 MB and 8 MB compared to the 2 MB second-level cache of the Pentium 4. Needless to say, building larger caches is a lot easier than designing the 20+ -stage Pentium 4 pipeline and, from the data in Figure 3.46, seems to be more effective. 3.15 Concluding Remarks: What’s Ahead? As 2000 began, the focus on exploiting instruction-level parallelism was at its peak. Intel was about to introduce Itanium, a high-issue-rate statically scheduled processor that relied on a VLIW-like approach with intensive compiler support. MIPS, Alpha, and IBM processors with dynamically scheduled speculative execution were in their second generation and had gotten wider and faster. The Pentium 4, which used speculative scheduling, had also been announced that year with seven functional units and a pipeline more than 20 stages deep. But there were storm clouds on the horizon. Research such as that covered in Section 3.10 was showing that pushing ILP much further would be extremely difficult, and, while peak instruction throughput rates had risen from the first speculative processors some 3 to 5 years earlier, sustained instruction execution rates were growing much more slowly. The next five years were telling. The Itanium turned out to be a good FP processor but only a mediocre integer processor. Intel still produces the line, but there are not many users, the clock rate lags the mainline Intel processors, and Microsoft no longer supports the instruction set. The Intel Pentium 4, while achieving good performance, turned out to be inefficient in terms of performance/watt (i.e., energy use), and the complexity of the processor made it unlikely that further advances would be possible by increasing the issue rate. The 246 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation end of a 20-year road of achieving new performance levels in microprocessors by exploiting ILP had come. The Pentium 4 was widely acknowledged to have gone beyond the point of diminishing returns, and the aggressive and sophisticated Netburst microarchitecture was abandoned. By 2005, Intel and all the other major processor manufacturers had revamped their approach to focus on multicore. Higher performance would be achieved through thread-level parallelism rather than instruction-level parallelism, and the responsibility for using the processor efficiently would largely shift from the hardware to the software and the programmer. This change was the most significant change in processor architecture since the early days of pipelining and instruction-level parallelism some 25+ years earlier. During the same period, designers began to explore the use of more data-level parallelism as another approach to obtaining performance. SIMD extensions enabled desktop and server microprocessors to achieve moderate performance increases for graphics and similar functions. More importantly, graphics processing units (GPUs) pursued aggressive use of SIMD, achieving significant performance advantages for applications with extensive data-level parallelism. For scientific applications, such approaches represent a viable alternative to the more general, but less efficient, thread-level parallelism exploited in multicores. The next chapter explores these developments in the use of data-level parallelism. Many researchers predicted a major retrenchment in the use of ILP, predicting that two issue superscalar processors and larger numbers of cores would be the future. The advantages, however, of slightly higher issue rates and the ability of speculative dynamic scheduling to deal with unpredictable events, such as level-one cache misses, led to moderate ILP being the primary building block in multicore designs. The addition of SMT and its effectiveness (both for performance and energy efficiency) further cemented the position of the moderate issue, out-of-order, speculative approaches. Indeed, even in the embedded market, the newest processors (e.g., the ARM Cortex-A9) have introduced dynamic scheduling, speculation, and wider issues rates. It is highly unlikely that future processors will try to increase the width of issue significantly. It is simply too inefficient both from the viewpoint of silicon utilization and power efficiency. Consider the data in Figure 3.47 that show the most recent four processors in the IBM Power series. Over the past decade, there has been a modest improvement in the ILP support in the Power processors, but the dominant portion of the increase in transistor count (a factor of almost 7 from the Power 4 to the Power7) went to increasing the caches and the number of cores per die. Even the expansion in SMT support seems to be more a focus than an increase in the ILP throughput: The ILP structure from Power4 to Power7 went from 5 issues to 6, from 8 functional units to 12 (but not increasing from the original 2 load/store units), while the SMT support went from nonexistent to 4 threads/processor. It seems clear that even for the most advanced ILP processor in 2011 (the Power7), the focus has moved beyond instruction-level parallelism. The next two chapters focus on approaches that exploit data-level and threadlevel parallelism. Case Studies and Exercises by Jason D. Bakos and Robert P. Colwell ■ 247 Power4 Power5 Power6 Power7 Introduced Initial clock rate (GHz) Transistor count (M) Issues per clock Functional units Cores/chip SMT threads Total on-chip cache (MB) 2001 1.3 174 5 8 2 0 1.5 2004 1.9 276 5 8 2 2 2 2007 4.7 790 7 9 2 2 4.1 2010 3.6 1200 6 12 8 4 32.3 Figure 3.47 Characteristics of four IBM Power processors. All except the Power6 were dynamically scheduled, which is static, and in-order, and all the processors support two load/store pipelines. The Power6 has the same functional units as the Power5 except for a decimal unit. Power7 uses DRAM for the L3 cache. 3.16 Historical Perspective and References Section L.5 (available online) features a discussion on the development of pipelining and instruction-level parallelism. We provide numerous references for further reading and exploration of these topics. Section L.5 covers both Chapter 3 and Appendix H. Case Studies and Exercises by Jason D. Bakos and Robert P. Colwell Case Study: Exploring the Impact of Microarchitectural Techniques Concepts illustrated by this case study ■ Basic Instruction Scheduling, Reordering, Dispatch ■ Multiple Issue and Hazards ■ Register Renaming ■ Out-of-Order and Speculative Execution ■ Where to Spend Out-of-Order Resources You are tasked with designing a new processor microarchitecture, and you are trying to figure out how best to allocate your hardware resources. Which of the hardware and software techniques you learned in Chapter 3 should you apply? You have a list of latencies for the functional units and for memory, as well as some representative code. Your boss has been somewhat vague about the performance requirements of your new design, but you know from experience 248 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation that, all else being equal, faster is usually better. Start with the basics. Figure 3.48 provides a sequence of instructions and list of latencies. 3.1 [10] <1.8, 3.1, 3.2> What would be the baseline performance (in cycles, per loop iteration) of the code sequence in Figure 3.48 if no new instruction’s execution could be initiated until the previous instruction’s execution had completed? Ignore front-end fetch and decode. Assume for now that execution does not stall for lack of the next instruction, but only one instruction/cycle can be issued. Assume the branch is taken, and that there is a one-cycle branch delay slot. 3.2 [10] <1.8, 3.1, 3.2> Think about what latency numbers really mean—they indicate the number of cycles a given function requires to produce its output, nothing more. If the overall pipeline stalls for the latency cycles of each functional unit, then you are at least guaranteed that any pair of back-to-back instructions (a “producer” followed by a “consumer”) will execute correctly. But not all instruction pairs have a producer/consumer relationship. Sometimes two adjacent instructions have nothing to do with each other. How many cycles would the loop body in the code sequence in Figure 3.48 require if the pipeline detected true data dependences and only stalled on those, rather than blindly stalling everything just because one functional unit is busy? Show the code with inserted where necessary to accommodate stated latencies. (Hint: An instruction with latency +2 requires two cycles to be inserted into the code sequence. Think of it this way: A one-cycle instruction has latency 1 + 0, meaning zero extra wait states. So, latency 1 + 1 implies one stall cycle; latency 1 + N has N extra stall cycles. 3.3 [15] <3.6, 3.7> Consider a multiple-issue design. Suppose you have two execution pipelines, each capable of beginning execution of one instruction per cycle, and enough fetch/decode bandwidth in the front end so that it will not stall your Loop: IO: I1: I2: I3: I4: I5: I6: I7: I8: I9: LD DIVD MULTD LD ADDD ADDD ADDI ADDI SD SUB BNZ F2,0(RX) F8,F2,F0 F2,F6,F2 F4,0(Ry) F4,F0,F4 F10,F8,F2 Rx,Rx,#8 Ry,Ry,#8 F4,0(Ry) R20,R4,Rx R20,Loop Latencies beyond single cycle Memory LD +4 Memory SD +1 Integer ADD, SUB +0 Branches +1 ADDD +1 MULTD +5 DIVD +12 Figure 3.48 Code and latencies for Exercises 3.1 through 3.6. Case Studies and Exercises by Jason D. Bakos and Robert P. Colwell ■ 249 execution. Assume results can be immediately forwarded from one execution unit to another, or to itself. Further assume that the only reason an execution pipeline would stall is to observe a true data dependency. Now how many cycles does the loop require? 3.4 [10] <3.6, 3.7> In the multiple-issue design of Exercise 3.3, you may have recognized some subtle issues. Even though the two pipelines have the exact same instruction repertoire, they are neither identical nor interchangeable, because there is an implicit ordering between them that must reflect the ordering of the instructions in the original program. If instruction N + 1 begins execution in Execution Pipe 1 at the same time that instruction N begins in Pipe 0, and N + 1 happens to require a shorter execution latency than N, then N + 1 will complete before N (even though program ordering would have implied otherwise). Recite at least two reasons why that could be hazardous and will require special considerations in the microarchitecture. Give an example of two instructions from the code in Figure 3.48 that demonstrate this hazard. 3.5 [20] <3.7> Reorder the instructions to improve performance of the code in Figure 3.48. Assume the two-pipe machine in Exercise 3.3 and that the out-of-order completion issues of Exercise 3.4 have been dealt with successfully. Just worry about observing true data dependences and functional unit latencies for now. How many cycles does your reordered code take? 3.6 [10/10/10] <3.1, 3.2> Every cycle that does not initiate a new operation in a pipe is a lost opportunity, in the sense that your hardware is not living up to its potential. a. [10] <3.1, 3.2> In your reordered code from Exercise 3.5, what fraction of all cycles, counting both pipes, were wasted (did not initiate a new op)? b. [10] <3.1, 3.2> Loop unrolling is one standard compiler technique for finding more parallelism in code, in order to minimize the lost opportunities for performance. Hand-unroll two iterations of the loop in your reordered code from Exercise 3.5. c. [10] <3.1, 3.2> What speedup did you obtain? (For this exercise, just color the N + 1 iteration’s instructions green to distinguish them from the Nth iteration’s instructions; if you were actually unrolling the loop, you would have to reassign registers to prevent collisions between the iterations.) 3.7 [15] <2.1> Computers spend most of their time in loops, so multiple loop iterations are great places to speculatively find more work to keep CPU resources busy. Nothing is ever easy, though; the compiler emitted only one copy of that loop’s code, so even though multiple iterations are handling distinct data, they will appear to use the same registers. To keep multiple iterations’ register usages from colliding, we rename their registers. Figure 3.49 shows example code that we would like our hardware to rename. A compiler could have simply unrolled the loop and used different registers to avoid conflicts, but if we expect our hardware to unroll the loop, it must also do the register renaming. How? Assume your hardware has a pool of temporary registers (call them T registers, and assume that 250 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation Loop: LD I0: MULTD I1: DIVD I2: LD I3: ADDD I4: SUBD I5: SD F4,0(Rx) F2,F0,F2 F8,F4,F2 F4,0(Ry) F6,F0,F4 F8,F8,F6 F8,0(Ry) Figure 3.49 Sample code for register renaming practice. I0: LD I1: MULTD ... T9,0(Rx) T10,F0,T9 Figure 3.50 Hint: Expected output of register renaming. there are 64 of them, T0 through T63) that it can substitute for those registers designated by the compiler. This rename hardware is indexed by the src (source) register designation, and the value in the table is the T register of the last destination that targeted that register. (Think of these table values as producers, and the src registers are the consumers; it doesn’t much matter where the producer puts its result as long as its consumers can find it.) Consider the code sequence in Figure 3.49. Every time you see a destination register in the code, substitute the next available T, beginning with T9. Then update all the src registers accordingly, so that true data dependences are maintained. Show the resulting code. (Hint: See Figure 3.50.) 3.8 [20] <3.4> Exercise 3.7 explored simple register renaming: when the hardware register renamer sees a source register, it substitutes the destination T register of the last instruction to have targeted that source register. When the rename table sees a destination register, it substitutes the next available T for it, but superscalar designs need to handle multiple instructions per clock cycle at every stage in the machine, including the register renaming. A simple scalar processor would therefore look up both src register mappings for each instruction and allocate a new dest mapping per clock cycle. Superscalar processors must be able to do that as well, but they must also ensure that any dest-to-src relationships between the two concurrent instructions are handled correctly. Consider the sample code sequence in Figure 3.51. Assume that we would like to simultaneously rename the first two instructions. Further assume that the next two available T registers to be used are known at the beginning of the clock cycle in which these two instructions are being renamed. Conceptually, what we want is for the first instruction to do its rename table lookups and then update the table per its destination’s T register. Then the second instruction would do exactly the same thing, and any Case Studies and Exercises by Jason D. Bakos and Robert P. Colwell ■ 251 I0: SUBD I1: ADDD I2: MULTD I3: DIVD F1,F2,F3 F4,F1,F2 F6,F4,F1 F0,F2,F6 Figure 3.51 Sample code for superscalar register renaming. Next available T register Rename table . . . 10 9 This 9 appears in the rename table in next clock cycle dst = F1 I1 src1 = F2 src2 = F3 0 1 21 2 19 3 38 4 29 5 ... 8 9 ... 62 63 (As per instr 1) Y N I1 dst = I2 src? dst = F4 I2 src1 = F1 src2 = F2 (Similar mux for src2) dst = T9 src1 = T19 src2 = T38 dst = T10 src1 = T9 src2 = T19 Figure 3.52 Rename table and on-the-fly register substitution logic for superscalar machines. (Note that src is source, and dest is destination.) interinstruction dependency would thereby be handled correctly. But there’s not enough time to write that T register designation into the renaming table and then look it up again for the second instruction, all in the same clock cycle. That register substitution must instead be done live (in parallel with the register rename table update). Figure 3.52 shows a circuit diagram, using multiplexers and comparators, that will accomplish the necessary on-the-fly register renaming. Your task is to show the cycle-by-cycle state of the rename table for every instruction of the code shown in Figure 3.51. Assume the table starts out with every entry equal to its index (T0 = 0; T1 = 1, …). 3.9 [5] <3.4> If you ever get confused about what a register renamer has to do, go back to the assembly code you’re executing, and ask yourself what has to happen 252 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation for the right result to be obtained. For example, consider a three-way superscalar machine renaming these three instructions concurrently: ADDI R1, R1, R1 ADDI R1, R1, R1 ADDI R1, R1, R1 If the value of R1 starts out as 5, what should its value be when this sequence has executed? 3.10 [20] <3.4, 3.9> Very long instruction word (VLIW) designers have a few basic choices to make regarding architectural rules for register use. Suppose a VLIW is designed with self-draining execution pipelines: once an operation is initiated, its results will appear in the destination register at most L cycles later (where L is the latency of the operation). There are never enough registers, so there is a temptation to wring maximum use out of the registers that exist. Consider Figure 3.53. If loads have a 1 + 2 cycle latency, unroll this loop once, and show how a VLIW capable of two loads and two adds per cycle can use the minimum number of registers, in the absence of any pipeline interruptions or stalls. Give an example of an event that, in the presence of self-draining pipelines, could disrupt this pipelining and yield wrong results. 3.11 [10/10/10] <3.3> Assume a five-stage single-pipeline microarchitecture (fetch, decode, execute, memory, write-back) and the code in Figure 3.54. All ops are one cycle except LW and SW, which are 1 + 2 cycles, and branches, which are 1 + 1 cycles. There is no forwarding. Show the phases of each instruction per clock cycle for one iteration of the loop. a. [10] <3.3> How many clock cycles per loop iteration are lost to branch overhead? b. [10] <3.3> Assume a static branch predictor, capable of recognizing a backwards branch in the Decode stage. Now how many clock cycles are wasted on branch overhead? c. [10] <3.3> Assume a dynamic branch predictor. How many cycles are lost on a correct prediction? Loop: LW LW ADDI SW ADDI SUB BNZ R4,0(R0) ; R5,8(R1) ; R10,R4,#1; R7,0(R6) ; R2,R2,#8 R4,R3,R2 R4,Loop ADDI ADDI SW R11,R3,#1 R20,R0,#1 R9,8(R8) Figure 3.53 Sample VLIW code with two adds, two loads, and two stalls. Case Studies and Exercises by Jason D. Bakos and Robert P. Colwell ■ 253 Loop: LW LW ADDI SUB SW BNZ R3,0(R0) R1,0(R3) R1,R1,#1 R4,R3,R2 R1,0(R3) R4, Loop Figure 3.54 Code loop for Exercise 3.11. Instructions from decoder 1 2 Reservation station ALU 0 ALU 1 LD/ST Mem Figure 3.55 An out-of-order microarchitecure. 3.12 [15/20/20/10/20] <3.4, 3.7, 3.14> Let’s consider what dynamic scheduling might achieve here. Assume a microarchitecture as shown in Figure 3.55. Assume that the arithmetic-logical units (ALUs) can do all arithmetic ops (MULTD, DIVD, ADDD, ADDI, SUB) and branches, and that the Reservation Station (RS) can dispatch at most one operation to each functional unit per cycle (one op to each ALU plus one memory op to the LD/ST). a. [15] <3.4> Suppose all of the instructions from the sequence in Figure 3.48 are present in the RS, with no renaming having been done. Highlight any instructions in the code where register renaming would improve performance. (Hint: Look for read-after-write and write-after-write hazards. Assume the same functional unit latencies as in Figure 3.48.) b. [20] <3.4> Suppose the register-renamed version of the code from part (a) is resident in the RS in clock cycle N, with latencies as given in Figure 3.48. Show how the RS should dispatch these instructions out of order, clock by clock, to obtain optimal performance on this code. (Assume the same RS restrictions as in part (a). Also assume that results must be written into the RS 254 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation before they’re available for use—no bypassing.) How many clock cycles does the code sequence take? c. [20] <3.4> Part (b) lets the RS try to optimally schedule these instructions. But in reality, the whole instruction sequence of interest is not usually present in the RS. Instead, various events clear the RS, and as a new code sequence streams in from the decoder, the RS must choose to dispatch what it has. Suppose that the RS is empty. In cycle 0, the first two register-renamed instructions of this sequence appear in the RS. Assume it takes one clock cycle to dispatch any op, and assume functional unit latencies are as they were for Exercise 3.2. Further assume that the front end (decoder/registerrenamer) will continue to supply two new instructions per clock cycle. Show the cycle-by-cycle order of dispatch of the RS. How many clock cycles does this code sequence require now? d. [10] <3.14> If you wanted to improve the results of part (c), which would have helped most: (1) Another ALU? (2) Another LD/ST unit? (3) Full bypassing of ALU results to subsequent operations? or (4) Cutting the longest latency in half? What’s the speedup? e. [20] <3.7> Now let’s consider speculation, the act of fetching, decoding, and executing beyond one or more conditional branches. Our motivation to do this is twofold: The dispatch schedule we came up with in part (c) had lots of nops, and we know computers spend most of their time executing loops (which implies the branch back to the top of the loop is pretty predictable). Loops tell us where to find more work to do; our sparse dispatch schedule suggests we have opportunities to do some of that work earlier than before. In part (d) you found the critical path through the loop. Imagine folding a second copy of that path onto the schedule you got in part (b). How many more clock cycles would be required to do two loops’ worth of work (assuming all instructions are resident in the RS)? (Assume all functional units are fully pipelined.) Exercises 3.13 [25] <3.13> In this exercise, you will explore performance trade-offs between three processors that each employ different types of multithreading. Each of these processors is superscalar, uses in-order pipelines, requires a fixed threecycle stall following all loads and branches, and has identical L1 caches. Instructions from the same thread issued in the same cycle are read in program order and must not contain any data or control dependences. ■ Processor A is a superscalar SMT architecture, capable of issuing up to two instructions per cycle from two threads. ■ Processor B is a fine MT architecture, capable of issuing up to four instructions per cycle from a single thread and switches threads on any pipeline stall. Case Studies and Exercises by Jason D. Bakos and Robert P. Colwell ■ 255 ■ Processor C is a coarse MT architecture, capable of issuing up to eight instructions per cycle from a single thread and switches threads on an L1 cache miss. Our application is a list searcher, which scans a region of memory for a specific value stored in R9 between the address range specified in R16 and R17. It is parallelized by evenly dividing the search space into four equal-sized contiguous blocks and assigning one search thread to each block (yielding four threads). Most of each thread’s runtime is spent in the following unrolled loop body: loop: LD R1,0(R16) LD R2,8(R16) LD R3,16(R16) LD R4,24(R16) LD R5,32(R16) LD R6,40(R16) LD R7,48(R16) LD R8,56(R16) BEQAL R9,R1,match0 BEQAL R9,R2,match1 BEQAL R9,R3,match2 BEQAL R9,R4,match3 BEQAL R9,R5,match4 BEQAL R9,R6,match5 BEQAL R9,R7,match6 BEQAL R9,R8,match7 DADDIU R16,R16,#64 BLT R16,R17,loop Assume the following: ■ A barrier is used to ensure that all threads begin simultaneously. ■ The first L1 cache miss occurs after two iterations of the loop. ■ None of the BEQAL branches is taken. ■ The BLT is always taken. ■ All three processors schedule threads in a round-robin fashion. Determine how many cycles are required for each processor to complete the first two iterations of the loop. 3.14 [25/25/25] <3.2, 3.7> In this exercise, we look at how software techniques can extract instruction-level parallelism (ILP) in a common vector loop. The 256 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation following loop is the so-called DAXPY loop (double-precision aX plus Y) and is the central operation in Gaussian elimination. The following code implements the DAXPY operation, Y = aX + Y, for a vector length 100. Initially, R1 is set to the base address of array X and R2 is set to the base address of Y: DADDIU R4,R1,#800 ; R1 = upper bound for X foo: L.D F2,0(R1) ; (F2) = X(i) MUL.D F4,F2,F0 ; (F4) = a*X(i) L.D F6,0(R2) ; (F6) = Y(i) ADD.D F6,F4,F6 ; (F6) = a*X(i) + Y(i) S.D F6,0(R2) ; Y(i) = a*X(i) + Y(i) DADDIU R1,R1,#8 ; increment X index DADDIU R2,R2,#8 ; increment Y index DSLTU R3,R1,R4 ; test: continue loop? BNEZ R3,foo ; loop if needed Assume the functional unit latencies as shown in the table below. Assume a onecycle delayed branch that resolves in the ID stage. Assume that results are fully bypassed. Instruction producing result FP multiply FP add FP multiply FP add Integer operations and all loads Instruction using result FP ALU op FP ALU op FP store FP store Any Latency in clock cycles 6 4 5 4 2 a. [25] <3.2> Assume a single-issue pipeline. Show how the loop would look both unscheduled by the compiler and after compiler scheduling for both floating-point operation and branch delays, including any stalls or idle clock cycles. What is the execution time (in cycles) per element of the result vector, Y, unscheduled and scheduled? How much faster must the clock be for processor hardware alone to match the performance improvement achieved by the scheduling compiler? (Neglect any possible effects of increased clock speed on memory system performance.) b. [25] <3.2> Assume a single-issue pipeline. Unroll the loop as many times as necessary to schedule it without any stalls, collapsing the loop overhead instructions. How many times must the loop be unrolled? Show the instruction schedule. What is the execution time per element of the result? Case Studies and Exercises by Jason D. Bakos and Robert P. Colwell ■ 257 c. [25] <3.7> Assume a VLIW processor with instructions that contain five operations, as shown in Figure 3.16. We will compare two degrees of loop unrolling. First, unroll the loop 6 times to extract ILP and schedule it without any stalls (i.e., completely empty issue cycles), collapsing the loop overhead instructions, and then repeat the process but unroll the loop 10 times. Ignore the branch delay slot. Show the two schedules. What is the execution time per element of the result vector for each schedule? What percent of the operation slots are used in each schedule? How much does the size of the code differ between the two schedules? What is the total register demand for the two schedules? 3.15 [20/20] <3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 3.8> In this exercise, we will look at how variations on Tomasulo’s algorithm perform when running the loop from Exercise 3.14. The functional units (FUs) are described in the table below. FU Type Integer FP adder FP multiplier Cycles in EX 1 10 15 Number of FUs 1 1 1 Number of reservation stations 5 3 2 Assume the following: ■ Functional units are not pipelined. ■ There is no forwarding between functional units; results are communicated by the common data bus (CDB). ■ The execution stage (EX) does both the effective address calculation and the memory access for loads and stores. Thus, the pipeline is IF/ID/IS/EX/WB. ■ Loads require one clock cycle. ■ The issue (IS) and write-back (WB) result stages each require one clock cycle. ■ There are five load buffer slots and five store buffer slots. ■ Assume that the Branch on Not Equal to Zero (BNEZ) instruction requires one clock cycle. a. [20] <3.4–3.5> For this problem use the single-issue Tomasulo MIPS pipeline of Figure 3.6 with the pipeline latencies from the table above. Show the number of stall cycles for each instruction and what clock cycle each instruction begins execution (i.e., enters its first EX cycle) for three iterations of the loop. How many cycles does each loop iteration take? Report your answer in the form of a table with the following column headers: ■ Iteration (loop iteration number) ■ Instruction ■ Issues (cycle when instruction issues) ■ Executes (cycle when instruction executes) 258 ■ Chapter Three Instruction-Level Parallelism and Its Exploitation ■ Memory access (cycle when memory is accessed) ■ Write CDB (cycle when result is written to the CDB) ■ Comment (description of any event on which the instruction is waiting) Show three iterations of the loop in your table. You may ignore the first instruction. b. [20] <3.7, 3.8> Repeat part (a) but this time assume a two-issue Tomasulo algorithm and a fully pipelined floating-point unit (FPU). 3.16 [10] <3.4> Tomasulo’s algorithm has a disadvantage: Only one result can compute per clock per CDB. Use the hardware configuration and latencies from the previous question and find a code sequence of no more than 10 instructions where Tomasulo’s algorithm must stall due to CDB contention. Indicate where this occurs in your sequence. 3.17 [20] <3.3> An (m,n) correlating branch predictor uses the behavior of the most recent m executed branches to choose from 2m predictors, each of which is an nbit predictor. A two-level local predictor works in a similar fashion, but only keeps track of the past behavior of each individual branch to predict future behavior. There is a design trade-off involved with such predictors: Correlating predictors require little memory for history which allows them to maintain 2-bit predictors for a large number of individual branches (reducing the probability of branch instructions reusing the same predictor), while local predictors require substantially more memory to keep history and are thus limited to tracking a relatively small number of branch instructions. For this exercise, consider a (1,2) correlating predictor that can track four branches (requiring 16 bits) versus a (1,2) local predictor that can track two branches using the same amount of memory. For the following branch outcomes, provide each prediction, the table entry used to make the prediction, any updates to the table as a result of the prediction, and the final misprediction rate of each predictor. Assume that all branches up to this point have been taken. Initialize each predictor to the following: Correlating predictor Entry 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Branch 0 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 Last outcome T NT T NT T NT T NT Prediction T with one misprediction NT NT T T T NT with one misprediction NT Case Studies and Exercises by Jason D. Bakos and Robert P. Colwell ■ 259 Local predictor Entry 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Branch Last 2 outcomes (right is most recent) Prediction 0 T,T 0 T,NT 0 NT,T 0 NT 1 T,T 1 T,NT 1 NT,T 1 NT,NT T with one misprediction NT NT T T T with one misprediction NT NT Branch PC (word address) 454 543 777 543 777 454 777 454 543 Outcome T NT NT NT NT T NT T T 3.18 [10] <3.9> Suppose we have a deeply pipelined processor, for which we implement a branch-target buffer for the conditional branches only. Assume that the misprediction penalty is always four cycles and the buffer miss penalty is always three cycles. Assume a 90% hit rate, 90% accuracy, and 15% branch frequency. How much faster is the processor with the branch-target buffer versus a processor that has a fixed two-cycle branch penalty? Assume a base clock cycle per instruction (CPI) without branch stalls of one. 3.19 [10/5] <3.9> Consider a branch-target buffer that has penalties of zero, two, and two clock cycles for correct conditional branch prediction, incorrect prediction, and a buffer miss, respectively. Consider a branch-target buffer design that distinguishes conditional and unconditional branches, storing the target address for a conditional branch and the target instruction for an unconditional branch. a. [10] <3.9> What is the penalty in clock cycles when an unconditional branch is found in the buffer? b. [10] <3.9> Determine the improvement from branch folding for unconditional branches. Assume a 90% hit rate, an unconditional branch frequency of 5%, and a two-cycle penalty for a buffer miss. How much improvement is gained by this enhancement? How high must the hit rate be for this enhancement to provide a performance gain? 4.1 Introduction 262 4.2 Vector Architecture 264 4.3 SIMD Instruction Set Extensions for Multimedia 282 4.4 Graphics Processing Units 288 4.5 Detecting and Enhancing Loop-Level Parallelism 315 4.6 Crosscutting Issues 322 4.7 Putting It All Together: Mobile versus Server GPUs and Tesla versus Core i7 323 4.8 Fallacies and Pitfalls 330 4.9 Concluding Remarks 332 4.10 Historical Perspective and References 334 Case Study and Exercises by Jason D. Bakos 334 4 Data-Level Parallelism in Vector, SIMD, and GPU Architectures 1 We call these algorithms data parallel algorithms because their parallelism comes from simultaneous operations across large sets of data, rather than from multiple threads of control. W. Daniel Hillis and Guy L. Steele “Data Parallel Algorithms,” Comm. ACM (1986) If you were plowing a field, which would you rather use: two strong oxen or 1024 chickens? Seymour Cray, Father of the Supercomputer (arguing for two powerful vector processors versus many simple processors) Computer Architecture. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-383872-8.00005-7 © 2012 Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved. 262 ■ Chapter Four Data-Level Parallelism in Vector, SIMD, and GPU Architectures 4.1 Introduction A question for the single instruction, multiple data (SIMD) architecture, which Chapter 1 introduced, has always been just how wide a set of applications has significant data-level parallelism (DLP). Fifty years later, the answer is not only the matrix-oriented computations of scientific computing, but also the mediaoriented image and sound processing. Moreover, since a single instruction can launch many data operations, SIMD is potentially more energy efficient than multiple instruction multiple data (MIMD), which needs to fetch and execute one instruction per data operation. These two answers make SIMD attractive for Personal Mobile Devices. Finally, perhaps the biggest advantage of SIMD versus MIMD is that the programmer continues to think sequentially yet achieves parallel speedup by having parallel data operations. This chapter covers three variations of SIMD: vector architectures, multimedia SIMD instruction set extensions, and graphics processing units (GPUs).1 The first variation, which predates the other two by more than 30 years, means essentially pipelined execution of many data operations. These vector architectures are easier to understand and to compile to than other SIMD variations, but they were considered too expensive for microprocessors until recently. Part of that expense was in transistors and part was in the cost of sufficient DRAM bandwidth, given the widespread reliance on caches to meet memory performance demands on conventional microprocessors. The second SIMD variation borrows the SIMD name to mean basically simultaneous parallel data operations and is found in most instruction set architectures today that support multimedia applications. For x86 architectures, the SIMD instruction extensions started with the MMX (Multimedia Extensions) in 1996, which were followed by several SSE (Streaming SIMD Extensions) versions in the next decade, and they continue to this day with AVX (Advanced Vector Extensions). To get the highest computation rate from an x86 computer, you often need to use these SIMD instructions, especially for floating-point programs. The third variation on SIMD comes from the GPU community, offering higher potential performance than is found in traditional multicore computers today. While GPUs share features with vector architectures, they have their own distinguishing characteristics, in part due to the ecosystem in which they evolved. This environment has a system processor and system memory in addition to the GPU and its graphics memory. In fact, to recognize those distinctions, the GPU community refers to this type of architecture as heterogeneous. 1 This chapter is based on material in Appendix F, “Vector Processors,” by Krste Asanovic, and Appendix G, “Hardware and Software for VLIW and EPIC” from the 4th edition of this book; on material in Appendix A, “Graphics and Computing GPUs,” by John Nickolls and David Kirk, from the 4th edition of Computer Organization and Design; and to a lesser extent on material in “Embracing and Extending 20th-Century Instruction Set Architectures,” by Joe Gebis and David Patterson, IEEE Computer, April 2007. 1000 100 MIMD*SIMD (32 b) MIMD*SIMD (64 b) SIMD (32 b) SIMD (64 b) MIMD 4.1 Introduction ■ 263 Potential parallel speedup 10 1 2003 2007 2011 2015 2019 2023 Figure 4.1 Potential speedup via parallelism from MIMD, SIMD, and both MIMD and SIMD over time for x86 computers. This figure assumes that two cores per chip for MIMD will be added every two years and the number of operations for SIMD will double every four years. For problems with lots of data parallelism, all three SIMD variations share the advantage of being easier for the programmer than classic parallel MIMD programming. To put into perspective the importance of SIMD versus MIMD, Figure 4.1 plots the number of cores for MIMD versus the number of 32-bit and 64-bit operations per clock cycle in SIMD mode for x86 computers over time. For x86 computers, we expect to see two additional cores per chip every two years and the SIMD width to double every four years. Given these assumptions, over the next decade the potential speedup from SIMD parallelism is twice that of MIMD parallelism. Hence, it’s as least as important to understand SIMD parallelism as MIMD parallelism, although the latter has received much more fanfare recently. For applications with both data-level parallelism and thread-level parallelism, the potential speedup in 2020 will be an order of magnitude higher than today. The goal of this chapter is for architects to understand why vector is more general than multimedia SIMD, as well as the similarities and differences between vector and GPU architectures. Since vector architectures are supersets of the multimedia SIMD instructions, including a better model for compilation, and since GPUs share several similarities with vector architectures, we start with 264 ■ Chapter Four Data-Level Parallelism in Vector, SIMD, and GPU Architectures vector architectures to set the foundation for the following two sections. The next section introduces vector architectures, while Appendix G goes much deeper into the subject. 4.2 Vector Architecture The most efficient way to execute a vectorizable application is a vector processor. Jim Smith International Symposium on Computer Architecture (1994) Vector architectures grab sets of data elements scattered about memory, place them into large, sequential register files, operate on data in those register files, and then disperse the results back into memory. A single instruction operates on vectors of data, which results in dozens of register–register operations on independent data elements. These large register files act as compiler-controlled buffers, both to hide memory latency and to leverage memory bandwidth. Since vector loads and stores are deeply pipelined, the program pays the long memory latency only once per vector load or store versus once per element, thus amortizing the latency over, say, 64 elements. Indeed, vector programs strive to keep memory busy. VMIPS We begin with a vector processor consisting of the primary components that Figure 4.2 shows. This processor, which is loosely based on the Cray-1, is the foundation for discussion throughout this section. We will call this instruction set architecture VMIPS; its scalar portion is MIPS, and its vector portion is the logical vector extension of MIPS. The rest of this subsection examines how the basic architecture of VMIPS relates to other processors. The primary components of the instruction set architecture of VMIPS are the following: ■ Vector registers—Each vector register is a fixed-length bank holding a single vector. VMIPS has eight vector registers, and each vector register holds 64 elements, each 64 bits wide. The vector register file needs to provide enough ports to feed all the vector functional units. These ports will allow a high degree of overlap among vector operations to different vector registers. The read and write ports, which total at least 16 read ports and 8 write ports, are connected to the functional unit inputs or outputs by a pair of crossbar switches. ■ Vector functional units—Each unit is fully pipelined, and it can start a new operation on every clock cycle. A control unit is needed to detect hazards, both structural hazards for functional units and data hazards on register accesses. Figure 4.2 shows that VMIPS has five functional units. For simplicity, we focus exclusively on the floating-point functional units. Main memory 4.2 Vector Architecture ■ 265 Vector load/store Vector registers Scalar registers FP add/subtract FP multiply FP divide Integer Logical Figure 4.2 The basic structure of a vector architecture, VMIPS. This processor has a scalar architecture just like MIPS. There are also eight 64-element vector registers, and all the functional units are vector functional units. This chapter defines special vector instructions for both arithmetic and memory accesses. The figure shows vector units for logical and integer operations so that VMIPS looks like a standard vector processor that usually includes these units; however, we will not be discussing these units. The vector and scalar registers have a significant number of read and write ports to allow multiple simultaneous vector operations. A set of crossbar switches (thick gray lines) connects these ports to the inputs and outputs of the vector functional units. ■ Vector load/store unit—The vector memory unit loads or stores a vector to or from memory. The VMIPS vector loads and stores are fully pipelined, so that words can be moved between the vector registers and memory with a bandwidth of one word per clock cycle, after an initial latency. This unit would also normally handle scalar loads and stores. ■ A set of scalar registers—Scalar registers can also provide data as input to the vector functional units, as well as compute addresses to pass to the vector load/store unit. These are the normal 32 general-purpose registers and 32 floating-point registers of MIPS. One input of the vector functional units latches scalar values as they are read out of the scalar register file. 266 ■ Chapter Four Data-Level Parallelism in Vector, SIMD, and GPU Architectures Instruction ADDVV.D ADDVS.D SUBVV.D SUBVS.D SUBSV.D MULVV.D MULVS.D DIVVV.D DIVVS.D DIVSV.D LV SV LVWS SVWS LVI SVI CVI S--VV.D S--VS.D Operands V1,V2,V3 V1,V2,F0 V1,V2,V3 V1,V2,F0 V1,F0,V2 V1,V2,V3 V1,V2,F0 V1,V2,V3 V1,V2,F0 V1,F0,V2 V1,R1 R1,V1 V1,(R1,R2) (R1,R2),V1 V1,(R1+V2) (R1+V2),V1 V1,R1 V1,V2 V1,F0 POP CVM MTC1 MFC1 MVTM MVFM R1,VM VLR,R1 R1,VLR VM,F0 F0,VM Function Add elements of V2 and V3, then put each result in V1. Add F0 to each element of V2, then put each result in V1. Subtract elements of V3 from V2, then put each result in V1. Subtract F0 from elements of V2, then put each result in V1. Subtract elements of V2 from F0, then put each result in V1. Multiply elements of V2 and V3, then put each result in V1. Multiply each element of V2 by F0, then put each result in V1. Divide elements of V2 by V3, then put each result in V1. Divide elements of V2 by F0, then put each result in V1. Divide F0 by elements of V2, then put each result in V1. Load vector register V1 from memory starting at address R1. Store vector register V1 into memory starting at address R1. Load V1 from address at R1 with stride in R2 (i.e., R1 + i × R2). Store V1 to address at R1 with stride in R2 (i.e., R1 + i × R2). Load V1 with vector whose elements are at R1 + V2(i) ( i.e., V2 is an index). Store V1 to vector whose elements are at R1 + V2(i) (i.e., V2 is an index). Create an index vector by storing the values 0, 1 × R1, 2 × R1,...,63 × R1 into V1. Compare the elements (EQ, NE, GT, LT, GE, LE) in V1 and V2. If condition is true, put a 1 in the corresponding bit vector; otherwise put 0. Put resulting bit vector in vectormask register (VM). The instruction S--VS.D performs the same compare but using a scalar value as one operand. Count the 1s in vector-mask register VM and store count in R1. Set the vector-mask register to all 1s. Move contents of R1 to vector-length register VL. Move the contents of vector-length register VL to R1. Move contents of F0 to vector-mask register VM. Move contents of vector-mask register VM to F0. Figure 4.3 The VMIPS vector instructions, showing only the double-precision floating-point operations. In addition to the vector registers, there are two special registers, VLR and VM, discussed below. These special registers are assumed to live in the MIPS coprocessor 1 space along with the FPU registers. The operations with stride and uses of the index creation and indexed load/store operations are explained later. Figure 4.3 lists the VMIPS vector instructions. In VMIPS, vector operations use the same names as scalar MIPS instructions, but with the letters “VV” appended. Thus, ADDVV.D is an addition of two double-precision vectors. The vector instructions take as their input either a pair of vector registers (ADDVV.D) or a vector register and a scalar register, designated by appending “VS” (ADDVS.D). In the latter case, all operations use the same value in the scalar register as one input: The operation ADDVS.D will add the contents of a scalar register to each element in a vector register. The vector functional unit gets a copy of the scalar value at issue time. Most vector operations have a vector destination register, although a few (such as population count) produce a scalar value, which is stored to a scalar register. 4.2 Vector Architecture ■ 267 The names LV and SV denote vector load and vector store, and they load or store an entire vector of double-precision data. One operand is the vector register to be loaded or stored; the other operand, which is a MIPS general-purpose register, is the starting address of the vector in memory. As we shall see, in addition to the vector registers, we need two additional special-purpose registers: the vector-length and vector-mask registers. The former is used when the natural vector length is not 64 and the latter is used when loops involve IF statements. The power wall leads architects to value architectures that can deliver high performance without the energy and design complexity costs of highly outof-order superscalar processors. Vector instructions are a natural match to this trend, since architects can use them to increase performance of simple in-order scalar processors without greatly increasing energy demands and design complexity. In practice, developers can express many of the programs that ran well on complex out-of-order designs more efficiently as data-level parallelism in the form of vector instructions, as Kozyrakis and Patterson [2002] showed. With a vector instruction, the system can perform the operations on the vector data elements in many ways, including operating on many elements simultaneously. This flexibility lets vector designs use slow but wide execution units to achieve high performance at low power. Further, the independence of elements within a vector instruction set allows scaling of functional units without performing additional costly dependency checks, as superscalar processors require. Vectors naturally accommodate varying data sizes. Hence, one view of a vector register size is 64 64-bit data elements, but 128 32-bit elements, 256 16-bit elements, and even 512 8-bit elements are equally valid views. Such hardware multiplicity is why a vector architecture can be useful for multimedia applications as well as scientific applications. How Vector Processors Work: An Example We can best understand a vector processor by looking at a vector loop for VMIPS. Let’s take a typical vector problem, which we use throughout this section: Y = a× X + Y X and Y are vectors, initially resident in memory, and a is a scalar. This problem is the so-called SAXPY or DAXPY loop that forms the inner loop of the Linpack benchmark. (SAXPY stands for single-precision a × X plus Y; DAXPY for double precision a × X plus Y.) Linpack is a collection of linear algebra routines, and the Linpack benchmark consists of routines for performing Gaussian elimination. For now, let us assume that the number of elements, or length, of a vector register (64) matches the length of the vector operation we are interested in. (This restriction will be lifted shortly.) Example Show the code for MIPS and VMIPS for the DAXPY loop. Assume that the starting addresses of X and Y are in Rx and Ry, respectively. Answer Here is the MIPS code. 268 ■ Chapter Four Data-Level Parallelism in Vector, SIMD, and GPU Architectures Loop: L.D DADDIU L.D MUL.D L.D ADD.D S.D DADDIU DADDIU DSUBU BNEZ F0,a R4,Rx,#512 F2,0(Rx) F2,F2,F0 F4,0(Ry) F4,F4,F2 F4,9(Ry) Rx,Rx,#8 Ry,Ry,#8 R20,R4,Rx R20,Loop ;load scalar a ;last address to load ;load X[i] ;a × X[i] ;load Y[i] ;a × X[i] + Y[i] ;store into Y[i] ;increment index to X ;increment index to Y ;compute bound ;check if done Here is the VMIPS code for DAXPY. L.D LV MULVS.D LV ADDVV.D SV F0,a V1,Rx V2,V1,F0 V3,Ry V4,V2,V3 V4,Ry ;load scalar a ;load vector X ;vector-scalar multiply ;load vector Y ;add ;store the result The most dramatic difference is that the vector processor greatly reduces the dynamic instruction bandwidth, executing only 6 instructions versus almost 600 for MIPS. This reduction occurs because the vector operations work on 64 elements and the overhead instructions that constitute nearly half the loop on MIPS are not present in the VMIPS code. When the compiler produces vector instructions for such a sequence and the resulting code spends much of its time running in vector mode, the code is said to be vectorized or vectorizable. Loops can be vectorized when they do not have dependences between iterations of a loop, which are called loop-carried dependences (see Section 4.5). Another important difference between MIPS and VMIPS is the frequency of pipeline interlocks. In the straightforward MIPS code, every ADD.D must wait for a MUL.D, and every S.D must wait for the ADD.D. On the vector processor, each vector instruction will only stall for the first element in each vector, and then subsequent elements will flow smoothly down the pipeline. Thus, pipeline stalls are required only once per vector instruction, rather than once per vector element. Vector architects call forwarding of element-dependent operations chaining, in that the dependent operations are “chained” together. In this example, the pipeline stall frequency on MIPS will be about 64× higher than it is on VMIPS. Software pipelining or loop unrolling (Appendix H) can reduce the pipeline stalls on MIPS; however, the large difference in instruction bandwidth cannot be reduced substantially. Vector Execution Time The execution time of a sequence of vector operations primarily depends on three factors: (1) the length of the operand vectors, (2) structural hazards among the 4.2 Vector Architecture ■ 269 operations, and (3) the data dependences. Given the vector length and the initiation rate, which is the rate at which a vector unit consumes new operands and produces new results, we can compute the time for a single vector instruction. All modern vector computers have vector functional units with multiple parallel pipelines (or lanes) that can produce two or more results per clock cycle, but they may also have some functional units that are not fully pipelined. For simplicity, our VMIPS implementation has one lane with an initiation rate of one element per clock cycle for individual operations. Thus, the execution time in clock cycles for a single vector instruction is approximately the vector length. To simplify the discussion of vector execution and vector performance, we use the notion of a convoy, which is the set of vector instructions that could potentially execute together. As we shall soon see, you can estimate performance of a section of code by counting the number of convoys. The instructions in a convoy must not contain any structural hazards; if such hazards were present, the instructions would need to be serialized and initiated in different convoys. To keep the analysis simple, we assume that a convoy of instructions must complete execution before any other instructions (scalar or vector) can begin execution. It might seem that in addition to vector instruction sequences with structural hazards, sequences with read-after-write dependency hazards should also be in separate convoys, but chaining allows them to be in the same convoy. Chaining allows a vector operation to start as soon as the individual elements of its vector source operand become available: The results from the first functional unit in the chain are “forwarded” to the second functional unit. In practice, we often implement chaining by allowing the processor to read and write a particular vector register at the same time, albeit to different elements. Early implementations of chaining worked just like forwarding in scalar pipelining, but this restricted the timing of the source and destination instructions in the chain. Recent implementations use flexible chaining, which allows a vector instruction to chain to essentially any other active vector instruction, assuming that we don’t generate a structural hazard. All modern vector architectures support flexible chaining, which we assume in this chapter. To turn convoys into execution time we need a timing metric to estimate the time for a convoy. It is called a chime, which is simply the unit of time taken to execute one convoy. Thus, a vector sequence that consists of m convoys executes in m chimes; for a vector length of n, for VMIPS this is approximately m × n clock cycles. The chime approximation ignores some processor-specific overheads, many of which are dependent on vector length. Hence, measuring time in chimes is a better approximation for long vectors than for short ones. We will use the chime measurement, rather than clock cycles per result, to indicate explicitly that we are ignoring certain overheads. If we know the number of convoys in a vector sequence, we know the execution time in chimes. One source of overhead ignored in measuring chimes is any limitation on initiating multiple vector instructions in a single clock cycle. If only one vector instruction can be initiated in a clock cycle (the reality in most vector processors), the chime count will underestimate the actual execution time of a 270 ■ Chapter Four Data-Level Parallelism in Vector, SIMD, and GPU Architectures convoy. Because the length of vectors is typically much greater than the number of instructions in the convoy, we will simply assume that the convoy executes in one chime. Example Show how the following code sequence lays out in convoys, assuming a single copy of each vector functional unit: LV MULVS.D LV ADDVV.D SV V1,Rx V2,V1,F0 V3,Ry V4,V2,V3 V4,Ry ;load vector X ;vector-scalar multiply ;load vector Y ;add two vectors ;store the sum How many chimes will this vector sequence take? How many cycles per FLOP (floating-point operation) are needed, ignoring vector instruction issue overhead? Answer The first convoy starts with the first LV instruction. The MULVS.D is dependent on the first LV, but chaining allows it to be in the same convoy. The second LV instruction must be in a separate convoy since there is a structural hazard on the load/store unit for the prior LV instruction. The ADDVV.D is dependent on the second LV, but it can again be in the same convoy via chaining. Finally, the SV has a structural hazard on the LV in the second convoy, so it must go in the third convoy. This analysis leads to the following layout of vector instructions into convoys: 1. LV MULVS.D 2. LV ADDVV.D 3. SV The sequence requires three convoys. Since the sequence takes three chimes and there are two floating-point operations per result, the number of cycles per FLOP is 1.5 (ignoring any vector instruction issue overhead). Note that, although we allow the LV and MULVS.D both to execute in the first convoy, most vector machines will take two clock cycles to initiate the instructions. This example shows that the chime approximation is reasonably accurate for long vectors. For example, for 64-element vectors, the time in chimes is 3, so the sequence would take about 64 × 3 or 192 clock cycles. The overhead of issuing convoys in two separate clock cycles would be small. Another source of overhead is far more significant than the issue limitation. The most important source of overhead ignored by the chime model is vector start-up time. The start-up time is principally determined by the pipelining latency of the vector functional unit. For VMIPS, we will use the same pipeline depths as the Cray-1, although latencies in more modern processors have tended to increase, especially for vector loads. All functional units are fully pipelined. 4.2 Vector Architecture ■ 271 The pipeline depths are 6 clock cycles for floating-point add, 7 for floating-point multiply, 20 for floating-point divide, and 12 for vector load. Given these vector basics, the next several subsections will give optimizations that either improve the performance or increase the types of programs that can run well on vector architectures. In particular, they will answer the questions: ■ How can a vector processor execute a single vector faster than one element per clock cycle? Multiple elements per clock cycle improve performance. ■ How does a vector processor handle programs where the vector lengths are not the same as the length of the vector register (64 for VMIPS)? Since most application vectors don’t match the architecture vector length, we need an efficient solution to this common case. ■ What happens when there is an IF statement inside the code to be vectorized? More code can vectorize if we can efficiently handle conditional statements. ■ What does a vector processor need from the memory system? Without sufficient memory bandwidth, vector execution can be futile. ■ How does a vector processor handle multiple dimensional matrices? This popular data structure must vectorize for vector architectures to do well. ■ How does a vector processor handle sparse matrices? This popular data structure must vectorize also. ■ How do you program a vector computer? Architectural innovations that are a mismatch to compiler technology may not get widespread use. The rest of this section introduces each of these optimizations of the vector architecture, and Appendix G goes into greater depth. Multiple Lanes: Beyond One Element per Clock Cycle A critical advantage of a vector instruction set is that it allows software to pass a large amount of parallel work to hardware using only a single short instruction. A single vector instruction can include scores of independent operations yet be encoded in the same number of bits as a conventional scalar instruction. The parallel semantics of a vector instruction allow an implementation to execute these elemental operations using a deeply pipelined functional unit, as in the VMIPS implementation we’ve studied so far; an array of parallel functional units; or a combination of parallel and pipelined functional units. Figure 4.4 illustrates how to improve vector performance by using parallel pipelines to execute a vector add instruction. The VMIPS instruction set has the property that all vector arithmetic instructions only allow element N of one vector register to take part in operations with element N from other vector registers. This dramatically simplifies the construction of a highly parallel vector unit, which can be structured as multiple parallel lanes. As with a traffic highway, we can increase the peak throughput of a vector unit by adding more lanes. Figure 4.5 shows the structure of a four-lane vector 272 ■ Chapter Four Data-Level Parallelism in Vector, SIMD, and GPU Architectures Element group (a) (b) Figure 4.4 Using multiple functional units to improve the performance of a single vector add instruction, C = A + B. The vector processor (a) on the left has a single add pipeline and can complete one addition per cycle. The vector processor (b) on the right has four add pipelines and can complete four additions per cycle. The elements within a single vector add instruction are interleaved across the four pipelines. The set of elements that move through the pipelines together is termed an element group. (Reproduced with permission from Asanovic [1998].) unit. Thus, going to four lanes from one lane reduces the number of clocks for a chime from 64 to 16. For multiple lanes to be advantageous, both the applications and the architecture must support long vectors; otherwise, they will execute so quickly that you’ll run out of instruction bandwidth, requiring ILP techniques (see Chapter 3) to supply enough vector instructions. Each lane contains one portion of the vector register file and one execution pipeline from each vector functional unit. Each vector functional unit executes vector instructions at the rate of one element group per cycle using multiple pipelines, one per lane. The first lane holds the first element (element 0) for all vector registers, and so the first element in any vector instruction will have its source 4.2 Vector Architecture ■ 273 Lane 0 Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 FP add pipe 0 FP add pipe 1 FP add pipe 2 FP add pipe 3 Vector registers: elements 0, 4, 8, . . . Vector registers: elements 1, 5, 9, . . . Vector registers: elements 2, 6, 10, . . . Vector registers: elements 3, 7, 11, . . . FP mul. pipe 0 FP mul. pipe 1 FP mul. pipe 2 FP mul. pipe 3 Vector load-store unit Figure 4.5 Structure of a vector unit containing four lanes. The vector register storage is divided across the lanes, with each lane holding every fourth element of each vector register. The figure shows three vector functional units: an FP add, an FP multiply, and a load-store unit. Each of the vector arithmetic units contains four execution pipelines, one per lane, which act in concert to complete a single vector instruction. Note how each section of the vector register file only needs to provide enough ports for pipelines local to its lane. This figure does not show the path to provide the scalar operand for vector-scalar instructions, but the scalar processor (or control processor) broadcasts a scalar value to all lanes. and destination operands located in the first lane. This allocation allows the arithmetic pipeline local to the lane to complete the operation without communicating with other lanes. Accessing main memory also requires only intralane wiring. Avoiding interlane communication reduces the wiring cost and register file ports required to build a highly parallel execution unit, and helps explain why vector computers can complete up to 64 operations per clock cycle (2 arithmetic units and 2 load/store units across 16 lanes). Adding multiple lanes is a popular technique to improve vector performance as it requires little increase in control complexity and does not require changes to existing machine code. It also allows designers to trade off die area, clock rate, voltage, and energy without sacrificing peak performance. If the clock rate of a vector processor is halved, doubling the number of lanes will retain the same potential performance. 274 ■ Chapter Four Data-Level Parallelism in Vector, SIMD, and GPU Architectures Vector-Length Registers: Handling Loops Not Equal to 64 A vector register processor has a natural vector length determined by the number of elements in each vector register. This length, which is 64 for VMIPS, is unlikely to match the real vector length in a program. Moreover, in a real program the length of a particular vector operation is often unknown at compile time. In fact, a single piece of code may require different vector lengths. For example, consider this code: for (i=0; i >>(... parameter list ...) where dimGrid and dimBlock specify the dimensions of the code (in blocks) and the dimensions of a block (in threads). ■ In addition to the identifier for blocks (blockIdx) and the identifier for threads per block (threadIdx), CUDA provides a keyword for the number of threads per block (blockDim), which comes from the dimBlock parameter in the bullet above. Before seeing the CUDA code, let’s start with conventional C code for the DAXPY loop from Section 4.2: // Invoke DAXPY daxpy(n, 2.0, x, y); // DAXPY in C void daxpy(int n, double a, double *x, double *y) { for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i) y[i] = a*x[i] + y[i]; } 290 ■ Chapter Four Data-Level Parallelism in Vector, SIMD, and GPU Architectures Below is the CUDA version. We launch n threads, one per vector element, with 256 CUDA Threads per thread block in a multithreaded SIMD Processor. The GPU function starts by calculating the corresponding element index i based on the block ID, the number of threads per block, and the thread ID. As long as this index is within the array (i < n), it performs the multiply and add. // Invoke DAXPY with 256 threads per Thread Block __host__ int nblocks = (n+ 255) / 256; daxpy<<>>(n, 2.0, x, y); // DAXPY in CUDA __device__ void daxpy(int n, double a, double *x, double *y) { int i = blockIdx.x*blockDim.x + threadIdx.x; if (i < n) y[i] = a*x[i] + y[i]; } Comparing the C and CUDA codes, we see a common pattern to parallelizing data-parallel CUDA code. The C version has a loop where each iteration is independent of the others, allowing the loop to be transformed straightforwardly into a parallel code where each loop iteration becomes an independent thread. (As mentioned above and described in detail in Section 4.5, vectorizing compilers also rely on a lack of dependences between iterations of a loop, which are called loop carried dependences.) The programmer determines the parallelism in CUDA explicitly by specifying the grid dimensions and the number of threads per SIMD Processor. By assigning a single thread to each element, there is no need to synchronize among threads when writing results to memory. The GPU hardware handles parallel execution and thread management; it is not done by applications or by the operating system. To simplify scheduling by the hardware, CUDA requires that thread blocks be able to execute independently and in any order. Different thread blocks cannot communicate directly, although they can coordinate using atomic memory operations in Global Memory. As we shall soon see, many GPU hardware concepts are not obvious in CUDA. That is a good thing from a programmer productivity perspective, but most programmers are using GPUs instead of CPUs to get performance. Performance programmers must keep the GPU hardware in mind when writing in CUDA. For reasons explained shortly, they know that they need to keep groups of 32 threads together in control flow to get the best performance from multithreaded SIMD Processors, and create many more threads per multithreaded SIMD Processor to hide latency to DRAM. They also need to keep the data addresses localized in one or a few blocks of memory to get the expected memory performance. Like many parallel systems, a compromise between productivity and performance is for CUDA to include intrinsics to give programmers explicit control of the hardware. The struggle between productivity on one hand versus allowing the programmer to be able to express anything that the hardware can do on the other 4.4 Graphics Processing Units ■ 291 happens often in parallel computing. It will be interesting to see how the language evolves in this classic productivity–performance battle as well as to see if CUDA becomes popular for other GPUs or even other architectural styles. NVIDIA GPU Computational Structures The uncommon heritage mentioned above helps explain why GPUs have their own architectural style and their own terminology independent from CPUs. One obstacle to understanding GPUs has been the jargon, with some terms even having misleading names. This obstacle has been surprisingly difficult to overcome, as the many rewrites of this chapter can attest. To try to bridge the twin goals of making the architecture of GPUs understandable and learning the many GPU terms with non traditional definitions, our final solution is to use the CUDA terminology for software but initially use more descriptive terms for the hardware, sometimes borrowing terms used by OpenCL. Once we explain the GPU architecture in our terms, we’ll map them into the official jargon of NVIDIA GPUs. From left to right, Figure 4.12 lists the more descriptive term used in this section, the closest term from mainstream computing, the official NVIDIA GPU term in case you are interested, and then a short description of the term. The rest of this section explains the microarchitetural features of GPUs using these descriptive terms from the left of the figure. We use NVIDIA systems as our example as they are representative of GPU architectures. Specifically, we follow the terminology of the CUDA parallel programming language above and use the Fermi architecture as the example (see Section 4.7). Like vector architectures, GPUs work well only with data-level parallel problems. Both styles have gather-scatter data transfers and mask registers, and GPU processors have even more registers than do vector processors. Since they do not have a close-by scalar processor, GPUs sometimes implement a feature at runtime in hardware that vector computers implement at compiler time in software. Unlike most vector architectures, GPUs also rely on multithreading within a single multithreaded SIMD processor to hide memory latency (see Chapters 2 and 3). However, efficient code for both vector architectures and GPUs requires programmers to think in groups of SIMD operations. A Grid is the code that runs on a GPU that consists of a set of Thread Blocks. Figure 4.12 draws the analogy between a grid and a vectorized loop and between a Thread Block and the body of that loop (after it has been strip-mined, so that it is a full computation loop). To give a concrete example, let’s suppose we want to multiply two vectors together, each 8192 elements long. We’ll return to this example throughout this section. Figure 4.13 shows the relationship between this example and these first two GPU terms. The GPU code that works on the whole 8192 element multiply is called a Grid (or vectorized loop). To break it down into more manageable sizes, a Grid is composed of Thread Blocks (or body of a vectorized loop), each with up to 512 elements. Note that a SIMD instruction executes 32 elements at a time. With 8192 elements in the vectors, this example thus has 16 Thread Blocks since 16 = 8192 ÷ 512. The Grid and Thread Block 292 ■ Chapter Four Data-Level Parallelism in Vector, SIMD, and GPU Architectures Machine object Program abstractions Processing hardware More descripType tive name Vectorizable Loop Closest old term Official CUDA/ outside of GPUs NVIDIA GPU term Vectorizable Loop Grid Body of Body of a Vectorized Loop (Strip-Mined) Vectorized Loop Thread Block Sequence of SIMD Lane Operations One iteration of a Scalar Loop CUDA Thread A Thread of SIMD Instructions Thread of Vector Warp Instructions SIMD Instruction Multithreaded SIMD Processor Thread Block Scheduler Vector Instruction PTX Instruction (Multithreaded) Streaming Vector Processor Multiprocessor Scalar Processor Giga Thread Engine SIMD Thread Scheduler SIMD Lane Thread scheduler Warp Scheduler in a Multithreaded CPU Vector Lane Thread Processor GPU Memory Main Memory Global Memory Private Memory Local Memory Stack or Thread Local Memory Local Storage (OS) Local Memory Shared Memory SIMD Lane Registers Vector Lane Registers Thread Processor Registers Book definition A vectorizable loop, executed on the GPU, made up of one or more Thread Blocks (bodies of vectorized loop) that can execute in parallel. A vectorized loop executed on a multithreaded SIMD Processor, made up of one or more threads of SIMD instructions. They can communicate via Local Memory. A vertical cut of a thread of SIMD instructions corresponding to one element executed by one SIMD Lane. Result is stored depending on mask and predicate register. A traditional thread, but it contains just SIMD instructions that are executed on a multithreaded SIMD Processor. Results stored depending on a per-element mask. A single SIMD instruction executed across SIMD Lanes. A multithreaded SIMD Processor executes threads of SIMD instructions, independent of other SIMD Processors. Assigns multiple Thread Blocks (bodies of vectorized loop) to multithreaded SIMD Processors. Hardware unit that schedules and issues threads of SIMD instructions when they are ready to execute; includes a scoreboard to track SIMD Thread execution. A SIMD Lane executes the operations in a thread of SIMD instructions on a single element. Results stored depending on mask. DRAM memory accessible by all multithreaded SIMD Processors in a GPU. Portion of DRAM memory private to each SIMD Lane. Fast local SRAM for one multithreaded SIMD Processor, unavailable to other SIMD Processors. Registers in a single SIMD Lane allocated across a full thread block (body of vectorized loop). Figure 4.12 Quick guide to GPU terms used in this chapter. We use the first column for hardware terms. Four groups cluster these 11 terms. From top to bottom: Program Abstractions, Machine Objects, Processing Hardware, and Memory Hardware. Figure 4.21 on page 309 associates vector terms with the closest terms here, and Figure 4.24 on page 313 and Figure 4.25 on page 314 reveal the official CUDA/NVIDIA and AMD terms and definitions along with the terms used by OpenCL. Memory hardware 4.4 Graphics Processing Units ■ 293 A[ 0 ] = B [ 0 ] * C[ 0 ] SIMD A[ 1 ] = B [ 1 ] * C[ 1 ] Thread0 … … … … … …… A[ 31 ] = B [ 31 ] * C[ 31 ] A[ 32 ] = B [ 32 ] * C[ 32 ] SIMD A[ 33 ] = B [ 33 ] * C[ 33 ] Thread1 Thread … … … … … …… Block A[ 63 ] = B [ 63 ] * C[ 63 ] 0 A[ 64 ] = B [ 64 ] * C[ 64 ] … … … … … …… A[ 479 ] = B [ 479 ] * C[ 479 ] SIMD Thread1 5 A[ 480 ] = B [ 480 ] * C[ 480 ] A[ 481 ] = B [ 481 ] * C[ 481 ] … … … … … …… A[ 511 ] = B [ 511 ] * C[ 511 ] A[ 512 ] = B [ 512 ] * C[ 512 ] Grid … … … … … … … …… A[ 7679 ] = B [ 7679 ] * C[ 7679 ] A[ 7680 ] = B [ 7680 ] * C[ 7680 ] SIMD A[ 7681 ] = B [ 7681 ] * C[ 7681 ] Thread0 … … … … … …… A[ 7711 ] = B [ 7711 ] * C[ 7711 ] A[ 7712 ] = B [ 7712 ] * C[ 7712 ] Thread Block 15 SIMD Thread1 A[ 7713 ] = B [ 7713 ] * C[ 7713 ] … … … … … …… A[ 7743 ] = B [ 7743 ] * C[ 7743 ] A[ 7744 ] = B [ 7744 ] * C[ 7744 ] … … … … … …… A[ 8159 ] = B [ 8159 ] * C[ 8159 ] SIMD Thread1 5 A[ 8160 ] = B [ 8160 ] * C[ 8160 ] A[ 8161 ] = B [ 8161 ] * C[ 8161 ] … … … … … …… A[ 8191 ] = B [ 8191 ] * C[ 8191 ] Figure 4.13 The mapping of a Grid (vectorizable loop), Thread Blocks (SIMD basic blocks), and threads of SIMD instructions to a vector–vector multiply, with each vector being 8192 elements long. Each thread of SIMD instructions calculates 32 elements per instruction, and in this example each Thread Block contains 16 threads of SIMD instructions and the Grid contains 16 Thread Blocks. The hardware Thread Block Scheduler assigns Thread Blocks to multithreaded SIMD Processors and the hardware Thread Scheduler picks which thread of SIMD instructions to run each clock cycle within a SIMD Processor. Only SIMD Threads in the same Thread Block can communicate via Local Memory. (The maximum number of SIMD Threads that can execute simultaneously per Thread Block is 16 for Teslageneration GPUs and 32 for the later Fermi-generation GPUs.) 294 ■ Chapter Four Data-Level Parallelism in Vector, SIMD, and GPU Architectures Instruction cache Warp scheduler Warp No. 1 1 3 3 8 8 Address 42 43 95 96 11 12 Scoreboard SIMD instructions ld.global.f64 mul.f64 shl.s32 add.s32 ld.global.f64 ld.global.f64 Operands? Ready No Ready No Ready Ready Instruction register SIMD Lanes (Thread Processors) Regi- Reg Reg Reg Reg Reg Reg Reg Reg Reg Reg Reg Reg Reg Reg Reg sters 1K × 32 1K × 32 1K × 32 1K × 32 1K × 32 1K × 32 1K × 32 1K × 32 1K × 32 1K × 32 1K × 32 1K × 32 1K × 32 1K × 32 1K × 32 1K × 32 Load store unit Load store unit Load store unit Load store unit Load store unit Load store unit Load store unit Load store unit Load store unit Load store unit Load store unit Load store unit Load store unit Load store unit Load store unit Load store unit Address coalescing unit Interconnection network Local Memory 64 KB To Global Memory Figure 4.14 Simplified block diagram of a Multithreaded SIMD Processor. It has 16 SIMD lanes. The SIMD Thread Scheduler has, say, 48 independent threads of SIMD instructions that it schedules with a table of 48 PCs. are programming abstractions implemented in GPU hardware that help programmers organize their CUDA code. (The Thread Block is analogous to a stripminded vector loop with a vector length of 32.) A Thread Block is assigned to a processor that executes that code, which we call a multithreaded SIMD Processor, by the Thread Block Scheduler. The Thread Block Scheduler has some similarities to a control processor in a vector architecture. It determines the number of thread blocks needed for the loop and keeps allocating them to different multithreaded SIMD Processors until the loop is completed. In this example, it would send 16 Thread Blocks to multithreaded SIMD Processors to compute all 8192 elements of this loop. Figure 4.14 shows a simplified block diagram of a multithreaded SIMD Processor. It is similar to a Vector Processor, but it has many parallel functional units DRAM DRAM GigaThread Host interface DRAM DRAM DRAM DRAM 4.4 Graphics Processing Units ■ 295 L2 Cache Figure 4.15 Floor plan of the Fermi GTX 480 GPU. This diagram shows 16 multithreaded SIMD Processors. The Thread Block Scheduler is highlighted on the left. The GTX 480 has 6 GDDR5 ports, each 64 bits wide, supporting up to 6 GB of capacity. The Host Interface is PCI Express 2.0 x 16. Giga Thread is the name of the scheduler that distributes thread blocks to Multiprocessors, each of which has its own SIMD Thread Scheduler. instead of a few that are deeply pipelined, as does a Vector Processor. In the programming example in Figure 4.13, each multithreaded SIMD Processor is assigned 512 elements of the vectors to work on. SIMD Processors are full processors with separate PCs and are programmed using threads (see Chapter 3). The GPU hardware then contains a collection of multithreaded SIMD Processors that execute a Grid of Thread Blocks (bodies of vectorized loop); that is, a GPU is a multiprocessor composed of multithreaded SIMD Processors. The first four implementations of the Fermi architecture have 7, 11, 14, or 15 multithreaded SIMD Processors; future versions may have just 2 or 4. To provide transparent scalability across models of GPUs with differing number of multithreaded SIMD Processors, the Thread Block Scheduler assigns Thread Blocks (bodies of a vectorized loop) to multithreaded SIMD Processors. Figure 4.15 shows the floor plan of the GTX 480 implementation of the Fermi architecture. Dropping down one more level of detail, the machine object that the hardware creates, manages, schedules, and executes is a thread of SIMD instructions. It is a traditional thread that contains exclusively SIMD instructions. These 296 ■ Chapter Four Data-Level Parallelism in Vector, SIMD, and GPU Architectures threads of SIMD instructions have their own PCs and they run on a multithreaded SIMD Processor. The SIMD Thread Scheduler includes a scoreboard that lets it know which threads of SIMD instructions are ready to run, and then it sends them off to a dispatch unit to be run on the multithreaded SIMD Processor. It is identical to a hardware thread scheduler in a traditional multithreaded processor (see Chapter 3), just that it is scheduling threads of SIMD instructions. Thus, GPU hardware has two levels of hardware schedulers: (1) the Thread Block Scheduler that assigns Thread Blocks (bodies of vectorized loops) to multithreaded SIMD Processors, which ensures that thread blocks are assigned to the processors whose local memories have the corresponding data, and (2) the SIMD Thread Scheduler within a SIMD Processor, which schedules when threads of SIMD instructions should run. The SIMD instructions of these threads are 32 wide, so each thread of SIMD instructions in this example would compute 32 of the elements of the computation. In this example, Thread Blocks would contain 512/32 = 16 SIMD threads (see Figure 4.13). Since the thread consists of SIMD instructions, the SIMD Processor must have parallel functional units to perform the operation. We call them SIMD Lanes, and they are quite similar to the Vector Lanes in Section 4.2. The number of lanes per SIMD processor varies across GPU generations. With Fermi, each 32-wide thread of SIMD instructions is mapped to 16 physical SIMD Lanes, so each SIMD instruction in a thread of SIMD instructions takes two clock cycles to complete. Each thread of SIMD instructions is executed in lock step and only scheduled at the beginning. Staying with the analogy of a SIMD Processor as a vector processor, you could say that it has 16 lanes, the vector length would be 32, and the chime is 2 clock cycles. (This wide but shallow nature is why we use the term SIMD Processor instead of vector processor as it is more descriptive.) Since by definition the threads of SIMD instructions are independent, the SIMD Thread Scheduler can pick whatever thread of SIMD instructions is ready, and need not stick with the next SIMD instruction in the sequence within a thread. The SIMD Thread Scheduler includes a scoreboard (see Chapter 3) to keep track of up to 48 threads of SIMD instructions to see which SIMD instruction is ready to go. This scoreboard is needed because memory access instructions can take an unpredictable number of clock cycles due to memory bank conflicts, for example. Figure 4.16 shows the SIMD Thread Scheduler picking threads of SIMD instructions in a different order over time. The assumption of GPU architects is that GPU applications have so many threads of SIMD instructions that multithreading can both hide the latency to DRAM and increase utilization of multithreaded SIMD Processors. However, to hedge their bets, the recent NVIDIA Fermi GPU includes an L2 cache (see Section 4.7). Continuing our vector multiply example, each multithreaded SIMD Processor must load 32 elements of two vectors from memory into registers, perform the multiply by reading and writing registers, and store the product back from registers into memory. To hold these memory elements, a SIMD Processor has an impressive 32,768 32-bit registers. Just like a vector processor, these registers are divided logically across the vector lanes or, in this case, SIMD Lanes. Each SIMD Thread is limited to no more than 64 registers, so you might think of a SIMD Photo: Judy Schoonmaker 4.4 Graphics Processing Units ■ 297 SIMD thread scheduler Time SIMD thread 8 instruction 11 SIMD thread 1 instruction 42 SIMD thread 3 instruction 95 SIMD thread 8 instruction 12 SIMD thread 3 instruction 96 SIMD thread 1 instruction 43 Figure 4.16 Scheduling of threads of SIMD instructions. The scheduler selects a ready thread of SIMD instructions and issues an instruction synchronously to all the SIMD Lanes executing the SIMD thread. Because threads of SIMD instructions are independent, the scheduler may select a different SIMD thread each time. Thread as having up to 64 vector registers, with each vector register having 32 elements and each element being 32 bits wide. (Since double-precision floating-point operands use two adjacent 32-bit registers, an alternative view is that each SIMD Thread has 32 vector registers of 32 elements, each of which is 64 bits wide.) Since Fermi has 16 physical SIMD Lanes, each contains 2048 registers. (Rather than trying to design hardware registers with many read ports and write ports per bit, GPUs will use simpler memory structures but divide them into banks to get sufficient bandwidth, just as vector processors do.) Each CUDA Thread gets one element of each of the vector registers. To handle the 32 elements of each thread of SIMD instructions with 16 SIMD Lanes, the CUDA Threads of a Thread block collectively can use up to half of the 2048 registers. To be able to execute many threads of SIMD instructions, each is dynamically allocated a set of the physical registers on each SIMD Processor when threads of SIMD instructions are created and freed when the SIMD Thread exits. Note that a CUDA thread is just a vertical cut of a thread of SIMD instructions, corresponding to one element executed by one SIMD Lane. Beware that CUDA Threads are very different from POSIX threads; you can’t make arbitrary system calls from a CUDA Thread. We’re now ready to see what GPU instructions look like. 298 ■ Chapter Four Data-Level Parallelism in Vector, SIMD, and GPU Architectures NVIDA GPU Instruction Set Architecture Unlike most system processors, the instruction set target of the NVIDIA compilers is an abstraction of the hardware instruction set. PTX (Parallel Thread Execution) provides a stable instruction set for compilers as well as compatibility across generations of GPUs. The hardware instruction set is hidden from the programmer. PTX instructions describe the operations on a single CUDA thread, and usually map one-to-one with hardware instructions, but one PTX can expand to many machine instructions, and vice versa. PTX uses virtual registers, so the compiler figures out how many physical vector registers a SIMD thread needs, and then an optimizer divides the available register storage between the SIMD threads. This optimizer also eliminates dead code, folds instructions together, and calculates places where branches might diverge and places where diverged paths could converge. While there is some similarity between the x86 microarchitectures and PTX, in that both translate to an internal form (microinstructions for x86), the difference is that this translation happens in hardware at runtime during execution on the x86 versus in software and load time on a GPU. The format of a PTX instruction is opcode.type d, a, b, c; where d is the destination operand; a, b, and c are source operands; and the operation type is one of the following: Type Untyped bits 8, 16, 32, and 64 bits Unsigned integer 8, 16, 32, and 64 bits Signed integer 8, 16, 32, and 64 bits Floating Point 16, 32, and 64 bits .type Specifier .b8, .b16, .b32, .b64 .u8, .u16, .u32, .u64 .s8, .s16, .s32, .s64 .f16, .f32, .f64 Source operands are 32-bit or 64-bit registers or a constant value. Destinations are registers, except for store instructions. Figure 4.17 shows the basic PTX instruction set. All instructions can be predicated by 1-bit predicate registers, which can be set by a set predicate instruction (setp). The control flow instructions are functions call and return, thread exit, branch, and barrier synchronization for threads within a thread block (bar.sync). Placing a predicate in front of a branch instruction gives us conditional branches. The compiler or PTX programmer declares virtual registers as 32-bit or 64-bit typed or untyped values. For example, R0, R1, ... are for 32-bit values and RD0, RD1, ... are for 64-bit registers. Recall that the assignment of virtual registers to physical registers occurs at load time with PTX. 4.4 Graphics Processing Units ■ 299 Group Instruction Example Meaning Comments Arithmetic Special Function Logical Memory Access Control Flow arithmetic .type = .s32, .u32, .f32, .s64, .u64, .f64 add.type add.f32 d, a, b d = a + b; sub.type sub.f32 d, a, b d = a – b; mul.type mul.f32 d, a, b d = a * b; mad.type mad.f32 d, a, b, c d = a * b + c; multiply-add div.type div.f32 d, a, b d = a / b; multiple microinstructions rem.type rem.u32 d, a, b d = a % b; integer remainder abs.type abs.f32 d, a d = |a|; neg.type neg.f32 d, a d = 0 - a; min.type min.f32 d, a, b d = (a < b)? a:b; floating selects non-NaN max.type max.f32 d, a, b d = (a > b)? a:b; floating selects non-NaN setp.cmp.type setp.lt.f32 p, a, b p = (a < b); compare and set predicate numeric .cmp = eq, ne, lt, le, gt, ge; unordered cmp = equ, neu, ltu, leu, gtu, geu, num, nan mov.type mov.b32 d, a d = a; move selp.type selp.f32 d, a, b, p d = p? a: b; select with predicate cvt.dtype.atype cvt.f32.s32 d, a d = convert(a); convert atype to dtype special .type = .f32 (some .f64) rcp.type rcp.f32 d, a d = 1/a; reciprocal sqrt.type sqrt.f32 d, a d = sqrt(a); square root rsqrt.type rsqrt.f32 d, a d = 1/sqrt(a); reciprocal square root sin.type sin.f32 d, a d = sin(a); sine cos.type cos.f32 d, a d = cos(a); cosine lg2.type lg2.f32 d, a d = log(a)/log(2) binary logarithm ex2.type ex2.f32 d, a d = 2 ** a; binary exponential logic.type = .pred,.b32, .b64 and.type and.b32 d, a, b d = a & b; or.type or.b32 d, a, b d = a | b; xor.type xor.b32 d, a, b d = a ^ b; not.type not.b32 d, a, b d = ~a; one’s complement cnot.type cnot.b32 d, a, b d = (a==0)? 1:0; C logical not shl.type shl.b32 d, a, b d = a << b; shift left shr.type shr.s32 d, a, b d = a >> b; shift right memory.space = .global, .shared, .local, .const; .type = .b8, .u8, .s8, .b16, .b32, .b64 ld.space.type ld.global.b32 d, [a+off] d = *(a+off); load from memory space st.space.type st.shared.b32 [d+off], a *(d+off) = a; store to memory space tex.nd.dtyp.btype atom.spc.op.type tex.2d.v4.f32.f32 d, a, b d = tex2d(a, b); texture lookup atom.global.add.u32 d,[a], b atomic { d = *a; *a = atomic read-modify-write atom.global.cas.b32 d,[a], b, cop(*a, b); } operation atom.op = and, or, xor, add, min, max, exch, cas; .spc = .global; .type = .b32 branch @p bra target if (p) goto target; conditional branch call call (ret), func, (params) ret = func(params); call function ret ret return; return from function call bar.sync bar.sync d wait for threads barrier synchronization exit exit exit; terminate thread execution Figure 4.17 Basic PTX GPU thread instructions. 300 ■ Chapter Four Data-Level Parallelism in Vector, SIMD, and GPU Architectures The following sequence of PTX instructions is for one iteration of our DAXPY loop on page 289: shl.u32 R8, blockIdx, 9 ; Thread Block ID * Block size (512 or 29) add.u32 R8, R8, threadIdx ; R8 = i = my CUDA Thread ID shl.u32 R8, R8, 3 ; byte offset ld.global.f64 RD0, [X+R8] ; RD0 = X[i] ld.global.f64 RD2, [Y+R8] ; RD2 = Y[i] mul.f64 RD0, RD0, RD4 ; Product in RD0 = RD0 * RD4 (scalar a) add.f64 RD0, RD0, RD2 ; Sum in RD0 = RD0 + RD2 (Y[i]) st.global.f64 [Y+R8], RD0 ; Y[i] = sum (X[i]*a + Y[i]) As demonstrated above, the CUDA programming model assigns one CUDA Thread to each loop iteration and offers a unique identifier number to each thread block (blockIdx) and one to each CUDA Thread within a block (threadIdx). Thus, it creates 8192 CUDA Threads and uses the unique number to address each element in the array, so there is no incrementing or branching code. The first three PTX instructions calculate that unique element byte offset in R8, which is added to the base of the arrays. The following PTX instructions load two double-precision floating-point operands, multiply and add them, and store the sum. (We’ll describe the PTX code corresponding to the CUDA code “if (i < n)” below.) Note that unlike vector architectures, GPUs don’t have separate instructions for sequential data transfers, strided data transfers, and gather-scatter data transfers. All data transfers are gather-scatter! To regain the efficiency of sequential (unit-stride) data transfers, GPUs include special Address Coalescing hardware to recognize when the SIMD Lanes within a thread of SIMD instructions are collectively issuing sequential addresses. That runtime hardware then notifies the Memory Interface Unit to request a block transfer of 32 sequential words. To get this important performance improvement, the GPU programmer must ensure that adjacent CUDA Threads access nearby addresses at the same time that can be coalesced into one or a few memory or cache blocks, which our example does. Conditional Branching in GPUs Just like the case with unit-stride data transfers, there are strong similarities between how vector architectures and GPUs handle IF statements, with the former implementing the mechanism largely in software with limited hardware support and the latter making use of even more hardware. As we shall see, in addition to explicit predicate registers, GPU branch hardware uses internal masks, a branch synchronization stack, and instruction markers to manage when a branch diverges into multiple execution paths and when the paths converge. At the PTX assembler level, control flow of one CUDA thread is described by the PTX instructions branch, call, return, and exit, plus individual per-thread-lane predication of each instruction, specified by the programmer with per-thread-lane 1-bit predicate registers. The PTX assembler analyzes the PTX branch graph and optimizes it to the fastest GPU hardware instruction sequence. 4.4 Graphics Processing Units ■ 301 At the GPU hardware instruction level, control flow includes branch, jump, jump indexed, call, call indexed, return, exit, and special instructions that manage the branch synchronization stack. GPU hardware provides each SIMD thread with its own stack; a stack entry contains an identifier token, a target instruction address, and a target thread-active mask. There are GPU special instructions that push stack entries for a SIMD thread and special instructions and instruction markers that pop a stack entry or unwind the stack to a specified entry and branch to the target instruction address with the target thread-active mask. GPU hardware instructions also have individual per-lane predication (enable/disable), specified with a 1-bit predicate register for each lane. The PTX assembler typically optimizes a simple outer-level IF/THEN/ELSE statement coded with PTX branch instructions to just predicated GPU instructions, without any GPU branch instructions. A more complex control flow typically results in a mixture of predication and GPU branch instructions with special instructions and markers that use the branch synchronization stack to push a stack entry when some lanes branch to the target address, while others fall through. NVIDIA says a branch diverges when this happens. This mixture is also used when a SIMD Lane executes a synchronization marker or converges, which pops a stack entry and branches to the stack-entry address with the stack-entry threadactive mask. The PTX assembler identifies loop branches and generates GPU branch instructions that branch to the top of the loop, along with special stack instructions to handle individual lanes breaking out of the loop and converging the SIMD Lanes when all lanes have completed the loop. GPU indexed jump and indexed call instructions push entries on the stack so that when all lanes complete the switch statement or function call the SIMD thread converges. A GPU set predicate instruction (setp in the figure above) evaluates the conditional part of the IF statement. The PTX branch instruction then depends on that predicate. If the PTX assembler generates predicated instructions with no GPU branch instructions, it uses a per-lane predicate register to enable or disable each SIMD Lane for each instruction. The SIMD instructions in the threads inside the THEN part of the IF statement broadcast operations to all the SIMD Lanes. Those lanes with the predicate set to one perform the operation and store the result, and the other SIMD Lanes don’t perform an operation or store a result. For the ELSE statement, the instructions use the complement of the predicate (relative to the THEN statement), so the SIMD Lanes that were idle now perform the operation and store the result while their formerly active siblings don’t. At the end of the ELSE statement, the instructions are unpredicated so the original computation can proceed. Thus, for equal length paths, an IF-THEN-ELSE operates at 50% efficiency. IF statements can be nested, hence the use of a stack, and the PTX assembler typically generates a mix of predicated instructions and GPU branch and special synchronization instructions for complex control flow. Note that deep nesting can mean that most SIMD Lanes are idle during execution of nested conditional statements. Thus, doubly nested IF statements with equal-length paths run at 25% efficiency, triply nested at 12.5% efficiency, and so on. The analogous case would be a vector processor operating where only a few of the mask bits are ones. 302 ■ Chapter Four Data-Level Parallelism in Vector, SIMD, and GPU Architectures Dropping down a level of detail, the PTX assembler sets a “branch synchronization” marker on appropriate conditional branch instructions that pushes the current active mask on a stack inside each SIMD thread. If the conditional branch diverges the (some lanes take the branch, some fall through), it pushes a stack entry and sets the current internal active mask based on the condition. A branch synchronization marker pops the diverged branch entry and flips the mask bits before the ELSE portion. At the end of the IF statement, the PTX assembler adds another branch synchronization marker that pops the prior active mask off the stack into the current active mask. If all the mask bits are set to one, then the branch instruction at the end of the THEN skips over the instructions in the ELSE part. There is a similar optimization for the THEN part in case all the mask bits are zero, as the conditional branch jumps over the THEN instructions. Parallel IF statements and PTX branches often use branch conditions that are unanimous (all lanes agree to follow the same path), such that the SIMD thread does not diverge into different individual lane control flow. The PTX assembler optimizes such branches to skip over blocks of instructions that are not executed by any lane of a SIMD thread. This optimization is useful in error condition checking, for example, where the test must be made but is rarely taken. The code for a conditional statement similar to the one in Section 4.2 is if (X[i] != 0) X[i] = X[i] – Y[i]; else X[i] = Z[i]; This IF statement could compile to the following PTX instructions (assuming that R8 already has the scaled thread ID), with *Push, *Comp, *Pop indicating the branch synchronization markers inserted by the PTX assembler that push the old mask, complement the current mask, and pop to restore the old mask: ld.global.f64 RD0, [X+R8] setp.neq.s32 P1, RD0, #0 @!P1, bra ELSE1, *Push ld.global.f64 RD2, [Y+R8] sub.f64 RD0, RD0, RD2 st.global.f64 [X+R8], RD0 @P1, bra ENDIF1, *Comp ELSE1: ld.global.f64 RD0, [Z+R8] st.global.f64 [X+R8], RD0 ENDIF1: , *Pop ; RD0 = X[i] ; P1 is predicate register 1 ; Push old mask, set new mask bits ; if P1 false, go to ELSE1 ; RD2 = Y[i] ; Difference in RD0 ; X[i] = RD0 ; complement mask bits ; if P1 true, go to ENDIF1 ; RD0 = Z[i] ; X[i] = RD0 ; pop to restore old mask Once again, normally all instructions in the IF-THEN-ELSE statement are executed by a SIMD Processor. It’s just that only some of the SIMD Lanes are enabled for the THEN instructions and some lanes for the ELSE instructions. As mentioned above, in the surprisingly common case that the individual lanes agree on the predicated branch—such as branching on a parameter value that is the 4.4 Graphics Processing Units ■ 303 same for all lanes so that all active mask bits are zeros or all are ones—the branch skips the THEN instructions or the ELSE instructions. This flexibility makes it appear that an element has its own program counter; however, in the slowest case only one SIMD Lane could store its result every two clock cycles, with the rest idle. The analogous slowest case for vector architectures is operating with only one mask bit set to one. This flexibility can lead naive GPU programmers to poor performance, but it can be helpful in the early stages of program development. Keep in mind, however, that the only choice for a SIMD Lane in a clock cycle is to perform the operation specified in the PTX instruction or be idle; two SIMD Lanes cannot simultaneously execute different instructions. This flexibility also helps explain the name CUDA Thread given to each element in a thread of SIMD instructions, since it gives the illusion of acting independently. A naive programmer may think that this thread abstraction means GPUs handle conditional branches more gracefully. Some threads go one way, the rest go another, which seems true as long as you’re not in a hurry. Each CUDA Thread is executing the same instruction as every other thread in the thread block or it is idle. This synchronization makes it easier to handle loops with conditional branches since the mask capability can turn off SIMD Lanes and it detects the end of the loop automatically. The resulting performance sometimes belies that simple abstraction. Writing programs that operate SIMD Lanes in this highly independent MIMD mode is like writing programs that use lots of virtual address space on a computer with a smaller physical memory. Both are correct, but they may run so slowly that the programmer could be displeased with the result. Vector compilers could do the same tricks with mask registers as GPUs do in hardware, but it would involve scalar instructions to save, complement, and restore mask registers. Conditional execution is a case where GPUs do in runtime hardware what vector architectures do at compile time. One optimization available at runtime for GPUs but not at compile time for vector architectures is to skip the THEN or ELSE parts when mask bits are all zeros or all ones. Thus, the efficiency with which GPUs execute conditional statements comes down to how frequently the branches would diverge. For example, one calculation of eigenvalues has deep conditional nesting, but measurements of the code show that around 82% of clock cycle issues have between 29 and 32 out of the 32 mask bits set to one, so GPUs execute this code more efficiently than one might expect. Note that the same mechanism handles the strip-mining of vector loops— when the number of elements doesn’t perfectly match the hardware. The example at the beginning of this section shows that an IF statement checks to see if this SIMD Lane element number (stored in R8 in the example above) is less than the limit (i < n), and it sets masks appropriately. 304 ■ Chapter Four Data-Level Parallelism in Vector, SIMD, and GPU Architectures NVIDIA GPU Memory Structures Figure 4.18 shows the memory structures of an NVIDIA GPU. Each SIMD Lane in a multithreaded SIMD Processor is given a private section of off-chip DRAM, which we call the Private Memory. It is used for the stack frame, for spilling registers, and for private variables that don’t fit in the registers. SIMD Lanes do not share Private Memories. Recent GPUs cache this Private Memory in the L1 and L2 caches to aid register spilling and to speed up function calls. We call the on-chip memory that is local to each multithreaded SIMD Processor Local Memory. It is shared by the SIMD Lanes within a multithreaded SIMD Processor, but this memory is not shared between multithreaded SIMD Processors. The multithreaded SIMD Processor dynamically allocates portions of the Local Memory to a thread block when it creates the thread block, and frees the memory when all the threads of the thread block exit. That portion of Local Memory is private to that thread block. Finally, we call the off-chip DRAM shared by the whole GPU and all thread blocks GPU Memory. Our vector multiply example only used GPU Memory. CUDA Thread Per-CUDA Thread Private Memory Thread block Per-Block Local Memory Grid 0 Sequence ... Inter-Grid Synchronization Grid 1 GPU Memory ... Figure 4.18 GPU Memory structures. GPU Memory is shared by all Grids (vectorized loops), Local Memory is shared by all threads of SIMD instructions within a thread block (body of a vectorized loop), and Private Memory is private to a single CUDA Thread. 4.4 Graphics Processing Units ■ 305 The system processor, called the host, can read or write GPU Memory. Local Memory is unavailable to the host, as it is private to each multithreaded SIMD processor. Private Memories are unavailable to the host as well. Rather than rely on large caches to contain the whole working sets of an application, GPUs traditionally use smaller streaming caches and rely on extensive multithreading of threads of SIMD instructions to hide the long latency to DRAM, since their working sets can be hundreds of megabytes. Given the use of multithreading to hide DRAM latency, the chip area used for caches in system processors is spent instead on computing resources and on the large number of registers to hold the state of many threads of SIMD instructions. In contrast, as mentioned above, vector loads and stores amortize the latency across many elements, since they only pay the latency once and then pipeline the rest of the accesses. While hiding memory latency is the underlying philosophy, note that the latest GPUs and vector processors have added caches. For example, the recent Fermi architecture has added caches, but they are thought of as either bandwidth filters to reduce demands on GPU Memory or as accelerators for the few variables whose latency cannot be hidden by multithreading. Thus, local memory for stack frames, function calls, and register spilling is a good match to caches, since latency matters when calling a function. Caches also save energy, since on-chip cache accesses take much less energy than accesses to multiple, external DRAM chips. To improve memory bandwidth and reduce overhead, as mentioned above, PTX data transfer instructions coalesce individual parallel thread requests from the same SIMD thread together into a single memory block request when the addresses fall in the same block. These restrictions are placed on the GPU program, somewhat analogous to the guidelines for system processor programs to engage hardware prefetching (see Chapter 2). The GPU memory controller will also hold requests and send ones to the same open page together to improve memory bandwidth (see Section 4.6). Chapter 2 describes DRAM in sufficient detail to understand the potential benefits of grouping related addresses. Innovations in the Fermi GPU Architecture The multithreaded SIMD Processor of Fermi is more complicated than the simplified version in Figure 4.14. To increase hardware utilization, each SIMD Processor has two SIMD Thread Schedulers and two instruction dispatch units. The dual SIMD Thread Scheduler selects two threads of SIMD instructions and issues one instruction from each to two sets of 16 SIMD Lanes, 16 load/store units, or 4 special function units. Thus, two threads of SIMD instructions are scheduled every two clock cycles to any of these collections. Since the threads are independent, there is no need to check for data dependences in the instruction stream. This innovation would be analogous to a multithreaded vector processor that can issue vector instructions from two independent threads. Figure 4.19 shows the Dual Scheduler issuing instructions and Figure 4.20 shows the block diagram of the multithreaded SIMD Processor of a Fermi GPU. 306 ■ Chapter Four Data-Level Parallelism in Vector, SIMD, and GPU Architectures SIMD thread scheduler Instruction dispatch unit SIMD thread scheduler Instruction dispatch unit SIMD thread 8 instruction 11 SIMD thread 2 instruction 42 SIMD thread 14 instruction 95 SIMD thread 9 instruction 11 SIMD thread 3 instruction 33 SIMD thread 15 instruction 95 Time SIMD thread 8 instruction 12 SIMD thread 14 instruction 96 SIMD thread 2 instruction 43 SIMD thread 9 instruction 12 SIMD thread 3 instruction 34 SIMD thread 15 instruction 96 Figure 4.19 Block Diagram of Fermi’s Dual SIMD Thread Scheduler. Compare this design to the single SIMD Thread Design in Figure 4.16. Fermi introduces several innovations to bring GPUs much closer to mainstream system processors than Tesla and previous generations of GPU architectures: ■ Fast Double-Precision Floating-Point Arithmetic—Fermi matches the relative double-precision speed of conventional processors of roughly half the speed of single precision versus a tenth the speed of single precision in the prior Tesla generation. That is, there is no order of magnitude temptation to use single precision when the accuracy calls for double precision. The peak double-precision performance grew from 78 GFLOP/sec in the predecessor GPU to 515 GFLOP/sec when using multiply-add instructions. ■ Caches for GPU Memory—While the GPU philosophy is to have enough threads to hide DRAM latency, there are variables that are needed across threads, such as local variables mentioned above. Fermi includes both an L1 Data Cache and L1 Instruction Cache for each multithreaded SIMD Processor and a single 768 KB L2 cache shared by all multithreaded SIMD Processors in the GPU. As mentioned above, in addition to reducing bandwidth pressure on GPU Memory, caches can save energy by staying on-chip rather than going off-chip to DRAM. The L1 cache actually cohabits the same SRAM as Local Memory. Fermi has a mode bit that offers the choice of using 64 KB of SRAM as a 16 KB L1 cache with 48 KB of Local Memory or as a 48 KB L1 cache with 16 KB of Local Memory. Note that the GTX 480 has an inverted memory hierarchy: The size of the aggregate register file is 2 MB, the size of all the L1 data caches is between 0.25 and 0.75 MB (depending on whether they are 16 KB or 48 KB), and the size of the L2 cache is 0.75 MB. It will be interesting to see the impact of this inverted ratio on GPU applications. ■ 64-Bit Addressing and a Unified Address Space for All GPU Memories—This innovation makes it much easier to provide the pointers needed for C and C++. 4.4 Graphics Processing Units ■ 307 Instruction cache SIMD Thread Scheduler SIMD Thread Scheduler Dispatch unit Dispatch unit Register file (32,768 × 32-bit) SIMD Lane Dispatch port Operand collector FP unit INT unit Result queue SIMD SIMD Lane Lane SIMD SIMD Lane Lane SIMD SIMD Lane Lane SIMD SIMD Lane Lane SIMD SIMD Lane Lane SIMD SIMD Lane Lane SIMD SIMD Lane Lane SIMD SIMD Lane Lane SIMD SIMD Lane Lane SIMD SIMD lane Lane SIMD SIMD Lane Lane SIMD SIMD Lane Lane SIMD SIMD Lane Lane SIMD SIMD Lane Lane SIMD SIMD Lane Lane SIMD SIMD Lane Lane LD/ST LD/ST LD/ST LD/ST LD/ST LD/ST LD/ST LD/ST LD/ST LD/ST LD/ST LD/ST LD/ST LD/ST LD/ST LD/ST SFU SFU SFU SFU Interconnect network 64 KB shared memory/L1 cache Uniform cache Fermi streaming multiprocessor (SM) Figure 4.20 Block diagram of the multithreaded SIMD Processor of a Fermi GPU. Each SIMD Lane has a pipelined floating-point unit, a pipelined integer unit, some logic for dispatching instructions and operands to these units, and a queue for holding results. The four Special Function units (SFUs) calculate functions such as square roots, reciprocals, sines, and cosines. ■ Error Correcting Codes to detect and correct errors in memory and registers (see Chapter 2)—To make long-running applications dependable on thousands of servers, ECC is the norm in the datacenter (see Chapter 6). ■ Faster Context Switching—Given the large state of a multithreaded SIMD Processor, Fermi has hardware support to switch contexts much more quickly. Fermi can switch in less than 25 microseconds, about 10× faster than its predecessor can. 308 ■ Chapter Four Data-Level Parallelism in Vector, SIMD, and GPU Architectures ■ Faster Atomic Instructions—First included in the Tesla architecture, Fermi improves performance of Atomic instructions by 5 to 20×, to a few microseconds. A special hardware unit associated with the L2 cache, not inside the multithreaded SIMD Processors, handles atomic instructions. Similarities and Differences between Vector Architectures and GPUs As we have seen, there really are many similarities between vector architectures and GPUs. Along with the quirky jargon of GPUs, these similarities have contributed to the confusion in architecture circles about how novel GPUs really are. Now that you’ve seen what is under the covers of vector computers and GPUs, you can appreciate both the similarities and the differences. Since both architectures are designed to execute data-level parallel programs, but take different paths, this comparison is in depth to try to gain better understanding of what is needed for DLP hardware. Figure 4.21 shows the vector term first and then the closest equivalent in a GPU. A SIMD Processor is like a vector processor. The multiple SIMD Processors in GPUs act as independent MIMD cores, just as many vector computers have multiple vector processors. This view would consider the NVIDIA GTX 480 as a 15-core machine with hardware support for multithreading, where each core has 16 lanes. The biggest difference is multithreading, which is fundamental to GPUs and missing from most vector processors. Looking at the registers in the two architectures, the VMIPS register file holds entire vectors—that is, a contiguous block of 64 doubles. In contrast, a single vector in a GPU would be distributed across the registers of all SIMD Lanes. A VMIPS processor has 8 vector registers with 64 elements, or 512 elements total. A GPU thread of SIMD instructions has up to 64 registers with 32 elements each, or 2048 elements. These extra GPU registers support multithreading. Figure 4.22 is a block diagram of the execution units of a vector processor on the left and a multithreaded SIMD Processor of a GPU on the right. For pedagogic purposes, we assume the vector processor has four lanes and the multithreaded SIMD Processor also has four SIMD Lanes. This figure shows that the four SIMD Lanes act in concert much like a four-lane vector unit, and that a SIMD Processor acts much like a vector processor. In reality, there are many more lanes in GPUs, so GPU “chimes” are shorter. While a vector processor might have 2 to 8 lanes and a vector length of, say, 32—making a chime 4 to 16 clock cycles—a multithreaded SIMD Processor might have 8 or 16 lanes. A SIMD thread is 32 elements wide, so a GPU chime would just be 2 or 4 clock cycles. This difference is why we use “SIMD Processor” as the more descriptive term because it is closer to a SIMD design than it is to a traditional vector processor design. The closest GPU term to a vectorized loop is Grid, and a PTX instruction is the closest to a vector instruction since a SIMD Thread broadcasts a PTX instruction to all SIMD Lanes. 4.4 Graphics Processing Units ■ 309 Program abstractions Machine objects Type Vector term Vectorized Loop Chime Vector Instruction Gather/Scatter Closest CUDA/NVIDIA GPU term Grid -- PTX Instruction Global load/store (ld.global/st.global) Mask Registers Predicate Registers and Internal Mask Registers Vector Processor Multithreaded SIMD Processor Control Processor Thread Block Scheduler Processing and memory hardware Scalar Processor System Processor Vector Lane Vector Registers SIMD Lane SIMD Lane Registers Main Memory GPU Memory Figure 4.21 GPU equivalent to vector terms. Comment Concepts are similar, with the GPU using the less descriptive term. Since a vector instruction (PTX Instruction) takes just two cycles on Fermi and four cycles on Tesla to complete, a chime is short in GPUs. A PTX instruction of a SIMD thread is broadcast to all SIMD Lanes, so it is similar to a vector instruction. All GPU loads and stores are gather and scatter, in that each SIMD Lane sends a unique address. It’s up to the GPU Coalescing Unit to get unit-stride performance when addresses from the SIMD Lanes allow it. Vector mask registers are explicitly part of the architectural state, while GPU mask registers are internal to the hardware. The GPU conditional hardware adds a new feature beyond predicate registers to manage masks dynamically. These are similar, but SIMD Processors tend to have many lanes, taking a few clock cycles per lane to complete a vector, while vector architectures have few lanes and take many cycles to complete a vector. They are also multithreaded where vectors usually are not. The closest is the Thread Block Scheduler that assigns Thread Blocks to a multithreaded SIMD Processor. But GPUs have no scalar-vector operations and no unit-stride or strided data transfer instructions, which Control Processors often provide. Because of the lack of shared memory and the high latency to communicate over a PCI bus (1000s of clock cycles), the system processor in a GPU rarely takes on the same tasks that a scalar processor does in a vector architecture. Both are essentially functional units with registers. The equivalent of a vector register is the same register in all 32 SIMD Lanes of a multithreaded SIMD Processor running a thread of SIMD instructions. The number of registers per SIMD thread is flexible, but the maximum is 64, so the maximum number of vector registers is 64. Memory for GPU versus System memory in vector case. 310 ■ Chapter Four Data-Level Parallelism in Vector, SIMD, and GPU Architectures Vector registers Registers Instruction PC cache Control processer Instruction register Mask FU0 Mask FU1 Mask FU2 Mask FU3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 • • • • • • • • • • • • 60 61 62 63 Vector load/store unit PC PC PC PC SIMD Thread Scheduler Instruction cache Dispatch unit Instruction register Mask Mask Mask Mask FU0 FU1 FU2 FU3 0 1 • • • 1023 0 1 • • • 1023 0 1 • • • 1023 0 1 • • • 1023 SIMD Load/store unit Memory interface unit Address coalescing unit Memory interface unit Figure 4.22 A vector processor with four lanes on the left and a multithreaded SIMD Processor of a GPU with four SIMD Lanes on the right. (GPUs typically have 8 to 16 SIMD Lanes.) The control processor supplies scalar operands for scalar-vector operations, increments addressing for unit and non-unit stride accesses to memory, and performs other accounting-type operations. Peak memory performance only occurs in a GPU when the Address Coalescing unit can discover localized addressing. Similarly, peak computational performance occurs when all internal mask bits are set identically. Note that the SIMD Processor has one PC per SIMD thread to help with multithreading. With respect to memory access instructions in the two architectures, all GPU loads are gather instructions and all GPU stores are scatter instructions. If data addresses of CUDA Threads refer to nearby addresses that fall in the same cache/ memory block at the same time, the Address Coalescing Unit of the GPU will ensure high memory bandwidth. The explicit unit-stride load and store instructions of vector architectures versus the implicit unit stride of GPU programming is why writing efficient GPU code requires that programmers think in terms of SIMD operations, even though the CUDA programming model looks like MIMD. As CUDA Threads can generate their own addresses, strided as well as gather-scatter, addressing vectors are found in both vector architectures and GPUs. As we mentioned several times, the two architectures take very different approaches to hiding memory latency. Vector architectures amortize it across all the elements of the vector by having a deeply pipelined access so you pay the 4.4 Graphics Processing Units ■ 311 latency only once per vector load or store. Hence, vector loads and stores are like a block transfer between memory and the vector registers. In contrast, GPUs hide memory latency using multithreading. (Some researchers are investigating adding multithreading to vector architectures to try to capture the best of both worlds.) With respect to conditional branch instructions, both architectures implement them using mask registers. Both conditional branch paths occupy time and/or space even when they do not store a result. The difference is that the vector compiler manages mask registers explicitly in software while the GPU hardware and assembler manages them implicitly using branch synchronization markers and an internal stack to save, complement, and restore masks. As mentioned above, the conditional branch mechanism of GPUs gracefully handles the strip-mining problem of vector architectures. When the vector length is unknown at compile time, the program must calculate the modulo of the application vector length and the maximum vector length and store it in the vector length register. The strip-minded loop then resets the vector length register to the maximum vector length for the rest of the loop. This case is simpler with GPUs since they just iterate the loop until all the SIMD Lanes reach the loop bound. On the last iteration, some SIMD Lanes will be masked off and then restored after the loop completes. The control processor of a vector computer plays an important role in the execution of vector instructions. It broadcasts operations to all the vector lanes and broadcasts a scalar register value for vector-scalar operations. It also does implicit calculations that are explicit in GPUs, such as automatically incrementing memory addresses for unit-stride and non-unit-stride loads and stores. The control processor is missing in the GPU. The closest analogy is the Thread Block Scheduler, which assigns Thread Blocks (bodies of vector loop) to multithreaded SIMD Processors. The runtime hardware mechanisms in a GPU that both generate addresses and then discover if they are adjacent, which is commonplace in many DLP applications, are likely less power efficient than using a control processor. The scalar processor in a vector computer executes the scalar instructions of a vector program; that is, it performs operations that would be too slow to do in the vector unit. Although the system processor that is associated with a GPU is the closest analogy to a scalar processor in a vector architecture, the separate address spaces plus transferring over a PCle bus means thousands of clock cycles of overhead to use them together. The scalar processor can be slower than a vector processor for floating-point computations in a vector computer, but not by the same ratio as the system processor versus a multithreaded SIMD Processor (given the overhead). Hence, each “vector unit” in a GPU must do computations that you would expect to do on a scalar processor in a vector computer. That is, rather than calculate on the system processor and communicate the results, it can be faster to disable all but one SIMD Lane using the predicate registers and built-in masks and do the scalar work with one SIMD Lane. The relatively simple scalar processor in a vector computer is likely to be faster and more power efficient than the GPU 312 ■ Chapter Four Data-Level Parallelism in Vector, SIMD, and GPU Architectures solution. If system processors and GPUs become more closely tied together in the future, it will be interesting to see if system processors can play the same role as scalar processors do for vector and Multimedia SIMD architectures. Similarities and Differences between Multimedia SIMD Computers and GPUs At a high level, multicore computers with Multimedia SIMD instruction extensions do share similarities with GPUs. Figure 4.23 summarizes the similarities and differences. Both are multiprocessors whose processors use multiple SIMD lanes, although GPUs have more processors and many more lanes. Both use hardware multithreading to improve processor utilization, although GPUs have hardware support for many more threads. Recent innovations in GPUs mean that now both have similar performance ratios between single-precision and double-precision floating-point arithmetic. Both use caches, although GPUs use smaller streaming caches and multicore computers use large multilevel caches that try to contain whole working sets completely. Both use a 64-bit address space, although the physical main memory is much smaller in GPUs. While GPUs support memory protection at the page level, they do not support demand paging. In addition to the large numerical differences in processors, SIMD lanes, hardware thread support, and cache sizes, there are many architectural differences. The scalar processor and Multimedia SIMD instructions are tightly integrated in traditional computers; they are separated by an I/O bus in GPUs, and they even have separate main memories. The multiple SIMD processors in a GPU use a single address space, but the caches are not coherent as they are in traditional multicore computers. Unlike GPUs, multimedia SIMD instructions do not support gather-scatter memory accesses, which Section 4.7 shows is a significant omission. Feature SIMD processors SIMD lanes/processor Multithreading hardware support for SIMD threads Typical ratio of single-precision to double-precision performance Largest cache size Size of memory address Size of main memory Memory protection at level of page Demand paging Integrated scalar processor/SIMD processor Cache coherent Multicore with SIMD 4 to 8 2 to 4 2 to 4 2:1 8 MB 64-bit 8 GB to 256 GB Yes Yes Yes Yes GPU 8 to 16 8 to 16 16 to 32 2:1 0.75 MB 64-bit 4 to 6 GB Yes No No No Figure 4.23 Similarities and differences between multicore with Multimedia SIMD extensions and recent GPUs. 4.4 Graphics Processing Units ■ 313 Program abstractions Summary Now that the veil has been lifted, we can see that GPUs are really just multithreaded SIMD processors, although they have more processors, more lanes per processor, and more multithreading hardware than do traditional multicore computers. For example, the Fermi GTX 480 has 15 SIMD processors with 16 lanes per processor and hardware support for 32 SIMD threads. Fermi even embraces instruction-level parallelism by issuing instructions from two SIMD threads to two sets of SIMD lanes. They also have less cache memory—Fermi’s L2 cache is 0.75 megabyte—and it is not coherent with the distant scalar processor. Type More descriptive name used in this book Vectorizable loop Official CUDA/ NVIDIA term Grid Body of Vectorized loop Thread Block Book definition and AMD and OpenCL terms A vectorizable loop, executed on the GPU, made up of one or more “Thread Blocks” (or bodies of vectorized loop) that can execute in parallel. OpenCL name is “index range.” AMD name is “NDRange”. A vectorized loop executed on a multithreaded SIMD Processor, made up of one or more threads of SIMD instructions. These SIMD Threads can communicate via Local Memory. AMD and OpenCL name is “work group”. Official CUDA/NVIDIA definition A grid is an array of thread blocks that can execute concurrently, sequentially, or a mixture. A thread block is an array of CUDA Threads that execute concurrently together and can cooperate and communicate via Shared Memory and barrier synchronization. A Thread Block has a Thread Block ID within its Grid. Sequence of SIMD Lane operations A Thread of SIMD instructions SIMD instruction CUDA Thread Warp PTX instruction A vertical cut of a thread of SIMD instructions corresponding to one element executed by one SIMD Lane. Result is stored depending on mask. AMD and OpenCL call a CUDA Thread a “work item.” A traditional thread, but it contains just SIMD instructions that are executed on a multithreaded SIMD Processor. Results are stored depending on a per-element mask. AMD name is “wavefront.” A single SIMD instruction executed across the SIMD Lanes. AMD name is “AMDIL” or “FSAIL” instruction. A CUDA Thread is a lightweight thread that executes a sequential program and can cooperate with other CUDA Threads executing in the same Thread Block. A CUDA Thread has a thread ID within its Thread Block. A warp is a set of parallel CUDA Threads (e.g., 32) that execute the same instruction together in a multithreaded SIMT/SIMD Processor. A PTX instruction specifies an instruction executed by a CUDA Thread. Figure 4.24 Conversion from terms used in this chapter to official NVIDIA/CUDA and AMD jargon. OpenCL names are given in the book definition. Machine object 314 ■ Chapter Four Data-Level Parallelism in Vector, SIMD, and GPU Architectures Processing hardware Type More descriptive name used in this book Official CUDA/ NVIDIA term Book definition and AMD and OpenCL terms Official CUDA/NVIDIA definition Multithreaded SIMD processor Thread block scheduler SIMD Thread scheduler Streaming multiprocessor Giga thread engine Warp scheduler Multithreaded SIMD Processor that executes thread of SIMD instructions, independent of other SIMD Processors. Both AMD and OpenCL call it a “compute unit.” However, the CUDA Programmer writes program for one lane rather than for a “vector” of multiple SIMD Lanes. Assigns multiple bodies of vectorized loop to multithreaded SIMD Processors. AMD name is “Ultra-Threaded Dispatch Engine”. Hardware unit that schedules and issues threads of SIMD instructions when they are ready to execute; includes a scoreboard to track SIMD Thread execution. AMD name is “Work Group Scheduler”. A streaming multiprocessor (SM) is a multithreaded SIMT/ SIMD Processor that executes warps of CUDA Threads. A SIMT program specifies the execution of one CUDA Thread, rather than a vector of multiple SIMD Lanes. Distributes and schedules thread blocks of a grid to streaming multiprocessors as resources become available. A warp scheduler in a streaming multiprocessor schedules warps for execution when their next instruction is ready to execute. SIMD Lane GPU Memory Private Memory Local Memory SIMD Lane registers Thread processor Global Memory Local Memory Shared Memory Registers Hardware SIMD Lane that executes the operations in a thread of SIMD instructions on a single element. Results are stored depending on mask. OpenCL calls it a “processing element.” AMD name is also “SIMD Lane”. DRAM memory accessible by all multithreaded SIMD Processors in a GPU. OpenCL calls it “Global Memory.” Portion of DRAM memory private to each SIMD Lane. Both AMD and OpenCL call it “Private Memory.” Fast local SRAM for one multithreaded SIMD Processor, unavailable to other SIMD Processors. OpenCL calls it “Local Memory.” AMD calls it “Group Memory”. Registers in a single SIMD Lane allocated across body of vectorized loop. AMD also calls them “Registers”. A thread processor is a datapath and register file portion of a streaming multiprocessor that executes operations for one or more lanes of a warp. Global memory is accessible by all CUDA Threads in any thread block in any grid; implemented as a region of DRAM, and may be cached. Private “thread-local” memory for a CUDA Thread; implemented as a cached region of DRAM. Fast SRAM memory shared by the CUDA Threads composing a thread block, and private to that thread block. Used for communication among CUDA Threads in a thread block at barrier synchronization points. Private registers for a CUDA Thread; implemented as multithreaded register file for certain lanes of several warps for each thread processor. Figure 4.25 Conversion from terms used in this chapter to official NVIDIA/CUDA and AMD jargon. Note that our descriptive terms “Local Memory” and “Private Memory” use the OpenCL terminology. NVIDIA uses SIMT, singleinstruction multiple-thread, rather than SIMD, to describe a streaming multiprocessor. SIMT is preferred over SIMD because the per-thread branching and control flow are unlike any SIMD machine. Memory hardware 4.5 Detecting and Enhancing Loop-Level Parallelism ■ 315 The CUDA programming model wraps up all these forms of parallelism around a single abstraction, the CUDA Thread. Thus, the CUDA programmer can think of programming thousands of threads, although they are really executing each block of 32 threads on the many lanes of the many SIMD Processors. The CUDA programmer who wants good performance keeps in mind that these threads are blocked and executed 32 at a time and that addresses need to be to adjacent addresses to get good performance from the memory system. Although we’ve used CUDA and the NVIDIA GPU in this section, rest assured that the same ideas are found in the OpenCL programming language and in GPUs from other companies. Now that you understand better how GPUs work, we reveal the real jargon. Figures 4.24 and 4.25 match the descriptive terms and definitions of this section with the official CUDA/NVIDIA and AMD terms and definitions. We also include the OpenCL terms. We believe the GPU learning curve is steep in part because of using terms such as “Streaming Multiprocessor” for the SIMD Processor, “Thread Processor” for the SIMD Lane, and “Shared Memory” for Local Memory— especially since Local Memory is not shared between SIMD Processors! We hope that this two-step approach gets you up that curve quicker, even if it’s a bit indirect. 4.5 Detecting and Enhancing Loop-Level Parallelism Loops in programs are the fountainhead of many of the types of parallelism we discussed above and in Chapter 5. In this section, we discuss compiler technology for discovering the amount of parallelism that we can exploit in a program as well as hardware support for these compiler techniques. We define precisely when a loop is parallel (or vectorizable), how dependence can prevent a loop from being parallel, and techniques for eliminating some types of dependences. Finding and manipulating loop-level parallelism is critical to exploiting both DLP and TLP, as well as the more aggressive static ILP approaches (e.g., VLIW) that we examine in Appendix H. Loop-level parallelism is normally analyzed at the source level or close to it, while most analysis of ILP is done once instructions have been generated by the compiler. Loop-level analysis involves determining what dependences exist among the operands in a loop across the iterations of that loop. For now, we will consider only data dependences, which arise when an operand is written at some point and read at a later point. Name dependences also exist and may be removed by the renaming techniques discussed in Chapter 3. The analysis of loop-level parallelism focuses on determining whether data accesses in later iterations are dependent on data values produced in earlier iterations; such dependence is called a loop-carried dependence. Most of the examples we considered in Chapters 2 and 3 had no loop-carried dependences and, thus, are loop-level parallel. To see that a loop is parallel, let us first look at the source representation: for (i=999; i>=0; i=i-1) x[i] = x[i] + s; 316 ■ Chapter Four Data-Level Parallelism in Vector, SIMD, and GPU Architectures In this loop, the two uses of x[i] are dependent, but this dependence is within a single iteration and is not loop carried. There is a loop-carried dependence between successive uses of i in different iterations, but this dependence involves an induction variable that can be easily recognized and eliminated. We saw examples of how to eliminate dependences involving induction variables during loop unrolling in Section 2.2 of Chapter 2, and we will look at additional examples later in this section. Because finding loop-level parallelism involves recognizing structures such as loops, array references, and induction variable computations, the compiler can do this analysis more easily at or near the source level, as opposed to the machine-code level. Let’s look at a more complex example. Example Consider a loop like this one: for (i=0; i<100; i=i+1) { A[i+1] = A[i] + C[i]; /* S1 */ B[i+1] = B[i] + A[i+1]; /* S2 */ } Assume that A, B, and C are distinct, nonoverlapping arrays. (In practice, the arrays may sometimes be the same or may overlap. Because the arrays may be passed as parameters to a procedure that includes this loop, determining whether arrays overlap or are identical often requires sophisticated, interprocedural analysis of the program.) What are the data dependences among the statements S1 and S2 in the loop? Answer There are two different dependences: 1. S1 uses a value computed by S1 in an earlier iteration, since iteration i computes A[i+1], which is read in iteration i+1. The same is true of S2 for B[i] and B[i+1]. 2. S2 uses the value A[i+1] computed by S1 in the same iteration. These two dependences are different and have different effects. To see how they differ, let’s assume that only one of these dependences exists at a time. Because the dependence of statement S1 is on an earlier iteration of S1, this dependence is loop carried. This dependence forces successive iterations of this loop to execute in series. The second dependence (S2 depending on S1) is within an iteration and is not loop carried. Thus, if this were the only dependence, multiple iterations of the loop could execute in parallel, as long as each pair of statements in an iteration were kept in order. We saw this type of dependence in an example in Section 2.2, where unrolling was able to expose the parallelism. These intra-loop dependences are common; for example, a sequence of vector instructions that uses chaining exhibits exactly this sort of dependence. It is also possible to have a loop-carried dependence that does not prevent parallelism, as the next example shows. 4.5 Detecting and Enhancing Loop-Level Parallelism ■ 317 Example Consider a loop like this one: for (i=0; i<100; i=i+1) { A[i] = A[i] + B[i]; /* S1 */ B[i+1] = C[i] + D[i]; /* S2 */ } Answer What are the dependences between S1 and S2? Is this loop parallel? If not, show how to make it parallel. Statement S1 uses the value assigned in the previous iteration by statement S2, so there is a loop-carried dependence between S2 and S1. Despite this loop-carried dependence, this loop can be made parallel. Unlike the earlier loop, this dependence is not circular; neither statement depends on itself, and although S1 depends on S2, S2 does not depend on S1. A loop is parallel if it can be written without a cycle in the dependences, since the absence of a cycle means that the dependences give a partial ordering on the statements. Although there are no circular dependences in the above loop, it must be transformed to conform to the partial ordering and expose the parallelism. Two observations are critical to this transformation: 1. There is no dependence from S1 to S2. If there were, then there would be a cycle in the dependences and the loop would not be parallel. Since this other dependence is absent, interchanging the two statements will not affect the execution of S2. 2. On the first iteration of the loop, statement S2 depends on the value of B[0] computed prior to initiating the loop. These two observations allow us to replace the loop above with the following code sequence: A[0] = A[0] + B[0]; for (i=0; i<99; i=i+1) { B[i+1] = C[i] + D[i]; A[i+1] = A[i+1] + B[i+1]; } B[100] = C[99] + D[99]; The dependence between the two statements is no longer loop carried, so that iterations of the loop may be overlapped, provided the statements in each iteration are kept in order. Our analysis needs to begin by finding all loop-carried dependences. This dependence information is inexact, in the sense that it tells us that such dependence may exist. Consider the following example: for (i=0;i<100;i=i+1) { A[i] = B[i] + C[i] D[i] = A[i] * E[i] } 318 ■ Chapter Four Data-Level Parallelism in Vector, SIMD, and GPU Architectures The second reference to A in this example need not be translated to a load instruction, since we know that the value is computed and stored by the previous statement; hence, the second reference to A can simply be a reference to the register into which A was computed. Performing this optimization requires knowing that the two references are always to the same memory address and that there is no intervening access to the same location. Normally, data dependence analysis only tells that one reference may depend on another; a more complex analysis is required to determine that two references must be to the exact same address. In the example above, a simple version of this analysis suffices, since the two references are in the same basic block. Often loop-carried dependences are in the form of a recurrence. A recurrence occurs when a variable is defined based on the value of that variable in an earlier iteration, often the one immediately preceding, as in the following code fragment: for (i=1;i<100;i=i+1) { Y[i] = Y[i-1] + Y[i]; } Detecting a recurrence can be important for two reasons: Some architectures (especially vector computers) have special support for executing recurrences, and, in an ILP context, it may still be possible to exploit a fair amount of parallelism. Finding Dependences Clearly, finding the dependences in a program is important both to determine which loops might contain parallelism and to eliminate name dependences. The complexity of dependence analysis arises also because of the presence of arrays and pointers in languages such as C or C++, or pass-by-reference parameter passing in Fortran. Since scalar variable references explicitly refer to a name, they can usually be analyzed quite easily with aliasing because of pointers and reference parameters causing some complications and uncertainty in the analysis. How does the compiler detect dependences in general? Nearly all dependence analysis algorithms work on the assumption that array indices are affine. In simplest terms, a one-dimensional array index is affine if it can be written in the form a × i + b, where a and b are constants and i is the loop index variable. The index of a multidimensional array is affine if the index in each dimension is affine. Sparse array accesses, which typically have the form x[y[i]], are one of the major examples of non-affine accesses. Determining whether there is a dependence between two references to the same array in a loop is thus equivalent to determining whether two affine functions can have the same value for different indices between the bounds of the loop. For example, suppose we have stored to an array element with index value a × i + b and loaded from the same array with index value c × i + d, where i is the 4.5 Detecting and Enhancing Loop-Level Parallelism ■ 319 for-loop index variable that runs from m to n. A dependence exists if two conditions hold: 1. There are two iteration indices, j and k, that are both within the limits of the for loop. That is, m ≤ j ≤ n , m ≤ k ≤ n . 2. The loop stores into an array element indexed by a × j + b and later fetches from that same array element when it is indexed by c × k + d. That is, a × j + b = c × k + d. In general, we cannot determine whether dependence exists at compile time. For example, the values of a, b, c, and d may not be known (they could be values in other arrays), making it impossible to tell if a dependence exists. In other cases, the dependence testing may be very expensive but decidable at compile time; for example, the accesses may depend on the iteration indices of multiple nested loops. Many programs, however, contain primarily simple indices where a, b, c, and d are all constants. For these cases, it is possible to devise reasonable compile time tests for dependence. As an example, a simple and sufficient test for the absence of a dependence is the greatest common divisor (GCD) test. It is based on the observation that if a loop-carried dependence exists, then GCD (c,a) must divide (d − b). (Recall that an integer, x, divides another integer, y, if we get an integer quotient when we do the division y/x and there is no remainder.) Example Use the GCD test to determine whether dependences exist in the following loop: for (i=0; i<100; i=i+1) { X[2*i+3] = X[2*i] * 5.0; } Answer Given the values a = 2, b = 3, c = 2, and d = 0, then GCD(a,c) = 2, and d − b = −3. Since 2 does not divide −3, no dependence is possible. The GCD test is sufficient to guarantee that no dependence exists; however, there are cases where the GCD test succeeds but no dependence exists. This can arise, for example, because the GCD test does not consider the loop bounds. In general, determining whether a dependence actually exists is NP-complete. In practice, however, many common cases can be analyzed precisely at low cost. Recently, approaches using a hierarchy of exact tests increasing in generality and cost have been shown to be both accurate and efficient. (A test is exact if it precisely determines whether a dependence exists. Although the general case is NP-complete, there exist exact tests for restricted situations that are much cheaper.) In addition to detecting the presence of a dependence, a compiler wants to classify the type of dependence. This classification allows a compiler to recognize name dependences and eliminate them at compile time by renaming and copying. 320 ■ Chapter Four Data-Level Parallelism in Vector, SIMD, and GPU Architectures Example The following loop has multiple types of dependences. Find all the true dependences, output dependences, and antidependences, and eliminate the output dependences and antidependences by renaming. for (i=0; i<100; i=i+1) { Y[i] = X[i] / c; /* S1 */ X[i] = X[i] + c; /* S2 */ Z[i] = Y[i] + c; /* S3 */ Y[i] = c - Y[i]; /* S4 */ } Answer The following dependences exist among the four statements: 1. There are true dependences from S1 to S3 and from S1 to S4 because of Y[i]. These are not loop carried, so they do not prevent the loop from being considered parallel. These dependences will force S3 and S4 to wait for S1 to complete. 2. There is an antidependence from S1 to S2, based on X[i]. 3. There is an antidependence from S3 to S4 for Y[i]. 4. There is an output dependence from S1 to S4, based on Y[i]. The following version of the loop eliminates these false (or pseudo) dependences. for (i=0; i<100; i=i+1 { T[i] = X[i] / c; /* Y renamed to T to remove output dependence */ X1[i] = X[i] + c;/* X renamed to X1 to remove antidependence */ Z[i] = T[i] + c;/* Y renamed to T to remove antidependence */ Y[i] = c - T[i]; } After the loop, the variable X has been renamed X1. In code that follows the loop, the compiler can simply replace the name X by X1. In this case, renaming does not require an actual copy operation, as it can be done by substituting names or by register allocation. In other cases, however, renaming will require copying. Dependence analysis is a critical technology for exploiting parallelism, as well as for the transformation-like blocking that Chapter 2 covers. For detecting looplevel parallelism, dependence analysis is the basic tool. Effectively compiling programs for vector computers, SIMD computers, or multiprocessors depends critically on this analysis. The major drawback of dependence analysis is that it applies only under a limited set of circumstances, namely, among references within a single loop nest and using affine index functions. Thus, there are many situations where array-oriented dependence analysis cannot tell us what we want to know; for example, analyzing accesses done with pointers, rather than with array indices can be much harder. (This is one reason why Fortran is still preferred over C and C++ for many scientific applications designed for parallel computers.) Similarly, 4.5 Detecting and Enhancing Loop-Level Parallelism ■ 321 analyzing references across procedure calls is extremely difficult. Thus, while analysis of code written in sequential languages remains important, we also need approaches such as OpenMP and CUDA that write explicitly parallel loops. Eliminating Dependent Computations As mentioned above, one of the most important forms of dependent computations is a recurrence. A dot product is a perfect example of a recurrence: for (i=9999; i>=0; i=i-1) sum = sum + x[i] * y[i]; This loop is not parallel because it has a loop-carried dependence on the variable sum. We can, however, transform it to a set of loops, one of which is completely parallel and the other that can be partly parallel. The first loop will execute the completely parallel portion of this loop. It looks like: for (i=9999; i>=0; i=i-1) sum[i] = x[i] * y[i]; Notice that sum has been expanded from a scalar into a vector quantity (a transformation called scalar expansion) and that this transformation makes this new loop completely parallel. When we are done, however, we need to do the reduce step, which sums up the elements of the vector. It looks like: for (i=9999; i>=0; i=i-1) finalsum = finalsum + sum[i]; Although this loop is not parallel, it has a very specific structure called a reduction. Reductions are common in linear algebra and, as we shall see in Chapter 6, they are also a key part of the primary parallelism primitive MapReduce used in warehouse-scale computers. In general, any function can be used as a reduction operator, and common cases include operators such as max and min. Reductions are sometimes handled by special hardware in a vector and SIMD architecture that allows the reduce step to be done much faster than it could be done in scalar mode. These work by implementing a technique similar to what can be done in a multiprocessor environment. While the general transformation works with any number of processors, suppose for simplicity we have 10 processors. In the first step of reducing the sum, each processor executes the following (with p as the processor number ranging from 0 to 9): for (i=999; i>=0; i=i-1) finalsum[p] = finalsum[p] + sum[i+1000*p]; This loop, which sums up 1000 elements on each of the ten processors, is completely parallel. A simple scalar loop can then complete the summation of the last ten sums. Similar approaches are used in vector and SIMD processors. 322 ■ Chapter Four Data-Level Parallelism in Vector, SIMD, and GPU Architectures It is important to observe that the above transformation relies on associativity of addition. Although arithmetic with unlimited range and precision is associative, computer arithmetic is not associative, for either integer arithmetic, because of limited range, or floating-point arithmetic, because of both range and precision. Thus, using these restructuring techniques can sometimes lead to erroneous behavior, although such occurrences are rare. For this reason, most compilers require that optimizations that rely on associativity be explicitly enabled. 4.6 Crosscutting Issues Energy and DLP: Slow and Wide versus Fast and Narrow A fundamental energy advantage of data-level parallel architectures comes from the energy equation in Chapter 1. Since we assume ample data-level parallelism, the performance is the same if we halve the clock rate and double the execution resources: twice the number of lanes for a vector computer, wider registers and ALUs for multimedia SIMD, and more SIMD lanes for GPUs. If we can lower the voltage while dropping the clock rate, we can actually reduce energy as well as the power for the computation while maintaining the same peak performance. Hence, DLP processors tend to have lower clock rates than system processors, which rely on high clock rates for performance (see Section 4.7). Compared to out-of-order processors, DLP processors can have simpler control logic to launch a large number of operations per clock cycle; for example, the control is identical for all lanes in vector processors, and there is no logic to decide on multiple instruction issue or speculative execution logic. Vector architectures can also make it easier to turn off unused portions of the chip. Each vector instruction explicitly describes all the resources it needs for a number of cycles when the instruction issues. Banked Memory and Graphics Memory Section 4.2 noted the importance of substantial memory bandwidth for vector architectures to support unit stride, non-unit stride, and gather-scatter accesses. To achieve their high performance, GPUs also require substantial memory bandwidth. Special DRAM chips designed just for GPUs, called GDRAM for graphics DRAM, help deliver this bandwidth. GDRAM chips have higher bandwidth often at lower capacity than conventional DRAM chips. To deliver this bandwidth, GDRAM chips are often soldered directly onto the same board as the GPU rather than being placed into DIMM modules that are inserted into slots on a board, as is the case for system memory. DIMM modules allow for much greater capacity and for the system to be upgraded, unlike GDRAM. This limited capacity—about 4 GB in 2011—is in conflict with the goal of running bigger problems, which is a natural use of the increased computational power of GPUs. 4.7 Putting It All Together: Mobile versus Server GPUs and Tesla versus Core i7 ■ 323 To deliver the best possible performance, GPUs try to take into account all the features of GDRAMs. They are typically arranged internally as 4 to 8 banks, with a power of 2 number of rows (typically 16,384) and a power of 2 number of bits per row (typically 8192). Chapter 2 describes the details of DRAM behavior that GPUs try to match. Given all the potential demands on the GDRAMs from both the computation tasks and the graphics acceleration tasks, the memory system could see a large number of uncorrelated requests. Alas, this diversity hurts memory performance. To cope, the GPU’s memory controller maintains separate queues of traffic bound for different GDRAM banks, waiting until there is enough traffic to justify opening a row and transferring all requested data at once. This delay improves bandwidth but stretches latency, and the controller must ensure that no processing units starve while waiting for data, for otherwise neighboring processors could become idle. Section 4.7 shows that gather-scatter techniques and memory-bank-aware access techniques can deliver substantial increases in performance versus conventional cache-based architectures. Strided Accesses and TLB Misses One problem with strided accesses is how they interact with the translation lookaside buffer (TLB) for virtual memory in vector architectures or GPUs. (GPUs use TLBs for memory mapping.) Depending on how the TLB is organized and the size of the array being accessed in memory, it is even possible to get one TLB miss for every access to an element in the array! 4.7 Putting It All Together: Mobile versus Server GPUs and Tesla versus Core i7 Given the popularity of graphics applications, GPUs are now found in both mobile clients as well as traditional servers or heavy-duty desktop computers. Figure 4.26 lists the key characteristics of the NVIDIA Tegra 2 for mobile clients, which is used in the LG Optimus 2X and runs Android OS, and the Fermi GPU for servers. GPU server engineers hope to be able to do live animation within five years after a movie is released. GPU mobile engineers in turn want within five more years that a mobile client can do what a server or game console does today. More concretely, the overarching goal is for the graphics quality of a movie such as Avatar to be achieved in real time on a server GPU in 2015 and on your mobile GPU in 2020. The NVIDIA Tegra 2 for mobile devices provides both the system processor and the GPU in a single chip using a single physical memory. The system processor is a dual-core ARM Cortex-A9, with each core using out-of-order execution and dual instruction issue. Each core includes the optional floating-point unit. The GPU has hardware acceleration for programmable pixel shading, programmable vertex and lighting, and 3D graphics, but it does not include the GPU computing features needed to run CUDA or OpenCL programs. 324 ■ Chapter Four Data-Level Parallelism in Vector, SIMD, and GPU Architectures NVIDIA Tegra 2 NVIDIA Fermi GTX 480 Market System processor System interface System interface bandwidth Clock rate SIMD multiprocessors SIMD lanes/SIMD multiprocessor Memory interface Memory bandwidth Memory capacity Transistors Process Die area Power Mobile client Dual-Core ARM Cortex-A9 Not applicable Not applicable Up to 1 GHz Unavailable Unavailable 32-bit LP-DDR2/DDR2 2.7 GBytes/sec 1 GByte 242 M 40 nm TSMC process G 57 mm2 1.5 watts Desktop, server Not applicable PCI Express 2.0 × 16 6 GBytes/sec (each direction), 12 GBytes/sec (total) 1.4 GHz 15 32 384-bit GDDR5 177 GBytes/sec 1.5 GBytes 3030 M 40 nm TSMC process G 520 mm2 167 watts Figure 4.26 Key features of the GPUs for mobile clients and servers. The Tegra 2 is the reference platform for Android OS and is found in the LG Optimus 2X cell phone. The die size is 57 mm2 (7.5 × 7.5 mm) in a 40 nm TSMC process, and it contains 242 million transistors. It uses 1.5 watts. The NVIDIA GTX 480 in Figure 4.26 is the first implementation of the Fermi architecture. The clock rate is 1.4 GHz, and it includes 15 SIMD processors. The chip itself has 16, but to improve yield only 15 of the 16 need work for this product. The path to GDDR5 memory is 384 (6 × 64) bits wide, and it interfaces that clock at 1.84 GHz, offering a peak memory bandwidth of 177 GBytes/sec by transferring on both clock edges of double data rate memory. It connects to the host system processor and memory via a PCI Express 2.0 × 16 link, which has a peak bidirectional rate of 12 GBytes/sec. All physical characteristics of the GTX 480 die are impressively large: It contains 3.0 billion transistors, the die size is 520 mm2 (22.8 × 22.8 mm) in a 40 nm TSMC process, and the typical power is 167 watts. The whole module is 250 watts, which includes the GPU, GDRAMs, fans, power regulators, and so on. Comparison of a GPU and a MIMD with Multimedia SIMD A group of Intel researchers published a paper [Lee et al. 2010] comparing a quad-core Intel i7 (see Chapter 3) with multimedia SIMD extensions to the previous generation GPU, the Tesla GTX 280. Figure 4.27 lists the characteristics 4.7 Putting It All Together: Mobile versus Server GPUs and Tesla versus Core i7 ■ 325 Core i7960 GTX 280 Ratio Ratio GTX 480 280/i7 480/i7 Number of processing elements (cores or SMs) 4 30 15 7.5 3.8 Clock frequency (GHz) 3.2 1.3 1.4 0.41 0.44 Die size 263 576 520 2.2 2.0 Technology Intel 45 nm TSMC 65 nm TSMC 40 nm 1.6 1.0 Power (chip, not module) 130 130 167 1.0 1.3 Transistors 700 M 1400 M 3030 M 2.0 4.4 Memory bandwidth (GBytes/sec) 32 141 177 4.4 5.5 Single-precision SIMD width 4 8 32 2.0 8.0 Double-precision SIMD width 2 1 16 0.5 8.0 Peak single-precision scalar FLOPS (GFLOP/Sec) 26 117 63 4.6 2.5 Peak single-precision SIMD FLOPS (GFLOP/Sec) 102 311 to 933 515 or 1344 3.0–9.1 6.6–13.1 (SP 1 add or multiply) N.A. (311) (515) (3.0) (6.6) (SP 1 instruction fused multiply-adds) N.A. (622) (1344) (6.1) (13.1) (Rare SP dual issue fused multiply-add and multiply) N.A. (933) N.A. (9.1) -- Peak double-precision SIMD FLOPS (GFLOP/sec) 51 78 515 1.5 10.1 Figure 4.27 Intel Core i7-960, NVIDIA GTX 280, and GTX 480 specifications. The rightmost columns show the ratios of GTX 280 and GTX 480 to Core i7. For single-precision SIMD FLOPS on the GTX 280, the higher speed (933) comes from a very rare case of dual issuing of fused multiply-add and multiply. More reasonable is 622 for single fused multiply-adds. Although the case study is between the 280 and i7, we include the 480 to show its relationship to the 280 since it is described in this chapter. Note that these memory bandwidths are higher than in Figure 4.28 because these are DRAM pin bandwidths and those in Figure 4.28 are at the processors as measured by a benchmark program. (From Table 2 in Lee et al. [2010].) of the two systems. Both products were purchased in Fall 2009. The Core i7 is in Intel’s 45-nanometer semiconductor technology while the GPU is in TSMC’s 65-nanometer technology. Although it might have been more fair to have a comparison by a neutral party or by both interested parties, the purpose of this section is not to determine how much faster one product is than another, but to try to understand the relative value of features of these two contrasting architecture styles. The rooflines of the Core i7 920 and GTX 280 in Figure 4.28 illustrate the differences in the computers. The 920 has a slower clock rate than the 960 (2.66 GHz versus 3.2 GHz), but the rest of the system is the same. Not only does the GTX 280 have much higher memory bandwidth and double-precision floating-point performance, but also its double-precision ridge point is considerably to the left. As mentioned above, it is much easier to hit peak computational performance the further the ridge point of the roofline is to the left. The double-precision ridge point is 0.6 for the GTX 280 versus 2.6 for the Core i7. For single-precision performance, the ridge point moves far to the right, as it’s much harder to hit the roof of single-precision performance because it is so 326 ■ Chapter Four Data-Level Parallelism in Vector, SIMD, and GPU Architectures Double-precision GFLOP/sec 128 Core i7 920 (Nehalem) 64 Peak = 42.66 GFLOP/s 32 16 8 Stream = 16.4 GB/sec 4 2 1 1/8 1/4 1/2 1 2 4 Arithmetic intensity 8 16 Double-precision GFLOP/sec 128 NVIDIA GTX280 64 32 16 8 4 Stream = 127 GB/sec 2 78 GF/sec 1 1/8 1/4 1/2 1 2 4 Arithmetic intensity 8 16 1024 512 Core i7 920 (Nehalem) 1024 512 NVIDIA GTX280 624 GF/sec Single-precision GFLOP/sec Single-precision GFLOP/sec 256 256 128 64 32 16 85.33 GF/sec Stream = 16.4 GB/sec 42.66 GF/sec 128 64 Stream = 127 GB/sec 32 16 78 GF/sec 8 1/8 1/4 1/2 1 2 4 Arithmetic intensity 8 16 8 1/8 1/4 1/2 1 2 4 Arithmetic intensity 8 16 Figure 4.28 Roofline model [Williams et al. 2009]. These rooflines show double-precision floating-point performance in the top row and single-precision performance in the bottom row. (The DP FP performance ceiling is also in the bottom row to give perspective.) The Core i7 920 on the left has a peak DP FP performance of 42.66 GFLOP/sec, a SP FP peak of 85.33 GFLOP/sec, and a peak memory bandwidth of 16.4 GBytes/sec. The NVIDIA GTX 280 has a DP FP peak of 78 GFLOP/sec, SP FP peak of 624 GFLOP/sec, and 127 GBytes/sec of memory bandwidth. The dashed vertical line on the left represents an arithmetic intensity of 0.5 FLOP/byte. It is limited by memory bandwidth to no more than 8 DP GFLOP/sec or 8 SP GFLOP/sec on the Core i7. The dashed vertical line to the right has an arithmetic intensity of 4 FLOP/byte. It is limited only computationally to 42.66 DP GFLOP/sec and 64 SP GFLOP/sec on the Core i7 and 78 DP GFLOP/sec and 512 DP GFLOP/sec on the GTX 280. To hit the highest computation rate on the Core i7 you need to use all 4 cores and SSE instructions with an equal number of multiplies and adds. For the GTX 280, you need to use fused multiply-add instructions on all multithreaded SIMD processors. Guz et al. [2009] have an interesting analytic model for these two architectures. 4.7 Putting It All Together: Mobile versus Server GPUs and Tesla versus Core i7 ■ 327 much higher. Note that the arithmetic intensity of the kernel is based on the bytes that go to main memory, not the bytes that go to cache memory. Thus, caching can change the arithmetic intensity of a kernel on a particular computer, presuming that most references really go to the cache. The Rooflines help explain the relative performance in this case study. Note also that this bandwidth is for unit-stride accesses in both architectures. Real gather-scatter addresses that are not coalesced are slower on the GTX 280 and on the Core i7, as we shall see. The researchers said that they selected the benchmark programs by analyzing the computational and memory characteristics of four recently proposed benchmark suites and then “formulated the set of throughput computing kernels that capture these characteristics.” Figure 4.29 describes these 14 kernels, and Figure 4.30 shows the performance results, with larger numbers meaning faster. Kernel Application SIMD TLP Characteristics SGEMM (SGEMM) Linear algebra Regular Across 2D tiles Compute bound after tiling Monte Carlo (MC) Computational finance Regular Across paths Compute bound Convolution (Conv) Image analysis Regular Across pixels Compute bound; BW bound for small filters FFT (FFT) Signal processing Regular Across smaller FFTs Compute bound or BW bound depending on size SAXPY (SAXPY) Dot product Regular Across vector BW bound for large vectors LBM (LBM) Time migration Regular Across cells BW bound Constraint solver (Solv) Rigid body physics Gather/Scatter Across constraints Synchronization bound SpMV (SpMV) Sparse solver Gather Across non-zero BW bound for typical large matrices GJK (GJK) Collision detection Gather/Scatter Across objects Compute bound Sort (Sort) Database Gather/Scatter Across elements Compute bound Ray casting (RC) Volume rendering Gather Across rays 4-8 MB first level working set; over 500 MB last level working set Search (Search) Database Gather/Scatter Across queries Compute bound for small tree, BW bound at bottom of tree for large tree Histogram (Hist) Image analysis Requires conflict Across pixels detection Reduction/synchronization bound Figure 4.29 Throughput computing kernel characteristics (from Table 1 in Lee et al. [2010].) The name in parentheses identifies the benchmark name in this section. The authors suggest that code for both machines had equal optimization effort. 328 ■ Chapter Four Data-Level Parallelism in Vector, SIMD, and GPU Architectures Kernel SGEMM MC Conv FFT SAXPY LBM Solv SpMV GJK Sort RC Search Hist Bilat Units GFLOP/sec Billion paths/sec Million pixels/sec GFLOP/sec GBytes/sec Million lookups/sec Frames/sec GFLOP/sec Frames/sec Million elements/sec Frames/sec Million queries/sec Million pixels/sec Million pixels/sec Core i7-960 94 0.8 1250 71.4 16.8 85 103 4.9 67 250 5 50 1517 83 GTX 280 364 1.4 3500 213 88.8 426 52 9.1 1020 198 8.1 90 2583 475 GTX 280/ i7-960 3.9 1.8 2.8 3.0 5.3 5.0 0.5 1.9 15.2 0.8 1.6 1.8 1.7 5.7 Figure 4.30 Raw and relative performance measured for the two platforms. In this study, SAXPY is just used as a measure of memory bandwidth, so the right unit is GBytes/sec and not GFLOP/sec. (Based on Table 3 in [Lee et al. 2010].) Given that the raw performance specifications of the GTX 280 vary from 2.5× slower (clock rate) to 7.5× faster (cores per chip) while the performance varies from 2.0× slower (Solv) to 15.2× faster (GJK), the Intel researchers explored the reasons for the differences: ■ Memory bandwidth. The GPU has 4.4× the memory bandwidth, which helps explain why LBM and SAXPY run 5.0 and 5.3× faster; their working sets are hundreds of megabytes and hence don’t fit into the Core i7 cache. (To access memory intensively, they did not use cache blocking on SAXPY.) Hence, the slope of the rooflines explains their performance. SpMV also has a large working set, but it only runs 1.9× because the double-precision floating point of the GTX 280 is only 1.5× faster than the Core i7. (Recall that the Fermi GTX 480 double-precision is 4× faster than the Tesla GTX 280.) ■ Compute bandwidth. Five of the remaining kernels are compute bound: SGEMM, Conv, FFT, MC, and Bilat. The GTX is faster by 3.9, 2.8, 3.0, 1.8, and 5.7, respectively. The first three of these use single-precision floatingpoint arithmetic, and GTX 280 single precision is 3 to 6× faster. (The 9× faster than the Core i7 as shown in Figure 4.27 occurs only in the very special case when the GTX 280 can issue a fused multiply-add and a multiply per clock cycle.) MC uses double precision, which explains why it’s only 1.8× faster since DP performance is only 1.5× faster. Bilat uses transcendental functions, which the GTX 280 supports directly (see Figure 4.17). The 4.7 Putting It All Together: Mobile versus Server GPUs and Tesla versus Core i7 ■ 329 Core i7 spends two-thirds of its time calculating transcendental functions, so the GTX 280 is 5.7× faster. This observation helps point out the value of hardware support for operations that occur in your workload: double-precision floating point and perhaps even transcendentals. ■ Cache benefits. Ray casting (RC) is only 1.6× faster on the GTX because cache blocking with the Core i7 caches prevents it from becoming memory bandwidth bound, as it is on GPUs. Cache blocking can help Search, too. If the index trees are small so that they fit in the cache, the Core i7 is twice as fast. Larger index trees make them memory bandwidth bound. Overall, the GTX 280 runs search 1.8× faster. Cache blocking also helps Sort. While most programmers wouldn’t run Sort on a SIMD processor, it can be written with a 1-bit Sort primitive called split. However, the split algorithm executes many more instructions than a scalar sort does. As a result, the GTX 280 runs only 0.8× as fast as the Core i7. Note that caches also help other kernels on the Core i7, since cache blocking allows SGEMM, FFT, and SpMV to become compute bound. This observation re-emphasizes the importance of cache blocking optimizations in Chapter 2. (It would be interesting to see how caches of the Fermi GTX 480 will affect the six kernels mentioned in this paragraph.) ■ Gather-Scatter. The multimedia SIMD extensions are of little help if the data are scattered throughout main memory; optimal performance comes only when data are aligned on 16-byte boundaries. Thus, GJK gets little benefit from SIMD on the Core i7. As mentioned above, GPUs offer gather-scatter addressing that is found in a vector architecture but omitted from SIMD extensions. The address coalescing unit helps as well by combining accesses to the same DRAM line, thereby reducing the number of gathers and scatters. The memory controller also batches accesses to the same DRAM page together. This combination means the GTX 280 runs GJK a startling 15.2× faster than the Core i7, which is larger than any single physical parameter in Figure 4.27. This observation reinforces the importance of gather-scatter to vector and GPU architectures that is missing from SIMD extensions. ■ Synchronization. The performance synchronization of is limited by atomic updates, which are responsible for 28% of the total runtime on the Core i7 despite its having a hardware fetch-and-increment instruction. Thus, Hist is only 1.7× faster on the GTX 280. As mentioned above, the atomic updates of the Fermi GTX 480 are 5 to 20× faster than those of the Tesla GTX 280, so once again it would be interesting to run Hist on the newer GPU. Solv solves a batch of independent constraints in a small amount of computation followed by barrier synchronization. The Core i7 benefits from the atomic instructions and a memory consistency model that ensures the right results even if not all previous accesses to memory hierarchy have completed. Without the memory consistency model, the GTX 280 version launches some batches from the system processor, which leads to the GTX 280 running 0.5× as fast as the Core i7. This observation points out how synchronization performance can be important for some data parallel problems. 330 ■ Chapter Four Data-Level Parallelism in Vector, SIMD, and GPU Architectures It is striking how often weaknesses in the Tesla GTX 280 that were uncovered by kernels selected by Intel researchers were already being addressed in the successor architecture to Tesla: Fermi has faster double-precision floating-point performance, atomic operations, and caches. (In a related study, IBM researchers made the same observation [Bordawekar 2010].) It was also interesting that the gather-scatter support of vector architectures that predate the SIMD instructions by decades was so important to the effective usefulness of these SIMD extensions, which some had predicted before the comparison [Gebis and Patterson 2007] The Intel researchers noted that 6 of the 14 kernels would exploit SIMD better with more efficient gather-scatter support on the Core i7. This study certainly establishes the importance of cache blocking as well. It will be interesting to see if future generations of the multicore and GPU hardware, compilers, and libraries respond with features that improve performance on such kernels. We hope that there will be more such multicore-GPU comparisons. Note that an important feature missing from this comparison was describing the level of effort to get the results for the two systems. Ideally, future comparisons would release the code used on both systems so that others could recreate the same experiments on different hardware platforms and possibly improve on the results. 4.8 Fallacies and Pitfalls While data-level parallelism is the easiest form of parallelism after ILP from the programmer’s perspective, and plausibly the easiest from the architect’s perspective, it still has many fallacies and pitfalls. Fallacy GPUs suffer from being coprocessors. While the split between main memory and GPU memory has disadvantages, there are advantages to being at a distance from the CPU. For example, PTX exists in part because of the I/O device nature of GPUs. This level of indirection between the compiler and the hardware gives GPU architects much more flexibility than system processor architects. It’s often hard to know in advance whether an architecture innovation will be well supported by compilers and libraries and be important to applications. Sometimes a new mechanism will even prove useful for one or two generations and then fade in importance as the IT world changes. PTX allows GPU architects to try innovations speculatively and drop them in subsequent generations if they disappoint or fade in importance, which encourages experimentation. The justification for inclusion is understandably much higher for system processors—and hence much less experimentation can occur—as distributing binary machine code normally implies that new features must be supported by all future generations of that architecture. A demonstration of the value of PTX is that the Fermi architecture radically changed the hardware instruction set—from being memory-oriented like x86 to 4.8 Fallacies and Pitfalls ■ 331 being register-oriented like MIPS as well as doubling the address size to 64 bits—without disrupting the NVIDIA software stack. Pitfall Concentrating on peak performance in vector architectures and ignoring start-up overhead. Early memory-memory vector processors such as the TI ASC and the CDC STAR-100 had long start-up times. For some vector problems, vectors had to be longer than 100 for the vector code to be faster than the scalar code! On the CYBER 205—derived from the STAR-100—the start-up overhead for DAXPY is 158 clock cycles, which substantially increases the break-even point. If the clock rates of the Cray-1 and the CYBER 205 were identical, the Cray-1 would be faster until the vector length is greater than 64. Because the Cray-1 clock was also faster (even though the 205 was newer), the crossover point was a vector length over 100. Pitfall Increasing vector performance, without comparable increases in scalar performance. This imbalance was a problem on many early vector processors, and a place where Seymour Cray (the architect of the Cray computers) rewrote the rules. Many of the early vector processors had comparatively slow scalar units (as well as large start-up overheads). Even today, a processor with lower vector performance but better scalar performance can outperform a processor with higher peak vector performance. Good scalar performance keeps down overhead costs (strip mining, for example) and reduces the impact of Amdahl’s law. A good example of this comes from comparing a fast scalar processor and a vector processor with lower scalar performance. The Livermore Fortran kernels are a collection of 24 scientific kernels with varying degrees of vectorization. Figure 4.31 shows the performance of two different processors on this benchmark. Despite the vector processor’s higher peak performance, its low scalar Processor MIPS M/120-5 Stardent-1500 Minimum rate for any loop (MFLOPS) 0.80 0.41 Maximum rate for any loop (MFLOPS) 3.89 10.08 Harmonic mean of all 24 loops (MFLOPS) 1.85 1.72 Figure 4.31 Performance measurements for the Livermore Fortran kernels on two different processors. Both the MIPS M/120-5 and the Stardent-1500 (formerly the Ardent Titan-1) use a 16.7 MHz MIPS R2000 chip for the main CPU. The Stardent-1500 uses its vector unit for scalar FP and has about half the scalar performance (as measured by the minimum rate) of the MIPS M/120-5, which uses the MIPS R2010 FP chip. The vector processor is more than a factor of 2.5× faster for a highly vectorizable loop (maximum rate). However, the lower scalar performance of the Stardent-1500 negates the higher vector performance when total performance is measured by the harmonic mean on all 24 loops. 332 ■ Chapter Four Data-Level Parallelism in Vector, SIMD, and GPU Architectures performance makes it slower than a fast scalar processor as measured by the harmonic mean. The flip of this danger today is increasing vector performance—say, by increasing the number of lanes—without increasing scalar performance. Such myopia is another path to an unbalanced computer. The next fallacy is closely related. Fallacy You can get good vector performance without providing memory bandwidth. As we saw with the DAXPY loop and the Roofline model, memory bandwidth is quite important to all SIMD architectures. DAXPY requires 1.5 memory references per floating-point operation, and this ratio is typical of many scientific codes. Even if the floating-point operations took no time, a Cray-1 could not increase the performance of the vector sequence used, since it is memory limited. The Cray-1 performance on Linpack jumped when the compiler used blocking to change the computation so that values could be kept in the vector registers. This approach lowered the number of memory references per FLOP and improved the performance by nearly a factor of two! Thus, the memory bandwidth on the Cray-1 became sufficient for a loop that formerly required more bandwidth. Fallacy On GPUs, just add more threads if you don’t have enough memory performance. GPUs use many CUDA threads to hide the latency to main memory. If memory accesses are scattered or not correlated among CUDA threads, the memory system will get progressively slower in responding to each individual request. Eventually, even many threads will not cover the latency. For the “more CUDA threads” strategy to work, not only do you need lots of CUDA Threads, but the CUDA threads themselves also must be well behaved in terms of locality of memory accesses. 4.9 Concluding Remarks Data-level parallelism is increasing in importance for personal mobile devices, given the popularity of applications showing the importance of audio, video, and games on these devices. When combined with an easier to program model than task-level parallelism and potentially better energy efficiency, it’s easy to predict a renaissance for data-level parallelism in this next decade. Indeed, we can already see this emphasis in products, as both GPUs and traditional processors have been increasing the number of SIMD lanes at least as fast as they have been adding processors (see Figure 4.1 on page 263). Hence, we are seeing system processors take on more of the characteristics of GPUs, and vice versa. One of the biggest differences in performance between conventional processors and GPUs has been for gather-scatter addressing. Traditional vector architectures show how to add such addressing to SIMD instructions, and we expect to see more ideas added from the well-proven vector architectures to SIMD extensions over time. 4.9 Concluding Remarks ■ 333 As we said at the opening of Section 4.4, the GPU question is not simply which architecture is best, but, given the hardware investment to do graphics well, how can it be enhanced to support computation that is more general? Although vector architectures have many advantages on paper, it remains to be proven whether vector architectures can be as good a foundation for graphics as GPUs. GPU SIMD processors and compilers are still of relatively simple design. Techniques that are more aggressive will likely be introduced over time to increase GPU utilization, especially since GPU computing applications are just starting to be developed. By studying these new programs, GPU designers will surely discover and implement new machine optimizations. One question is whether the scalar processor (or control processor), which serves to save hardware and energy in vector processors, will appear within GPUs. The Fermi architecture has already included many features found in conventional processors to make GPUs more mainstream, but there are still others necessary to close the gap. Here are a few we expect to be addressed in the near future. ■ Virtualizable GPUs. Virtualization has proved important for servers and is the foundation of cloud computing (see Chapter 6). For GPUs to be included in the cloud, they will need to be just as virtualizable as the processors and memory that they are attached to. ■ Relatively small size of GPU memory. A commonsense use of faster computation is to solve bigger problems, and bigger problems often have a larger memory footprint. This GPU inconsistency between speed and size can be addressed with more memory capacity. The challenge is to maintain high bandwidth while increasing capacity. ■ Direct I/O to GPU memory. Real programs do I/O to storage devices as well as to frame buffers, and large programs can require a lot of I/O as well as a sizeable memory. Today’s GPU systems must transfer between I/O devices and system memory and then between system memory and GPU memory. This extra hop significantly lowers I/O performance in some programs, making GPUs less attractive. Amdahl’s law warns us what happens when you neglect one piece of the task while accelerating others. We expect that future GPUs will make all I/O first-class citizens, just as it does for frame buffer I/O today. ■ Unified physical memories. An alternative solution to the prior two bullets is to have a single physical memory for the system and GPU, just as some inexpensive GPUs do for PMDs and laptops. The AMD Fusion architecture, announced just as this edition was being finished, is an initial merger between traditional GPUs and traditional CPUs. NVIDIA also announced Project Denver, which combines an ARM scalar processor with NVIDIA GPUs in a single address space. When these systems are shipped, it will be interesting to learn just how tightly integrated they are and the impact of integration on performance and energy of both data parallel and graphics applications. Having covered the many versions of SIMD, the next chapter dives into the realm of MIMD. 334 ■ Chapter Four Data-Level Parallelism in Vector, SIMD, and GPU Architectures 4.10 Historical Perspective and References Section L.6 (available online) features a discussion on the Illiac IV (a representative of the early SIMD architectures) and the Cray-1 (a representative of vector architectures). We also look at multimedia SIMD extensions and the history of GPUs. Case Study and Exercises by Jason D. Bakos Case Study: Implementing a Vector Kernel on a Vector Processor and GPU Concepts illustrated by this case study ■ Programming Vector Processors ■ Programming GPUs ■ Performance Estimation MrBayes is a popular and well-known computational biology application for inferring the evolutionary histories among a set of input species based on their multiply-aligned DNA sequence data of length n. MrBayes works by performing a heuristic search over the space of all binary tree topologies for which the inputs are the leaves. In order to evaluate a particular tree, the application must compute an n × 4 conditional likelihood table (named clP) for each interior node. The table is a function of the conditional likelihood tables of the node’s two descendent nodes (clL and clR, single precision floating point) and their associated n × 4 × 4 transition probability tables (tiPL and tiPR, single precision floating point). One of this application’s kernels is the computation of this conditional likelihood table and is shown below: for (k=0; k Assume the constants shown in Figure 4.32. Show the code for MIPS and VMIPS. Assume we cannot use scatter-gather loads or stores. Assume the starting addresses of tiPL, tiPR, clL, clR, and clP are in RtiPL, RtiPR, RclL, RclR, and RclP, respectively. Assume the VMIPS register length is user programmable and can be assigned by setting the special register VL (e.g., li VL 4). To facilitate vector addition reductions, assume that we add the following instructions to VMIPS: SUMR.S Fd, Vs Vector Summation Reduction Single Precision: This instruction performs a summation reduction on a vector register Vs, writing to the sum into scalar register Fd. 4.2 [5] <4.2, 4.3> Assuming seq_length == 500, what is the dynamic instruction count for both implementations? 4.3 [25] <4.2, 4.3> Assume that the vector reduction instruction is executed on the vector functional unit, similar to a vector add instruction. Show how the code sequence lays out in convoys assuming a single instance of each vector functional unit. How many chimes will the code require? How many cycles per FLOP are needed, ignoring vector instruction issue overhead? 4.4 [15] <4.2, 4.3> Now assume that we can use scatter-gather loads and stores (LVI and SVI). Assume that tiPL, tiPR, clL, clR, and clP are arranged consecutively in memory. For example, if seq_length==500, the tiPR array would begin 500 * 4 bytes after the tiPL array. How does this affect the way you can write the VMIPS code for this kernel? Assume that you can initialize vector registers with integers using the following technique which would, for example, initialize vector register V1 with values (0,0,2000,2000): LI R2,0 SW R2,vec SW R2,vec+4 LI R2,2000 SW R2,vec+8 SW R2,vec+12 LV V1,vec 336 ■ Chapter Four Data-Level Parallelism in Vector, SIMD, and GPU Architectures Assume the maximum vector length is 64. Is there any way performance can be improved using gather-scatter loads? If so, by how much? 4.5 [25] <4.4> Now assume we want to implement the MrBayes kernel on a GPU using a single thread block. Rewrite the C code of the kernel using CUDA. Assume that pointers to the conditional likelihood and transition probability tables are specified as parameters to the kernel. Invoke one thread for each iteration of the loop. Load any reused values into shared memory before performing operations on it. 4.6 [15] <4.4> With CUDA we can use coarse-grain parallelism at the block level to compute the conditional likelihoods of multiple nodes in parallel. Assume that we want to compute the conditional likelihoods from the bottom of the tree up. Assume that the conditional likelihood and transition probability arrays are organized in memory as described in question 4 and the group of tables for each of the 12 leaf nodes is also stored in consecutive memory locations in the order of node number. Assume that we want to compute the conditional likelihood for nodes 12 to 17, as shown in Figure 4.33. Change the method by which you compute the array indices in your answer from Exercise 4.5 to include the block number. 4.7 [15] <4.4> Convert your code from Exercise 4.6 into PTX code. How many instructions are needed for the kernel? 4.8 [10] <4.4> How well do you expect this code to perform on a GPU? Explain your answer. 22 21 18 19 20 12 13 14 15 16 17 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Figure 4.33 Sample tree. Case Study and Exercises by Jason D. Bakos ■ 337 Exercises 4.9 [10/20/20/15/15] <4.2> Consider the following code, which multiplies two vectors that contain single-precision complex values: for (i=0;i<300;i++) { c_re[i] = a_re[i] * b_re[i] – a_im[i] * b_im[i]; c_im[i] = a_re[i] * b_im[i] + a_im[i] * b_re[i]; } Assume that the processor runs at 700 MHz and has a maximum vector length of 64. The load/store unit has a start-up overhead of 15 cycles; the multiply unit, 8 cycles; and the add/subtract unit, 5 cycles. a. [10] <4.2> What is the arithmetic intensity of this kernel? Justify your answer. b. [20] <4.2> Convert this loop into VMIPS assembly code using strip mining. c. [20] <4.2> Assuming chaining and a single memory pipeline, how many chimes are required? How many clock cycles are required per complex result value, including start-up overhead? d. [15] <4.2> If the vector sequence is chained, how many clock cycles are required per complex result value, including overhead? e. [15] <4.2> Now assume that the processor has three memory pipelines and chaining. If there are no bank conflicts in the loop’s accesses, how many clock cycles are required per result? 4.10 [30] <4.4> In this problem, we will compare the performance of a vector processor with a hybrid system that contains a scalar processor and a GPU-based coprocessor. In the hybrid system, the host processor has superior scalar performance to the GPU, so in this case all scalar code is executed on the host processor while all vector code is executed on the GPU. We will refer to the first system as the vector computer and the second system as the hybrid computer. Assume that your target application contains a vector kernel with an arithmetic intensity of 0.5 FLOPs per DRAM byte accessed; however, the application also has a scalar component which that must be performed before and after the kernel in order to prepare the input vectors and output vectors, respectively. For a sample dataset, the scalar portion of the code requires 400 ms of execution time on both the vector processor and the host processor in the hybrid system. The kernel reads input vectors consisting of 200 MB of data and has output data consisting of 100 MB of data. The vector processor has a peak memory bandwidth of 30 GB/sec and the GPU has a peak memory bandwidth of 150 GB/sec. The hybrid system has an additional overhead that requires all input vectors to be transferred between the host memory and GPU local memory before and after the kernel is invoked. The hybrid system has a direct memory access (DMA) bandwidth of 10 GB/sec and an average latency of 10 ms. Assume that both the vector processor and GPU are 338 ■ Chapter Four Data-Level Parallelism in Vector, SIMD, and GPU Architectures performance bound by memory bandwidth. Compute the execution time required by both computers for this application. 4.11 [15/25/25] <4.4, 4.5> Section 4.5 discussed the reduction operation that reduces a vector down to a scalar by repeated application of an operation. A reduction is a special type of a loop recurrence. An example is shown below: dot=0.0; for (i=0;i<64;i++) dot = dot + a[i] * b[i]; A vectorizing compiler might apply a transformation called scalar expansion, which expands dot into a vector and splits the loop such that the multiply can be performed with a vector operation, leaving the reduction as a separate scalar operation: for (i=0;i<64;i++) dot[i] = a[i] * b[i]; for (i=1;i<64;i++) dot[0] = dot[0] + dot[i]; As mentioned in Section 4.5, if we allow the floating-point addition to be associative, there are several techniques available for parallelizing the reduction. a. [15] <4.4, 4.5> One technique is called recurrence doubling, which adds sequences of progressively shorter vectors (i.e., two 32-element vectors, then two 16-element vectors, and so on). Show how the C code would look for executing the second loop in this way. b. [25] <4.4, 4.5> In some vector processors, the individual elements within the vector registers are addressable. In this case, the operands to a vector operation may be two different parts of the same vector register. This allows another solution for the reduction called partial sums. The idea is to reduce the vector to m sums where m is the total latency through the vector functional unit, including the operand read and write times. Assume that the VMIPS vector registers are addressable (e.g., you can initiate a vector operation with the operand V1(16), indicating that the input operand begins with element 16). Also, assume that the total latency for adds, including the operand read and result write, is eight cycles. Write a VMIPS code sequence that reduces the contents of V1 to eight partial sums. c. [25] <4.4, 4.5> When performing a reduction on a GPU, one thread is associated with each element in the input vector. The first step is for each thread to write its corresponding value into shared memory. Next, each thread enters a loop that adds each pair of input values. This reduces the number of elements by half after each iteration, meaning that the number of active threads also reduces by half after each iteration. In order to maximize the performance of the reduction, the number of fully populated warps should be maximized throughout the course of the loop. In other words, the active threads should be contiguous. Also, each thread should index the shared array in such a way as to avoid bank conflicts in the shared memory. The following loop violates Case Study and Exercises by Jason D. Bakos ■ 339 only the first of these guidelines and also uses the modulo operator which is very expensive for GPUs: unsigned int tid = threadIdx.x; for(unsigned int s=1; s < blockDim.x; s *= 2) { if ((tid % (2*s)) == 0) { sdata[tid] += sdata[tid + s]; } __syncthreads(); } Rewrite the loop to meet these guidelines and eliminate the use of the modulo operator. Assume that there are 32 threads per warp and a bank conflict occurs whenever two or more threads from the same warp reference an index whose modulo by 32 are equal. 4.12 [10/10/10/10] <4.3> The following kernel performs a portion of the finitedifference time-domain (FDTD) method for computing Maxwell’s equations in a three-dimensional space, part of one of the SPEC06fp benchmarks: for (int x=0; x0 && x >0) { material = IDx[index]; dH1 = (Hz[index] – Hz[index-incrementY])/dy[y]; dH2 = (Hy[index] – Hy[index-incrementZ])/dz[z]; Ex[index] = Ca[material]*Ex[index]+Cb[material]*(dH2-dH1); }}}} Assume that dH1, dH2, Hy, Hz, dy, dz, Ca, Cb, and Ex are all single-precision floating-point arrays. Assume IDx is an array of unsigned int. a. [10] <4.3> What is the arithmetic intensity of this kernel? b. [10] <4.3> Is this kernel amenable to vector or SIMD execution? Why or why not? c. [10] <4.3> Assume this kernel is to be executed on a processor that has 30 GB/sec of memory bandwidth. Will this kernel be memory bound or compute bound? d. [10] <4.3> Develop a roofline model for this processor, assuming it has a peak computational throughput of 85 GFLOP/sec. 4.13 [10/15] <4.4> Assume a GPU architecture that contains 10 SIMD processors. Each SIMD instruction has a width of 32 and each SIMD processor contains 8 lanes for single-precision arithmetic and load/store instructions, meaning that 340 ■ Chapter Four Data-Level Parallelism in Vector, SIMD, and GPU Architectures each non-diverged SIMD instruction can produce 32 results every 4 cycles. Assume a kernel that has divergent branches that causes on average 80% of threads to be active. Assume that 70% of all SIMD instructions executed are single-precision arithmetic and 20% are load/store. Since not all memory latencies are covered, assume an average SIMD instruction issue rate of 0.85. Assume that the GPU has a clock speed of 1.5 GHz. a. [10] <4.4> Compute the throughput, in GFLOP/sec, for this kernel on this GPU. b. [15] <4.4> Assume that you have the following choices: (1) Increasing the number of single-precision lanes to 16 (2) Increasing the number of SIMD processors to 15 (assume this change doesn't affect any other performance metrics and that the code scales to the additional processors) (3) Adding a cache that will effectively reduce memory latency by 40%, which will increase instruction issue rate to 0.95 What is speedup in throughput for each of these improvements? 4.14 [10/15/15] <4.5> In this exercise, we will examine several loops and analyze their potential for parallelization. a. [10] <4.5> Does the following loop have a loop-carried dependency? for (i=0;i<100;i++) { A[i] = B[2*i+4]; B[4*i+5] = A[i]; } b. [15] <4.5> In the following loop, find all the true dependences, output dependences, and antidependences. Eliminate the output dependences and antidependences by renaming. for (i=0;i<100;i++) { A[i] = A[i] * B[i]; /* S1 */ B[i] = A[i] + c; /* S2 */ A[i] = C[i] * c; /* S3 */ C[i] = D[i] * A[i]; /* S4 */ c. [15] <4.5> Consider the following loop: for (i=0;i < 100;i++) { A[i] = A[i] + B[i]; /* S1 */ B[i+1] = C[i] + D[i]; /* S2 */ } Are there dependences between S1 and S2? Is this loop parallel? If not, show how to make it parallel. Case Study and Exercises by Jason D. Bakos ■ 341 4.15 [10] <4.4> List and describe at least four factors that influence the performance of GPU kernels. In other words, which runtime behaviors that are caused by the kernel code cause a reduction in resource utilization during kernel execution? 4.16 [10] <4.4> Assume a hypothetical GPU with the following characteristics: ■ Clock rate 1.5 GHz ■ Contains 16 SIMD processors, each containing 16 single-precision floatingpoint units ■ Has 100 GB/sec off-chip memory bandwidth Without considering memory bandwidth, what is the peak single-precision floating-point throughput for this GPU in GLFOP/sec, assuming that all memory latencies can be hidden? Is this throughput sustainable given the memory bandwidth limitation? 4.17 [60] <4.4> For this programming exercise, you will write and characterize the behavior of a CUDA kernel that contains a high amount of data-level parallelism but also contains conditional execution behavior. Use the NVIDIA CUDA Toolkit along with GPU-SIM from the University of British Columbia (http:// www.ece.ubc.ca/~aamodt/gpgpu-sim/) or the CUDA Profiler to write and compile a CUDA kernel that performs 100 iterations of Conway’s Game of Life for a 256 × 256 game board and returns the final state of the game board to the host. Assume that the board is initialized by the host. Associate one thread with each cell. Make sure you add a barrier after each game iteration. Use the following game rules: ■ Any live cell with fewer than two live neighbors dies. ■ Any live cell with two or three live neighbors lives on to the next generation. ■ Any live cell with more than three live neighbors dies. ■ Any dead cell with exactly three live neighbors becomes a live cell. After finishing the kernel answer the following questions: a. [60] <4.4> Compile your code using the –ptx option and inspect the PTX representation of your kernel. How many PTX instructions make up the PTX implementation of your kernel? Did the conditional sections of your kernel include branch instructions or only predicated non-branch instructions? b. [60] <4.4> After executing your code in the simulator, what is the dynamic instruction count? What is the achieved instructions per cycle (IPC) or instruction issue rate? What is the dynamic instruction breakdown in terms of control instructions, arithmetic-logical unit (ALU) instructions, and memory instructions? Are there any shared memory bank conflicts? What is the effective off-chip memory bandwidth? c. [60] <4.4> Implement an improved version of your kernel where off-chip memory references are coalesced and observe the differences in runtime performance. 5.1 Introduction 344 5.2 Centralized Shared-Memory Architectures 351 5.3 Performance of Symmetric Shared-Memory Multiprocessors 366 5.4 Distributed Shared-Memory and Directory-Based Coherence 378 5.5 Synchronization: The Basics 386 5.6 Models of Memory Consistency: An Introduction 392 5.7 Crosscutting Issues 395 5.8 Putting It All Together: Multicore Processors and Their Performance 400 5.9 Fallacies and Pitfalls 405 5.10 Concluding Remarks 409 5.11 Historical Perspectives and References 412 Case Studies and Exercises by Amr Zaky and David A. Wood 412 5 Thread-Level Parallelism 1 The turning away from the conventional organization came in the middle 1960s, when the law of diminishing returns began to take effect in the effort to increase the operational speed of a computer. . . . Electronic circuits are ultimately limited in their speed of operation by the speed of light . . . and many of the circuits were already operating in the nanosecond range. W. Jack Bouknight et al. The Illiac IV System (1972) We are dedicating all of our future product development to multicore designs. We believe this is a key inflection point for the industry. Intel President Paul Otellini, describing Intel’s future direction at the Intel Developer Forum in 2005 Computer Architecture. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-383872-8.00006-9 © 2012 Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved. 344 ■ Chapter Five Thread-Level Parallelism 5.1 Introduction As the quotations that open this chapter show, the view that advances in uniprocessor architecture were nearing an end has been held by some researchers for many years. Clearly, these views were premature; in fact, during the period of 1986–2003, uniprocessor performance growth, driven by the microprocessor, was at its highest rate since the first transistorized computers in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Nonetheless, the importance of multiprocessors was growing throughout the 1990s as designers sought a way to build servers and supercomputers that achieved higher performance than a single microprocessor, while exploiting the tremendous cost-performance advantages of commodity microprocessors. As we discussed in Chapters 1 and 3, the slowdown in uniprocessor performance arising from diminishing returns in exploiting instruction-level parallelism (ILP) combined with growing concern over power, is leading to a new era in computer architecture—an era where multiprocessors play a major role from the low end to the high end. The second quotation captures this clear inflection point. This increased importance of multiprocessing reflects several major factors: ■ The dramatically lower efficiencies in silicon and energy use that were encountered between 2000 and 2005 as designers attempted to find and exploit more ILP, which turned out to be inefficient, since power and silicon costs grew faster than performance. Other than ILP, the only scalable and general-purpose way we know how to increase performance faster than the basic technology allows (from a switching perspective) is through multiprocessing. ■ A growing interest in high-end servers as cloud computing and software-asa-service become more important. ■ A growth in data-intensive applications driven by the availability of massive amounts of data on the Internet. ■ The insight that increasing performance on the desktop is less important (outside of graphics, at least), either because current performance is acceptable or because highly compute- and data-intensive applications are being done in the cloud. ■ An improved understanding of how to use multiprocessors effectively, especially in server environments where there is significant natural parallelism, arising from large datasets, natural parallelism (which occurs in scientific codes), or parallelism among large numbers of independent requests (requestlevel parallelism). ■ The advantages of leveraging a design investment by replication rather than unique design; all multiprocessor designs provide such leverage. In this chapter, we focus on exploiting thread-level parallelism (TLP). TLP implies the existence of multiple program counters and hence is exploited primarily 5.1 Introduction ■ 345 through MIMDs. Although MIMDs have been around for decades, the movement of thread-level parallelism to the forefront across the range of computing from embedded applications to high-end severs is relatively recent. Likewise, the extensive use of thread-level parallelism for general-purpose applications, versus scientific applications, is relatively new. Our focus in this chapter is on multiprocessors, which we define as computers consisting of tightly coupled processors whose coordination and usage are typically controlled by a single operating system and that share memory through a shared address space. Such systems exploit thread-level parallelism through two different software models. The first is the execution of a tightly coupled set of threads collaborating on a single task, which is typically called parallel processing. The second is the execution of multiple, relatively independent processes that may originate from one or more users, which is a form of requestlevel parallelism, although at a much smaller scale than what we explore in the next chapter. Request-level parallelism may be exploited by a single application running on multiple processors, such as a database responding to queries, or multiple applications running independently, often called multiprogramming. The multiprocessors we examine in this chapter typically range in size from a dual processor to dozens of processors and communicate and coordinate through the sharing of memory. Although sharing through memory implies a shared address space, it does not necessarily mean there is a single physical memory. Such multiprocessors include both single-chip systems with multiple cores, known as multicore, and computers consisting of multiple chips, each of which may be a multicore design. In addition to true multiprocessors, we will return to the topic of multithreading, a technique that supports multiple threads executing in an interleaved fashion on a single multiple issue processor. Many multicore processors also include support for multithreading. In the next chapter, we consider ultrascale computers built from very large numbers of processors, connected with networking technology and often called clusters; these large-scale systems are typically used for cloud computing with a model that assumes either massive numbers of independent requests or highly parallel, intensive compute tasks. When these clusters grow to tens of thousands of servers and beyond, we call them warehouse-scale computers. In addition to the multiprocessors we study here and the warehouse-scaled systems of the next chapter, there are a range of special large-scale multiprocessor systems, sometimes called multicomputers, which are less tightly coupled than the multiprocessors examined in this chapter but more tightly coupled than the warehouse-scale systems of the next. The primary use for such multicomputers is in high-end scientific computation. Many other books, such as Culler, Singh, and Gupta [1999], cover such systems in detail. Because of the large and changing nature of the field of multiprocessing (the just-mentioned Culler et al. reference is over 1000 pages and discusses only multiprocessing!), we have chosen to focus our attention on what we believe is the most important and general-purpose portions of the computing space. Appendix I discusses some of the issues that arise in building such computers in the context of large-scale scientific applications. 346 ■ Chapter Five Thread-Level Parallelism Thus, our focus will be on multiprocessors with a small to moderate number of processors (2 to 32). Such designs vastly dominate in terms of both units and dollars. We will pay only slight attention to the larger-scale multiprocessor design space (33 or more processors), primarily in Appendix I, which covers more aspects of the design of such processors, as well as the behavior performance for parallel scientific workloads, a primary class of applications for largescale multiprocessors. In large-scale multiprocessors, the interconnection networks are a critical part of the design; Appendix F focuses on that topic. Multiprocessor Architecture: Issues and Approach To take advantage of an MIMD multiprocessor with n processors, we must usually have at least n threads or processes to execute. The independent threads within a single process are typically identified by the programmer or created by the operating system (from multiple independent requests). At the other extreme, a thread may consist of a few tens of iterations of a loop, generated by a parallel compiler exploiting data parallelism in the loop. Although the amount of computation assigned to a thread, called the grain size, is important in considering how to exploit thread-level parallelism efficiently, the important qualitative distinction from instruction-level parallelism is that thread-level parallelism is identified at a high level by the software system or programmer and that the threads consist of hundreds to millions of instructions that may be executed in parallel. Threads can also be used to exploit data-level parallelism, although the overhead is likely to be higher than would be seen with an SIMD processor or with a GPU (see Chapter 4). This overhead means that grain size must be sufficiently large to exploit the parallelism efficiently. For example, although a vector processor or GPU may be able to efficiently parallelize operations on short vectors, the resulting grain size when the parallelism is split among many threads may be so small that the overhead makes the exploitation of the parallelism prohibitively expensive in an MIMD. Existing shared-memory multiprocessors fall into two classes, depending on the number of processors involved, which in turn dictates a memory organization and interconnect strategy. We refer to the multiprocessors by their memory organization because what constitutes a small or large number of processors is likely to change over time. The first group, which we call symmetric (shared-memory) multiprocessors (SMPs), or centralized shared-memory multiprocessors, features small numbers of cores, typically eight or fewer. For multiprocessors with such small processor counts, it is possible for the processors to share a single centralized memory that all processors have equal access to, hence the term symmetric. In multicore chips, the memory is effectively shared in a centralized fashion among the cores, and all existing multicores are SMPs. When more than one multicore is connected, there are separate memories for each multicore, so the memory is distributed rather than centralized. SMP architectures are also sometimes called uniform memory access (UMA) multiprocessors, arising from the fact that all processors have a uniform latency 5.1 Introduction ■ 347 from memory, even if the memory is organized into multiple banks. Figure 5.1 shows what these multiprocessors look like. The architecture of SMPs is the topic of Section 5.2, and we explain the approach in the context of a multicore. The alternative design approach consists of multiprocessors with physically distributed memory, called distributed shared memory (DSM). Figure 5.2 shows what these multiprocessors look like. To support larger processor counts, memory must be distributed among the processors rather than centralized; otherwise, the memory system would not be able to support the bandwidth demands of a larger number of processors without incurring excessively long access latency. With the rapid increase in processor performance and the associated increase in a processor’s memory bandwidth requirements, the size of a multiprocessor for which distributed memory is preferred continues to shrink. The introduction of multicore processors has meant that even two-chip multiprocessors use distributed memory. The larger number of processors also raises the need for a highbandwidth interconnect, of which we will see examples in Appendix F. Both Processor Processor Processor Processor One or more levels of cache One or more levels of cache One or more levels of cache One or more levels of cache Private caches Shared cache Main memory I/O system Figure 5.1 Basic structure of a centralized shared-memory multiprocessor based on a multicore chip. Multiple processor–cache subsystems share the same physical memory, typically with one level of shared cache, and one or more levels of private per-core cache. The key architectural property is the uniform access time to all of the memory from all of the processors. In a multichip version the shared cache would be omitted and the bus or interconnection network connecting the processors to memory would run between chips as opposed to within a single chip. 348 ■ Chapter Five Thread-Level Parallelism Multicore MP Multicore MP Multicore MP Multicore MP Memory I/O Memory I/O Memory I/O Memory I/O Interconnection network Memory I/O Memory I/O Memory I/O Memory I/O Multicore MP Multicore MP Multicore MP Multicore MP Figure 5.2 The basic architecture of a distributed-memory multiprocessor in 2011 typically consists of a multicore multiprocessor chip with memory and possibly I/O attached and an interface to an interconnection network that connects all the nodes. Each processor core shares the entire memory, although the access time to the lock memory attached to the core’s chip will be much faster than the access time to remote memories. directed networks (i.e., switches) and indirect networks (typically multidimensional meshes) are used. Distributing the memory among the nodes both increases the bandwidth and reduces the latency to local memory. A DSM multiprocessor is also called a NUMA (nonuniform memory access), since the access time depends on the location of a data word in memory. The key disadvantages for a DSM are that communicating data among processors becomes somewhat more complex, and a DSM requires more effort in the software to take advantage of the increased memory bandwidth afforded by distributed memories. Because all multicorebased multiprocessors with more than one processor chip (or socket) use distributed memory, we will explain the operation of distributed memory multiprocessors from this viewpoint. In both SMP and DSM architectures, communication among threads occurs through a shared address space, meaning that a memory reference can be made by any processor to any memory location, assuming it has the correct access rights. The term shared memory associated with both SMP and DSM refers to the fact that the address space is shared. In contrast, the clusters and warehouse-scale computers of the next chapter look like individual computers connected by a network, and the memory of one processor cannot be accessed by another processor without the assistance of software protocols running on both processors. In such designs, message-passing protocols are used to communicate data among processors. 5.1 Introduction ■ 349 Challenges of Parallel Processing The application of multiprocessors ranges from running independent tasks with essentially no communication to running parallel programs where threads must communicate to complete the task. Two important hurdles, both explainable with Amdahl’s law, make parallel processing challenging. The degree to which these hurdles are difficult or easy is determined both by the application and by the architecture. The first hurdle has to do with the limited parallelism available in programs, and the second arises from the relatively high cost of communications. Limitations in available parallelism make it difficult to achieve good speedups in any parallel processor, as our first example shows. Example Suppose you want to achieve a speedup of 80 with 100 processors. What fraction of the original computation can be sequential? Answer Recall from Chapter 1 that Amdahl’s law is Speedup = -----------------------------------------------1------------------------------------------------- -F---r--a---c---t-i--o---n---e--n---h--a--n--c--e--dSpeedupenhanced + (1 – Fractionenhanced ) For simplicity in this example, assume that the program operates in only two modes: parallel with all processors fully used, which is the enhanced mode, or serial with only one processor in use. With this simplification, the speedup in enhanced mode is simply the number of processors, while the fraction of enhanced mode is the time spent in parallel mode. Substituting into the previous equation: 80 = -------------------------------------------1--------------------------------------------- -F---r--a--c---t--i--o---n---p--a--r--a--l-l--e-l 100 + (1 – Fractionparallel ) Simplifying this equation yields: 0.8 × Fractionparallel + 80 × (1 – Fractionparallel ) = 1 80 – 79.2 × Fractionparallel = 1 Fractionparallel = 8----0----–-----179.2 Fractionparallel = 0.9975 Thus, to achieve a speedup of 80 with 100 processors, only 0.25% of the original computation can be sequential. Of course, to achieve linear speedup (speedup of n with n processors), the entire program must usually be parallel with no serial portions. In practice, programs do not just operate in fully parallel or sequential mode, but often use less than the full complement of the processors when running in parallel mode. 350 ■ Chapter Five Thread-Level Parallelism The second major challenge in parallel processing involves the large latency of remote access in a parallel processor. In existing shared-memory multiprocessors, communication of data between separate cores may cost 35 to 50 clock cycles and among cores on separate chips anywhere from 100 clock cycles to as much as 500 or more clock cycles (for large-scale multiprocessors), depending on the communication mechanism, the type of interconnection network, and the scale of the multiprocessor. The effect of long communication delays is clearly substantial. Let’s consider a simple example. Example Suppose we have an application running on a 32-processor multiprocessor, which has a 200 ns time to handle reference to a remote memory. For this application, assume that all the references except those involving communication hit in the local memory hierarchy, which is slightly optimistic. Processors are stalled on a remote request, and the processor clock rate is 3.3 GHz. If the base CPI (assuming that all references hit in the cache) is 0.5, how much faster is the multiprocessor if there is no communication versus if 0.2% of the instructions involve a remote communication reference? Answer It is simpler to first calculate the clock cycles per instruction. The effective CPI for the multiprocessor with 0.2% remote references is CPI = Base CPI + Remote request rate × Remote request cost = 0.5 + 0.2% × Remote request cost The remote request cost is R----e---m-----o---t-e-----a--c---c---e--s---s----c--o---s---t = 2----0---0----n---s- = 666 cycles Cycle time 0.3 ns Hence, we can compute the CPI: CPI = 0.5 + 1.2 = 1.7 The multiprocessor with all local references is 1.7/0.5 = 3.4 times faster. In practice, the performance analysis is much more complex, since some fraction of the noncommunication references will miss in the local hierarchy and the remote access time does not have a single constant value. For example, the cost of a remote reference could be quite a bit worse, since contention caused by many references trying to use the global interconnect can lead to increased delays. These problems—insufficient parallelism and long-latency remote communication—are the two biggest performance challenges in using multiprocessors. The problem of inadequate application parallelism must be attacked primarily in software with new algorithms that offer better parallel performance, as well as by software systems that maximize the amount of time spent executing with the full 5.2 Centralized Shared-Memory Architectures ■ 351 complement of processors. Reducing the impact of long remote latency can be attacked both by the architecture and by the programmer. For example, we can reduce the frequency of remote accesses with either hardware mechanisms, such as caching shared data, or software mechanisms, such as restructuring the data to make more accesses local. We can try to tolerate the latency by using multithreading (discussed later in this chapter) or by using prefetching (a topic we cover extensively in Chapter 2). Much of this chapter focuses on techniques for reducing the impact of long remote communication latency. For example, Sections 5.2 through 5.4 discuss how caching can be used to reduce remote access frequency, while maintaining a coherent view of memory. Section 5.5 discusses synchronization, which, because it inherently involves interprocessor communication and also can limit parallelism, is a major potential bottleneck. Section 5.6 covers latency-hiding techniques and memory consistency models for shared memory. In Appendix I, we focus primarily on larger-scale multiprocessors that are used predominantly for scientific work. In that appendix, we examine the nature of such applications and the challenges of achieving speedup with dozens to hundreds of processors. 5.2 Centralized Shared-Memory Architectures The observation that the use of large, multilevel caches can substantially reduce the memory bandwidth demands of a processor is the key insight that motivates centralized memory multiprocessors. Originally, these processors were all singlecore and often took an entire board, and memory was located on a shared bus. With more recent, higher-performance processors, the memory demands have outstripped the capability of reasonable buses, and recent microprocessors directly connect memory to a single chip, which is sometimes called a backside or memory bus to distinguish it from the bus used to connect to I/O. Accessing a chip’s local memory whether for an I/O operation or for an access from another chip requires going through the chip that “owns” that memory. Thus, access to memory is asymmetric: faster to the local memory and slower to the remote memory. In a multicore that memory is shared among all the cores on a single chip, but the asymmetric access to the memory of one multicore from the memory of another remains. Symmetric shared-memory machines usually support the caching of both shared and private data. Private data are used by a single processor, while shared data are used by multiple processors, essentially providing communication among the processors through reads and writes of the shared data. When a private item is cached, its location is migrated to the cache, reducing the average access time as well as the memory bandwidth required. Since no other processor uses the data, the program behavior is identical to that in a uniprocessor. When shared data are cached, the shared value may be replicated in multiple caches. In addition to the reduction in access latency and required memory bandwidth, this replication also 352 ■ Chapter Five Thread-Level Parallelism provides a reduction in contention that may exist for shared data items that are being read by multiple processors simultaneously. Caching of shared data, however, introduces a new problem: cache coherence. What Is Multiprocessor Cache Coherence? Unfortunately, caching shared data introduces a new problem because the view of memory held by two different processors is through their individual caches, which, without any additional precautions, could end up seeing two different values. Figure 5.3 illustrates the problem and shows how two different processors can have two different values for the same location. This difficulty is generally referred to as the cache coherence problem. Notice that the coherence problem exists because we have both a global state, defined primarily by the main memory, and a local state, defined by the individual caches, which are private to each processor core. Thus, in a multicore where some level of caching may be shared (for example, an L3), while some levels are private (for example, L1 and L2), the coherence problem still exists and must be solved. Informally, we could say that a memory system is coherent if any read of a data item returns the most recently written value of that data item. This definition, although intuitively appealing, is vague and simplistic; the reality is much more complex. This simple definition contains two different aspects of memory system behavior, both of which are critical to writing correct shared-memory programs. The first aspect, called coherence, defines what values can be returned by a read. The second aspect, called consistency, determines when a written value will be returned by a read. Let’s look at coherence first. A memory system is coherent if 1. A read by processor P to location X that follows a write by P to X, with no writes of X by another processor occurring between the write and the read by P, always returns the value written by P. Time 0 1 2 3 Event Processor A reads X Processor B reads X Processor A stores 0 into X Cache contents for processor A 1 1 0 Memory Cache contents contents for for processor B location X 1 1 1 1 1 0 Figure 5.3 The cache coherence problem for a single memory location (X), read and written by two processors (A and B). We initially assume that neither cache contains the variable and that X has the value 1. We also assume a write-through cache; a writeback cache adds some additional but similar complications. After the value of X has been written by A, A’s cache and the memory both contain the new value, but B’s cache does not, and if B reads the value of X it will receive 1! 5.2 Centralized Shared-Memory Architectures ■ 353 2. A read by a processor to location X that follows a write by another processor to X returns the written value if the read and write are sufficiently separated in time and no other writes to X occur between the two accesses. 3. Writes to the same location are serialized; that is, two writes to the same location by any two processors are seen in the same order by all processors. For example, if the values 1 and then 2 are written to a location, processors can never read the value of the location as 2 and then later read it as 1. The first property simply preserves program order—we expect this property to be true even in uniprocessors. The second property defines the notion of what it means to have a coherent view of memory: If a processor could continuously read an old data value, we would clearly say that memory was incoherent. The need for write serialization is more subtle, but equally important. Suppose we did not serialize writes, and processor P1 writes location X followed by P2 writing location X. Serializing the writes ensures that every processor will see the write done by P2 at some point. If we did not serialize the writes, it might be the case that some processors could see the write of P2 first and then see the write of P1, maintaining the value written by P1 indefinitely. The simplest way to avoid such difficulties is to ensure that all writes to the same location are seen in the same order; this property is called write serialization. Although the three properties just described are sufficient to ensure coherence, the question of when a written value will be seen is also important. To see why, observe that we cannot require that a read of X instantaneously see the value written for X by some other processor. If, for example, a write of X on one processor precedes a read of X on another processor by a very small time, it may be impossible to ensure that the read returns the value of the data written, since the written data may not even have left the processor at that point. The issue of exactly when a written value must be seen by a reader is defined by a memory consistency model—a topic discussed in Section 5.6. Coherence and consistency are complementary: Coherence defines the behavior of reads and writes to the same memory location, while consistency defines the behavior of reads and writes with respect to accesses to other memory locations. For now, make the following two assumptions. First, a write does not complete (and allow the next write to occur) until all processors have seen the effect of that write. Second, the processor does not change the order of any write with respect to any other memory access. These two conditions mean that, if a processor writes location A followed by location B, any processor that sees the new value of B must also see the new value of A. These restrictions allow the processor to reorder reads, but forces the processor to finish a write in program order. We will rely on this assumption until we reach Section 5.6, where we will see exactly the implications of this definition, as well as the alternatives. 354 ■ Chapter Five Thread-Level Parallelism Basic Schemes for Enforcing Coherence The coherence problem for multiprocessors and I/O, although similar in origin, has different characteristics that affect the appropriate solution. Unlike I/O, where multiple data copies are a rare event—one to be avoided whenever possible—a program running on multiple processors will normally have copies of the same data in several caches. In a coherent multiprocessor, the caches provide both migration and replication of shared data items. Coherent caches provide migration, since a data item can be moved to a local cache and used there in a transparent fashion. This migration reduces both the latency to access a shared data item that is allocated remotely and the bandwidth demand on the shared memory. Coherent caches also provide replication for shared data that are being simultaneously read, since the caches make a copy of the data item in the local cache. Replication reduces both latency of access and contention for a read shared data item. Supporting this migration and replication is critical to performance in accessing shared data. Thus, rather than trying to solve the problem by avoiding it in software, multiprocessors adopt a hardware solution by introducing a protocol to maintain coherent caches. The protocols to maintain coherence for multiple processors are called cache coherence protocols. Key to implementing a cache coherence protocol is tracking the state of any sharing of a data block. There are two classes of protocols in use, each of which uses different techniques to track the sharing status: ■ Directory based—The sharing status of a particular block of physical memory is kept in one location, called the directory. There are two very different types of directory-based cache coherence. In an SMP, we can use one centralized directory, associated with the memory or some other single serialization point, such as the outermost cache in a multicore. In a DSM, it makes no sense to have a single directory, since that would create a single point of contention and make it difficult to scale to many multicore chips given the memory demands of multicores with eight or more cores. Distributed directories are more complex than a single directory, and such designs are the subject of Section 5.4. ■ Snooping—Rather than keeping the state of sharing in a single directory, every cache that has a copy of the data from a block of physical memory could track the sharing status of the block. In an SMP, the caches are typically all accessible via some broadcast medium (e.g., a bus connects the per-core caches to the shared cache or memory), and all cache controllers monitor or snoop on the medium to determine whether or not they have a copy of a block that is requested on a bus or switch access. Snooping can also be used as the coherence protocol for a multichip multiprocessor, and some designs support a snooping protocol on top of a directory protocol within each multicore! Snooping protocols became popular with multiprocessors using microprocessors (single-core) and caches attached to a single shared memory by a bus. 5.2 Centralized Shared-Memory Architectures ■ 355 The bus provided a convenient broadcast medium to implement the snooping protocols. Multicore architectures changed the picture significantly, since all multicores share some level of cache on the chip. Thus, some designs switched to using directory protocols, since the overhead was small. To allow the reader to become familiar with both types of protocols, we focus on a snooping protocol here and discuss a directory protocol when we come to DSM architectures. Snooping Coherence Protocols There are two ways to maintain the coherence requirement described in the prior subsection. One method is to ensure that a processor has exclusive access to a data item before it writes that item. This style of protocol is called a write invalidate protocol because it invalidates other copies on a write. It is by far the most common protocol. Exclusive access ensures that no other readable or writable copies of an item exist when the write occurs: All other cached copies of the item are invalidated. Figure 5.4 shows an example of an invalidation protocol with write-back caches in action. To see how this protocol ensures coherence, consider a write followed by a read by another processor: Since the write requires exclusive access, any copy held by the reading processor must be invalidated (hence, the protocol name). Thus, when the read occurs, it misses in the cache and is forced to fetch a new copy of the data. For a write, we require that the writing processor have exclusive access, preventing any other processor from being able to write Processor activity Bus activity Contents of Contents of processor A’s cache processor B’s cache Processor A reads X Cache miss for X 0 Processor B reads X Cache miss for X 0 0 Processor A writes a 1 Invalidation for X 1 to X Processor B reads X Cache miss for X 1 1 Contents of memory location X 0 0 0 0 1 Figure 5.4 An example of an invalidation protocol working on a snooping bus for a single cache block (X) with write-back caches. We assume that neither cache initially holds X and that the value of X in memory is 0. The processor and memory contents show the value after the processor and bus activity have both completed. A blank indicates no activity or no copy cached. When the second miss by B occurs, processor A responds with the value canceling the response from memory. In addition, both the contents of B’s cache and the memory contents of X are updated. This update of memory, which occurs when a block becomes shared, simplifies the protocol, but it is possible to track the ownership and force the write-back only if the block is replaced. This requires the introduction of an additional state called “owner,” which indicates that a block may be shared, but the owning processor is responsible for updating any other processors and memory when it changes the block or replaces it. If a multicore uses a shared cache (e.g., L3), then all memory is seen through the shared cache; L3 acts like the memory in this example, and coherency must be handled for the private L1 and L2 for each core. It is this observation that led some designers to opt for a directory protocol within the multicore. To make this work the L3 cache must be inclusive (see page 397). 356 ■ Chapter Five Thread-Level Parallelism simultaneously. If two processors do attempt to write the same data simultaneously, one of them wins the race (we’ll see how we decide who wins shortly), causing the other processor’s copy to be invalidated. For the other processor to complete its write, it must obtain a new copy of the data, which must now contain the updated value. Therefore, this protocol enforces write serialization. The alternative to an invalidate protocol is to update all the cached copies of a data item when that item is written. This type of protocol is called a write update or write broadcast protocol. Because a write update protocol must broadcast all writes to shared cache lines, it consumes considerably more bandwidth. For this reason, recent multiprocessors have opted to implement a write invalidate protocol, and we will focus only on invalidate protocols for the rest of the chapter. Basic Implementation Techniques The key to implementing an invalidate protocol in a multicore is the use of the bus, or another broadcast medium, to perform invalidates. In older multiple-chip multiprocessors, the bus used for coherence is the shared-memory access bus. In a multicore, the bus can be the connection between the private caches (L1 and L2 in the Intel Core i7) and the shared outer cache (L3 in the i7). To perform an invalidate, the processor simply acquires bus access and broadcasts the address to be invalidated on the bus. All processors continuously snoop on the bus, watching the addresses. The processors check whether the address on the bus is in their cache. If so, the corresponding data in the cache are invalidated. When a write to a block that is shared occurs, the writing processor must acquire bus access to broadcast its invalidation. If two processors attempt to write shared blocks at the same time, their attempts to broadcast an invalidate operation will be serialized when they arbitrate for the bus. The first processor to obtain bus access will cause any other copies of the block it is writing to be invalidated. If the processors were attempting to write the same block, the serialization enforced by the bus also serializes their writes. One implication of this scheme is that a write to a shared data item cannot actually complete until it obtains bus access. All coherence schemes require some method of serializing accesses to the same cache block, either by serializing access to the communication medium or another shared structure. In addition to invalidating outstanding copies of a cache block that is being written into, we also need to locate a data item when a cache miss occurs. In a write-through cache, it is easy to find the recent value of a data item, since all written data are always sent to the memory, from which the most recent value of a data item can always be fetched. (Write buffers can lead to some additional complexities and must effectively be treated as additional cache entries.) For a write-back cache, the problem of finding the most recent data value is harder, since the most recent value of a data item can be in a private cache rather than in the shared cache or memory. Happily, write-back caches can use the same snooping scheme both for cache misses and for writes: Each processor snoops every address placed on the shared bus. If a processor finds that it has a dirty 5.2 Centralized Shared-Memory Architectures ■ 357 copy of the requested cache block, it provides that cache block in response to the read request and causes the memory (or L3) access to be aborted. The additional complexity comes from having to retrieve the cache block from another processor’s private cache (L1 or L2), which can often take longer than retrieving it from L3. Since write-back caches generate lower requirements for memory bandwidth, they can support larger numbers of faster processors. As a result, all multicore processors use write-back at the outermost levels of the cache, and we will examine the implementation of coherence with write-back caches. The normal cache tags can be used to implement the process of snooping, and the valid bit for each block makes invalidation easy to implement. Read misses, whether generated by an invalidation or by some other event, are also straightforward since they simply rely on the snooping capability. For writes we would like to know whether any other copies of the block are cached because, if there are no other cached copies, then the write need not be placed on the bus in a write-back cache. Not sending the write reduces both the time to write and the required bandwidth. To track whether or not a cache block is shared, we can add an extra state bit associated with each cache block, just as we have a valid bit and a dirty bit. By adding a bit indicating whether the block is shared, we can decide whether a write must generate an invalidate. When a write to a block in the shared state occurs, the cache generates an invalidation on the bus and marks the block as exclusive. No further invalidations will be sent by that core for that block. The core with the sole copy of a cache block is normally called the owner of the cache block. When an invalidation is sent, the state of the owner’s cache block is changed from shared to unshared (or exclusive). If another processor later requests this cache block, the state must be made shared again. Since our snooping cache also sees any misses, it knows when the exclusive cache block has been requested by another processor and the state should be made shared. Every bus transaction must check the cache-address tags, which could potentially interfere with processor cache accesses. One way to reduce this interference is to duplicate the tags and have snoop accesses directed to the duplicate tags. Another approach is to use a directory at the shared L3 cache; the directory indicates whether a given block is shared and possibly which cores have copies. With the directory information, invalidates can be directed only to those caches with copies of the cache block. This requires that L3 must always have a copy of any data item in L1 or L2, a property called inclusion, which we will return to in Section 5.7. An Example Protocol A snooping coherence protocol is usually implemented by incorporating a finitestate controller in each core. This controller responds to requests from the processor in the core and from the bus (or other broadcast medium), changing the state of the selected cache block, as well as using the bus to access data or to invalidate it. Logically, you can think of a separate controller being associated with 358 ■ Chapter Five Thread-Level Parallelism each block; that is, snooping operations or cache requests for different blocks can proceed independently. In actual implementations, a single controller allows multiple operations to distinct blocks to proceed in interleaved fashion (that is, one operation may be initiated before another is completed, even though only one cache access or one bus access is allowed at a time). Also, remember that, although we refer to a bus in the following description, any interconnection network that supports a broadcast to all the coherence controllers and their associated private caches can be used to implement snooping. The simple protocol we consider has three states: invalid, shared, and modified. The shared state indicates that the block in the private cache is potentially shared, while the modified state indicates that the block has been updated in the private cache; note that the modified state implies that the block is exclusive. Figure 5.5 shows the requests generated by a core (in the top half of the table) Request Source State of addressed Type of cache block cache action Function and explanation Read hit Processor Shared or modified Read miss Processor Invalid Read miss Processor Shared Read miss Processor Modified Write hit Processor Modified Write hit Processor Shared Write miss Processor Invalid Write miss Processor Shared Write miss Processor Modified Read miss Bus Read miss Bus Shared Modified Invalidate Bus Write miss Bus Write miss Bus Shared Shared Modified Normal hit Read data in local cache. Normal miss Place read miss on bus. Replacement Address conflict miss: place read miss on bus. Replacement Address conflict miss: write-back block, then place read miss on bus. Normal hit Write data in local cache. Coherence Place invalidate on bus. These operations are often called upgrade or ownership misses, since they do not fetch the data but only change the state. Normal miss Place write miss on bus. Replacement Address conflict miss: place write miss on bus. Replacement Address conflict miss: write-back block, then place write miss on bus. No action Allow shared cache or memory to service read miss. Coherence Attempt to share data: place cache block on bus and change state to shared. Coherence Attempt to write shared block; invalidate the block. Coherence Attempt to write shared block; invalidate the cache block. Coherence Attempt to write block that is exclusive elsewhere; write-back the cache block and make its state invalid in the local cache. Figure 5.5 The cache coherence mechanism receives requests from both the core’s processor and the shared bus and responds to these based on the type of request, whether it hits or misses in the local cache, and the state of the local cache block specified in the request. The fourth column describes the type of cache action as normal hit or miss (the same as a uniprocessor cache would see), replacement (a uniprocessor cache replacement miss), or coherence (required to maintain cache coherence); a normal or replacement action may cause a coherence action depending on the state of the block in other caches. For read, misses, write misses, or invalidates snooped from the bus, an action is required only if the read or write addresses match a block in the local cache and the block is valid. 5.2 Centralized Shared-Memory Architectures ■ 359 as well as those coming from the bus (in the bottom half of the table). This protocol is for a write-back cache but is easily changed to work for a write-through cache by reinterpreting the modified state as an exclusive state and updating the cache on writes in the normal fashion for a write-through cache. The most common extension of this basic protocol is the addition of an exclusive state, which describes a block that is unmodified but held in only one private cache. We describe this and other extensions on page 362. When an invalidate or a write miss is placed on the bus, any cores whose private caches have copies of the cache block invalidate it. For a write miss in a write-back cache, if the block is exclusive in just one private cache, that cache also writes back the block; otherwise, the data can be read from the shared cache or memory. Figure 5.6 shows a finite-state transition diagram for a single private cache block using a write invalidation protocol and a write-back cache. For simplicity, the three states of the protocol are duplicated to represent transitions based on processor requests (on the left, which corresponds to the top half of the table in Figure 5.5), as opposed to transitions based on bus requests (on the right, which corresponds to the bottom half of the table in Figure 5.5). Boldface type is used to distinguish the bus actions, as opposed to the conditions on which a state transition depends. The state in each node represents the state of the selected private cache block specified by the processor or bus request. All of the states in this cache protocol would be needed in a uniprocessor cache, where they would correspond to the invalid, valid (and clean), and dirty states. Most of the state changes indicated by arcs in the left half of Figure 5.6 would be needed in a write-back uniprocessor cache, with the exception being the invalidate on a write hit to a shared block. The state changes represented by the arcs in the right half of Figure 5.6 are needed only for coherence and would not appear at all in a uniprocessor cache controller. As mentioned earlier, there is only one finite-state machine per cache, with stimuli coming either from the attached processor or from the bus. Figure 5.7 shows how the state transitions in the right half of Figure 5.6 are combined with those in the left half of the figure to form a single state diagram for each cache block. To understand why this protocol works, observe that any valid cache block is either in the shared state in one or more private caches or in the exclusive state in exactly one cache. Any transition to the exclusive state (which is required for a processor to write to the block) requires an invalidate or write miss to be placed on the bus, causing all local caches to make the block invalid. In addition, if some other local cache had the block in exclusive state, that local cache generates a write-back, which supplies the block containing the desired address. Finally, if a read miss occurs on the bus to a block in the exclusive state, the local cache with the exclusive copy changes its state to shared. The actions in gray in Figure 5.7, which handle read and write misses on the bus, are essentially the snooping component of the protocol. One other property that is preserved in this protocol, and in most other protocols, is that any memory block in the shared state is always up to date in the outer shared cache (L2 or L3, 360 ■ Chapter Five Thread-Level Parallelism CPU read hit Invalid CPU read Place read miss on bus Shared (read only) Invalid Place write miss on bus Write-back block; abort memory access CPUCPwUrrietPaeldacPmeliasrcseeadiWnmvriatilesid-sbaoatencPkoblCabnucPlsobeUcuwkswrrititCeePmmUiisswssrioten bus CPU read miss Place read miss on bus Write miss for this block Exclusive (read/write) Cache state transitions based on requests from CPU Exclusive (read/write) CPU write miss CPU write hit CPU read hit Write-back cache block Place write miss on bus Write miss for this block Invalidate for this block Shared (read only) Write-bmaecmk obrloycakc;caebsosrt CPU read miss Read miss for this block Cache state transitions based on requests from the bus Figure 5.6 A write invalidate, cache coherence protocol for a private write-back cache showing the states and state transitions for each block in the cache. The cache states are shown in circles, with any access permitted by the local processor without a state transition shown in parentheses under the name of the state. The stimulus causing a state change is shown on the transition arcs in regular type, and any bus actions generated as part of the state transition are shown on the transition arc in bold. The stimulus actions apply to a block in the private cache, not to a specific address in the cache. Hence, a read miss to a block in the shared state is a miss for that cache block but for a different address. The left side of the diagram shows state transitions based on actions of the processor associated with this cache; the right side shows transitions based on operations on the bus. A read miss in the exclusive or shared state and a write miss in the exclusive state occur when the address requested by the processor does not match the address in the local cache block. Such a miss is a standard cache replacement miss. An attempt to write a block in the shared state generates an invalidate. Whenever a bus transaction occurs, all private caches that contain the cache block specified in the bus transaction take the action dictated by the right half of the diagram. The protocol assumes that memory (or a shared cache) provides data on a read miss for a block that is clean in all local caches. In actual implementations, these two sets of state diagrams are combined. In practice, there are many subtle variations on invalidate protocols, including the introduction of the exclusive unmodified state, as to whether a processor or memory provides data on a miss. In a multicore chip, the shared cache (usually L3, but sometimes L2) acts as the equivalent of memory, and the bus is the bus between the private caches of each core and the shared cache, which in turn interfaces to the memory. or memory if there is no shared cache), which simplifies the implementation. In fact, it does not matter whether the level out from the private caches is a shared cache or memory; the key is that all accesses from the cores go through that level. Although our simple cache protocol is correct, it omits a number of complications that make the implementation much trickier. The most important of these is that the protocol assumes that operations are atomic—that is, an operation can be done in such a way that no intervening operation can occur. For example, the protocol described assumes that write misses can be detected, acquire the bus, and 5.2 Centralized Shared-Memory Architectures ■ 361 Write miss for this block CPU read hit Write miss for block Write-back block Place write miss on bus Invalidate for this block Invalid CPU read Place read miss on bus Shared (read only) CPU write CPUWrreitaed-bmacisks Place Read miss for block wriCtPeUmiwsristeonmibsuss daPtlaa;cpelaincvealriedaadtemoniWsbsruitosen-bbaucsk block CPU write CPU read miss Place read miss on bus CPU write hit CPU read hit Exclusive (read/write) CPU write miss Write-back data Place write miss on bus Figure 5.7 Cache coherence state diagram with the state transitions induced by the local processor shown in black and by the bus activities shown in gray. As in Figure 5.6, the activities on a transition are shown in bold. receive a response as a single atomic action. In reality this is not true. In fact, even a read miss might not be atomic; after detecting a miss in the L2 of a multicore, the core must arbitrate for access to the bus connecting to the shared L3. Nonatomic actions introduce the possibility that the protocol can deadlock, meaning that it reaches a state where it cannot continue. We will explore these complications later in this section and when we examine DSM designs. With multicore processors, the coherence among the processor cores is all implemented on chip, using either a snooping or simple central directory protocol. Many dual-processor chips, including the Intel Xeon and AMD Opteron, supported multichip multiprocessors that could be built by connecting a highspeed interface (called Quickpath or Hypertransport, respectively). These nextlevel interconnects are not just extensions of the shared bus, but use a different approach for interconnecting multicores. 362 ■ Chapter Five Thread-Level Parallelism A multiprocessor built with multiple multicore chips will have a distributed memory architecture and will need an interchip coherency mechanism above and beyond the one within the chip. In most cases, some form of directory scheme is used. Extensions to the Basic Coherence Protocol The coherence protocol we have just described is a simple three-state protocol and is often referred to by the first letter of the states, making it a MSI (Modified, Shared, Invalid) protocol. There are many extensions of this basic protocol, which we mentioned in the captions of figures in this section. These extensions are created by adding additional states and transactions, which optimize certain behaviors, possibly resulting in improved performance. Two of the most common extensions are 1. MESI adds the state Exclusive to the basic MSI protocol to indicate when a cache block is resident only in a single cache but is clean. If a block is in the E state, it can be written without generating any invalidates, which optimizes the case where a block is read by a single cache before being written by that same cache. Of course, when a read miss to a block in the E state occurs, the block must be changed to the S state to maintain coherence. Because all subsequent accesses are snooped, it is possible to maintain the accuracy of this state. In particular, if another processor issues a read miss, the state is changed from exclusive to shared. The advantage of adding this state is that a subsequent write to a block in the exclusive state by the same core need not acquire bus access or generate an invalidate, since the block is known to be exclusively in this local cache; the processor merely changes the state to modified. This state is easily added by using the bit that encodes the coherent state as an exclusive state and using the dirty bit to indicate that a bock is modified. The popular MESI protocol, which is named for the four states it includes (Modified, Exclusive, Shared, and Invalid), uses this structure. The Intel i7 uses a variant of a MESI protocol, called MESIF, which adds a state (Forward) to designate which sharing processor should respond to a request. It is designed to enhance performance in distributed memory organizations. 2. MOESI adds the state Owned to the MESI protocol to indicate that the associated block is owned by that cache and out-of-date in memory. In MSI and MESI protocols, when there is an attempt to share a block in the Modified state, the state is changed to Shared (in both the original and newly sharing cache), and the block must be written back to memory. In a MOESI protocol, the block can be changed from the Modified to Owned state in the original cache without writing it to memory. Other caches, which are newly sharing the block, keep the block in the Shared state; the O state, which only the original cache holds, indicates that the main memory copy is out of date and that the designated cache is the owner. The owner of the block must supply it on a miss, since memory is not up to date and must write the block back to memory if it is replaced. The AMD Opteron uses the MOESI protocol. 5.2 Centralized Shared-Memory Architectures ■ 363 The next section examines the performance of these protocols for our parallel and multiprogrammed workloads; the value of these extensions to a basic protocol will be clear when we examine the performance. But, before we do that, let’s take a brief look at the limitations on the use of a symmetric memory structure and a snooping coherence scheme. Limitations in Symmetric Shared-Memory Multiprocessors and Snooping Protocols As the number of processors in a multiprocessor grows, or as the memory demands of each processor grow, any centralized resource in the system can become a bottleneck. Using the higher bandwidth connection available on-chip and a shared L3 cache, which is faster than memory, designers have managed to support four to eight high-performance cores in a symmetric fashion. Such an approach is unlikely to scale much past eight cores, and it will not work once multiple multicores are combined. Snooping bandwidth at the caches can also become a problem, since every cache must examine every miss placed on the bus. As we mentioned, duplicating the tags is one solution. Another approach, which has been adopted in some recent multicores, is to place a directory at the level of the outermost cache. The directory explicitly indicates which processor’s caches have copies of every item in the outermost cache. This is the approach Intel uses on the i7 and Xeon 7000 series. Note that the use of this directory does not eliminate the bottleneck due to a shared bus and L3 among the processors, but it is much simpler to implement than the distributed directory schemes that we will examine in Section 5.4. How can a designer increase the memory bandwidth to support either more or faster processors? To increase the communication bandwidth between processors and memory, designers have used multiple buses as well as interconnection networks, such as crossbars or small point-to-point networks. In such designs, the memory system (either main memory or a shared cache) can be configured into multiple physical banks, so as to boost the effective memory bandwidth while retaining uniform access time to memory. Figure 5.8 shows how such a system might look if it where implemented with a single-chip multicore. Although such an approach might be used to allow more than four cores to be interconnected on a single chip, it does not scale well to a multichip multiprocessor that uses multicore building blocks, since the memory is already attached to the individual multicore chips, rather than centralized. The AMD Opteron represents another intermediate point in the spectrum between a snooping and a directory protocol. Memory is directly connected to each multicore chip, and up to four multicore chips can be connected. The system is a NUMA, since local memory is somewhat faster. The Opteron implements its coherence protocol using the point-to-point links to broadcast up to three other chips. Because the interprocessor links are not shared, the only way a processor can know when an invalid operation has completed is by an explicit acknowledgment. Thus, the coherence protocol uses a broadcast to 364 ■ Chapter Five Thread-Level Parallelism Processor Processor Processor Processor One or more levels of private cache One or more levels of private cache One or more levels of private cache One or more levels of private cache Bank 0 shared cache Interconnection network Bank 1 shared cache Bank 2 shared cache Bank 3 shared cache Memory I/O system Figure 5.8 A multicore single-chip multiprocessor with uniform memory access through a banked shared cache and using an interconnection network rather than a bus. find potentially shared copies, like a snooping protocol, but uses the acknowledgments to order operations, like a directory protocol. Because local memory is only somewhat faster than remote memory in the Opteron implementation, some software treats an Opteron multiprocessor as having uniform memory access. A snooping cache coherence protocol can be used without a centralized bus, but still requires that a broadcast be done to snoop the individual caches on every miss to a potentially shared cache block. This cache coherence traffic creates another limit on the scale and the speed of the processors. Because coherence traffic is unaffected by larger caches, faster processors will inevitably overwhelm the network and the ability of each cache to respond to snoop requests from all the other caches. In Section 5.4, we examine directory-based protocols, which eliminate the need for broadcast to all caches on a miss. As processor speeds and the number of cores per processor increase, more designers are likely to opt for such protocols to avoid the broadcast limit of a snooping protocol. 5.2 Centralized Shared-Memory Architectures ■ 365 Implementing Snooping Cache Coherence The devil is in the details. Classic proverb When we wrote the first edition of this book in 1990, our final “Putting It All Together” was a 30-processor, single-bus multiprocessor using snoop-based coherence; the bus had a capacity of just over 50 MB/sec, which would not be enough bus bandwidth to support even one core of an Intel i7 in 2011! When we wrote the second edition of this book in 1995, the first cache coherence multiprocessors with more than a single bus had recently appeared, and we added an appendix describing the implementation of snooping in a system with multiple buses. In 2011, most multicore processors that support only a single-chip multiprocessor have opted to use a shared bus structure connecting to either a shared memory or a shared cache. In contrast, every multicore multiprocessor system that supports 16 or more cores uses an interconnect other than a single bus, and designers must face the challenge of implementing snooping without the simplification of a bus to serialize events. As we said earlier, the major complication in actually implementing the snooping coherence protocol we have described is that write and upgrade misses are not atomic in any recent multiprocessor. The steps of detecting a write or upgrade miss, communicating with the other processors and memory, getting the most recent value for a write miss and ensuring that any invalidates are processed, and updating the cache cannot be done as if they took a single cycle. In a single multicore chip, these steps can be made effectively atomic by arbitrating for the bus to the shared cache or memory first (before changing the cache state) and not releasing the bus until all actions are complete. How can the processor know when all the invalidates are complete? In some multicores, a single line is used to signal when all necessary invalidates have been received and are being processed. Following that signal, the processor that generated the miss can release the bus, knowing that any required actions will be completed before any activity related to the next miss. By holding the bus exclusively during these steps, the processor effectively makes the individual steps atomic. In a system without a bus, we must find some other method of making the steps in a miss atomic. In particular, we must ensure that two processors that attempt to write the same block at the same time, a situation which is called a race, are strictly ordered: One write is processed and precedes before the next is begun. It does not matter which of two writes in a race wins the race, just that there be only a single winner whose coherence actions are completed first. In a snooping system, ensuring that a race has only one winner is accomplished by using broadcast for all misses as well as some basic properties of the interconnection network. These properties, together with the ability to restart the miss handling of the loser in a race, are the keys to implementing snooping cache coherence without a bus. We explain the details in Appendix I. 366 ■ Chapter Five Thread-Level Parallelism It is possible to combine snooping and directories, and several designs use snooping within a multicore and directories among multiple chips or, vice versa, directories within a multicore and snooping among multiple chips. 5.3 Performance of Symmetric Shared-Memory Multiprocessors In a multicore using a snooping coherence protocol, several different phenomena combine to determine performance. In particular, the overall cache performance is a combination of the behavior of uniprocessor cache miss traffic and the traffic caused by communication, which results in invalidations and subsequent cache misses. Changing the processor count, cache size, and block size can affect these two components of the miss rate in different ways, leading to overall system behavior that is a combination of the two effects. Appendix B breaks the uniprocessor miss rate into the three C’s classification (capacity, compulsory, and conflict) and provides insight into both application behavior and potential improvements to the cache design. Similarly, the misses that arise from interprocessor communication, which are often called coherence misses, can be broken into two separate sources. The first source is the so-called true sharing misses that arise from the communication of data through the cache coherence mechanism. In an invalidation-based protocol, the first write by a processor to a shared cache block causes an invalidation to establish ownership of that block. Additionally, when another processor attempts to read a modified word in that cache block, a miss occurs and the resultant block is transferred. Both these misses are classified as true sharing misses since they directly arise from the sharing of data among processors. The second effect, called false sharing, arises from the use of an invalidationbased coherence algorithm with a single valid bit per cache block. False sharing occurs when a block is invalidated (and a subsequent reference causes a miss) because some word in the block, other than the one being read, is written into. If the word written into is actually used by the processor that received the invalidate, then the reference was a true sharing reference and would have caused a miss independent of the block size. If, however, the word being written and the word read are different and the invalidation does not cause a new value to be communicated, but only causes an extra cache miss, then it is a false sharing miss. In a false sharing miss, the block is shared, but no word in the cache is actually shared, and the miss would not occur if the block size were a single word. The following example makes the sharing patterns clear. Example Assume that words x1 and x2 are in the same cache block, which is in the shared state in the caches of both P1 and P2. Assuming the following sequence of events, identify each miss as a true sharing miss, a false sharing miss, or a hit. 5.3 Performance of Symmetric Shared-Memory Multiprocessors ■ 367 Any miss that would occur if the block size were one word is designated a true sharing miss. Time 1 2 3 4 5 P1 Write x1 Write x1 Read x2 P2 Read x2 Write x2 Answer Here are the classifications by time step: 1. This event is a true sharing miss, since x1 was read by P2 and needs to be invalidated from P2. 2. This event is a false sharing miss, since x2 was invalidated by the write of x1 in P1, but that value of x1 is not used in P2. 3. This event is a false sharing miss, since the block containing x1 is marked shared due to the read in P2, but P2 did not read x1. The cache block containing x1 will be in the shared state after the read by P2; a write miss is required to obtain exclusive access to the block. In some protocols this will be handled as an upgrade request, which generates a bus invalidate, but does not transfer the cache block. 4. This event is a false sharing miss for the same reason as step 3. 5. This event is a true sharing miss, since the value being read was written by P2. Although we will see the effects of true and false sharing misses in commercial workloads, the role of coherence misses is more significant for tightly coupled applications that share significant amounts of user data. We examine their effects in detail in Appendix I, when we consider the performance of a parallel scientific workload. A Commercial Workload In this section, we examine the memory system behavior of a four-processor shared-memory multiprocessor when running a general-purpose commercial workload. The study we examine was done with a four-processor Alpha system in 1998, but it remains the most comprehensive and insightful study of the performance of a multiprocessor for such workloads. The results were collected either on an AlphaServer 4100 or using a configurable simulator modeled after the AlphaServer 4100. Each processor in the AlphaServer 4100 is an Alpha 21164, which issues up to four instructions per clock and runs at 300 MHz. 368 ■ Chapter Five Thread-Level Parallelism Although the clock rate of the Alpha processor in this system is considerably slower than processors in systems designed in 2011, the basic structure of the system, consisting of a four-issue processor and a three-level cache hierarchy, is very similar to the multicore Intel i7 and other processors, as shown in Figure 5.9. In particular, the Alpha caches are somewhat smaller, but the miss times are also lower than on an i7. Thus, the behavior of the Alpha system should provide interesting insights into the behavior of modern multicore designs. The workload used for this study consists of three applications: 1. An online transaction-processing (OLTP) workload modeled after TPC-B (which has memory behavior similar to its newer cousin TPC-C, described in Chapter 1) and using Oracle 7.3.2 as the underlying database. The workload consists of a set of client processes that generate requests and a set of servers that handle them. The server processes consume 85% of the user time, with the remaining going to the clients. Although the I/O latency is hidden by careful tuning and enough requests to keep the processor busy, the server processes typically block for I/O after about 25,000 instructions. 2. A decision support system (DSS) workload based on TPC-D, the older cousin of the heavily used TPC-E, which also uses Oracle 7.3.2 as the underlying database. The workload includes only 6 of the 17 read queries in TPC-D, Cache level L1 L2 L3 Characteristic Size Associativity Block size Miss penalty Size Associativity Block size Miss penalty Size Associativity Block size Miss penalty Alpha 21164 8 KB I/8 KB D Direct mapped 32 B 7 96 KB 3-way 32 B 21 2 MB Direct mapped 64 B 80 Intel i7 32 KB I/32 KB D 4-way I/8-way D 64 B 10 256 KB 8-way 64 B 35 2 MB per core 16-way 64 B ~100 Figure 5.9 The characteristics of the cache hierarchy of the Alpha 21164 used in this study and the Intel i7. Although the sizes are larger and the associativity is higher on the i7, the miss penalties are also higher, so the behavior may differ only slightly. For example, from Appendix B, we can estimate the miss rates of the smaller Alpha L1 cache as 4.9% and 3% for the larger i7 L1 cache, so the average L1 miss penalty per reference is 0.34 for the Alpha and 0.30 for the i7. Both systems have a high penalty (125 cycles or more) for a transfer required from a private cache. The i7 also shares its L3 among all the cores. 5.3 Performance of Symmetric Shared-Memory Multiprocessors ■ 369 Benchmark OLTP DSS (average across all queries) AltaVista % Time user mode 71 87 % Time kernel 18 4 % Time processor idle 11 9 >98 <1 <1 Figure 5.10 The distribution of execution time in the commercial workloads. The OLTP benchmark has the largest fraction of both OS time and processor idle time (which is I/O wait time). The DSS benchmark shows much less OS time, since it does less I/O, but still more than 9% idle time. The extensive tuning of the AltaVista search engine is clear in these measurements. The data for this workload were collected by Barroso, Gharachorloo, and Bugnion [1998] on a four-processor AlphaServer 4100. although the 6 queries examined in the benchmark span the range of activities in the entire benchmark. To hide the I/O latency, parallelism is exploited both within queries, where parallelism is detected during a query formulation process, and across queries. Blocking calls are much less frequent than in the OLTP benchmark; the 6 queries average about 1.5 million instructions before blocking. 3. A Web index search (AltaVista) benchmark based on a search of a memorymapped version of the AltaVista database (200 GB). The inner loop is heavily optimized. Because the search structure is static, little synchronization is needed among the threads. AltaVista was the most popular Web search engine before the arrival of Google. Figure 5.10 shows the percentages of time spent in user mode, in the kernel, and in the idle loop. The frequency of I/O increases both the kernel time and the idle time (see the OLTP entry, which has the largest I/O-to-computation ratio). AltaVista, which maps the entire search database into memory and has been extensively tuned, shows the least kernel or idle time. Performance Measurements of the Commercial Workload We start by looking at the overall processor execution for these benchmarks on the four-processor system; as discussed on page 367, these benchmarks include substantial I/O time, which is ignored in the processor time measurements. We group the six DSS queries as a single benchmark, reporting the average behavior. The effective CPI varies widely for these benchmarks, from a CPI of 1.3 for the AltaVista Web search, to an average CPI of 1.6 for the DSS workload, to 7.0 for the OLTP workload. Figure 5.11 shows how the execution time breaks down into instruction execution, cache and memory system access time, and other stalls (which are primarily pipeline resource stalls but also include translation lookaside buffer (TLB) and branch mispredict stalls). Although the performance of the DSS 370 ■ Chapter Five Thread-Level Parallelism 100% 90% 80% 70% Other stalls Memory access L3 access L2 access Instruction execution Percentage of execution time 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% OLTP DSS AltaVista Figure 5.11 The execution time breakdown for the three programs (OLTP, DSS, and AltaVista) in the commercial workload. The DSS numbers are the average across six different queries. The CPI varies widely from a low of 1.3 for AltaVista, to 1.61 for the DSS queries, to 7.0 for OLTP. (Individually, the DSS queries show a CPI range of 1.3 to 1.9.) “Other stalls” includes resource stalls (implemented with replay traps on the 21164), branch mispredict, memory barrier, and TLB misses. For these benchmarks, resourcebased pipeline stalls are the dominant factor. These data combine the behavior of user and kernel accesses. Only OLTP has a significant fraction of kernel accesses, and the kernel accesses tend to be better behaved than the user accesses! All the measurements shown in this section were collected by Barroso, Gharachorloo, and Bugnion [1998]. and AltaVista workloads is reasonable, the performance of the OLTP workload is very poor, due to a poor performance of the memory hierarchy. Since the OLTP workload demands the most from the memory system with large numbers of expensive L3 misses, we focus on examining the impact of L3 cache size, processor count, and block size on the OLTP benchmark. Figure 5.12 shows the effect of increasing the cache size, using two-way set associative caches, which reduces the large number of conflict misses. The execution time is improved as the L3 cache grows due to the reduction in L3 misses. Surprisingly, almost all of the gain occurs in going from 1 to 2 MB, with little additional gain beyond that, despite the fact that cache misses are still a cause of significant performance loss with 2 MB and 4 MB caches. The question is, Why? To better understand the answer to this question, we need to determine what factors contribute to the L3 miss rate and how they change as the L3 cache grows. Figure 5.13 shows these data, displaying the number of memory access cycles contributed per instruction from five sources. The two largest sources of L3 memory access cycles with a 1 MB L3 are instruction and capacity/conflict 5.3 Performance of Symmetric Shared-Memory Multiprocessors ■ 371 Normalized execution time 100 90 Idle PAL code 80 Memory access L2/L3 cache access 70 Instruction execution 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 4 8 L3 cache size (MB) Figure 5.12 The relative performance of the OLTP workload as the size of the L3 cache, which is set as two-way set associative, grows from 1 MB to 8 MB. The idle time also grows as cache size is increased, reducing some of the performance gains. This growth occurs because, with fewer memory system stalls, more server processes are needed to cover the I/O latency. The workload could be retuned to increase the computation/communication balance, holding the idle time in check. The PAL code is a set of sequences of specialized OS-level instructions executed in privileged mode; an example is the TLB miss handler. Memory cycles per instruction 3.25 3 2.75 2.5 2.25 2 1.75 1.5 1.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0 Instruction Capacity/conflict Compulsory False sharing True sharing 1 2 4 8 Cache size (MB) Figure 5.13 The contributing causes of memory access cycle shift as the cache size is increased. The L3 cache is simulated as two-way set associative. 372 ■ Chapter Five Thread-Level Parallelism 3 Instruction Capacity/conflict Compulsory 2.5 False sharing True sharing 2 Memory cycles per instruction 1.5 1 0.5 0 1 2 4 6 8 Processor count Figure 5.14 The contribution to memory access cycles increases as processor count increases primarily due to increased true sharing. The compulsory misses slightly increase since each processor must now handle more compulsory misses. misses. With a larger L3, these two sources shrink to be minor contributors. Unfortunately, the compulsory, false sharing, and true sharing misses are unaffected by a larger L3. Thus, at 4 MB and 8 MB, the true sharing misses generate the dominant fraction of the misses; the lack of change in true sharing misses leads to the limited reductions in the overall miss rate when increasing the L3 cache size beyond 2 MB. Increasing the cache size eliminates most of the uniprocessor misses while leaving the multiprocessor misses untouched. How does increasing the processor count affect different types of misses? Figure 5.14 shows these data assuming a base configuration with a 2 MB, two-way set associative L3 cache. As we might expect, the increase in the true sharing miss rate, which is not compensated for by any decrease in the uniprocessor misses, leads to an overall increase in the memory access cycles per instruction. The final question we examine is whether increasing the block size—which should decrease the instruction and cold miss rate and, within limits, also reduce the capacity/conflict miss rate and possibly the true sharing miss rate—is helpful for this workload. Figure 5.15 shows the number of misses per 1000 instructions as the block size is increased from 32 to 256 bytes. Increasing the block size from 32 to 256 bytes affects four of the miss rate components: ■ The true sharing miss rate decreases by more than a factor of 2, indicating some locality in the true sharing patterns. ■ The compulsory miss rate significantly decreases, as we would expect. 5.3 Performance of Symmetric Shared-Memory Multiprocessors ■ 373 Misses per 1000 instructions 16 15 Instruction 14 Capacity/conflict 13 Compulsory False sharing 12 True sharing 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 32 64 128 256 Block size (bytes) Figure 5.15 The number of misses per 1000 instructions drops steadily as the block size of the L3 cache is increased, making a good case for an L3 block size of at least 128 bytes. The L3 cache is 2 MB, two-way set associative. ■ The conflict/capacity misses show a small decrease (a factor of 1.26 compared to a factor of 8 increase in block size), indicating that the spatial locality is not high in the uniprocessor misses that occur with L3 caches larger than 2 MB. ■ The false sharing miss rate, although small in absolute terms, nearly doubles. The lack of a significant effect on the instruction miss rate is startling. If there were an instruction-only cache with this behavior, we would conclude that the spatial locality is very poor. In the case of a mixed L2 cache, other effects such as instruction-data conflicts may also contribute to the high instruction cache miss rate for larger blocks. Other studies have documented the low spatial locality in the instruction stream of large database and OLTP workloads, which have lots of short basic blocks and special-purpose code sequences. Based on these data, the miss penalty for a larger block size L3 to perform as well as the 32-byte block size L3 can be expressed as a multiplier on the 32-byte block size penalty: Block size 64 bytes 128 bytes 256 bytes Miss penalty relative to 32-byte block miss penalty 1.19 1.36 1.52 374 ■ Chapter Five Thread-Level Parallelism With modern DDR SDRAMs that make block access fast, these numbers seem attainable, especially at the 128 byte block size. Of course, we must also worry about the effects of the increased traffic to memory and possible contention for the memory with other cores. This latter effect may easily negate the gains obtained from improving the performance of a single processor. A Multiprogramming and OS Workload Our next study is a multiprogrammed workload consisting of both user activity and OS activity. The workload used is two independent copies of the compile phases of the Andrew benchmark, a benchmark that emulates a software development environment. The compile phase consists of a parallel version of the Unix “make” command executed using eight processors. The workload runs for 5.24 seconds on eight processors, creating 203 processes and performing 787 disk requests on three different file systems. The workload is run with 128 MB of memory, and no paging activity takes place. The workload has three distinct phases: compiling the benchmarks, which involves substantial compute activity; installing the object files in a library; and removing the object files. The