Variability-aware robust design space exploration of chip multiprocessor architectures

ABSTRACT

In the context of a design space exploration framework for supporting the platform-based design approach, we address the problem of robustness with respect to manufacturing process variations. First, we introduce response surface modeling techniques to enable an efficient evaluation of the statistical measures of execution time and energy consumption for each system configuration. We then introduce a robust design space exploration framework to afford the problem of the impact of manufacturing process variations onto the system-level metrics and consequently onto the application-level constraints. We finally provide a comparison of our design space exploration technique with conventional approaches.¹

REFERENCES

• 1: K Bowman, S Duvall, and J Meindl. Impact of die-to-die and within-die parameter fluctuations on the maximum clock frequency distribution for gigascale integration. IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits, pages 183--190, Jan 2002.
• 2: J. Renau et al. SESC simulator, January 2005. http://sesc.sourceforge.net.
• 3: Ron Kalla , Balaram Sinharoy , Joel M. Tendler, IBM Power5 Chip: A Dual-Core Multithreaded Processor, IEEE Micro, v.24 n.2, p.40-47, March 2004 [doi>10.1109/MM.2004.1289290]
• 4: Ashish Srivastava , Saumil Shah , Kanak Agarwal , Dennis Sylvester , David Blaauw , Stephen Director, Accurate and efficient gate-level parametric yield estimation considering correlated variations in leakage power and performance, Proceedings of the 42nd annual conference on Design automation, June 13-17, 2005, Anaheim, California, USA [doi>10.1145/1065579.1065718]
• 5: Rob A. Rutenbar , Cheming Hu , Mark Horowitz , Stephen Y. Chow, Life at the end of CMOS scaling (and beyond) (panel session) (abstract only), Proceedings of the 37th conference on Design automation, p.85, June 05-09, 2000, Los Angeles, California, United States [doi>10.1145/337292.337320]
• 6: Diana Marculescu , Emil Talpes, Variability and energy awareness: a microarchitecture-level perspective, Proceedings of the 42nd annual conference on Design automation, June 13-17, 2005, Anaheim, California, USA [doi>10.1145/1065579.1065588]
• 7: S. Nassif et al. High performance cmos variability in the 65nm regime and beyond. IEEE International Electron Devices Meeting, pages 569--571, Nov 2007.
• 8: Shekhar Borkar , Tanay Karnik , Siva Narendra , Jim Tschanz , Ali Keshavarzi , Vivek De, Parameter variations and impact on circuits and microarchitecture, Proceedings of the 40th conference on Design automation, June 02-06, 2003, Anaheim, CA, USA [doi>10.1145/775832.775920]
• 9: Rajeev R. Rao , David Blaauw , Dennis Sylvester , Anirudh Devgan, Modeling and Analysis of Parametric Yield under Power and Performance Constraints, IEEE Design & Test, v.22 n.4, p.376-385, July 2005 [doi>10.1109/MDT.2005.89]
• 10: E Nowak. Maintaining the benefits of cmos scaling when scaling bogs down. IBM Journal of Research and Development, Jan 2002.
• 11: P O'Connor. Future trends in microelectronics - impact on detector readout. SNIC Symposium, Stanford, California, pages 1--6, Jan 2006.
• 12: R. H. Myers , A. I. Khuri , W. H. Carter, Jr., Response surface methodology: 1966–1988, Technometrics, v.31 n.2, p.137-157, May 1989 [doi>10.2307/1268813]
• 13: T. J. Santner, Williams B., and Notz W. The Design and Analysis of Computer Experiments. Springer-Verlag, 2003.
• 14: Steven Cameron Woo , Moriyoshi Ohara , Evan Torrie , Jaswinder Pal Singh , Anoop Gupta, The SPLASH-2 programs: characterization and methodological considerations, Proceedings of the 22nd annual international symposium on Computer architecture, p.24-36, June 22-24, 1995, S. Margherita Ligure, Italy
• 15: P. J. Joseph, Kapil Vaswani, and M. J Thazhuthaveetil. Construction and use of linear regression models for processor performance analysis. High-Performance Computer Architecture, 2006. The Twelfth International Symposium on, pages 99--108, 2006.
• 16: Benjamin C. Lee , David M. Brooks, Accurate and efficient regression modeling for microarchitectural performance and power prediction, ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, v.40 n.5, December 2006
• 17: H Beyer and B Sendhoff. Robust optimization---a comprehensive survey. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 196(33--34):3190--3218, Jan 2007. Accepted for Publication.
• 18: G. Taguchi. The System of Experimental Design: Engineering Methods to Optimize Quality and Minimize Costs. Quality Resources, 1987.
• 19: A Song, A Mathur, and K Pattipati. Design of process parameters using robust design techniques andmultiple criteria optimization. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 25(11), Jan 1995.
• 20: George Box , Anne C. Shoemaker , Kwok-Leung Tsui , Ramon V. León , William C. Parr , V. N. Nair , D. Pregibon , Raymond J. Carroll , David Ruppert , Berton Gunter , Neil R. Ullman, Signal-to-noise ratios, performance criteria, and transformations, Technometrics, v.30 n.1, p.1-40, Feb. 1988 [doi>10.2307/1270311]
• 21: K Lee and G Park. Robust optimization in discrete design space for constrained problems. AIAA Journal, 40(4):774--780, Jan 2002.
• 22: G. Palermo, C. Silvano, and V. Zaccaria. An efficient design space exploration methodology for multiprocessor soc architectures based on response surface methods. In Proceedings of SAMOS08, 2008.
• 23: A Kahng. Directions for drivers and design. Circuits and Devices Magazine, IEEE, 18(4):32--39, Jul 2002.
• 24: Man-Lap Li, R Sasanka, S Adve, Yen-Kuang Chen, and E Debes. The alpbench benchmark suite for complex multimedia applications. Workload Characterization Symposium, 2005. Proceedings of the IEEE International, pages 34--45, Sep 2005.