1. Timing Anomalies in Dynamically Scheduled Microprocessors Thomas Lundqvist, Per Stenstrom (RTSS ‘99) Presented by: Kaustubh S. Patil

2. Assumptions in current methods to find Worst Case Execution Time (WCET) Execution time of an instruction is not fixed - Due to pipeline stalls or cache misses - Input data dependency eg. mulhw, mulhwu, mullw in PowerPC architecture In such cases, current methods assume longest instruction latency for every instruction - eg. if the outcome of a cache access is unknown, a cache miss is assumed. - Intuition-based

3. Claim: Making such assumptions for dynamically scheduled processors is wrong ! Dynamically scheduled processors - out-of-program-order instruction execution For such processors, counter-intuitive increase or decrease in execution time is possible - eg. a cache miss can actually reduce the overall execution time. - These are termed as timing anomalies.

4. Organization of the presentation Description of architectural features that may cause anomalies Examples of timing anomalies Handling of such anomalies in previous methods Proposed methods to eliminate such anomalies Case study of a previous method in the context of proposed solutions

5. Terms and definitions Formal definition of timing anomaly - Instruction latency same as instruction execution time - case 1: latency of first instruction increased by i cycles - case 2: it is decreased by d cycles - C be resulting future change in execution time Definition: A situation where, in the first case, C>i or C 0. In-order and out-of-order resources If a processor only contains in-order resources, no timing anomalies can occur

6. Architecture used for illustrating

7. Timing anomaly examples A cache-hit results in WCET B is dependent on A In cache-hit case, B gets priority over C In cache-miss case, D & E execute 1 cycle earlier The reason for this anomaly - IU is an out-of-order resource

8. Timing anomaly examples (…contd) Overall miss penalty can be higher than a single cache miss penalty A,B,C have dependencies C always results in a miss C finishes 11 cycles later instead of one miss penalty of 8 cycles MCIU allows B and D to execute out-of-order

9. Timing anomaly examples (…contd) Unbounded impact on WCET A and B make a loop body Fast case - ‘ A’ executes as soon as dispatched Slow case - ‘A’ is delayed by one cycle - Old B gets priority over new A - ‘A’ gets delayed in each iteration - Total penalty k cycles if k iterations

10. Limitations of previous methods Such methods make locally safe decisions, at basic block or instruction level. Timing anomalies due to variable latency instructions and different pipeline states do not allow this. Consider an instruction sequence with n variable latency instructions. Each such instruction can have k different latencies. Need to examine k n possibly different schedules

11. Methods for eliminating anomalies The pessimistic serial-execution method - All instructions are executed in-order. - All memory references are considered misses. - Which instruction sequence is considered ? - Very pessimistic approach The program modification method - All unknown events and variable latency instructions must result in a predictable pipeline state - If a path is selected as a WCET path among a set of paths, then the end cache & pipeline state must be the same.

12. The program modification method (…contd) Making pipeline-state predictable Forced in-order resource use is one solution - little processor support Use of sync instruction in PowerPC architecture - to take care of variable latency instructions - also when cache hits are unpredictable sync works for both the previous conditions

13. The program modification method (…contd) Making cache state predictable After each path invalidate all cache blocks - poor performance Invalidate only differing cache blocks - poor performance again Preload cache blocks - special instruction support eg. icbt,dcbt in PowerPC

14. Case study: symbolic execution method Instruction level simulation Extended instruction semantics to take care of ‘unknown’ operands eg. Add A,B,C A  B + C,if both B and C are known A  unknown, either B or C is unknown Elimination of infeasible paths Merging of paths to avoid exponential number of paths

15. Changes to this existing method First pass identifies all places where local decisions need to be made - eg. merging of paths and variable latency instructions Addition of sync and preload instructions at such sites T serial = sum of all latencies and misses T = T serial / 2 in the ideal case

16. Benchmarks used PSIM, existing instruction-level simulator was extended for symbolic execution and modification of program approach The benchmarks used were: - matmult : Multiplies 2 50*50 matrices - bsort : Bubblesort of 100 integers - isort : Insertsort of 10 integers - fib : Calculates nth element of Fibonacci sequence for n<30 - DES : Encrypts 64 bit data - jfdctint : Discrete cosine transform of an 8*8 pixel image - compress : Compresses 50 bytes of data

17. Evaluation results ProgramActual WCET Unsafe WCET RatioSerail WCET RatioModified WCET RatioModified slowdown matmult5283287 110566574263232871.20 bsort230490 146098122568541.11 isort2085 14170223251.12 fib797 11594279711 DES1861661863581.0013727162.0021863581.0011 jfdctint9409 118819299211.05 compress16846545833.311091676.62692914.201.27

18. Summary Timing anomalies in dynamically scheduled processors may cause wrong WCET estimation using previous methods. Using architecture support to control state of the cache and pipeline, it is possible to eliminate anomalies and the previous methods can be used on such modified programs.

19. Thank you !!! Questions ?