From cbae62c443013a2888a6e93cf409adff1f395f63 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Yann Herklotz Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 21:49:40 +0100 Subject: Fix --- evaluation.tex | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) (limited to 'evaluation.tex') diff --git a/evaluation.tex b/evaluation.tex index f82c83b..2e4ccd5 100644 --- a/evaluation.tex +++ b/evaluation.tex @@ -10,13 +10,13 @@ Our evaluation is designed to answer the following two research questions. \subsection{Experimental Setup} \label{sec:evaluation:setup} -\paragraph{Choice of HLS tool for comparison.} We compare \vericert{} against \legup{} 4.0, because it is open-source and hence easily accessible, but still produces hardware ``of comparable quality to a commercial high-level synthesis tool''~\cite{canis11_legup}. We also compare against \legup{} with different optimisation levels. First, we only turn off the LLVM optimisations in \legup{}, to eliminate all the optimisations that are common to standard software compilers. Secondly, we also compare against \legup{} with LLVM optimisations and operation chaining turned off, which is an HLS specific optimisation that combines data-dependent operations into one clock cycle, and therefore dramatically reduces the number of cycles, without necessarily increasing the clock speed. +\paragraph{Choice of HLS tool for comparison.} We compare \vericert{} against \legup{} 4.0, because it is open-source and hence easily accessible, but still produces hardware ``of comparable quality to a commercial high-level synthesis tool''~\cite{canis11_legup}. We also compare against \legup{} with different optimisation levels. First, we only turn off the LLVM optimisations in \legup{}, to eliminate all the optimisations that are common to standard software compilers, referred to as \legup{} w/o opt. Secondly, we also compare against \legup{} with LLVM optimisations and operation chaining turned off, referred to as \legup{} w/o opt+chain, which is an HLS specific optimisation that combines data-dependent operations into one clock cycle, and therefore dramatically reduces the number of cycles, without necessarily increasing the clock speed. \paragraph{Choice and preparation of benchmarks.} We evaluate \vericert{} using the \polybench{} benchmark suite (version 4.2.1)~\cite{polybench}, which is a collection of 30 numerical kernels. \polybench{} is popular in the HLS context~\cite{choi+18,poly_hls_pouchet2013polyhedral,poly_hls_zhao2017,poly_hls_zuo2013}, since it has affine loop bounds, making it attractive for streaming computation on FPGA architectures. We were able to use 27 of the 30 programs; three had to be discarded (\texttt{correlation},~\texttt{gramschmidt} and~\texttt{deriche}) because they involve square roots, requiring floats, which we do not support. % Interestingly, we were also unable to evaluate \texttt{cholesky} on \legup{}, since it produce an error during its HLS compilation. %In summary, we evaluate 27 programs from the latest Polybench suite. -We configured \polybench{}'s parameters so that only integer types are used, since we do not support floats. We use \polybench{}'s smallest datasets for each program to ensure that data can reside within on-chip memories of the FPGA, avoiding any need for off-chip memory accesses. +We configured \polybench{}'s parameters so that only integer types are used. We use \polybench{}'s smallest datasets for each program to ensure that data can reside within on-chip memories of the FPGA, avoiding any need for off-chip memory accesses. \vericert{} implements divisions and modulo operations in C using the corresponding built-in Verilog operators. These built-in operators are designed to complete within a single clock cycle, and this causes substantial penalties in clock frequency. Other HLS tools, including LegUp, supply their own multi-cycle division/modulo implementations, and we plan to do the same in future versions of \vericert{}. Implementing pipelined operators such as the divide and modulus operator can be solved by scheduling the instructions so that these can execute in parallel, which is the main optimisation that needs to be added to \vericert{}. In the meantime, we have prepared an alternative version of the benchmarks in which each division/modulo operation is replaced with our own implementation that uses repeated division and multiplications by 2. Figure~\ref{fig:polybench-div} shows the results of comparing Vericert with optimised LegUp 4.0 on the \polybench{} benchmarks, where divisions have been left intact. Figure~\ref{fig:polybench-nodiv} performs the comparison where the division/modulo operations have been replaced by the iterative algorithm. -- cgit