Team Compsys

Overall Objectives
Scientific Foundations
Application Domains
New Results
Contracts and Grants with Industry
Other Grants and Activities

Section: Scientific Foundations

Program analysis and transformations for high-level synthesis

Participants : Christophe Alias, Alain Darte, Paul Feautrier, Alexandru Plesco.

High-Level Synthesis Context

High-level synthesis has become a necessity, mainly because the exponential increase in the number of gates per chip far outstrips the productivity of human designers. Besides, applications that need hardware accelerators usually belong to domains, like telecommunications and game platforms, where fast turn-around and time-to-market minimization are paramount. We believe that our expertise in compilation and automatic parallelization can contribute to the development of the needed tools.

Today, synthesis tools for FPGAs or ASICs come in many shapes. At the lowest level, there are proprietary Boolean, layout, and place and route tools, whose input is a VHDL or Verilog specification at the structural or register-transfer level (RTL). Direct use of these tools is difficult, for several reasons:

Some intermediate tools exist that generate VHDL from a specification in restricted C, both in academia (such as SPARK ( ), Gaut ( ), UGH ( ), CloogVHDL ( )), and in industry (such as C2H ( ), CatapultC ( ), pico Express ( )). All these tools use only the most elementary form of parallelization, equivalent to instruction-level parallelism in ordinary compilers, with some limited form of block pipelining. Targeting one of these tools for low-level code generation, while we concentrate on exploiting loop parallelism, might be a more fruitful approach than directly generating VHDL. However, it may be that the restrictions they impose preclude efficient use of the underlying hardware.

Our first experiments with these HLS tools reveal two important issues. First, they are, of course, limited to certain types of input programs so as to make their design flows successful. It is a painful and tricky task for the user to transform the program so that it fits these constraints and to tune it to get good results. Automatic or semi-automatic program transformations can help the user achieve this task. Second, users, even expert users, have only a very limited understanding of what back-end compilers do and why they do not lead to the expected results. An effort must be done to analyze the different design flows of HLS tools, to explain what to expect from them, and how to use them to get a good quality of results. Our first goal is thus to develop high-level techniques that, used in front of existing HLS tools, improve their utilization. This should also give us directions on how to modify them.

More generally, we want to consider HLS as a more global parallelization process. So far, no HLS tools is capable of generating designs with communicating parallel accelerators, even if, in theory, at least for the scheduling part, a tool such as pico Express could have such capabilities. The reason is that it is, for example, very hard to automatically design parallel memories and to decide the distribution of array elements in memory banks to get the desired performances with parallel accesses. Also, how to express communicating processes at the language level? How to express constraints, pipeline behavior, communication media, etc.? To better exploit parallelism, a first solution is to extend the source language with parallel constructs, as in all derivations of the Kahn process networks model, including communicating regular processes (CRP, see later). The other solution is a form of automatic parallelization. However, classical methods, which are mostly based on scheduling, are not directly applicable, firstly because they pay poor attention to locality, which is of paramount importance in hardware. Beside, their aim is to extract all the parallelism in the source code; they rely on the runtime system to tailor the parallelism degree to the available resources. Obviously, there is no runtime system in hardware. The real challenge is thus to invent new scheduling algorithms that take both resource and locality into account, and then to infer the necessary hardware from the schedule. This is probably possible only for programs that fit into the polytope model.

In summary, as for our activity on back-end code optimizations, which is decomposed into two complementary activities, aggressive and just-in-time compilation, we focus our activity on high-level synthesis on two aspects:

We now give more details on the program optimizations and transformations we want to consider and on our methodology.

Specifications, Transformations, Code Generation for High-Level Synthesis

Before contributing to high-level synthesis, one has to decide which execution model is targeted and where to intervene in the design flow. Then one has to solve scheduling, placement, and memory management problems. These three aspects should be handled as a whole, but present state of the art dictates that they be treated separately. One of our aims will be to find more comprehensive solutions. The last task is code generation, both for the processing elements and the interfaces between FPGAs and the host processor.

There are basically two execution models for embedded systems: one is the classical accelerator model, in which data is deposited in the memory of the accelerator, which then does its job, and returns the results. In the streaming model, computations are done on the fly, as data flow from an input channel to the output. Here, data is never stored in (addressable) memory. Other models are special cases, or sometime compositions of the basic models. For instance, a systolic array follows the streaming model, and sometime extends it to higher dimensions. Software radio modems follow the streaming model in the large, and the accelerator model in detail. The use of first-in first-out queues (FIFO) in hardware design is an application of the streaming model. Experience shows that designs based on the streaming model are more efficient that those based on memory. One of the point to be investigated is whether it is general enough to handle arbitrary (regular) programs. The answer is probably negative. One possible implementation of the streaming model is as a network of communicating processes either as Kahn process networks (FIFO based) or as our more recent model of communicating regular processes (CRP, memory based). It is an interesting fact that several researchers have investigated translation from process networks  [18] and to process networks  [25] , [26] .

Kahn process networks (KPN) were introduced 30 years ago as a notation for representing parallel programs. Such a network is built from processes that communicate via perfect FIFO channels. Because the channel histories are deterministic, one can define a semantics and talk meaningfully about the equivalence of two implementations. As a bonus, the dataflow diagrams used by signal processing specialists can be translated on-the-fly into process networks. The problem with KPNs is that they rely on an asynchronous execution model, while vliw processors and FPGAs are synchronous or partially synchronous. Thus, there is a need for a tool for synchronizing KPNs. This is best done by computing a schedule that has to satisfy data dependences within each process, a causality condition for each channel (a message cannot be received before it is sent), and real-time constraints. However, there is a difficulty in writing the channel constraints because one has to count messages in order to establish the send/receive correspondence and, in multi-dimensional loop nests, the counting functions may not be affine. In order to bypass this difficulty, one can define another model, communicating regular processes (CRP), in which channels are represented as write-once/read-many arrays. One can then dispense with counting functions. One can prove that the determinacy property still holds. As an added benefit, a communication system in which the receive operation is not destructive is closer to the expectations of system designers.

The main difficulty with this approach is that ordinary programs are usually not constructed as process networks. One needs automatic or semi-automatic tools for converting sequential programs into process networks. One possibility is to start from array dataflow analysis  [19] . Each statement (or group of statements) may be considered a process, and the source computation indicates where to implement communication channels. Another approach attempts to construct threads, i.e. pieces of sequential code with the smallest possible interactions. In favorable cases, one may even find outermost parallelism, i.e. threads with no interactions whatsoever. Here, communications are associated to so-called uncut dependences, i.e. dependences which cross thread boundaries. In both approaches, the main question is whether the communications can be implemented as FIFOs, or need a reordering memory. One of our research directions will be to try to take advantage of the reordering allowed by dependences to force a FIFO implementation.

Whatever the chosen solution (FIFO or addressable memory) for communicating between two accelerators or between the host processor and an accelerator, the problem of optimizing communication between processes and of optimizing buffers have to be addressed. Many local memory optimization problems have already been solved theoretically. Some examples are loop fusion and loop alignment for array contraction and for minimizing the length of the reuse vector  [22] , techniques for data allocation in scratch-pad memory, or techniques for folding multi-dimensional arrays  [16] . Nevertheless, the problem is still largely open. Some questions are: how to schedule a loop sequence (or even a process network) for minimal scratch-pad memory size? How is the problem modified when one introduces unlimited and/or bounded parallelism? How does one take into account latency or throughput constraints, or bandwidth constraints for input and output channels? All loop transformations are useful in this context, in particular loop tiling, and may be applied either as source-to-source transformations (when used in front of HLS tools) or as transformations to generate directly VHDL codes. One should keep in mind that theory will not be sufficient to solve these problems. Experiments are required to check the relevance of the various models (computation model, memory model, power consumption model) and to select the most important factors according to the architecture. Besides, optimizations do interact: for instance reducing memory size and increasing parallelism are often antagonistic. Experiments will be needed to find a global compromise between local optimizations.

Finally, there remains the problem of code generation for accelerators. It is a well-known fact that modern methods for program optimization and parallelization do not generate a new program, but just deliver blueprints for program generation, in the form, e.g., of schedules, placement functions, or new array subscripting functions. A separate code generation phase must be crafted with care, as a too naïve implementation may destroy the benefits of high-level optimization. There are to possibilities here as suggested before; one may target another high-level synthesis tool, or one may target directly VHDL. Each approach has its advantages and drawbacks. However, in both situations, all such tools, including VHDL but not only, require that the input program respects some strong constraints on the code shape, array accesses, memory accesses, communication protocols, etc. Furthermore, to get the tool do what the user wants requires a lot of program tuning, i.e., of program rewriting. What can be automated in this rewriting process? Semi-automated? Our partnership with stm icroelectronics (synthesis) should help us answer such a question, considering both industrial applications and industrial HLS tools. Also, in the hope of extending the tools Gaut and Ugh beyond this stage, an informal working group (Coach), with members from Lab-STICC (Lorient), Asim (UPMC), Cairn (IRISA), Tima (IMAG), and Compsys has started meeting regularly, with the initial goal of submitting an ANR proposal at the next opportunity.


Logo Inria