Electrical & Computer Engineering Research Works

Permanent URI for this collectionhttp://hdl.handle.net/1903/1658

Browse

Subject: search.filters.subject.performance modeling

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    In-Line Interrupt Handling and Lock-Up Free Translation Lookaside Buffers (TLBs)
    (2006-05) Jaleel, Aamer; Jacob, Bruce
    The effects of the general-purpose precise interrupt mechanisms in use for the past few decades have received very little attention. When modern out-of-order processors handle interrupts precisely, they typically begin by flushing the pipeline to make the CPU available to execute handler instructions. In doing so, the CPU ends up flushing many instructions that have been brought in to the reorder buffer. In particular, these instructions may have reached a very deep stage in the pipeline—representing significant work that is wasted. In addition, an overhead of several cycles and wastage of energy (per exception detected) can be expected in refetching and reexecuting the instructions flushed. This paper concentrates on improving the performance of precisely handling software managed translation look-aside buffer (TLB) interrupts, one of the most frequently occurring interrupts. The paper presents a novel method of in-lining the interrupt handler within the reorder buffer. Since the first level interrupt-handlers of TLBs are usually small, they could potentially fit in the reorder buffer along with the user-level code already there. In doing so, the instructions that would otherwise be flushed from the pipe need not be refetched and reexecuted. Additionally, it allows for instructions independent of the exceptional instruction to continue to execute in parallel with the handler code. By in-lining the TLB interrupt handler, this provides lock-up free TLBs. This paper proposes the prepend and append schemes of in-lining the interrupt handler into the available reorder buffer space. The two schemes are implemented on a performance model of the Alpha 21264 processor built by Alpha designers at the Palo Alto Design Center (PADC), California. We compare the overhead and performance impact of handling TLB interrupts by the traditional scheme, the append in-lined scheme, and the prepend in-lined scheme. For small, medium, and large memory footprints, the overhead is quantified by comparing the number and pipeline state of instructions flushed, the energy savings, and the performance improvements. We find that lock-up free TLBs reduce the overhead of refetching and reexecuting the instructions flushed by 30-95 percent, reduce the execution time by 5-25 percent, and also reduce the energy wasted by 30-90 percent.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The Performance and Energy Consumption of Embedded Real-Time Operating Systems
    (2003-11) Baynes, Kathleen; Collins, Chris; Fiterma, Eric; Ganesh, Brinda; Kohout, Paul; Smit, Christine; Zhang, Tiebin; Jacob, Bruce
    This paper presents the modeling of embedded systems with SimBed, an execution-driven simulation testbed that measures the execution behavior and power consumption of embedded applications and RTOSs by executing them on an accurate architectural model of a microcontroller with simulated real-time stimuli. We briefly describe the simulation environment and present a study that compares three RTOSs: C/OS-II, a popular public-domain embedded real-time operating system; Echidna, a sophisticated, industrial-strength (commercial) RTOS; and NOS, a bare-bones multirate task scheduler reminiscent of typical “roll-your-own” RTOSs found in many commercial embedded systems. The microcontroller simulated in this study is the Motorola M-CORE processor: a low-power, 32-bit CPU core with 16-bit instructions, running at 20MHz. Our simulations show what happens when RTOSs are pushed beyond their limits and they depict situations in which unexpected interrupts or unaccounted-for task invocations disrupt timing, even when the CPU is lightly loaded. In general, there appears no clear winner in timing accuracy between preemptive systems and cooperative systems. The power-consumption measurements show that RTOS overhead is a factor of two to four higher than it needs to be, compared to the energy consumption of the minimal scheduler. In addition, poorly designed idle loops can cause the system to double its energy consumption—energy that could be saved by a simple hardware sleep mechanism.