No abstract

Now ubiquitous, multicore processors provide replicated compute cores that allow independent programs to run in parallel. However, shared resources, such as last-level caches, can cause otherwise-independent programs to interfere with one another, leading to significant and unpredictable effects on their execution time. Indeed, prior work has shown that specially crafted enemy programs can cause software systems of interest to experience orders-of-magnitude slowdowns when both are run in parallel on a multicore processor. This undermines the suitability of these processors for tasks that have real-time constraints.In this work, we explore the design and evaluation of techniques for empirically testing interference using enemy programs, with an eye towards reliability (how reproducible the interference results are) and portability (how interference testing can be effective across chips). We first show that different methods of measurement yield significantly different magnitudes of, and variation in, observed interference effects when applied to an enemy process that was shown to be particularly effective in prior work. We propose a method of measurement based on percentiles and confidence intervals, and show that it provides both competitive and reproducible observations. The reliability of our measurements allows us to explore auto-tuning, where enemy programs are further specialised per architecture. We evaluate three different tuning approaches (random search, simulated annealing, and Bayesian optimisation) on five different multicore chips, spanning x86 and ARM architectures. To show that our tuned enemy programs generalise to applications, we evaluate the slowdowns caused by our approach on the AutoBench and CoreMark benchmark suites. Our method achieves a statistically larger slowdown compared to prior work in 35 out of 105 benchmark/chip combinations, with a maximum difference of 3.8×. We envision that empirical approaches, such as ours, will be valuable for 'first pass' evaluations when investigating which multicore processors are suitable for real-time tasks.

Heterogeneous CPU/FPGA devices, in which a CPU and an FPGA can execute together while sharing memory, are becoming popular in several computing sectors. In this paper, we study the shared-memory semantics of these devices, with a view to providing a firm foundation for reasoning about the programs that run on them. Our focus is on Intel platforms that combine an Intel FPGA with a multicore Xeon CPU. We describe the weak-memory behaviours that are allowed (and observable) on these devices when CPU threads and an FPGA thread access common memory locations in a fine-grained manner through multiple channels. Some of these behaviours are familiar from well-studied CPU and GPU concurrency; others are weaker still. We encode these behaviours in two formal memory models: one operational, one axiomatic. We develop executable implementations of both models, using the CBMC bounded model-checking tool for our operational model and the Alloy modelling language for our axiomatic model. Using these, we cross-check our models against each other via a translator that converts Alloy-generated executions into queries for the CBMC model. We also validate our models against actual hardware by translating 583 Alloy-generated executions into litmus tests that we run on CPU/FPGA devices; when doing this, we avoid the prohibitive cost of synthesising a hardware design per litmus test by creating our own 'litmus-test processor' in hardware. We expect that our models will be useful for low-level programmers, compiler writers, and designers of analysis tools. Indeed, as a demonstration of the utility of our work, we use our operational model to reason about a producer/consumer buffer implemented across the CPU and the FPGA. When the buffer uses insufficient synchronisation -- a situation that our model is able to detect -- we observe that its performance improves at the cost of occasional data corruption.

No abstract