No abstract

Large core counts and complex cache hierarchies are increasing the burden placed on commonly used simulation and modeling techniques. Although analytical models provide fast results, they do not apply to complex, many-core shared-memory systems. In contrast, detailed cycle-level simulation can be accurate but also tends to be slow, which limits the number of configurations that can be evaluated. A middle ground is needed that provides for fast simulation of complex many-core processors while still providing accurate results.In this article, we explore, analyze, and compare the accuracy and simulation speed of high-abstraction core models as a potential solution to slow cycle-level simulation. We describe a number of enhancements to interval simulation to improve its accuracy while maintaining simulation speed. In addition, we introduce the instruction-window centric (IW-centric) core model, a new mechanistic core model that bridges the gap between interval simulation and cycle-accurate simulation by enabling high-speed simulations with higher levels of detail. We also show that using accurate core models like these are important for memory subsystem studies, and that simple, naive models, like a one-IPC core model, can lead to misleading and incorrect results and conclusions in practical design studies. Validation against real hardware shows good accuracy, with an average single-core error of 11.1% and a maximum of 18.8% for the IW-centric model with a 1.5× slowdown compared to interval simulation.

A mechanistic model for out-of-order superscalar processors is developed and then applied to the study of microarchitecture resource scaling. The model divides execution time into intervals separated by disruptive miss events such as branch mispredictions and cache misses. Each type of miss event results in characterizable performance behavior for the execution time interval. By considering an interval's type and length (measured in instructions), execution time can be predicted for the interval. Overall execution time is then determined by aggregating the execution time over all intervals. The mechanistic model provides several advantages over prior modeling approaches, and, when estimating performance, it differs from detailed simulation of a 4-wide out-of-order processor by an average of 7%. The mechanistic model is applied to the general problem of resource scaling in out-of-order superscalar processors. First, we use the model to determine size relationships among microarchitecture structures in a balanced processor design. Second, we use the mechanistic model to study scaling of both pipeline depth and width in balanced processor designs. We corroborate previous results in this area and provide new results. For example, we show that at optimal design points, the pipeline depth times the square root of the processor width is nearly constant. Finally, we consider the behavior of unbalanced, overprovisioned processor designs based on insight gained from the mechanistic model. We show that in certain situations an overprovisioned processor may lead to improved overall performance. Designs where a processor's dispatch width is wider than its issue width are of particular interest

A common way of representing processor performance is to use Cycles per Instruction (CPI) `stacks' which break performance into a baseline CPI plus a number of individual miss event CPI components. CPI stacks can be very helpful in gaining insight into the behavior of an application on a given microprocessor; consequently, they are widely used by software application developers and computer architects. However, computing CPI stacks on superscalar out-of-order processors is challenging because of various overlaps among execution and miss events ( cache misses, TLB misses, and branch mispredictions). This paper shows that meaningful and accurate CPI stacks can be computed for superscalar out-of-order processors. Using interval analysis, a novel method for analyzing out-of-order processor performance, we gain understanding into the performance impact of the various miss events. Based on this understanding, we propose a novel way of architecting hardware performance counters for building accurate CPI stacks. The additional hardware for implementing these counters is limited and comparable to existing hardware performance counter architectures while being significantly more accurate than previous approaches

Detailed architectural simulators suffer from a long development cycle and extremely long evaluation times. This longstanding problem is further exacerbated in the multicore processor era. Existing solutions address the simulation problem by either sampling the simulated instruction stream or by mapping the simulation models on FPGAs; these approaches achieve substantial simulation speedups while simulating performance in a cycle-accurate manner. This paper proposes interval simulation which takes a completely different approach: interval simulation raises the level of abstraction and replaces the core-level cycleaccurate simulation model by a mechanistic analytical model. The analytical model estimates core-level performance by analyzing intervals, or the timing between two miss events (branch mispredictions and TLB/cache misses); the miss events are determined through simulation of the memory hierarchy, cache coherence protocol, interconnection network and branch predictor. By raising the level of abstraction, interval simulation reduces both development time and evaluation time. Our experimental results using the SPEC CPU2000 and PARSEC benchmark suites and the M5 multi-core simulator, show good accuracy up to eight cores (average error of 4.6% and max error of 11% for the multi-threaded fullsystem workloads), while achieving a one order of magnitude simulation speedup compared to cycle-accurate simulation. Moreover, interval simulation is easy to implement: our implementation of the mechanistic analytical model incurs only one thousand lines of code. Its high accuracy, fast simulation speed and ease-of-use make interval simulation a useful complement to the architect's toolbox for exploring system-level and high-level micro-architecture trade-offs.