Proceedings. 1998 International Conference on Parallel Processing (Cat. No.98EX205)
DOI: 10.1109/icpp.1998.708526
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A real-time communication method for wormhole switching networks

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Most of the real-time analytical models for priority-based wormhole NoCs have been based on analysis developed in the mid 1990s for general purpose wormhole networks [22] [11] [16]. NoC analysis models proposed by Shi and Burns [30] and Kashif and Patel [14] customised those general models for the specifics of the on-chip communication mechanisms and were widely used until the discovery of the multi-point progressive blocking (MPB) problem by Xiong et al [35].…”
Section: Background 21 Real-time Wormhole Network-on-chipmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most of the real-time analytical models for priority-based wormhole NoCs have been based on analysis developed in the mid 1990s for general purpose wormhole networks [22] [11] [16]. NoC analysis models proposed by Shi and Burns [30] and Kashif and Patel [14] customised those general models for the specifics of the on-chip communication mechanisms and were widely used until the discovery of the multi-point progressive blocking (MPB) problem by Xiong et al [35].…”
Section: Background 21 Real-time Wormhole Network-on-chipmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this paper we explore real-time communication in wormhole switching for on-chip networks. Utilizing the priority based preemption arbitration (Balakrishnan & Ozguner, 1998;Hary & Ozguner, 1997;Kim, Kim, Hong, & Lee, 1998;Lu, Jantsch, & Sander, 2005), a novel real-time schedulability analysis approach is presented which successfully emulate wormhole switching as classic single processor scheduling model (Liu & Layland, 1973). By evaluating diverse inter-relationships and service attributes among the traffic-flows, this approach can predict the packet transmission latency for a given traffic-flow based on three quantifiable different interferences: direct interference from higher priority traffic-flows, indirect interference from higher priority traffic-flows and self-blocking produced by the previous packet from same traffic-flow.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similarly, when computing the contention delay for a packet, we assume that, by the time it is injected in the network, any other potential contending flow is also active at that moment, transmitting its packets in a way that it produces the worst-case contention scenario. In order to reproduce the worst-case contention scenario we need to consider the worst direct contention and the worst indirect contention [84]. The former can be easily reproduced by considering that for a packet r k i of F i at every hop, all possible contenders (i.e.…”
Section: Fixed Parametersmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additionally, requests not sharing the path with r 1 i can be blocking r k j which in turns causes contention in r 1 1 . This contention is usually regarded as indirect contention [84].…”
Section: Worst Contentionmentioning
confidence: 99%