PL-4049, Cache Coherence for GPU Architectures, by Arvindh Shriraman and Tor Aamodt
•
0 gefällt mir•1,882 views
PL-4049, Cache Coherence for GPU Architectures, by Arvindh Shriraman and Tor Aamodt at the AMD Developer Summit (APU13) November 11-13, 2013
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Andere mochten auch
Andere mochten auch (6)
Ähnlich wie PL-4049, Cache Coherence for GPU Architectures, by Arvindh Shriraman and Tor Aamodt
Ähnlich wie PL-4049, Cache Coherence for GPU Architectures, by Arvindh Shriraman and Tor Aamodt (20)
Mehr von AMD Developer Central
Mehr von AMD Developer Central (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
PL-4049, Cache Coherence for GPU Architectures, by Arvindh Shriraman and Tor Aamodt
- 1. Cache coherence for GPU Architectures Inderpreet Singh, Arrvindh Shriraman, Wilson W. L. Fung, Mike O'Connor, Tor M. Aamodt, Cache Coherence for GPU Architectures, In proceedings of the 19th IEEE International Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture 1 (HPCA-19)
- 2. Agenda 2
- 3. Agenda Challenges with CPU coherence on GPUs. 2
- 4. Agenda Challenges with CPU coherence on GPUs. Temporal Coherence: Rethinking coherence for GPUs 2
- 5. Agenda Challenges with CPU coherence on GPUs. Temporal Coherence: Rethinking coherence for GPUs What is the cost of providing coherence? 2
- 6. Why provide coherence? 1. Inter-workgroup communication 2. Atomic operations Characterizing and Evaluating a Key-value Store Application on Heterogeneous CPU-GPU Systems, ISPASS 2012 3. Task queues 3
- 7. Cache Coherence Programmer P P P P Shared Memory Appearance: One global copy of every location 4
- 8. Cache Coherence Multicores GPUs P P P P L1 L1 L1 L1 L2 L2 L1 L1 L1 L1 Memory ... Memory 5
- 9. Cache Coherence Heterogeneous Systems P P P P L1 L1 L1 L1 L2 L2 ... L1 L1 L1 L1 ... Memory How to provide coherence? 6
- 10. Challenges 7
- 14. Challenges with coherence L1 L1 1 3 Shared L2 8 2
- 15. Challenge 1: Traffic L1 L1 Shared L2 9
- 16. Challenge 1: Traffic L1 L1 Shared L2 9 L1
- 17. Challenge 1: Traffic L1 L1 Shared L2 9 L1
- 18. Challenge 1: Traffic L1 L1 L1 Shared L2 30% more traffic than current GPUs 9
- 19. Challenge 2: Buffer Overhead L1 L1 Shared L2 10 L1
- 20. Challenge 2: Buffer Overhead L1 L1 Protocol Buffer Shared L2 10 L1
- 21. Challenge 2: Buffer Overhead L1 L1 Protocol Buffer Shared L2 10 L1
- 22. Challenge 2: Buffer Overhead L1 L1 Protocol Buffer Shared L2 10 L1
- 23. Challenge 2: Buffer Overhead L1 L1 L1 Protocol Buffer Shared L2 Coherence protocol buffers require 28% of total L2 10
- 24. Challenge 3: Complexity L1 L1 1 Shared L2 Incoherent protocol 4 states 11
- 25. Challenge 3: Complexity L1 L1 3 1 2 Shared L2 Incoherent protocol 4 states Coherent protocol 16 states 11
- 26. Coherence Overhead. L1 Coherence messages 1. Traffic transferring 2. Area overhead 3. Protocol complexity How to achieve coherence without messages? 12
- 28. Temporal Coherence Time-based Approach - trigger protocol events on timer alerts L1 L1 Shared L2 14
- 29. Temporal Coherence Time-based Approach - trigger protocol events on timer alerts L1 L1 Shared L2 14
- 30. Temporal Coherence Time-based Approach - trigger protocol events on timer alerts L1 L1 Shared L2 14
- 31. Temporal Coherence Time-based Approach - trigger protocol events on timer alerts L1 L1 Shared L2 14
- 35. Temporal Coherence Clock 1 Load Valid if TIME LT ! L1 L1 Shared L2 15 LT
- 36. Temporal Coherence Clock 1 Load Valid if TIME LT ! L1 L1 Shared L2 15 LT
- 37. Temporal Coherence Clock 1 Load Valid if TIME LT ! L1 L1 LT ! GT Shared L2 15 Shared if TIME GT
- 41. Temporal Coherence TIME 0 Load ! L1 L1 20 16
- 42. Temporal Coherence TIME 0 Load ! L1 L1 20 ! 20 Line shared till 20 16
- 45. TIME 5 Load ! L1 L1 20 ! L1 25 ! 25 Line shared till 25 17
- 54. Temporal Coherence No coherence messages All transactions are 2-hop Protocol complexity minimal Supports strong and weak memory models Enables optimized communication (ask me later...) 21
- 55. How to set the block lifetime? • Longer = writes may stall • Shorter = may not exploit temporal locality ! • Lifetime predictor at L2. -Load to expired block (for temporal locality) -Store to unexpired block (reduce write stalls) -Eviction of unexpired block (reduce L2 eviction stalls) 22
- 56. Temporal Coherence (Weak) Write ! L1 L1 20 ! 25 Shared L2 23 ! L1 25
- 57. Temporal Coherence (Weak) Write ! L1 L1 20 ! 25 Shared L2 23 ! L1 25
- 58. Temporal Coherence (Weak) Sensitive to misprediction Write ! L1 L1 20 ! 25 Shared L2 23 ! L1 25
- 59. Temporal Coherence (Weak) Sensitive to misprediction Write Resource ! stalls L1 L1 20 ! 25 Shared L2 23 ! L1 25
- 60. Temporal Coherence (Weak) Sensitive to misprediction Write Resource ! stalls L1 L1 20 ! ! L1 25 25 Hurts GPU applications Shared L2 23
- 61. Temporal Coherence (Weak) Sensitive to misprediction Write Resource ! stalls L1 L1 20 ! L1 25 ! 25 Hurts GPU applications Shared L2 Goal : eliminate Write Stalls! 23
- 66. Temporal Coherence (Weak) TIME ! 25 20 Fence ! L1 L1 20 ! 25 25 ! OLD L1 25
- 67. Temporal Coherence (Weak) TIME ! 25 20 Fence ! L1 L1 20 ! 25 25 ! OLD L1 25
- 68. Temporal Coherence (Weak) TIME ! 25 20 Fence ...... ! L1 L1 20 ! 25 25 ! OLD L1 25
- 69. Temporal Coherence (Weak) TIME ! 25 25 Fence L1 ! L1 L1 25 ! 25 26
- 70. Temporal Coherence (Weak) TIME ! 25 25 Fence L1 ! L1 L1 25 ! 25 26
- 71. Temporal Coherence (Weak) TIME ! 25 25 Fence L1 ! L1 L1 25 ! 25 26
- 72. Temporal Coherence (Weak) TIME 25 ! 25 L1 ! L1 L1 25 ! 25 26
- 73. Temporal Coherence (Weak) No Access Stalls Efficient GPU applications Aggressive lifetime predictors Supports weak memory models 27
- 74. 28
- 75. Coherence Applications • Lock-based programs -Barnes Hut -Cloth Physics -Place-and-Route • Stencil -Max-Flow Min-cut -3D equation solver • Load balancing -Octree Partitioning 29
- 76. Interconnect Traffic GPU Applications (do not need coherence) 30
- 77. Interconnect Traffic GPU Applications (do not need coherence) 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 30
- 78. Interconnect Traffic GPU Applications (do not need coherence) 2 1 0.5 0 NO.CC 1.5 30
- 79. Interconnect Traffic GPU Applications (do not need coherence) 2.3 2 0.5 0 MESI 1 NO.CC 1.5 30
- 80. Interconnect Traffic GPU Applications (do not need coherence) 2.3 2 0 GPU-VI 0.5 MESI 1 NO.CC 1.5 30
- 81. Interconnect Traffic GPU Applications (do not need coherence) Wr-Through 2.3 2 .8x 0 GPU-VI 0.5 MESI 1 NO.CC 1.5 30
- 82. Interconnect Traffic GPU Applications (do not need coherence) Wr-Through 2.3 2 .8x 1.5 0 30 .3x TC GPU-VI MESI 0.5 NO.CC 1 No msgs
- 83. Coherence Applications • Lock-based programs -Barnes Hut -Cloth Physics -Place-and-Route • Stencil -Max-Flow Min-cut -3D equation solver • Load balancing -Octree Partitioning 31
- 90. Speedup Coherence Applications Need a 32KB directory 1.75 1.5 0.5 0.25 0 32 TC GPU-VI 0.75 MESI 1 NO L1 1.25
- 92. Protocol Complexity L1 Stable L1 Transient L2 Stable L2 Transient 33
- 93. Protocol Complexity NonCoherent L1 Stable L1 Transient L2 Stable L2 Transient 2 2 2 2 33
- 94. Protocol Complexity NonCoherent L1 Stable L1 Transient L2 Stable L2 Transient GPU-VI 2 2 2 2 2 1 5 10 33
- 95. Protocol Complexity NonCoherent L1 Stable L1 Transient L2 Stable L2 Transient Temporal GPU-VI Coherence 2 2 2 2 2 1 5 10 33 2 1 5 3
- 96. What did we learn ! • Throughput and heterogeneous architectures require a more streamlined caching framework. ! • Single-chip integration enables mechanisms that we can exploit to simplify communication protocols. ! • Efficient coherence protocols enable programmers to deploy accelerators for wider purposes..
- 97. Contact: ashriram@cs.sfu.ca or aamodt@ece.ubc.ca • Obtain GPGPU-Sim with coherence support http://www.ece.ubc.ca/~isingh/gpgpusim-ruby.tar.gz 35
- 98. Interconnect Energy Interworkgroup 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 Router (Static) Interworkgroup Intraworkgroup 36 NO-COH MESI GPU-VI GPU-Vini TCW Link (Static) NO-L1 MESI GPU-VI GPU-Vini TCW Normalized Energy Router (Dynamic) NO-COH MESI GPU-VI GPU-Vini TCW 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 NO-L1 MESI GPU-VI GPU-Vini TCW Normalized Power Link (Dynamic) Intraworkgroup
- 99. 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 STN HSP VPR 37 or coherent and non-coherent GPU memory systems. communication 2.0 1.5 KMN (b) Intra-workgroup communication RCL=0.25 REQ=0.55 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 LPS NO-COH MESI GPU-VI GPU-Vini NO-COH TCW Interconnect Traffic 0.0 NDL MESI NO-COH GPU-VI MESI GPU-Vini GPU-VI TCW GPU-Vini RCL=0.09 REQ=0.55 HSP KMN RG SR TCW 2.0 ST NO-COH MESI NO-COH GPU-VI MESI GPU-VI GPU-Vini GPU-Vini TCW ATO TCW RCL=0.15 REQ=0.63 GPU-Vini TCW NO-COH RCL ST LD REQ INV ATO MESI GPU-VI NO-COH GPU-Vini MESI TCW GPU-VI AVG NO-COH MESI GPU-VI GPU-Vini TCW NO-COH NO-L1 MESI MESI GPU-VI GPU-VI GPU-Vini GPU-Vini TCW TCW 1.5 Traffic 2.0 NO-L1 NO-COH MESI MESI GPU-VI GPU-VI GPU-Vini GPU-Vini TCW TCW NO-L1 MESI GPU-VI Interconnect GPU-Vini TCW REQ LD RCL=0.16 RCL=0.25 REQ=0.63 REQ=0.55 2.27 R R 1.5 1.0 0.5 AVG LPS (b) Intra-work
- 100. 1.0 STN NO-L1 NO-L1 MESI MESI GPU-VI GPU-VI GPU-Vini GPU-Vini TCW TCW BH VPR (a) Inter-workgroup communicationKMN HSP AVG CL NO-L1 MESI GPU-VI GPU-Vini Interconnect TCW NO-L1 NO-L1 MESI MESI GPU-VI GPU-VI GPU-Vini GPU-Vini TCW TCW CC DLB 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 STN VPR GPU-VI GPU-Vini NO-L1 TCWMESI 2.0 AVG GPU-VI GPU-Vini TCW ST GPU-VI GPU-Vini NO-COH MESI TCW ATO GPU-VI NO-COH GPU-Vini MESI TCW REQ GPU-Vini NO-L1 TCWMESI 1.5 NO-L1 MESI GPU-VI NO-COH GPU-Vini MESI GPU-VI TCW 2.0 Traffic INV 1.0 0.5 TCW NO-L1 NO-L1 MESI GPU-VI MESI GPU-VI GPU-Vini GPU-Vini TCW RCL RCL=0.03 INV=0.03 REQ=0.68 RCL INV LD REQ 2.0 R RCL=0.25 REQ=0.55 R 1.5 1.5 1.0 LPS communication Breakdown of interconnect(b) Intra-work Figure 8. traffic for co 38
- 101. TC-Strong vs TC-Weak TCSUO TCSOO TCS TCW TCW w/ predictor Fixed lifetime for all applications Best lifetime for each application 1.2 1.2 Speedup Speedup 1.4 1.0 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.6 All applications 39 All applications