Decoupled processor instruction window and operand buffer

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 10346168
  • Patent Number
    10,346,168
  • Date Filed
    Friday, June 26, 2015
    10 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, July 9, 2019
    6 years ago
Abstract
A processor core in an instruction block-based microarchitecture is configured so that an instruction window and operand buffers are decoupled for independent operation in which instructions in the block are not tied to resources such as control bits and operands that are maintained in the operand buffers. Instead, pointers are established among instructions in the block and the resources so that control state can be established for a refreshed instruction block (i.e., an instruction block that is reused without re-fetching it from an instruction cache) by following the pointers. Such decoupling of the instruction window from the operand space can provide greater processor efficiency, particularly in multiple core arrays where refreshing is utilized (for example when executing program code that uses tight loops), because the operands and control bits are pre-validated.
Description
BACKGROUND

Designers of instruction set architectures (ISAs) and processors make power and performance trade-offs. For example, if a designer chooses an ISA with instructions that deliver higher performance, then the power consumption by the processor may be higher as well. Alternatively, if the designer chooses an ISA with instructions that consume lower power, then the performance may be lower. The power consumption may be tied to the amount of hardware resources of the processor, such as arithmetic logic units (ALUs), cache lines, or registers, used by the instructions during execution. Use of a large amount of such hardware resources may deliver higher performance at the cost of higher power consumption. Alternatively, the use of a small amount of such hardware resources may result in lower power consumption at the cost of lower performance. Compilers may be used to compile high-level code into instructions compatible with the ISA and the processor architecture.


SUMMARY

A processor core in an instruction block-based microarchitecture is configured so that an instruction window and operand buffers are decoupled for independent operation in which instructions in the block are not strictly tied to resources such as control bits and operands that are maintained in the operand buffers. Instead, pointers are established among instructions in the block and the resources so that control state can be established for a refreshed instruction block (i.e., an instruction block that is reused without re-fetching it from an instruction cache) by following the pointers. Such decoupling of the instruction window from the operand space can provide greater processor efficiency, particularly in multiple core arrays where refreshing is utilized (for example when executing program code that uses tight loops), because the operands and control bits are pre-validated.


This Summary is provided to introduce a selection of concepts in a simplified form that are further described below in the Detailed Description. This Summary is not intended to identify key features or essential features of the claimed subject matter, nor is it intended to be used as an aid in determining the scope of the claimed subject matter. Furthermore, the claimed subject matter is not limited to implementations that solve any or all disadvantages noted in any part of this disclosure.





DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS


FIG. 1 shows an illustrative computing environment in which a compiler provides encoded instructions that run on an architecture that includes multiple processor cores;



FIG. 2 is a block diagram of an illustrative microarchitecture for an exemplary processor core;



FIG. 3 shows an illustrative arrangement for a block header; and



FIGS. 4-15 are flowcharts of illustrative methods.





Like reference numerals indicate like elements in the drawings. Elements are not drawn to scale unless otherwise indicated.


DETAILED DESCRIPTION


FIG. 1 shows an illustrative computing environment 100 with which the present age-based management of instruction blocks may be utilized. The environment includes a compiler 105 that may be utilized to generate encoded machine-executable instructions 110 from a program 115. The instructions 110 can be handled by a processor architecture 120 that is configured to process blocks of instructions of variable size containing, for example, between 4 and 128 instructions.


The processor architecture 120 typically includes multiple processor cores (representatively indicated by reference numeral 125) in a tiled configuration that are interconnected by an on-chip network (not shown) and further interoperated with one or more level 2 (L2) caches (representatively indicated by reference numeral 130). While the number and configuration of cores and caches can vary by implementation, it is noted that the physical cores can be merged together, in a process termed “composing” during runtime of the program 115, into one or more larger logical processors that can enable more processing power to be devoted to a program execution. Alternatively, when program execution supports suitable thread-level parallelism, the cores 125 can be split, in a process called “decomposing,” to work independently and execute instructions from independent threads.



FIG. 2 is a simplified block diagram of a portion of an illustrative processor core 125. As shown, the processor core 125 may include a front-end control unit 202, an instruction cache 204, a branch predictor 206, an instruction decoder 208, an instruction window 210, a left operand buffer 212, a right operand buffer 214, an arithmetic logic unit (ALU) 216, another ALU 218, registers 220, and a load/store queue 222. In some cases, the buses (indicated by the arrows) may carry data and instructions while in other cases, the buses may carry data (e.g., operands) or control signals. For example, the front-end control unit 202 may communicate, via a bus that carries only control signals, with other control networks. Although FIG. 2 shows a certain number of illustrative components for the processor core 125 that are arranged in a particular arrangement, there may be more or fewer components arranged differently depending on the needs of a particular implementation.


The front-end control unit 202 may include circuitry configured to control the flow of information through the processor core and circuitry to coordinate activities within it. The front-end control unit 202 also may include circuitry to implement a finite state machine (FSM) in which states enumerate each of the operating configurations that the processor core may take. Using opcodes (as described below) and/or other inputs (e.g., hardware-level signals), the FSM circuits in the front-end control unit 202 can determine the next state and control outputs.


Accordingly, the front-end control unit 202 can fetch instructions from the instruction cache 204 for processing by the instruction decoder 208. The front-end control unit 202 may exchange control information with other portions of the processor core 125 over control networks or buses. For example, the front-end control unit may exchange control information with a back-end control unit 224. The front-end and back-end control units may be integrated into a single control unit in some implementations.


The front-end control unit 202 may also coordinate and manage control of various cores and other parts of the processor architecture 120 (FIG. 1). Accordingly, for example, blocks of instructions may be simultaneously executing on multiple cores and the front-end control unit 202 may exchange control information via control networks with other cores to ensure synchronization, as needed, for execution of the various blocks of instructions.


The front-end control unit 202 may further process control information and meta-information regarding blocks of instructions that are executed atomically. For example, the front-end control unit 202 can process block headers that are associated with blocks of instructions. As discussed below in more detail, the block header may include control information and/or meta-information regarding the block of instructions. Accordingly, the front-end control unit 202 can include combinational logic, state machines, and temporary storage units, such as flip-flops to process the various fields in the block header.


The front-end control unit 202 may fetch and decode a single instruction or multiple instructions per clock cycle. The decoded instructions may be stored in an instruction window 210 that is implemented in processor core hardware as a buffer. The instruction window 210 can support an instruction scheduler 230, in some implementations, which may keep a ready state of each decoded instruction's inputs such as predications and operands. For example, when all of its inputs (if any) are ready, a given instruction may be woken up by instruction scheduler 230 and be ready to issue.


Before an instruction is issued, any operands required by the instruction may be stored in the left operand buffer 212 and/or the right operand buffer 214, as needed. Depending on the opcode of the instruction, operations may be performed on the operands using ALU 216 and/or ALU 218 or other functional units. The outputs of an ALU may be stored in an operand buffer or stored in one or more registers 220. Store operations that issue in a data flow order may be queued in load/store queue 222 until a block of instruction commits. When the block of instruction commits, the load/store queue 222 may write the committed block's stores to a memory. The branch predictor 206 may process block header information relating to branch exit types and factor that information in making branch predictions.


As noted above, the processor architecture 120 typically utilizes instructions organized in blocks that are fetched, executed, and committed atomically. Thus, a processor core may fetch the instructions belonging to a single block en masse, map them to the execution resources inside the processor core, execute the instructions, and commit their results in an atomic fashion. The processor may either commit the results of all instructions or nullify the execution of the entire block. Instructions inside a block may execute in a data flow order. In addition, the processor may permit the instructions inside a block to communicate directly with each other using messages or other suitable forms of communications. Thus an instruction that produces a result may, instead of writing the result to a register file, communicate that result to another instruction in the block that consumes the result. As an example, an instruction that adds the values stored in registers R1 and R2 may be expressed as shown in Table 1 below:











TABLE 1









I[0] READ R1 T[2R];



I[1]READ R2 T[2L];



I[2] ADD T[3L].










In this way, source operands are not specified with the instruction and instead, they are specified by the instructions that target the ADD instruction. The compiler 105 (FIG. 1) may explicitly encode the control and data dependencies during compilation of the instructions 110 to thereby free the processor core from rediscovering these dependencies at runtime. This may advantageously result in reduced processor load and energy savings during execution of these instructions. As an example, the compiler may use predication to convert all control dependencies into data flow instructions. Using these techniques, the number of accesses to power-hungry register files may be reduced. Table 2, below, shows an example of a general instruction format for such instructions:














TABLE 2







OPCODE
PR
BID
XOP
TARGET1
TARGET2









Each instruction may be of a suitable size, such as 32 bits, 64 bits, or another size. In the example shown in Table 2, each instruction may include an OPCODE field, a PR (predication) field, a BID (broadcast ID) field, an XOP (extended OPCODE) field, a TARGET1 field, and a TARGET2 field. The OPCODE field may specify a unique operation code for an instruction or a block of instructions, such as add, read, write, or multiply. The PR (predication) field may specify any predication associated with the instruction. For example, a two bit PR field may be used as follows: 00—not predicated, 01—reserved, 10—predicated on false, and 11—predicated on true. Thus, for example, if an instruction executes only if the result of a comparison is true, then that instruction may be predicated on the result of another instruction that performs the comparison. The BID (broadcast ID) field may support sending of an operand to any number of consumer instructions in a block. A 2-bit BID field may be used to encode the broadcast channel on which the instruction receives one of its operands. The XOP (extended OPCODE) field may support extending the types of opcodes. The TARGET1 and TARGET2 fields may allow up to two target instructions to be encoded. The target field may specify a consumer instruction of the result of the producer instruction, thus permitting direct communication between instructions.


Each block of instructions may have certain information associated with the block of instructions, such as control information and/or meta-information related to the block. This information may be generated by the compiler 105 during compilation of the program into the instructions 110 for execution on the processor architecture 120. Some of this information may be extracted by the compiler during compilation of a block of instructions and then examining the nature of the instructions during runtime.


In addition, the information associated with a block of instructions may be meta-information. For example, such information may be provided to a processor core using special instructions or instructions that provide target encoding related to registers or other memory that may have the relevant information associated with a block of instructions. In case of special instructions, the opcode field of such instructions can be used to communicate information relating to the block of instructions. In another example, such information may be maintained as part of the processor status word (PSW). For example, this information may advantageously help the processor execute the block of instructions more efficiently.


Various types of information can be provided to a processor core using a block header, special instructions, memory referenced locations, a processor status word (PSW), or various combinations thereof. An illustrative instruction block header 300 is shown in FIG. 3. In this illustrative example, the block header 300 is 128 bits and begins at offset 0 from a block's program counter. The respective beginning and ending of each field is also shown. The fields are described in Table 3 below:










TABLE 3





Field
Description







ID
This field may be set to 1 to indicate the beginning of a valid



instruction block. It may also include information regarding



machine version and architecture version. In addition, this field



may be used to indicate to the processor whether the block header



has any ready bits or valid bits, such as, as part of the READY STATE



field.


SIZE
This field may contain the number of 4 instruction chunks



contained in an instruction block. Thus, for example, a value of 0



may indicate the smallest block of instructions in the block, e.g., a



block header followed by 4 instructions. Alternatively or



optionally, the SIZE field may include an encoded value that



corresponds to an entry in a size table, or the field may include a



pointer to a size table.


XFLAGS
This field may include execution flags that indicate special



execution requirements:



 XFLAGS[0] Vector Mode



  This flag may indicate that the instructions will be copied



  into independent vector lanes, each of which may include an



  instruction window, operand buffers, an ALU, and registers.



 XFLAGS[1] Inhibit Branch Predictor



  This flag, when set, may result in the branch predictor being



  inhibited. This may prevent the branch predictor from



  predicting which way a branch (e.g., a predicated



  instruction) will go before this is known for sure.



 XFLAGS[2] Inhibit Memory Dependence Predictor



  This flag, when set, may result in memory dependence



  being inhibited. This may prevent the memory dependence



  predictor from predicting dependencies between memory



  operations, such as load/store operations.



 XFLAGS[3] Block Synchronization Required



  This flag, when set, may impose a requirement that another



  block of instructions may not be executed on another



  processor core in parallel with the current block of



  instructions. In addition this flag, when set, may also



  impose a requirement that the block of instructions may not



  execute speculatively.



 XFLAGS[4] Break After Block



  This flag, when set, may indicate that there is a break after



  the block of instructions.



 XFLAGS[5] Break Before Block



  This flag, when set, may indicate that there is break before



  the block of instructions.



 XFLAGS[6] Reserved



  This flag may be reserved for future use.



 XFLAGS[7] Reserved



  This flag may be reserved for future use.


EXIT TYPES
This field may encode up to six 3-bit block exit types for use by the



branch predictor.



 000 - Null: may indicate to the branch predictor that there is no



 information for the branch predictor in this field.



 001 - Sequential: may indicate to the branch predictor that the



 next branch is to the next block of instructions in the code. The



 sequential branch exit type may be computed by factoring in the



 current address of the block of instructions and the size of the



 block of instructions, e.g., a current block address and the size of



 the block.



 010 - Offset: may indicate to the branch predictor that the next



 branch is to an offset address, where the offset is treated as a



 block offset.



 011 - Indirect: may indicate to the branch predictor that the next



 branch is an indirect type. Thus, for example, it may rely on a



 register of a memory location that contains the address of the



 first instruction of the successor block of instructions.



 100 - Call: may indicate to the branch predictor that if the



 successor block of instructions contains a subroutine call, then



 the predicted branch goes to that successor block of instructions.



 101 - Return: may indicate to the branch predictor that if the



 successor block of instructions contains a return from a



 subroutine call, then the predicted branch goes to that successor



 block of instructions.



Other bit patterns may be reserved for future uses.


STORE MASK
This field may identify the load-store identifiers (LSIDs) that are



assigned to stores. For example, the LSQ block may have to receive



each of the LSIDs assigned to stores for a block of instructions



before the block of instructions is allowed to complete.


WRITE MASK
This field may identify the global registers that the block of



instructions may write. For example, the register file may have to



receive each entry of writes before the block of instructions is



allowed to complete.









While the block header shown in FIG. 3 and described in Table 3 includes multiple fields, it is intended to be illustrative and other field arrangements may be utilized for a particular implementation.


In an illustrative example, the compiler 105 (FIG. 1) may select information for inclusion in a block header or for special instructions that can provide such information to a processor core based on the nature of the instructions and/or based on the nature of the processing requirements, such as high-performance or low-power. This may advantageously allow more optimal balancing of trade-offs between performance and power consumption. For certain types of processing applications, such as high performance computing with a large number of cores, a large amount of information may be a desirable option. Alternatively, for other types of processing applications, such as embedded processors used in the Internet of Things, mobile devices, wearable devices, head mounted display (HMD) devices, or other embedded computing type of applications, less information may be a desirable option.


The extent of the information communicated using a block header or special instructions can be tailored depending upon the nature of the instructions in a block. For example, if the block of instructions includes a loop that is executed in a recurring manner, then more extensive information might be needed to encapsulate the control information associated with that block. The additional control information may allow a processor core to execute the loop more efficiently to thereby improve performance.


Alternatively, if there is a block of instructions that will be rarely executed, then relatively less information may suffice. For example, if the block of instructions includes several predicated control loops, then more information may be needed. Similarly, if the block of instructions has an extensive amount of instruction level parallelism, then more information may be needed as part of a block header or special instructions.


The additional control information in the block header or special instructions may be used, for example, to effectively exploit the instruction level parallelism in the block of instructions. If the block of instructions includes several branch predictions, then more information may be needed. The additional control information regarding branch predictions will typically enhance code execution with more efficiency as it can result in fewer pipeline flushes.


It is noted that the functionality corresponding to the fields in the block header may be combined or further separated. Similarly, a special instruction may provide information related to any one of the fields shown in FIG. 3 and Table 3 or it may combine the information from such fields. For example, while the illustrative block header of FIG. 3 and Table 3 includes a separate ID field and a SIZE field, these two fields may be combined into a single field.


Likewise, a single special instruction may, when decoded, provide information regarding the size of the block of instructions and the information in the ID field. Unless indicated otherwise, the special instructions may be included anywhere in the block of instructions. For example, a BLOCK_SIZE #size instruction may contain an immediate field including a value of the size of a block of instructions. The immediate field may contain an integer value that provides the size information. Alternatively, the immediate field may include an encoded value relating to the size information so that the size information may be obtained by decoding the encoded value, for example, by looking up the value in a size table that may be expressed using one of logic, register, memory, or code stream. In another example, a BLOCK_ID #id special instruction may convey the block ID number.


A separate mathematical function or a memory-based table may map a block ID into the memory address of a block header. The block ID conveyed as part of such instruction may be unique to each block of instructions. In another example, a BLOCK_HDR_ID #id instruction may convey the block header ID number. A separate mathematical function or a memory-based table may map the block ID into the memory address of a block header. The block ID conveyed as part of such instruction may be shared by several blocks of instructions with the same header structure or fields.


In another example, a BLOCK_INFO #size, #exit types, #store mask, #write mask instruction may provide information regarding the enumerated fields of the instruction. These fields may correspond to any one of the fields discussed above with respect to Table 3. Other changes may be made to the block header structure and format and special instructions according to requirements of a given implementation. For example, additional fields may be provided that include information relating to the characteristics of a block of instructions. Particular fields can be included based on the frequency of the execution of the block of instructions.


The fields included in the block header structure, or information provided via special instructions or other mechanisms discussed earlier, may be part of a publicly available standard Instruction Set Architecture (ISA) of a particular processor or a family of processors. A subset of the fields may be a proprietary extension to the ISA. Certain bit values in the field may be part of the standard ISA for the processor, but certain other bit values in the field may provide proprietary functionality. This exemplary field may allow an ISA designer to add proprietary extensions to the ISA without disclosing entirely the nature and the functionality associated with the proprietary extension. Thus, in this instance, the compiler tools distributed by the ISA designer would support the proprietary bit values in the field, an entirely separate proprietary field, or a special instruction. The use of such a field may be particularly relevant to hardware accelerators that are proprietary to certain processor designs. Thus, a program may include a block header field or a special instruction that is unrecognizable; but the program may further include a recipe to decipher the field or decode the instruction.


The compiler 105 (FIG. 1) may process a block of instructions, which are typically configured to execute atomically by one more processor cores, in order to generate information about the block of instructions, including meta-information and control information. Some programs may be compiled for only one ISA, for example, an ISA used with processors for the Internet of Things, mobile devices, HMD devices, wearable devices, or other embedded computing environments. The compiler may employ techniques, such as static code analysis or code profiling to generate information that is relevant to the block of instructions. In some cases, the compiler may consider factors such as the characteristics of the block of instructions and its frequency of execution. The relevant characteristics of the block of instructions may include, for example, but are not necessarily limited to (1) the instruction level parallelism, (2) the number of loops, (3) the number of predicated control instructions, and (4) the number of branch predictions.



FIG. 4 is a flowchart of an illustrative method 400 for managing instruction blocks in an instruction window disposed in a processor core. Unless specifically stated, the methods or steps in the flowchart of FIG. 4 and those in the other flowcharts shown in the drawings and described below are not constrained to a particular order or sequence. In addition, some of the methods or steps thereof can occur or be performed concurrently and not all the methods or steps have to be performed in a given implementation depending on the requirements of such implementation and some methods or steps may be optionally utilized. Likewise, some steps may be eliminated in some implementations to reduce overhead but this may result in increased brittleness, for example. The various feature, cost, overhead, performance, and robustness tradeoffs which may be implemented in any given application may be typically viewed as a matter of design choice.


In step 405, the ages of fetched instruction blocks are explicitly tracked using, for example, an age vector. Thus, rather than use instruction block order (i.e., position) in the instruction window, which is typically used to implicitly track age, the control unit maintains explicit state. An age-ordered list of instruction blocks is maintained in step 410. Instruction block priority (where priority may be determined by the compiler in some cases) may also be tracked and a priority-ordered list of instruction blocks may also be maintained in some implementations.


In step 415, when an instruction block is identified for handling, the age-ordered list is searched to find a matching instruction block. The priority-ordered list may also be searched in some implementations for a match. If a matching instruction block is found, then it can be refreshed, in step 420, without having to re-fetch it from the instruction cache which can improve processor core efficiency. Such refreshing enables reuse of the instruction block in situations, for example, when a program executes in a tight loop and instructions branch back on themselves. Such efficiency increases may also be compounded when multiple processor cores are composed into a large scale array. When refreshing an instruction block, the instructions are left in place and only the valid bits in the operand buffer and load/store queue are cleared.


If a match to the instruction block is not found, then the age-ordered list (or the priority-ordered list) can be utilized again to find an instruction block that can be committed to open a slot in the instruction window for the new instruction block. For example, the oldest instruction block or the lowest priority instruction block may be committed (where a high priority block may be desired to keep buffered since there is likelihood of its future reuse). In step 425, the new instruction block is mapped into the available slot. The instruction block can be allocated using a bulk allocation process in which instructions in the block and all the resources associated with the instructions are fetched at once (i.e., en masse).


In step 430, the new instruction block is executed so that its instructions are committed atomically. Other instruction blocks may be executed in order of age, in a similar manner to a conventional reorder buffer, in step 435 to commit their respective instructions in an atomic manner.



FIG. 5 is a flowchart of an illustrative method 500 that may be performed by an instruction block-based microarchitecture. In step 505, a control unit in a processor core causes fetched instruction blocks to be buffered with either contiguous replacement or non-contiguous replacement. In step 510, with contiguous instruction block replacement, the buffer can be operated like a circular buffer. In step 515, with non-contiguous instruction block replacement, instruction blocks may be replaced out of order. For example, in step 520 explicit age-based tracking can be performed so that instruction blocks are committed and replaced based on the tracked ages, in a similar manner as described above. Priority can also be tracked and the tracked priority may be used to commit and replace instruction blocks in step 525.



FIG. 6 is a flowchart of an illustrative method 600 that may be performed by a control unit disposed in a processor core. In step 605, the state of buffered instruction blocks is tracked and a list of instruction blocks is maintained using the tracked state in step 610. For example, state can include age, priority, or other information or context depending on particular implementation requirements. In step 615, when an instruction block is identified for mapping, the list is checked for a match, as shown in step 620. A matching instruction block from the list is refreshed without re-fetching in step 625. When a matching instruction block is not found in the list, then the instruction block is fetched from the instruction cache and mapped into an available slot in the instruction window in step 630 in a similar manner as described above.



FIG. 7 is a flowchart of an illustrative method 700 for managing instructions blocks in an instruction window disposed in a processor core. In step 705, a size table of instruction block sizes is maintained in the processor core. The size table can be expressed in various ways, for example, using one of logic, register, memory, code stream, or other suitable construct. In step 710, an index that is encoded in a header of an instruction block is read. The instruction block includes one or more decoded instructions. Accordingly, rather than using the SIZE field shown in FIG. 3 and Table 3 to hard code an instruction block size, the field may be used to encode or store an index to the size table. That is, the index may function as a pointer to an entry in the size window to enable a particular size to be associated with the instruction block.


The number of size entries that are included in the size table can vary by implementation. A greater number of size entries may be utilized to enable more granularity which may be beneficial in cases where there is a relatively wide distribution of instruction block sizes associated with a given program, but at a cost of increased overhead in typical implementations. In some cases, the number of sizes included in the table can be selected by the compiler to cover a particular distribution of instruction block sizes in a way that optimizes overall instruction packing density and to minimize no ops. For example, the sizes included in the size table can be selected to match commonly used block instruction sizes in the program. In step 715, the index is used to look up an instruction block size from the size table. The instruction block is mapped into an available slot in the instruction window based on its size in step 720.


In some implementations, as shown in step 725, the instruction window may be segmented into two or more sub-windows, for example, that use two or more different sizes. Such variation in the segmented sub-windows may enable further accommodation for a given distribution of instruction block sizes and may further increase instruction packing density. The segmentation may also be dynamically performed in some scenarios.



FIG. 8 is a flowchart of an illustrative method 800 that may be performed by an instruction block-based microarchitecture. In step 805, a size table is implemented. As discussed above, the size table may be implemented using one of logic, register, memory, code stream, or other suitable construct and may include sizes that correspond to those which are commonly utilized in a distribution of instruction blocks utilized by a given program. In step 810, an instruction block header is inspected for a pointer that refers to an entry in the size table. In step 815, the size identified by the table entry is used to determine placement of the instruction block within the instruction window.


In step 820, resources associated with the instruction block are bulk allocated. Restrictions designated in the instruction block header are used when mapping the instruction block in the instruction window in step 825. These may include, for example, restrictions on alignment and the capacity of the instruction window to buffer instruction blocks. In step 830, the order of the instruction blocks in the instruction window is tracked by the control unit and blocks may be committed out of order in some situations. For example, rather than use a circular buffer of instruction blocks in which blocks are handled based on their position in the instruction window, blocks can be prioritized so that heavily used, or particularly important instruction blocks are handled out of order which can increase processing efficiency.


In step 835, the age of instruction blocks can be explicitly tracked and instruction blocks can be committed based on such explicitly-tracked age in some cases. The instruction block is refreshed in step 840 (that is, reused without having to re-fetch the instruction block from the instruction cache).



FIG. 9 is a flowchart of an illustrative method 900 that may be performed by a control unit disposed in a processor core. In step 905, the instruction window is configured with multiple segments that have two or more different sizes in a similar manner to that described above. In step 910, the block instruction header is inspected for an index that is encoded therein. A look up is performed in the size table using the index in step 915 and the instruction block is placed into an instruction window segment that is suitable for the particular size of the block, based on the size look up, in step 920. Resources associated with the instruction block are fetched, in step 925, using bulk allocation.



FIG. 10 is a flowchart of an illustrative method 1000 for managing instruction blocks in an instruction window disposed in a processor core. In step 1005, an instruction block is mapped from the instruction cache into the instruction window. The instruction block includes one or more decoded instructions. Resources that are associated with each of the instructions in the instruction block are allocated in step 1010. The resources typically include control bits and operands and the allocation may be performed using a bulk allocation process in which all of the resources are obtained or fetched en masse.


Instead of tightly coupling the resources and instructions, the instruction window and operand buffers are decoupled so that they can be operated independently by maintaining one or more pointers among the resources and the decoded instructions in the block, as shown in step 1015. When an instruction block is refreshed in step 1020 (that is, reused without having to re-fetch the instruction block from the instruction cache), then the resources can be reused by following the pointers back to an original control state in step 1025.


Such decoupling may provide increased processor core efficiency, particularly when instruction blocks are refreshed without re-fetching as typically occurs, for example, when a program executes in a tight loop and instructions are repeatedly utilized. By establishing control state through the pointers, the resources are effectively pre-validated without additional expenditure of processing cycles and other costs. Such efficiency increases may also be compounded when multiple processor cores are composed into a large scale array.



FIG. 11 is a flowchart of an illustrative method 1100 that may be performed by an instruction block-based microarchitecture. In step 1105, instruction blocks are mapped into the instruction window in a manner in which a new instruction block replaces a committed instruction block. The mapping may be subject to various restrictions that are designated in the header of the instruction block, for example, restrictions on alignment and the capacity of the instruction window to buffer instruction blocks, as indicated in step 1110. Resources are allocated in step 1115 for the new instruction block, which typically is implemented using a bulk allocation process, as described above.


In step 1120, the order of the instruction blocks in the instruction window is tracked by the control unit and blocks may be committed out of order in some situations. For example, rather than use a circular buffer of instruction blocks in which blocks are handled based on their position in the instruction window, blocks can be prioritized so that heavily used, or particularly important instruction blocks are handled out of order which can increase processing efficiency.


In step 1125, the instruction window is decoupled from the operand buffer so that, for example, blocks of instructions and blocks of operands are managed independently (i.e., without using a strict correspondence between instructions and operands). As noted above, the decoupling increases efficiency by enabling resources to be pre-validated when an instruction block is refreshed.



FIG. 12 is a flowchart of an illustrative method 1200 that may be performed by a control unit disposed in a processor core. In step 1205, an instruction window is maintained for buffering one or more instruction blocks. One or more operand buffers are maintained in step 1210 for buffering resources associated with the instructions in the instruction block. As noted above, resources typically include control bits and operands. State is tracked using pointers among the instructions and the resources in step 1215.


When an instruction block is refreshed, in block 1220, the pointers can be followed back to the tracked state. In step 1225, when an instruction blocks commits, the control bits in the operand buffer are cleared and a new pointer is set. As with the method discussed above, the instruction window and operand buffers are decoupled so that blocks of instructions and blocks of operands are maintained by the control unit on a non-corresponding basis, in step 1230.



FIG. 13 is a flowchart of an illustrative method 1300 for managing instruction blocks in an instruction window disposed in a processor core. In step 1305, instruction blocks are allocated using a bulk allocation process in which instructions in the block and all the resources associated with the instructions are fetched at once (i.e., en masse). In comparison to conventional architectures in which instructions and resources are repeatedly fetched in smaller chunks, the bulk allocation here enables all of the instructions in the block to be managed simultaneously and consistently which can improve efficiency of processor core operations. This improvement may be even more significant in situations where a given programming construct (e.g., one that minimizes branching) enables the compiler to generate relatively large instruction blocks. For example, in some implementations, an instruction block may contain up to 128 instructions.


The bulk allocation of instruction blocks also enhances processor core efficiency through the refresh feature in which instruction blocks are reused without re-fetching as typically occurs, for example, when a program executes in a tight loop and instructions branch back on themselves. Such efficiency increases may also be compounded when multiple processor cores are composed into a large scale array. When refreshing an instruction block, the instructions are left in place and only the valid bits in the operand buffer and load/store queue are cleared. This enables the fetching of the refreshed instruction blocks to be bypassed entirely.


The bulk allocation of instruction blocks also enables additional processing efficiencies when a group of instructions and resources are in place. For example, operands and explicit messages may be sent from one instruction in the block to another. Such functionality is not enabled in conventional architectures because one instruction is unable to send anything to another instruction that has yet to be allocated. Instructions that generate constants can also pin values in the operand buffers so that they remain valid after refresh so they do not need to be regenerated each time the instruction block executes.


When instruction blocks are mapped into the instruction window, in step 1310, they are subject to constraints that may be applied by mapping policies, restrictions designated in the block header, or both in step 1315. In some cases, the policies can be set by a compiler depending on the particular requirements of a given program. The designated restrictions can include, for example, restrictions on alignment and the restrictions on the capacity of the instruction window to buffer instruction blocks.


In step 1320, the instruction window can, in some implementations, be segmented into sub-windows of the same size or different sizes. As instruction block sizes are often randomly or unevenly distributed for a given program, such variation in the segmented sub-windows may more efficiently accommodate a given distribution of instruction block sizes to thereby increase instruction packing density in the instruction window. The segmentation may also be dynamically performed in some scenarios depending on the distribution of block sizes that is being currently handled by the processor core.


In some implementations, the instruction block header may encode an index or include a pointer to a size table that is implemented using one of logic, register, memory, or code stream. The size table can include instruction block size entries so that an instruction block size can be looked up from the table in step 1325. Use of the encoded index and size table may enhance instruction packing density in an instruction block by affording more granularity in available block sizes to reduce the occurrence of nops (no operations) when a block includes a relatively small number of instructions when implementing branching, for example.



FIG. 14 is a flowchart of an illustrative method 1400 that may be performed by an instruction block-based microarchitecture. In step 1405, a control unit in a processor core applies policies for handling instruction blocks. The instruction blocks are allocated in step 1410 using a bulk allocation process described above in which instructions and all associated resources are fetched at once. In step 1415, instruction blocks are mapped into the instruction window in which the mapping may be subject to various restrictions, such as restrictions on alignment and restrictions on the capacity of the instruction window to buffer instruction blocks that are designated in the header of the instruction block, as described above.


In step 1420, a policy may be applied that includes tracking the order of the instruction blocks in the instruction window by the control unit. Blocks may be committed out of order in some situations, for example, rather than using a circular buffer of instruction blocks in which blocks are handled based on their position in the instruction window. In step 1425, a policy may be applied that includes handling blocks based on priority (which may be designated by the compiler in some scenarios) so that blocks which are heavily used, or are particularly important, are handled out of order which can further increase processing efficiency.


In step 1430, a policy may be applied that includes explicitly tracking the age of instruction blocks and instruction blocks can be committed based on such explicitly-tracked age in some cases. In step 1435, a policy may be applied that includes mapping instruction blocks according to the availability of a suitably sized slot in the instruction window (or a segment of the window). In step 1440, a policy may be applied that includes mapping instruction blocks into the instruction window using a circular buffer.


In some implementations, various combinations of policies may be utilized in order to further enhance processor core efficiency. For example, the control unit may dynamically toggle among policies to apply a policy that provides more optimal operations for a given instruction block or group of instruction blocks. For example, in some scenarios, it may be more efficient to use a circular buffering technique in which instruction blocks are handled in order in a contiguous manner. In other scenarios, out of order and age-based handling may provide more optimal operations.



FIG. 15 is a flowchart of an illustrative method 1500 that may be performed by a control unit disposed in a processor core. In step 1505, the instruction window is configured with multiple segments that have two or more different sizes in a similar manner to that described above. In step 1510, an instruction block is fetched and all its associated resources are fetched in step 1515.


In step 1520, an instruction block is placed in a suitable segment of the window that maximizes instruction density in the window. For example, if the compiler produces a distribution of block sizes that includes a relatively large number of blocks with low instruction count (e.g., to implement program branching and the like), then the instruction window may have a segment that is specifically sized for small instruction blocks. Similarly, if there is a relatively large number of high instruction count blocks (e.g., for scientific and similar applications), then a segment may be specifically sized for such larger instruction blocks. Thus, the instruction window segment sizing can be adjusted according to a particular size distribution or be dynamically adjusted in some situations when the distribution changes. In block 1525, instruction blocks may be subject to restrictions designated in the instruction block header, as discussed above.


Various exemplary embodiments of the present decoupled processor instruction window and operand buffer are now presented by way of illustration and not as an exhaustive list of all embodiments. An example includes a method for managing instruction blocks in an instruction window disposed in a processor, comprising: mapping an instruction block including one or more decoded instructions from an instruction cache into the instruction window; allocating resources for the instruction block in which the resources include control bits and operands that are associated with each of the one or more decoded instructions in the instruction block; maintaining one or more pointers among the resources and the one or more decoded instructions in the block; refreshing the instruction block without re-fetching the instruction block from the instruction cache; and reusing the resources by following the one or more pointers. In another example, the method further includes performing bulk allocation for each instruction block that is fetched from the instruction cache to obtain resources that are associated with each of the one or more instructions in the instruction block. In another example, the method further includes maintaining operands and control bits in an operand buffer that is decoupled from the instruction window so that resources are pre-validated when an instruction block is refreshed. In another example, the control bits include operand readiness status. In another example, the resources include opcode. In another example, the method further includes utilizing instruction blocks based on a program and refreshing the instruction block when execution of the program is performed using a programmed loop.


A further example includes an instruction block-based microarchitecture, comprising: a control unit; one or more operand buffers; and an instruction window configured to store decoded instruction blocks to be under control of the control unit in which the control includes operations to: map instruction blocks into the instruction window so that a new instruction block replaces a committed instruction block, allocate resources for the new instruction block in which the resources include control bits or operands, and decouple the instruction window from the one or more operand buffers in which blocks of instructions and blocks of operands are managed independently so that resources are pre-validated when an instruction block is refreshed. In another example, the instruction block-based microarchitecture further includes a configuration to map the instruction blocks based on restrictions designated in a header of the instruction block. In another example, the instruction block-based microarchitecture of claim 8 in which the designated restrictions include one of alignment restrictions or instruction block capacity restrictions of the instruction window. In another example, the instruction block-based microarchitecture further includes a configuration to track an order of the instruction blocks in the instruction window and commit instruction blocks out of order. In another example, the instruction block-based microarchitecture further includes an on-chip network that enables a plurality of processor cores to be composed or decomposed. In another example, the instruction block-based microarchitecture further include a configuration to maintain decoupling between a logical instruction window and one or more logical operand buffers when the plurality of processor cores are composed. In another example, the instruction block-based microarchitecture further includes a configuration to maintain decoupling between a logical instruction window and one or more logical operand buffers when the plurality of processor cores are decomposed. In another example, the instruction block-based microarchitecture further includes a configuration to refresh the instruction block without re-fetching the instruction block from an instruction cache.


A further example includes a control unit disposed in a processor that is arranged to perform a method for instruction block management, comprising: maintaining an instruction window for buffering one or more instruction blocks; maintaining one or more operand buffers for buffering resources for the one or more instruction blocks; tracking state using pointers among the instruction blocks and the buffered resources; when refreshing an instruction block, following the pointer to reuse the tracked state. In another example, the control unit further includes clearing control bits and setting a new pointer when committing an instruction block. In another example, the control unit further includes decoupling the instruction window from the one or more operand buffers so that blocks of instructions and blocks of operands are maintained in a non-corresponding basis. In another example, the control unit further includes allocating the buffered resources in bulk so that resources are obtained for all instructions in the instruction block. In another example, the control unit further includes maintaining a logical instruction window that encompasses a plurality of processor cores. In another example, the control unit further includes maintaining a logical operand buffer that encompasses a plurality of processor cores and further decoupling the logical operand buffer from the logical instruction window to enable state to be pre-validated when an instruction block is refreshed without re-fetching.


The subject matter described above is provided by way of illustration only and should not be construed as limiting. Various modifications and changes may be made to the subject matter described herein without following the example embodiments and applications illustrated and described, and without departing from the true spirit and scope of the present disclosure, which is set forth in the following claims.

Claims
  • 1. A method for managing instruction blocks in an instruction window disposed in a processor, comprising: mapping an instruction block including one or more decoded instructions from an instruction cache into the instruction window;allocating resources for the instruction block in which the resources include control bits and operands that are associated with each of the one or more decoded instructions in the instruction block;maintaining one or more pointers among the resources and the one or more decoded instructions in the instruction block;refreshing the instruction block without re-fetching the instruction block from the instruction cache; andreusing the resources by following the one or more pointers;wherein instruction block sizes are indicated in an instruction block header using a pointer to a size table that is expressed using one of logic, register, memory, or code stream.
  • 2. The method of claim 1 further including performing bulk allocation for each instruction block that is fetched from the instruction cache to obtain resources that are associated with each of the one or more instructions in the instruction block.
  • 3. The method of claim 1 further including maintaining operands and control bits in an operand buffer that is decoupled from the instruction window so that resources are pre-validated when an instruction block is refreshed.
  • 4. The method of claim 3 in which the control bits include operand readiness status.
  • 5. The method of claim 1 in which the resources include opcode.
  • 6. The method of claim 5 further including utilizing instruction blocks based on a program and refreshing the instruction block when execution of the program is performed using a programmed loop.
  • 7. An instruction block-based processor, comprising: a control unit;one or more operand buffers; andan instruction window configured to store decoded instruction blocks to be under control of the control unit in which the control includes operations to: map instruction blocks into the instruction window so that a new instruction block replaces a committed instruction block,allocate resources for the new instruction block in which the resources include control bits or operands, anddecouple the instruction window from the one or more operand buffers in which blocks of instructions and blocks of operands are managed independently so that resources are pre-validated when an instruction block is refreshed;wherein instruction block sizes are indicated in an instruction block header using a pointer to a size table that is expressed using one of logic, register, memory, or code stream.
  • 8. The instruction block-based processor of claim 7 further including a configuration to map the instruction blocks based on restrictions designated in the header of the instruction block.
  • 9. The instruction block-based processor of claim 8 in which the designated restrictions include one of alignment restrictions or instruction block capacity restrictions of the instruction window.
  • 10. The instruction block-based processor of claim 7 further including a configuration to track an order of the instruction blocks in the instruction window and commit instruction blocks out of order.
  • 11. The instruction block-based processor of claim 7 further including an on-chip network that enables a plurality of processor cores to be composed or decomposed.
  • 12. The instruction block-based processor of claim 11 further including a configuration to maintain decoupling between a logical instruction window and one or more logical operand buffers when the plurality of processor cores are composed.
  • 13. The instruction block-based processor of claim 11 further including a configuration to maintain decoupling between a logical instruction window and one or more logical operand buffers when the plurality of processor cores are decomposed.
  • 14. The instruction block-based processor of claim 7 further including a configuration to refresh the instruction block without re-fetching the instruction block from an instruction cache.
  • 15. A control unit disposed in a processor that is arranged to perform a method for instruction block management, comprising: maintaining an instruction window for buffering one or more instruction blocks;maintaining one or more operand buffers for buffering resources for the one or more instruction blocks;tracking state using pointers among the instruction blocks and the buffered resources;when refreshing an instruction block, following the pointer to reuse the tracked state;wherein instruction block sizes are indicated in an instruction block header using a pointer to a size table that is expressed using one of logic, register, memory, or code stream.
  • 16. The control unit of claim 15 further including clearing control bits and setting a new pointer when committing an instruction block.
  • 17. The control unit of claim 15 further including decoupling the instruction window from the one or more operand buffers so that blocks of instructions and blocks of operands are maintained in a non-corresponding basis.
  • 18. The control unit of claim 15 further including allocating the buffered resources in bulk so that resources are obtained for all instructions in the instruction block.
  • 19. The control unit of claim 15 further including maintaining a logical instruction window that encompasses a plurality of processor cores.
  • 20. The control unit of claim 19 further including maintaining a logical operand buffer that encompasses a plurality of processor cores and further decoupling the logical operand buffer from the logical instruction window to enable state to be pre-validated when an instruction block is refreshed without re-fetching.
US Referenced Citations (262)
Number Name Date Kind
5142631 Murray et al. Aug 1992 A
5333280 Ishikawa et al. Jul 1994 A
5333283 Emma et al. Jul 1994 A
5363495 Fry et al. Nov 1994 A
5615350 Hesson et al. Mar 1997 A
5790822 Sheaffer et al. Aug 1998 A
5796997 Lesartre et al. Aug 1998 A
5799167 Lesartre Aug 1998 A
5845103 Sodani et al. Dec 1998 A
5903750 Yeh et al. May 1999 A
5933642 Greenbaum et al. Aug 1999 A
5943501 Burger et al. Aug 1999 A
5983337 Mahalingaiah et al. Nov 1999 A
5999737 Srivastava Dec 1999 A
6016399 Chang Jan 2000 A
6044222 Simons et al. Mar 2000 A
6058438 Diehl et al. May 2000 A
6061776 Burger et al. May 2000 A
6112019 Chamdani et al. Aug 2000 A
6161170 Burger et al. Dec 2000 A
6164841 Mattson et al. Dec 2000 A
6167491 McAlpine Dec 2000 A
6185675 Kranich et al. Feb 2001 B1
6212622 Witt Apr 2001 B1
6275919 Johnson Aug 2001 B1
6279101 Witt et al. Aug 2001 B1
6286135 Santhanam Sep 2001 B1
6301673 Foster et al. Oct 2001 B1
6360309 Iadonato et al. Mar 2002 B1
6453344 Ellsworth et al. Sep 2002 B1
6493820 Akkary et al. Dec 2002 B2
6513109 Gschwind et al. Jan 2003 B1
6523110 Bright et al. Feb 2003 B1
6529922 Hoge Mar 2003 B1
6615340 Wilmot, II Sep 2003 B1
6732260 Wang et al. May 2004 B1
6779100 Keltcher et al. Aug 2004 B1
6851043 Inoue Feb 2005 B1
6877059 Solomon et al. Apr 2005 B2
6918032 Abdallah et al. Jul 2005 B1
6934254 Brown et al. Aug 2005 B2
6934828 Parthasarathy et al. Aug 2005 B2
6957320 Senter et al. Oct 2005 B2
6957435 Armstrong et al. Oct 2005 B2
6965969 Burger et al. Nov 2005 B2
6988183 Wong Jan 2006 B1
6993640 Doing et al. Jan 2006 B2
6996698 Slegel et al. Feb 2006 B2
7032217 Wu Apr 2006 B2
7036036 Vorbach et al. Apr 2006 B2
7051187 Garg et al. May 2006 B2
7051188 Kubala et al. May 2006 B1
7069555 Tzen Jun 2006 B1
7152155 McIlvaine et al. Dec 2006 B2
7207038 Bicsak et al. Apr 2007 B2
7210127 Rangachari Apr 2007 B1
7228402 Rychlik et al. Jun 2007 B2
7284100 Slegel et al. Oct 2007 B2
7299458 Hammes Nov 2007 B2
7308320 Miyamori Dec 2007 B2
7310722 Moy et al. Dec 2007 B2
7380038 Gray May 2008 B2
7392524 Ault et al. Jun 2008 B2
7453899 Vaida et al. Nov 2008 B1
7490224 Abernathy et al. Feb 2009 B2
7526637 Jung et al. Apr 2009 B2
7571284 Olson et al. Aug 2009 B1
7587578 Isobe Sep 2009 B2
7624254 Smith et al. Nov 2009 B2
7631170 Dowling Dec 2009 B2
7664940 Conklin et al. Feb 2010 B2
7676650 Ukai Mar 2010 B2
7685354 Hetherington et al. Mar 2010 B1
7720991 Parent et al. May 2010 B1
7779213 Ferren et al. Aug 2010 B2
7802073 Cheng et al. Sep 2010 B1
7805574 Bell, Jr. et al. Sep 2010 B2
7853777 Jones et al. Dec 2010 B2
7873776 Hetherington et al. Jan 2011 B2
7877580 Eickemeyer et al. Jan 2011 B2
7877586 Levitan et al. Jan 2011 B2
7917733 Kazuma Mar 2011 B2
7958396 Chitsaz et al. Jun 2011 B2
8010953 Gschwind Aug 2011 B2
8032734 Svendsen et al. Oct 2011 B2
8055881 Burger et al. Nov 2011 B2
8055885 Nakashima Nov 2011 B2
8127119 Burger et al. Feb 2012 B2
8151092 Altman et al. Apr 2012 B2
8166282 Madriles et al. Apr 2012 B2
8180997 Burger et al. May 2012 B2
8201024 Burger et al. Jun 2012 B2
8225315 Cheng et al. Jul 2012 B1
8234635 Isshiki et al. Jul 2012 B2
8250555 Lee et al. Aug 2012 B1
8250556 Lee et al. Aug 2012 B1
8266413 Hwu et al. Sep 2012 B2
8290994 Allalouf Oct 2012 B2
8321850 Bruening et al. Nov 2012 B2
8341639 Lewis Dec 2012 B2
8380964 Bishop Feb 2013 B2
8433885 Burger et al. Apr 2013 B2
8434074 Janczak et al. Apr 2013 B2
8447911 Burger et al. May 2013 B2
8464002 Burger et al. Jun 2013 B2
8464271 Eichenberger et al. Jun 2013 B2
8473724 Kenville et al. Jun 2013 B1
8510596 Gupta et al. Aug 2013 B1
8533436 Fryman et al. Sep 2013 B2
8555038 Olson et al. Oct 2013 B2
8589662 Altman et al. Nov 2013 B2
8589892 Fournier et al. Nov 2013 B2
8612698 Lopez et al. Dec 2013 B2
8612726 Sharawi et al. Dec 2013 B2
8677105 Abdallah Mar 2014 B2
8756605 Aingaran et al. Jun 2014 B2
8817793 Mushano Aug 2014 B2
8909941 Trimberger Dec 2014 B1
8930678 Madduri et al. Jan 2015 B2
9021241 Burger et al. Apr 2015 B2
9043769 Vorbach May 2015 B2
9053292 Abdallah Jun 2015 B2
9697002 Gschwind et al. Jul 2017 B2
9720693 Burger et al. Aug 2017 B2
9830152 Kothinti Naresh et al. Nov 2017 B2
9940136 Burger et al. Apr 2018 B2
9946548 Burger et al. Apr 2018 B2
9952867 Burger et al. Apr 2018 B2
20010042173 Bala et al. Nov 2001 A1
20030004683 Nemawarkar Jan 2003 A1
20030012225 Banerjee et al. Jan 2003 A1
20030065835 Maergner et al. Apr 2003 A1
20030101208 Chauvel et al. May 2003 A1
20030149862 Kadambi Aug 2003 A1
20040123078 Hum et al. Jun 2004 A1
20040139299 Busaba et al. Jul 2004 A1
20050076194 Kanapathippillai et al. Apr 2005 A1
20060020769 Herrell et al. Jan 2006 A1
20060020944 King et al. Jan 2006 A1
20060031702 Jardine et al. Feb 2006 A1
20060041875 Peri et al. Feb 2006 A1
20060075207 Togawa et al. Apr 2006 A1
20060136915 Aingaran et al. Jun 2006 A1
20060179196 Gray Aug 2006 A1
20060242391 Elwood Oct 2006 A1
20060259739 Asal et al. Nov 2006 A1
20060259740 Hahn et al. Nov 2006 A1
20060282624 Yokota Dec 2006 A1
20070050557 Ferren et al. Mar 2007 A1
20070055827 Tsien Mar 2007 A1
20070074011 Borkar et al. Mar 2007 A1
20070113171 Behrens et al. May 2007 A1
20070157006 Jourdan et al. Jul 2007 A1
20070162906 Chandhoke Jul 2007 A1
20070192540 Gara et al. Aug 2007 A1
20070239965 Lewites et al. Oct 2007 A1
20070255980 Endo et al. Nov 2007 A1
20080046621 Okino et al. Feb 2008 A1
20080109668 Atkinson May 2008 A1
20080126750 Sistla May 2008 A1
20080192050 Schardt et al. Aug 2008 A1
20080235493 Fortier Sep 2008 A1
20080235499 Togawa Sep 2008 A1
20080244506 Killian et al. Oct 2008 A1
20080250227 Linderman et al. Oct 2008 A1
20090013135 Burger et al. Jan 2009 A1
20090013153 Hilton Jan 2009 A1
20090013160 Burger et al. Jan 2009 A1
20090138681 Saha May 2009 A1
20090150657 Gschwind et al. Jun 2009 A1
20090172365 Orenstien et al. Jul 2009 A1
20090177843 Wallach et al. Jul 2009 A1
20090187739 Nemirovsky et al. Jul 2009 A1
20090228690 Muff et al. Sep 2009 A1
20090299966 Schneider Dec 2009 A1
20100070958 Takagi Mar 2010 A1
20100082947 Tramm et al. Apr 2010 A1
20100146209 Burger et al. Jun 2010 A1
20100262807 Burky et al. Oct 2010 A1
20100325395 Burger et al. Dec 2010 A1
20110060889 Burger et al. Mar 2011 A1
20110072239 Burger et al. Mar 2011 A1
20110078424 Boehm et al. Mar 2011 A1
20110219222 Eichenberger et al. Sep 2011 A1
20110238953 Metsugi et al. Sep 2011 A1
20110252258 Im et al. Oct 2011 A1
20120017069 Bourd et al. Jan 2012 A1
20120030451 Pong et al. Feb 2012 A1
20120079102 Damodaran et al. Mar 2012 A1
20120079488 Phillips et al. Mar 2012 A1
20120124345 Denman et al. May 2012 A1
20120131309 Johnson et al. May 2012 A1
20120204004 Dockser et al. Aug 2012 A1
20120216012 Vorbach et al. Aug 2012 A1
20120246448 Abdallah Sep 2012 A1
20120246450 Abdallah Sep 2012 A1
20120303933 Manet et al. Nov 2012 A1
20120311306 Mushano Dec 2012 A1
20130024676 Glew et al. Jan 2013 A1
20130086370 Burger et al. Apr 2013 A1
20130159628 Choquette et al. Jun 2013 A1
20130191817 Vorbach Jul 2013 A1
20130198499 Dice et al. Aug 2013 A1
20130246682 Jandhyam Sep 2013 A1
20130339470 Jeswani et al. Dec 2013 A1
20140033217 Vajda et al. Jan 2014 A1
20140075144 Sanders et al. Mar 2014 A1
20140082327 Ghose Mar 2014 A1
20140095837 Plotnikov et al. Apr 2014 A1
20140136822 Suggs et al. May 2014 A1
20140173222 Alapati et al. Jun 2014 A1
20140173262 Chheda et al. Jun 2014 A1
20140181475 Abdallah Jun 2014 A1
20140189287 Plotnikov et al. Jul 2014 A1
20140195787 Scalabrino et al. Jul 2014 A1
20140201507 Jayaseelan et al. Jul 2014 A1
20140281389 Loktyukhin et al. Sep 2014 A1
20140281402 Comparan et al. Sep 2014 A1
20140281416 Abdallah Sep 2014 A1
20140281424 Bobba et al. Sep 2014 A1
20140281434 Madriles et al. Sep 2014 A1
20140281435 Perkins et al. Sep 2014 A1
20140281622 Wagh et al. Sep 2014 A1
20140282607 O'Sullivan et al. Sep 2014 A1
20140298336 Taniuchi Oct 2014 A1
20140317387 Abdallah Oct 2014 A1
20140331236 Mitra et al. Nov 2014 A1
20140351524 Natarajan et al. Nov 2014 A1
20140372736 Greenhalgh Dec 2014 A1
20140373022 Chan Dec 2014 A1
20150019921 Chen et al. Jan 2015 A1
20150067214 Henry et al. Mar 2015 A1
20150067662 Palalau Mar 2015 A1
20150074355 Sampathkumar Mar 2015 A1
20150095628 Yamada et al. Apr 2015 A1
20150100757 Burger et al. Apr 2015 A1
20150127928 Burger et al. May 2015 A1
20150199199 Burger et al. Jul 2015 A1
20150199272 Goel et al. Jul 2015 A1
20150347133 Gschwind et al. Dec 2015 A1
20150347143 Godard et al. Dec 2015 A1
20160055004 Grochowski et al. Feb 2016 A1
20160132331 Godard et al. May 2016 A1
20160179546 Yamada et al. Jun 2016 A1
20160274915 Chatha et al. Sep 2016 A1
20160328237 Di et al. Nov 2016 A1
20160378479 Burger Dec 2016 A1
20160378483 Burger et al. Dec 2016 A1
20160378484 Burger Dec 2016 A1
20160378488 Burger et al. Dec 2016 A1
20160378491 Burger et al. Dec 2016 A1
20160378492 Gray et al. Dec 2016 A1
20160378493 Burger et al. Dec 2016 A1
20160378494 Burger et al. Dec 2016 A1
20160378495 Burger Dec 2016 A1
20160378496 Gray et al. Dec 2016 A1
20160378499 Burger et al. Dec 2016 A1
20160378502 Burger Dec 2016 A1
20160378661 Gray et al. Dec 2016 A1
20170083340 Burger et al. Mar 2017 A1
20170083343 Burger Mar 2017 A1
20170277536 Kothinti Naresh et al. Sep 2017 A1
Foreign Referenced Citations (24)
Number Date Country
2017003263 Jun 2018 CL
2017003264 Jun 2018 CL
101344843 Jan 2009 CN
102096579 Jun 2011 CN
102306094 Jan 2012 CN
104310225 Jan 2015 CN
0583089 Feb 1994 EP
0992894 Apr 2000 EP
1039374 Sep 2000 EP
1102163 May 2001 EP
2527972 Nov 2012 EP
0125903 Apr 2001 WO
2004001587 Dec 2003 WO
2006102664 Sep 2006 WO
2009006607 Jan 2009 WO
2011031361 Mar 2011 WO
2013081556 Jun 2013 WO
2013095401 Jun 2013 WO
2013095635 Jun 2013 WO
2014014216 Jan 2014 WO
2014193878 Dec 2014 WO
2015069583 May 2015 WO
2016210026 Dec 2016 WO
2016210031 Dec 2016 WO
Non-Patent Literature Citations (212)
Entry
“International Preliminary Report on Patentability Issued in PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US2014/039654”, Mailed Date: Aug. 17, 2015, 11 Pages total.
Sankaralingam, et al., “Distributed Microarchitectural Protocols in the TRIPS Prototype Processor”, In Proceedings of 39th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture, Dec. 9, 2006, (12 pages total).
Putnam, et al., “Dynamic Vectorization in the E2 Dynamic Multicore Architecture”, In Proceedings of ACM SIGARCH Computer Architecture News, vol. 38, Issue 4, Sep. 2010, (6 pages total).
“TRIPS (The Tera-op, Reliable, Intelligently adaptive Processing System)”, Published on: Oct. 29, 2005 Available at: http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/cart/trips/ (1 page total).
Smith, et al., “Compiling for EDGE Architectures”, In Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Code Generation and Optimization, Mar. 26, 2006, (11 pages total).
Smith, Aaron, “Explicit Data Graph Compilation”, In PhD Thesis, Dec. 2009, (1 page total).
Gebhart, et al., “An Evaluation of the TRIPS Computer System”, In Proceedings of the 14th international conference on Architectural support for programming languages and operating systems, Mar. 7, 2009, (2 pages total).
Burger, et al., “Scaling to the End of Silicon with EDGE Architectures”, In Proceedings of Computer, vol. 37, Issue 7, Jul. 2004, pp. 44-55 (12 pages total).
Sankaralingam, et al., “TRIPS: A Polymorphous Architecture for Exploiting ILP, TLP, and DLP”, In Proceedings of ACM Transactions on Architecture and Code Optimization, vol. 1, Issue 1, Mar. 2004, pp. 62-93. (32 pages total).
Jones, et al., “A Comparison of Data Prefetching on an Access Decoupled and Superscalar Machine”, In Proceedings of Thirtieth Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture, Dec. 1, 1997, (6 pages total).
Pericas, et al., “A Decoupled KILO—Instruction Processor”, In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture, Feb. 11, 2006, (12 pages total).
Melvin, et al., “Enhancing Instruction Scheduling with a Block-Structured ISA”, In International Journal of Parallel Programming, vol. 23, No. 3, Jun. 1, 1995, pp. 221-243 (23 pages total).
Reinmany, et al., “Optimizations Enabled by a Decoupled Front-End Architecture”, In Proceedings of IEEE Transactions on computers, vol. 50 Issue 4, Apr. 1, 2001, (32 pages total).
Nagarajan ey al., “Static Placement, Dynamic Issue (SPDI) Scheduling for EDGE Architectures”, In Proceedings of 13th International Conference on Parallel Architecture and Compilation Techniques, Sep. 29, 2004, (11 pages total).
Duric, et al., “EVX: Vector Execution on Low Power EDGE Cores”, In Proceedings of the Conference on Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference and Exhibition, Mar. 24, 2014, (4 pages total).
Pengfei, et al., “M5 Based EDGE Architecture Modeling”, In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computer Design, Oct. 3, 2010, (8 pages total).
Duric, et al., “Dynamic-vector Execution on a General Purpose EDGE Chip Multiprocessor”, In International Conference on Embedded Computer Systems: Architectures, Modeling, and Simulation, Jul. 17, 2014, (8 pages total).
Junier, et al., “Impact of Instruction Cache Replacement Policy on the Tightness of WCET Estimation”, In Proceedings of the 2nd Junior Researcher Workshop on Real-Time Computing, in Conjunction to RTNS, Oct. 16, 2008, (4 pages total).
Wilhelm, Reinhard, “Determining Bounds on Execution Times”, In Proceedings of Embedded Systems Design and Verification—vol. 1 of the Embedded Systems Handbook, Apr. 7, 2015, (33 pages total).
Gupta, et al., “Erasing Core Boundaries for Robust and Configurable Performance”, In Proceedings of 43rd Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture, Dec. 4, 2010, (12 pages total).
Kim, et al., “Composable Lightweight Processors”, In 40th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture, Dec. 1, 2007, (13 pages total).
Govindaraju, et al., “DySER: Unifying Functionality and Parallelism Specialization for Energy-Efficient Computing”, In IEEE Micro, vol. 32, Issue 5, Sep. 2012, (14 pages total).
Kocabas, et al., “Enhancing an Embedded Processor Core with a Cryptographic Unit for Performance and Security”, In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Reconfigurable Computing and FPGAs, Dec. 3, 2008, (6 pages total).
Essen, et al., “Energy-Efficient Specialization of Functional Units in a Coarse-Grained Reconfigurable Array”, In Proceedings of the 19th ACM/SIGDA International Symposium on Field Programmable Gate Arrays, Feb. 27, 2011, (4 pages total).
Benson, et al., “Design, Integration and Implementation of the DySER Hardware Accelerator”, In IEEE 18th International Symposium on High Performance Computer Architecture, Feb. 25, 2012, (12 pages total).
“International Search Report & Written Opinion for PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US2014/039654”, Mailed Date: Aug. 26, 2014, (13 pages total).
Park, et al., “Polymorphic Pipeline Array: A Flexible Multicore Accelerator with Virtualized Execution for Mobile Multimedia Applications”, In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture, Dec. 12, 2009, pp. 370-380. (11 pages total).
Bouwens, et al., “Architecture Enhancements for the ADRES Coarse-Grained Reconfigurable Array”, In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on High Performance Embedded Architectures and Compilers, Jan. 27, 2008, pp. 66-81. (16 pages total).
Duric, et al., “ReCompac: Reconfigurable Compute Accelerator”, In Proceedings of the International Conference on Reconfigurable Computing and FPGAs, Dec. 9, 2013, (4 pages total).
“Second Written Opinion Issued in PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US2014/039654”, Mailed Date: Mar. 3, 2015, (7 Pages total).
Mei, et al., “ADRES: An Architecture with Tightly Coupled VLIW Processor and Coarse-Grained Reconfigurable Matrix”, In Proceedings of 13th International Conference on Field-Programmable Logic and Applications, Sep. 2003, pp. 61-70 (10 pages total).
Bakhoda, et al., “Microsoft Research—E2”, Published on: Mar. 23, 2015 Available at: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/e2/ (2 pages total).
Budiu, et al., “Optimizing Memory Accesses for Spatial Computation”, In Proceedings of First International Symposium on Code Generation and Optimization, Mar. 23, 2003, (13 pages total).
Saravana, at al., “TRIPS: A Distributed Explicit Data Graph Execution (EDGE) Microprocessor”, In Proceedings of IEEE HotChips Symposium on High-Performance Chips, Aug. 2007, (13 pages total).
Maher, et al., “The Good Block: Hardware/Software Design for Composable, Block-Atomic Processors”, In Proceedings of the 15th Workshop on Interaction between Compilers and Computer Architectures, Feb. 12, 2011, (8 pages total).
“Control Flow Graphs and Loop Optimization”, Published on: Nov. 7, 2014, Available at: https://engineering.purdue.edu/˜milind/ece468/2014fall/lecture-09.pdf (38 pages total).
Smith, Aaron Lee, “Explicit Data Graph Compilation”, In Doctoral Dissertation, Dec. 2009, (3 pages total).
Budiu, et al., “Pegasus: An Efficient Intermediate Representation”, In Technical Report, Apr. 2002, (20 pages total).
Xue, et al., “Partial Dead Code Elimination on Predicated Code Regions”, In Journal of Software—Practice & Experience, vol. 36, No. 15, Dec. 2006, (32 pages total).
Nethercote, et al., “Self-Evaluating Compilation Applied to Loop Unrolling”, In Technical Report TR-06, Feb. 2006, (17 pages total).
Coons et al., “A Spatial Path Scheduling Algorithm for EDGE Architectures,” In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS), Oct. 12, 2006, (12 pages total).
Desikan et al., “Scalable Selective Re-Execution for EDGE Architectures,” In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, Oct. 9, 2004, (13 pages total).
Govindan et al., “Scaling Power and Performance via Processor Composability,” IEEE Transaction on Computeres, No. 1, Aug. 2014, (14 pages total).
Gulati et al., “Multitasking Workload Scheduling on Flexible Core Chip Multiprocessors,” In Proceedings of the Computer Architecture News, vol. 36, Issue 2, May 2008, (10 pages total).
Keckler et al., “Tera-Op Reliable Intelligently Adaptive System (Trips),” In AFRL-IF-WP-TR-2004-1514, document dated Apr. 2004, (29 Pages total).
Microsoft Research, “E2,” document downloaded on Apr. 10, 2015 from http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/e2/ (2 pages total).
Robatmili et al., “How to Implement Effective Prediction and Forwarding for Fusable Dynamic Multicore Architectures,” In Proceedings of the 19th IEEE International Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture, Feb. 23, 2013, (21 pages total).
Sankaralingam et al., “Exploiting ILP, TLP, and DLP with Polymorphous TRIPS Architecture,” In Proceedings of the 30th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture, Jun. 9, 2003, (12 pages total).
Smith et al., “Compiling for EDGE Architectures,” In Proceedings of International Symposium on Code Generation and Optimization, Mar. 26, 2006, (11 pages total).
Smith, “TRIPS Application Binary Interface (ABI) Manual,” Technical Report TR-05-22, Department of Computer Sciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Technical Report TR-05-22, document marked Oct. 10, 2006, (16 pages total).
“International Search Report and Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038849”, Mailed Date: Sep. 30, 2016, (15 Pages total).
“International Search Report and Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038851”, Mailed Date: Sep. 27, 2016, 11 Pages.
“International Search Report and Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038852”, Mailed Date: Sep. 23, 2016, (14 Pages total).
“International Search Report and Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038850”, Mailed Date: Sep. 22, 2016, (12 Pages total).
Behnam Robatmili, et al., “Strategies for Mapping Dataflow Blocks to Distributed Hardware”, In the proceedings of the 41st IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture, Nov. 8, 2008, (12 Pages total).
Kane, Gerry, “PA-RISC 2.0 Architecture”, In Publication of Prentice Hall PTR, Jan. 1, 1996, 28 Pages.
Kinsy, et al., “Heracles: A Tool for Fast RTL-Based Design Space Exploration of Multicore Processors”, In Proceedings of the ACM/SIGDA International Symposium on Field Programmable Gate Arrays, Feb. 11, 2013, pp. 125-134.
Kozumplik, et al., “TRIPS to the Semantic EDGE”, Retrieved From <<https://web.archive.org/web/20150921054006/http://vbn.aau.dk/ws/files/61072300/1212050422_pdf>>, Sep. 22, 2015, 28 Pages.
Li, et al., “Compiler-Assisted Hybrid Operand Communication”, In Technical Report TR-09-33, The University of Texas at Austin, Nov. 1, 2009, 12 Pages.
Li, et al., “Hybrid Operand Communication for Dataflow Processors”, In Workshop on Parallel Execution of Sequential Programs on Multi-core Architectures, Jun. 21, 2009, pp. 61-71.
Maher, et al., “Merging Head and Tail Duplication for Convergent Hyperblock Formation”, In Proceedings of the 39th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture, Dec. 9, 2006, 12 Pages.
McDonald, et al., “Characterization of TCC on Chip-Multiprocessors”, In 14th International Conference on Parallel Architectures and Compilation Techniques, Sep. 17, 2005, 12 Pages.
Munshi, et al., “A Parameterizable SIMD Stream Processor”, In Proceedings of Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering, May 1, 2005, pp. 806-811.
Muraoka, et al., “VCore-based Design Methodology”, In Proceedings of the Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference, Jan. 21, 2003, pp. 441-445.
Nagarajan, et al., “A Design Space Evaluation of Grid Processor Architectures”, In Proceedings of the 34th Annual ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Microarchitecture, Dec. 1, 2001, pp. 40-51.
Nagarajan, et al., “Critical Path Analysis of the TRIPS Architecture”, In IEEE International Symposium on Performance Analysis of Systems and Software, Mar. 19, 2006, 11 Pages.
Park, et al., “Reducing Design Complexity of the Load/Store Queue”, In Proceedings of the 36th annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture, Dec. 3, 2003, 12 Pages.
“International Search Report and Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038842”, dated Oct. 6, 2016, 11 Pages.
“International Search Report and Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038843”, dated Oct. 10, 2016, 11 Pages.
“International Search Report and Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038845”, dated Sep. 30, 2016, 14 Pages.
“International Search Report and Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038847”, dated Nov. 9, 2016, 10 Pages.
“International Search Report and Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038848”, dated Oct. 5, 2016, 11 Pages.
“International Search Report and Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038853”, dated Sep. 22, 2016, 15 Pages.
“Second Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038853”, dated May 24, 2017, 6 Pages.
“International Search Report and Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038854”, dated Sep. 22, 2016, 13 Pages.
“International Search Report and Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038855”, dated Sep. 27, 2016, 13 Pages.
“Second Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038855”, dated May 18, 2017, 8 Pages.
“International Search Report and Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/051209”, dated Dec. 16, 2016, 10 Pages.
“International Search Report and Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/051413”, dated Jan. 2, 2017, 16 Pages.
“International Search Report and Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/051417”, dated Dec. 15, 2016, 10 Pages.
Pericas, et al., “A Two-Level Load/Store Queue Based on Execution Locality”, In Proceedings of 35th International Symposium on Computer Architecture, Jun. 21, 2008, 12 Pages.
Pierce, et al., “Wrong-Path Instruction Prefetching”, In Proceedings of the 29th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture, Dec. 2, 1996, 17 Pages.
Pricopi, et al., “Bahurupi: A Polymorphic Heterogeneous Multi-Core Architecture.”, in the ACM Transactions on Architecture and Code Optimization , vol. 8, Issue 4, Jan. 1, 2012, pp. 1-22.
Rahman, Rezaur, “Intel® Xeon Phi™ Core Micro-Architecture”, Retrieved from <<https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-xeon-phi-core-micro-architecture>>, May 31, 2013, 28 Pages.
Robatmili, et al., “Exploiting Criticality to Reduce Bottlenecks in Distributed Uniprocessors”, In Proceedings of 17th IEEE International Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture, Feb. 2011, 12 Pages.
Roesner, Franziska, “Counting Dependence Predictors”, In Undergraduate Honors Thesis, May 2, 2008, 25 Pages.
Sarkar, et al., “Understanding POWER Multiprocessors”, In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, Jun. 4, 2011, pp. 175-186.
Sethumadhavan, et al., “Design and Implementation of the TRIPS Primary Memory System”, In Proceedings of International Conference on Computer Design, ICCD, Oct. 1, 2006, 7 Pages.
Sethumadhavan, et al., “Late-Binding: Enabling Unordered Load-Store Queues”, In Proceedings of the 34th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture, Jun. 9, 2007, pp. 347-357.
Smith, et al., “Dataflow Predication”, In Proceedings of the 39th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture, Dec. 9, 2006, 12 Pages.
Sohi, et al., “Multiscalar Processors”, In Proceedings of 22nd Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture, Jun. 22, 1995, 12 Pages.
Sohi, Gurindar, “Retrospective: Multiscalar Processors”, In Proceedings of the 25th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architectures, Jun. 27, 1998, pp. 1111-1114.
Souza, et al., “Dynamically Scheduling VLIW Instructions”, In Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, vol. 60, Jul. 2000, pp. 1480-1511.
Wong, et al., “Efficient Methods for Out-of-Order Load/Store Execution for High- Performance soft Processors”, In Proceedings of International Conference on Field-Programmable Technology, Dec. 9, 2013, pp. 442-445.
Wu, et al., “Block Based Fetch Engine for Superscalar Processors”, In Proceedingsof the 15th International Conference on Computer Applications in Industry and Engineering, Nov. 7, 2002, 4 Pages.
Zmily, et al., “Block-Aware Instruction Set Architecture”, In Proceedings of ACM Transactions on Architecture and Code Optimization, vol. 3, Issue 3, Sep. 2006, pp. 327-357.
Uhrig, et al., Department of Computer Science, University of Augsburg “The Two-dimensional Superscalar GAP Processor Architecture”, International Journal on Advances in Systems and Measurements, vol. 3 No. 1 & 2, pp. 71-81, 2010 (11 pages total).
Govindan, et al., “TRIPS: A Distributed Explicit Data Graph Execution (EDGE) Microprocessor”, In Proceedings of IEEE Hot Chips 19 Symposium, Aug. 19, 2007, 13 Pages.
Zmily, et al., “Improving Instruction Delivery with a Block-Aware ISA”, In Proceedings of 11th International Euro-Par Conference on Parallel Processing, Aug. 30, 2005, pp. 530-539.
Maher, Bertrand Allen., “Atomic Block Formation for Explicit Data Graph Execution Architectures”, The Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Aug. 2010, 185 Pages.
“Cash: A C to Layout Compiler”, Retrieved from <<http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/academic/class/15745-s07/www/papers/cash-journal.pdf>>, Retrieved on: Apr. 8, 2015, 29 Pages.
Li, et al., “Code Layout Optimization for Defensiveness and Politeness in Shared Cache”, In 43rd International Conference on Parallel Processing, Sep. 9, 2014, 11 Pages.
Huang, et al., “Compiler-Assisted Sub-Block Reuse”, In Technical Report No. ARCTiC 00-03, Laboratory for Advanced Research in Computing Technology and Compilers, May 2000, 21 Pages.
Gray, et al., “Towards an Area-Efficient Implementation of a High ILP EDGE Soft Processor: Comparing Out-of-Order Dataflow Instruction Scheduler Designs”, In Proceedings of the 2014 22nd IEEE Symposium on Field Programmable Custom Computing Machines, May 11, 2014, 1 Page.
Robatmili, et al., “Strategies for Mapping Dataflow Blocks To Distributed Hardware”, In the Proceedings of the 41st IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture, Nov. 8, 2008, pp 23-34.
“Control Flow Graphs and Loop Optimization”, Retrieved from <<https://engineering.purdue.edu/˜milind/ece468/2014fall/lecture-09.pdf>>, Nov. 7, 2014, 38 Pages.
Nagarajan, et al., “Static Placement, Dynamic Issue (SPDI) Scheduling for EDGE Architectures”, In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Parallel Architectures and Compilation Techniques, Sep. 29, 2004, 11 Pages.
Sibi, et al., “Scaling Power and Performance via Processor Composability”, In Technical Report No. TR-10-14, Department of Computer Sciences, 2010, 20 Pages.
Reinman, et al., “Optimizations Enabled by a Decoupled Front-End Architecture”, In Proceedings of IEEE Transactions on computers, vol. 50, Issue 4, Apr. 1, 2001, 32 Pages.
Tamches, et al., “Dynamic Kernel Code Optimization”, In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Binary Translation, Jun. 2001, 10 Pages.
Bakhoda, et al., “Microsoft Research- E2”, Retrieved from <<https://web.archive.org/web/20150425065120/https://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/e2/>>, Apr. 10, 2015, 2 Pages.
Govindaraju, et al., “DySER: Unifying Functionality and Parallelism Specialization for Energy-Efficient Computing”, In IEEE Micro, vol. 32, Issue 5, Sep. 2012, pp. 38-51.
“Loop-Invariant Code Motion with Unsafe Operations”, Retrieved from <<https://web.archive.org/web/20150927030042/https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/28054/loop-invariant-code-motion-with-unsafe-operations>>, Retrieved Date: Apr. 8, 2015, 4 Pages.
Cooper, et al., “Loop Invariant Code Motion- Classical Approaches”, Retrieved from <<http://booksite.elsevier.com/9780120884780/Graduate_Lecture_Slides/Optimizations/23CM-Classic.ppt, Retrieved on: Apr. 8, 2015, 19 Pages.
“Explicit Data Graph Execution”, Retrieved From <<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explicit_Data_Graph_Execution>>, Retrieved Date: Jun. 13, 2017, 5 Pages.
“How Many Clock Cycles does a RISCICISC Instruction Take to Execute?”, Retrieved from <<http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/170551/how-many-clock -cycles-does-a-risc-cisc-instruction-take-to-execute>>, Retrieved Date: Aug. 24, 2015, 5 Pages.
“Intel® 64 Architecture Processor Topology Enumeration”, In White Paper of Intel, Dec. 13, 2013, pp. 1-29.
“Load/store architecture”, Retrieved From <<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load/store_architecture>>, Retrieved Date: Sep. 24, 2015, 1 Page.
Bush, Jeff, “Microarchitecture”, Retrieved form <<https://github.com/jbush001/NyuziProcessor/wiki/ Microarchitecture>>, Retrieved Date: Aug. 24, 2015, 7 Pages.
“Programmatic API for Building Resources”, Retrieved From <<https://web.archive.org/web/20150706082232/https://jersey.java.net/nonav/documentation/2.0/resource-builder.html>>, Nov. 3, 2014, 3 Pages.
“Final Office Action Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 14/252,101”, dated Jan. 12, 2017, 18 Pages.
“Non-Final Office Action Issued in U.S Appl. No. 14/252,101”, dated Jul. 7, 2016, 18 Pages.
“Non-Final Office Action Issued in U.S Appl. No. 14/752,356”, dated Mar. 21, 2017, 22 Pages.
“Non Final Office Action Issued in U.S Appl. No. 14/752,418”, dated May 18, 2017, 20 Pages.
“Non-Final Office Action Issued in U.S Appl. No. 14/752,596”, dated May 10, 2017, 22 Pages.
“Non Final Office Action Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 14/752,636”, dated Apr. 14, 2017, 15 pages.
“Non Final Office Action Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 14/752,660”, dated Apr. 6, 2017, 22 Pages.
“Non-Final Office Action Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 14/752,682”, dated May 5, 2017, 10 Pages.
“Notice of Allowance Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 14/752,724”, dated May 15, 2017, 15 Pages.
“Non-Final Office Action Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 14/752,727”, dated Apr. 14, 2017, 11 Pages.
“Notice of Allowance Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 14/752,747”, dated May 11, 2017, 14 Pages.
“Notice of Allowance Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 14/752,768”, dated Apr. 28, 2017, 10 Pages.
“Non-Final Office Action Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 14/752,792”, dated Apr. 11, 2017, 12 Pages.
“Non-Final Office Action Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 14/752,797”, dated Apr. 18, 2017, 10 Pages.
AASARAAI, et al., “Design Space Exploration of Instruction Schedulers for Out-of-Order Soft Processors”, In Proceedings of the International Conference on Field Programmable Technology, Dec. 8, 2010, 4 Pages.
Abraham, et al., “Predictability of Load/Store Instruction Latencies”, In Proceedings of the 26th Annual International Symposium on Microarchitecture, Dec. 1, 1993, pp. 139-152.
Appelbe, et al., “Hoisting Branch Conditions- Improving Super-Scalar Processor Performance”, In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Languages and Compilers for Parallel Computing, Aug. 10, 1995, 14 Pages.
August, et al., “Architectural Support for Compiler-Synthesized Dynamic Branch Prediction Strategies: Rationale and Initial Results”, In Proceedings of Third International Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture, Feb. 1, 1997, pp. 84-93.
Burger, et al., “Design and Implementation of the TRIPS EDGE Architecture”, Retrieved From <<https://www.cs.utexas.edu/˜trips/talks/trips_tutorial_6up.pdf>>, Jun. 4, 2005, 41 Pages.
Bush, et al., “Evaluation and Optimization of Signal Processing Kernels on the TRIPS Architecture”, In Proceedings of 4th Annual Workshop on Optimizations for DSP and Embedded Systems, Mar. 2006, 10 Pages.
Cain, et al., “Memory Ordering: A Value-Based Approach”, In Journal of IEEE Computer Society, vol. 24, Issue 1, Nov. 2004, pp. 110-117.
Carli, Roberto, “Flexible MIPS Soft Processor Architecture”, In Technical Report of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Jun. 16, 2008, pp. 1-49.
Chang, et al., “Cooperative Caching for Chip Multiprocessors”, In Proceedings of the 33rd annual international symposium on Computer Architecture, Jun. 17, 2006, 12 Pages.
Cheah, et al., “Analysis and Optimization of a Deeply Pipelined FPGA Soft Processor”, In Proceedings of International Conference on Field-Programmable Technology, Dec. 10, 2014, 4 Pages.
Chiu, et al., “Hyperscalar: A Novel Dynamically Reconfigurable Multi-core Architecture”, In Proceedings of 39th International Conference on Parallel Processing, Sep. 13, 2010, 10 Pages.
Chrysos, et al., “Memory Dependence Prediction using Store Sets”, In Proceedings of the 25th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture, Jun. 1998, pp. 142-153.
Coons, et al., “Feature Selection for Instruction Placement in an EDGE Architecture”, Retrieved From <<https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4c38/8fbe53827627c21a9d2a650395ed4470e544.pdf>>, Mar. 17, 2007, 6 Pages.
Duong, et al., “Compiler-Assisted, Selective Out-of-Order Commit”, In Journal of IEEE Computer Architecture Letters, vol. 12, Issue 1, Jan. 2013, 4 Pages.
Fallin, et al., “The Heterogeneous Block Architecture”, In Proceedings of 32nd IEEE International Conference on Computer Design, Oct. 19, 2014, 8 Pages.
Gaudlot, et al., “The Sisal Model of Functional Programming and its Implementation”, In Proceedings of Second Aizu International Symposium on Parallel Algorithms/Architectures Synthesis, Mar. 17, 1997, 12 Pages.
Gupta, Anshuman, “Design Decisions for Tiled Architecture Memory Systems”, Retrieved from <<https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9100/c6bbb1f56997b8cad6c1661ee1ce1aa90ee5.pdf>>, Sep. 18, 2009, 14 Pages.
Hammond, et al., “Programming with Transactional Coherence and Consistency (TCC)”, In ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, vol. 38, Issue 5, Oct. 7, 2004, 13 Pages.
Hammond, et al., “Transactional Coherence and Consistency: Simplifying Parallel Hardware and Software”, In IEEE Computer Society, vol. 24, Issue 6, Nov. 2004, pp. 92-103.
Hammond, et al., “Transactional Memory Coherence and Consistency”, In IEEE Computer Society of SIGARCH Computer Architecture News, vol. 32, Issue 2, Jun. 19, 2004, 12 Pages.
Hao, et al., “Increasing the Instruction Fetch Rate via Block-Structured Instruction Set Architectures”, In Proceedings of the 29th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture, Dec. 2, 1996, pp 191-200.
Hayes, et al., “Unified On-chip Memory Allocation for SIMT Architecture”, In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Supercomputing, Jun. 10, 2014, pp. 293-302.
Hruska, Joel, “VISC CPU ‘virtual core’ design emerges: Could this be the conceptual computing breakthrough we've been waiting for?”, Retrieved From <<https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/192858-visc-cpu-virtual-core-design-emerges-could-this-be-the-conceptual-breakthrough-weve-been-waiting-for>>, Oct. 24, 2014, 9 Pages.
Ipek, et al., “Core Fusion: Accommodating Software Diversity in Chip Multiprocessors”, In Proceedings of the 34th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture, Jun. 9, 2007, 12 Pages.
Jhala, Ranjit, “Compiler Construction 22nd International Conference”, In Proceedings of 22nd International Conference Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software, Mar. 16, 2013, 11 Pages.
Kamaraj, et al., “Design of Out-Of-Order Superscalar Processor with Speculative Thread Level Parallelism”, In Proceedings of International Conference on Innovations in Engineering and Technology, Mar. 21, 2014, pp. 1473-1478.
Kavi, et al., “Concurrency, Synchronization, Speculation- the Dataflow Way”, In Journal of Advances in Computers, vol. 96, Nov. 23, 2013, 41 Pages. All pages.
Liu, Haiming, “Hardware Techniques to Improve Cache Efficiency”, In Dissertation of the University of Texas at Austin, May 2009 (Only month and year available), 189 Pages. All pages.
McDonald, et al., “TRIPS Processor Reference Manual”, In Technical Report TR-05-19, The University of Texas at Austin, Mar. 10, 2005, 194 Pages. All pages.
Pickett, Christopher John Francis,“Software Method Level Speculation for Java”, In Thesis Submitted to Mcgill University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Apr. 2012 (Only month and year available), 236 Pages. All pages.
Sankaralingam, Karthikeyan, “Polymorphous Architectures: A Unified Approach for Extracting Concurrency of Different Granularities”, In Doctoral Dissertation of Philosophy, Aug. 2007 (Only month and year available), 276 Pages. All pages.
Uhlig, Richard Albert., “Trap-driven Memory Simulation”, In Doctoral Dissertation of Ph.D., Aug. 1995 (Only month and year available), 203 Pages. All pages.
Valentine, Bob, “Introducing Sandy Bridge”, Retrieved from <<https://cesga.es/en/paginas/descargaDocumento/d/135>>, Retrieved Date: Aug. 24, 2015, 54 Pages. All pages.
ZMily, Darweesh, Ahmad, “Block-Aware Instruction Set Architecture”, In Doctoral Dissertation, Jun. 2007 (Only month and year available), 176 Pages. All pages.
Smith, Aaron Lee, “Explicit Data Graph Compilation”, In Dissertations in Doctor of Philosophy, Dec. 2009 (Only month and year available), (201 pages total) All pages.
Nagarajan, Ramadass, “Design and Evaluation of a Technology-Scalable Architecture for Instruction-Level Parallelism”, The Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, May 2007 (Only month and year available), 260 Pages. All pages.
Dittmann, Gero, “On Instruction-Set Generation for Specialized Processors”, A Dissertation Submitted to the Swiss Federal Institute Of Technology Zurich for the Degree of Doctor of Technical Sciences, 2005 (No date available), 122 Pages. All pages.
Robatmili, Behnam, “Efficient Execution of Sequential Applications on Multicore systems”, The Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of the Doctor of Philosophy, Aug. 2011 (Only month and year available), 198 Pages. All pages.
Peon, et al., “HPACK- Header Compression for HTTP/2”, In HTTPbis Working Group, Internet-Draft, Intended status: Standards Track, Jul. 31, 2014, 114 Pages. All pages.
Huang, Jian, “Improving Processor Performance Through Compiler-Assisted Block Reuse”, A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, May 2000 (Only month and year available), 125 Pages. All pages.
Anderson, Michael, “A Framework for Composing High-Performance OpenCL from Python Descriptions”, In Technical Report of UCB/EECS-2014-210, Dec. 5, 2014, 144 Pages. All pages.
Choudhury, A.N.M Imroz., “Visualizing Program Memory Behavior Using Memory Reference Traces”, in Ph.D. Thesis of University of Utah, Aug. 2012 (Only month and year available), 158 Pages. All pages.
Gonzalez, et al., “Dependence Speculative Multithreaded Architecture”, In Technical Report, 1998 (No date available), 22 Pages. All pages.
Govindan, Madhu Sarava,“E3:Energy-Efficient EDGE Architectures”, In Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of Graduate School of the university of Texas in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of doctor of Philosophy, Aug. 2010 (Only month and year available), 244 Pages. All pages.
“Office Action Issued in European Patent Application No. 16734129.6”, dated Dec. 14, 2018, 6 Pages.
“Final Office Action Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 14/752,636”, dated Dec. 7, 2018, 18 Pages.
“Non Final Office Action Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 14/752,636”, dated Aug. 2, 2018, 17 Pages.
“Office Action Issued in Colombian Patent Application No. NC2017/0013272”, dated Dec. 4, 2018, 20 Pages.
“Final Office Action Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 14/752,356”, dated Oct. 23, 2017, 21 Pages.
“Final Office Action Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 14/752,636”, dated Nov. 13, 2017, 18 Pages.
“Final Office Action Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 14/752,682”, dated Sep. 8, 2017, 15 Pages.
“Non Final Office Action Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 14/752,682”, dated Apr. 27, 2018, 18 Pages.
“Final Office Action Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 14/752,727”, dated Sep. 13, 2017, 19 Pages.
“Non Final Office Action Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 14/752,727”, dated Feb. 14, 2018, 28 Pages.
“Final Office Action Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 14/752,792”, dated Oct. 19, 2017, 14 Pages.
“Final Office Action Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 14/752,797”, dated Oct. 19, 2017, 15 Pages.
“Office Action Issued in European Patent Application No. 14734631.6”, dated Sep. 30, 2016, 5 Pages.
NC2017/0013251, “Office Action Issued in Colombian Patent Application No. NC2017/0013251”, dated date Jul. 4, 2018, 14 Pages.
NC2017/0013252, “Office Action Issued in Colombian Patent Application No. NC2017/0013252”, dated dated Jul. 5, 2018, 13 Pages.
NC2017/0013272, “Office Action Issued in Colombian Patent Application No. NC2017/0013272”, dated Jan. 9, 2018, 4 Pages.
“International Preliminary Report on Patentability Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038842”, dated Sep. 27, 2017, 6 Pages.
“Second Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038842”, dated May 30, 2017, 5 Pages.
“International Preliminary Report on Patentability Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038843”, dated Sep. 13, 2017, 7 Pages.
“Second Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038843”, dated Jun. 7, 2017, 6 Pages.
“International Preliminary Report on Patentability Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038846”, dated Oct. 9, 2017, 6 Pages.
“International Search Report and Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038846”, dated Oct. 6, 2016, 11 Pages.
“Second Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038846”, dated Jul. 4, 2017, 5 Pages.
“International Preliminary Report on Patentability Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038847”, dated Sep. 18, 2017, 5 Pages.
“Second Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038847”, dated May 30, 2017, 4 Pages.
“International Preliminary Report on Patentability Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038852”, dated Sep. 13, 2017, 9 Pages.
“Second Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038852”, dated May 24, 2017, 5 Pages.
“International Preliminary Report on Patentability Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038854”, dated Jun. 6, 2017, 8 Pages.
“PCT Chapter II Demand for International Preliminary Examination and amended claims under Article 34 Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/038854”, dated Jan. 5, 2017, 23 Pages.
“Office Action Issued in Chilean Patent Application No. 201703263”, dated Jan. 11, 2019, 7 Pages.
“Office Action Issued in Chilean Patent Application No. 201703264”, dated Jan. 11, 2019, 7 Pages.
“Office Action Issued in Chilean Patent Application No. 33102017”, dated Mar. 14, 2019, 9 Pages.
“Office Action Issued in Chilean Patent Application No. 201703318”, dated Mar. 26, 2019, 9 Pages.
“Office Action Issued in Chilean Patent Application No. 201703263”, dated Apr. 15, 2019, 7 Pages.
Related Publications (1)
Number Date Country
20160378479 A1 Dec 2016 US