Technical Field
Methods and example implementations described herein are directed to interconnect architecture, and more specifically, to reconfiguring Network on Chip (NoC) to customize traffic and optimize performance after NoC is designed and deployed.
Related Art
The number of components on a chip is rapidly growing due to increasing levels of integration, system complexity and shrinking transistor geometry. Complex System-on-Chips (SoCs) may involve a variety of components e.g., processor cores, DSPs, hardware accelerators, memory and I/O, while Chip Multi-Processors (CMPs) may involve a large number of homogenous processor cores, memory and I/O subsystems. In both SoC and CMP systems, the on-chip interconnect plays a role in providing high-performance communication between the various components. Due to scalability limitations of traditional buses and crossbar based interconnects, Network-on-Chip (NoC) has emerged as a paradigm to interconnect a large number of components on the chip. NoC is a global shared communication infrastructure made up of several routing nodes interconnected with each other using point-to-point physical links.
Messages are injected by the source and are routed from the source node to the destination over multiple intermediate nodes and physical links. The destination node then ejects the message and provides the message to the destination. For the remainder of this application, the terms ‘components’, ‘blocks’, ‘hosts’ or ‘cores’ will be used interchangeably to refer to the various system components which are interconnected using a NoC. Terms ‘routers’ and ‘nodes’ will also be used interchangeably. Without loss of generalization, the system with multiple interconnected components will itself be referred to as a ‘multi-core system’.
There are several topologies in which the routers can connect to one another to create the system network. Bi-directional rings (as shown in
Packets are message transport units for intercommunication between various components. Routing involves identifying a path composed of a set of routers and physical links of the network over which packets are sent from a source to a destination. Components are connected to one or multiple ports of one or multiple routers; with each such port having a unique ID. Packets carry the destination's router and port ID for use by the intermediate routers to route the packet to the destination component.
Examples of routing techniques include deterministic routing, which involves choosing the same path from A to B for every packet. This form of routing is independent from the state of the network and does not load balance across path diversities, which might exist in the underlying network. However, such deterministic routing may implemented in hardware, maintains packet ordering and may be rendered free of network level deadlocks. Shortest path routing may minimize the latency as such routing reduces the number of hops from the source to the destination. For this reason, the shortest path may also be the lowest power path for communication between the two components. Dimension-order routing is a form of deterministic shortest path routing in 2-D, 2.5-D, and 3-D mesh networks. In this routing scheme, messages are routed along each coordinates in a particular sequence until the message reaches the final destination. For example in a 3-D mesh network, one may first route along the X dimension until it reaches a router whose X-coordinate is equal to the X-coordinate of the destination router. Next, the message takes a turn and is routed in along Y dimension and finally takes another turn and moves along the Z dimension until the message reaches the final destination router. Dimension ordered routing may be minimal turn and shortest path routing.
In heterogeneous mesh topology in which one or more routers or one or more links are absent, dimension order routing may not be feasible between certain source and destination nodes, and alternative paths may have to be taken. The alternative paths may not be shortest or minimum turn.
Source routing and routing using tables are other routing options used in NoC. Adaptive routing can dynamically change the path taken between two points on the network based on the state of the network. This form of routing may be complex to analyze and implement.
A NoC interconnect may contain multiple physical networks. Over each physical network, there may exist multiple virtual networks, wherein different message types are transmitted over different virtual networks. In this case, at each physical link or channel, there are multiple virtual channels; each virtual channel may have dedicated buffers at both end points. In any given clock cycle, only one virtual channel can transmit data on the physical channel.
NoC interconnects may employ wormhole routing, wherein, a large message or packet is broken into small pieces known as flits (also referred to as flow control digits). The first flit is the header flit, which holds information about this packet's route and key message level info along with payload data and sets up the routing behavior for all subsequent flits associated with the message. Optionally, one or more body flits follows the head flit, containing the remaining payload of data. The final flit is the tail flit, which in addition to containing the last payload also performs some bookkeeping to close the connection for the message. In wormhole flow control, virtual channels are often implemented.
The physical channels are time sliced into a number of independent logical channels called virtual channels (VCs). VCs provide multiple independent paths to route packets, however they are time-multiplexed on the physical channels. A virtual channel holds the state needed to coordinate the handling of the flits of a packet over a channel. At a minimum, this state identifies the output channel of the current node for the next hop of the route and the state of the virtual channel (idle, waiting for resources, or active). The virtual channel may also include pointers to the flits of the packet that are buffered on the current node and the number of flit buffers available on the next node.
The term “wormhole” plays on the way messages are transmitted over the channels: the output port at the next router can be so short that received data can be translated in the head flit before the full message arrives. This allows the router to quickly set up the route upon arrival of the head flit and then opt out from the rest of the conversation. Since a message is transmitted flit by flit, the message may occupy several flit buffers along its path at different routers, creating a worm-like image.
Based upon the traffic between various end points, and the routes and physical networks that are used for various messages, different physical channels of the NoC interconnect may experience different levels of load and congestion. The capacity of various physical channels of a NoC interconnect is determined by the width of the channel (number of physical wires) and the clock frequency at which it is operating. Various channels of the NoC may operate at different clock frequencies, and various channels may have different widths based on the bandwidth requirement at the channel. The bandwidth requirement at a channel is determined by the flows that traverse over the channel and their bandwidth values. Flows traversing over various NoC channels are affected by the routes taken by various flows. In a mesh or Taurus NoC, there may exist multiple route paths of equal length or number of hops between any pair of source and destination nodes. For example, in
In a NoC with statically allocated routes for various traffic slows, the load at various channels may be controlled by intelligently selecting the routes for various flows. When a large number of traffic flows and substantial path diversity is present, routes can be chosen such that the load on all NoC channels is balanced nearly uniformly, thus avoiding a single point of bottleneck. Once routed, the NoC channel widths can be determined based on the bandwidth demands of flows on the channels. Unfortunately, channel widths cannot be arbitrarily large due to physical hardware design restrictions, such as timing or wiring congestion. There may be a limit on the maximum channel width, thereby putting a limit on the maximum bandwidth of any single NoC channel.
Additionally, wider physical channels may not help in achieving higher bandwidth if messages are short. For example, if a packet is a single flit packet with a 64-bit width, then no matter how wide a channel is, the channel will only be able to carry 64 bits per cycle of data if all packets over the channel are similar. Thus, a channel width is also limited by the message size in the NoC. Due to these limitations on the maximum NoC channel width, a channel may not have enough bandwidth in spite of balancing the routes.
To address the above bandwidth concern, multiple parallel physical NoCs may be used. Each NoC may be called a layer, thus creating a multi-layer NoC architecture. Hosts inject a message on a NoC layer; the message is then routed to the destination on the NoC layer, where it is delivered from the NoC layer to the host. Thus, each layer operates more or less independently from each other, and interactions between layers may only occur during the injection and ejection times.
In
In a multi-layer NoC, the number of layers needed may depend upon a number of factors such as the aggregate bandwidth requirement of all traffic flows in the system, the routes that are used by various flows, message size distribution, maximum channel width, etc. Once the number of NoC layers in NoC interconnect is determined in a design, different messages and traffic flows may be routed over different NoC layers. Additionally, one may design NoC interconnects such that different layers have different topologies in number of routers, channels and connectivity. The channels in different layers may have different widths based on the flows that traverse over the channel and their bandwidth requirements.
In a NoC interconnect, if the traffic profile is not uniform and there is a certain amount of heterogeneity (e.g., certain hosts talking to each other more frequently than the others), the interconnect performance may depend on the NoC topology and where various hosts are placed in the topology with respect to each other and to what routers they are connected to. For example, if two hosts talk to each other frequently and require higher bandwidth than other interconnects, then they should be placed next to each other. This will reduce the latency for this communication which thereby reduces the global average latency, as well as reduce the number of router nodes and links over which the higher bandwidth of this communication must be provisioned.
Moving two hosts closer together may make certain other hosts far apart since all hosts must fit into the 2D planar NoC topology without overlapping with each other. Thus, various tradeoffs must be made and the hosts must be placed after examining the pair-wise bandwidth and latency requirements between all hosts so that certain global cost and performance metrics is optimized. The cost and performance metrics can be, for example, average structural latency between all communicating hosts in number of router hops, or sum of bandwidth between all pair of hosts and the distance between them in number of hops, or some combination of these two. This optimization problem is known to be NP-hard and heuristic based approaches are often used. The hosts in a system may vary in shape and sizes with respect to each other, which puts additional complexity in placing them in a 2D planar NoC topology, packing them optimally while leaving little whitespaces, and avoiding overlapping hosts.
The optimization approaches introduced so far to determine the channel capacity, routes, host positions, etc., are useful when the exact traffic profile is known in advance at the NoC design time. If the precise traffic profile is not known at the design time, and the traffic profile changes during the NoC operation based on the SoC application's requirements, then the NoC design must allow these adjustments. For the NoC to allow these changes, the NoC must be designed so that it has knowledge of the changes that may occur in the traffic profile in a given system and ensure that any combination of allowable traffic profiles are supported by the NoC hardware architecture.
Aspects of the present disclosure can include a method of generating a Network on Chip (NoC). The method can include applying a process on a NoC specification to determine, from a plurality of NoC mapping strategies, ones of the plurality of NoC mapping strategies that meet a threshold for a cost function; executing the ones of the plurality of NoC mapping strategies to generate one or more NoC mappings; scoring the one or more NoC mappings based on the cost function; and generating the NoC from an implementation of a selected mapping from the one or more NoC mappings.
Aspects of the present disclosure can include a non-transitory computer readable medium, storing instructions for generating a Network on Chip (NoC). The instructions can include applying a process on a NoC specification to determine, from a plurality of NoC mapping strategies, ones of the plurality of NoC mapping strategies that meet a threshold for a cost function; executing the ones of the plurality of NoC mapping strategies to generate one or more NoC mappings; scoring the one or more NoC mappings based on the cost function; and generating the NoC from an implementation of a selected mapping from the one or more NoC mappings.
Aspects of the present disclosure can include an apparatus, which can involve a processor configured to generate a Network on Chip (NoC). The processor can be configured to apply a process on a NoC specification to determine, from a plurality of NoC mapping strategies, ones of the plurality of NoC mapping strategies that meet a threshold for a cost function; execute the ones of the plurality of NoC mapping strategies to generate one or more NoC mappings; score the one or more NoC mappings based on the cost function; and generate the NoC from an implementation of a selected mapping from the one or more NoC mappings.
The following detailed description provides further details of the figures and example implementations of the present application. Reference numerals and descriptions of redundant elements between figures are omitted for clarity. Terms used throughout the description are provided as examples and are not intended to be limiting. For example, the use of the term “automatic” may involve fully automatic or semi-automatic implementations involving user or administrator control over certain aspects of the implementation, depending on the desired implementation of one of ordinary skill in the art practicing implementations of the present application.
In example implementations, a NoC interconnect is generated from a specification by utilizing design tools. The specification can contain constraints such as bandwidth/Quality of Service (QoS)/latency attributes that is to be met by the NoC, and can be in various software formats depending on the design tools utilized. Once the NoC is generated through the use of design tools on the specification to meet the specification requirements, the physical architecture can be implemented either by manufacturing a chip layout to facilitate the NoC or by generation of a register transfer level (RTL) for execution on a chip to emulate the generated NoC, depending on the desired implementation. Specifications may be in common power format (CPF), Unified Power Format (UPF), or others according to the desired specification. Specifications can be in the form of traffic specifications indicating the traffic, bandwidth requirements, latency requirements, interconnections and so on depending on the desired implementation. Specifications can also be in the form of power specifications to define power domains, voltage domains, clock domains, and so on, depending on the desired implementation.
Example implementations are directed to the utilization of machine learning based algorithms. In the related art, a wide range of machine learning based algorithms have been applied to image or pattern recognition, such as the recognition of obstacles or traffic signs of other cars, or the categorization of elements based on a specific training. In view of the advancement in power computations, machine learning has become more applicable for the generation of NoCs and for the mapping of traffic flows of NoCs.
A distributed NoC interconnect connects various components in a system on chip with each other using multiple routers and point to point links between the routers. The traffic profile of a SoC includes the transactions between various components in the SoC and their properties (e.g., Quality of Service (QoS), priority, bandwidth and latency requirements, transaction sizes, etc.). The traffic profile information may be used to determine how various transactions will be routed in the NoC topology, and accordingly provision the link capacities, virtual channels and router nodes of the NoC. Accurate knowledge of the traffic profile can lead to an optimized NoC hardware with minimal overprovisioning in terms of link wires, virtual channel buffers and additional router nodes. A variety of SoCs today are designed to run a number of different applications; the resulting NoC traffic profile therefore may differ based on how and in what market segments the SoC is deployed, and what applications are supported. Supporting a variety of traffic profiles offers several challenges in the NoC design and optimization. Even if multiple traffic profiles are supported functionally, the traffic profile observed in a particular setting may be different from the set of profiles for which the NoC is optimized, leading to sub-optimal power consumption and NoC performance.
Example implementations described herein are directed to solutions for 2-D, 2.5-D and 3-D NoC interconnects. The example implementations may involve various aspects, such as: 1) designing a NoC to one or more traffic profiles of a traffic specification by mapping their transactions to NoC and allocating routes, virtual channels, and layers; 2) supporting hardware reconfigurability in the NoC to be able to optimize the NoC performance for a given subset of traffic profiles present in a SoC; 3) using example implementations herein to process each flow to optimize the mapping of the flows to the NoC hardware; 5) based on the determined flows, generating the reconfiguration information to be loaded into the NoC hardware; and 6) finally transmitting the reconfiguration information to the NoC in a format that can be loaded into NoC reconfiguration hardware.
Example implementations may utilize machine learning which can involve a large variety of algorithms.
Traffic Profile 1: A<->B; A<->G;
Traffic Profile 2: A<->C; B<->D; D<->G; E<->F;
Traffic Profile 3: G<->C;
The example NoC of
In example implementations, a NoC is generated from a specification with agents, bridges and a traffic specification design our NoC with agents and bridges and the traffic specification, whereupon a mapping algorithm attempts to map the traffic flows in an incremental way. The order in which the flows are selected for mapping can affect the outcome of the NoC generation (e.g., selecting the flows from highest bandwidth to lowest bandwidth, only flows meeting a QoS, threshold, etc.).
At 502, the characteristics are provided to the trained machine learning algorithm, which processes the characteristics against a library of selection strategies. In example implementations, a library of selection strategies can be incorporated, whereupon the outcome of the NoC generation is obtained at 503. In example implementations, the strategies can be selected at random and the NoC is generated according to the specification with the traffic flows mapped according to the strategy. The generated NoC is scored according to a desired metric, whereupon the NoCs that meet the desired threshold are retained.
Strategies are selected from the set of available strategies based on the machine learning algorithm. In example implementations, the machine learning algorithm will determine for the set of the available strategies, which of the set of available strategies will produce a NoC that meets the threshold for the desired characteristics. In example implementations, the machine learning algorithm is trained by being given NoC specifications with various characteristics, and corresponding outputted generated NoCs and their characteristics after applying various mapping strategies to the specifications. That is, for each strategy, a mapping is conducted for the specification in the training set. From this training, the machine learning algorithm can give a score (e.g. normalized score between zero and one) to indicate the degree to which the desired characteristics can be met.
In example implementations, flows are ordered and processed on a flow by flow basis wherein each flow can be marked. Each flow can be ordered according to desired characteristics, and can be marked specifically in accordance with the desired implementation. For example, if a certain flow has a certain characteristic that can be indicated with a Boolean flag, then the flow can be marked with a Boolean flag, or with any other desired implementation to describe the traffic of the flow.
In example implementations, the strategies can be implemented as a vector that can be applied to traffic flows. Each bit or set of bits in the vector can indicate attributes of the strategy (e.g. order by transmitting interface first, then by the number of flits that are in the traffic, and then by the presence or non-presence of latency sensitive traffic). In example implementations, the ordering of actions within the vector can define the strategy. The vector can be extended and customized to incorporate additional strategies or characteristics as defined by the operator in accordance with the desired implementation.
In example implementations, the vector can include various attributes that define the strategy space, and can be made up of a combination of different strategy aspects. For example, the vector can include a set of bits to indicate if the routing should be XY routing, YX routing, or other kind of routing, or undefined.
The number of possible mappings for a given strategy may be overly large. Through the application of machine learning, example implementations restrict or identify with a certain probability the best strategies for a given specification among the strategy space. In example implementations, applying machine learning algorithms among a set of strategies will indicate an output of strategies having a high probability to meet the desired threshold characteristics. In one aspect of the example implementations, the mapping procedure can provide an optimal result or a mapping that meets a threshold.
Through the use of example implementations, instead of being forced to explore the space randomly, or instead being forced to explore the entire space of the possible strategies, the known strategy space can be reduced to a subset of strategies that contain, or have a probability meeting a threshold of containing mappings that meet a threshold for the desired characteristics. In example implementations, the machine learning algorithms can determine if a certain input belongs or not to a category, or given input they will try to predict a certain output.
In example implementations, the flow of
Thus, given a NoC including the specification indicating the hosts, the parameters and the traffic, and a strategy space, a cost function can be utilized to determine a mapping based on the pool of different available strategies.
The server 905 may also be connected to an external storage 950, which can contain removable storage such as a portable hard drive, optical media (CD or DVD), disk media or any other medium from which a computer can read executable code. The server may also be connected an output device 955, such as a display to output data and other information to a user, as well as request additional information from a user. The connections from the server 905 to the user interface 940, the operator interface 945, the external storage 950, and the output device 955 may via wireless protocols, such as the 802.11 standards, Bluetooth® or cellular protocols, or via physical transmission media, such as cables or fiber optics. The output device 955 may therefore further act as an input device for interacting with a user.
Processor 910 can be configured to generate a NoC through execution of NoC hardware generator 911. NoC hardware generator 911 can be configured to apply a process on a NoC specification to determine, from a plurality of NoC mapping strategies, ones of the plurality of NoC mapping strategies that meet a threshold for a cost function; execute the ones of the plurality of NoC mapping strategies to generate one or more NoC mappings; score the one or more NoC mappings based on the cost function; and generate the NoC from an implementation of a selected mapping from the one or more NoC mappings as illustrated in the flow of
As illustrated in the flow of
NoC hardware generator 911 can also be configured to execute the ones of the plurality of NoC mapping strategies to generate one or more NoC mappings through execution of a first sorting function configured to specify an order in which traffic flows are to be mapped as illustrated in
In an example implementation, the sorting function can be replaced with a machine learning process configured to determine the order in which traffic flows are to be mapped based on external constraints (e.g. requirements specified in the specification, as input by a user command), and the state of the NoC. The machine learning process can be trained against a set of possible external constraints and NoC states to provide an algorithm configured to provide a order for the traffic flows.
Furthermore, some portions of the detailed description are presented in terms of algorithms and symbolic representations of operations within a computer. These algorithmic descriptions and symbolic representations are the means used by those skilled in the data processing arts to most effectively convey the essence of their innovations to others skilled in the art. An algorithm is a series of defined steps leading to a desired end state or result. In the example implementations, the steps carried out require physical manipulations of tangible quantities for achieving a tangible result.
Moreover, other implementations of the present application will be apparent to those skilled in the art from consideration of the specification and practice of the example implementations disclosed herein. Various aspects and/or components of the described example implementations may be used singly or in any combination. It is intended that the specification and examples be considered as examples, with a true scope and spirit of the application being indicated by the following claims.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4409838 | Schomberg | Oct 1983 | A |
4933933 | Daily et al. | Jun 1990 | A |
5105424 | Flaig et al. | Apr 1992 | A |
5163016 | Har'El et al. | Nov 1992 | A |
5355455 | Hilgendorf et al. | Oct 1994 | A |
5432785 | Ahmed et al. | Jul 1995 | A |
5563003 | Suzuki et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
5583990 | Birrittella et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5588152 | Dapp et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5764740 | Holender | Jun 1998 | A |
5764741 | Holender | Jun 1998 | A |
5859981 | Levin et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5991308 | Fuhrmann et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6003029 | Agrawal et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6029220 | Iwamura et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6058385 | Koza et al. | May 2000 | A |
6101181 | Passint et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6108739 | James | Aug 2000 | A |
6249902 | Igusa et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6314487 | Hahn et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6377543 | Grover | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6415282 | Mukherjea et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6674720 | Passint et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6711717 | Nystrom et al. | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6925627 | Longway et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6967926 | Williams, Jr. et al. | Nov 2005 | B1 |
6983461 | Hutchison et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
7046633 | Carvey | May 2006 | B2 |
7065730 | Alpert et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7143221 | Bruce et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7318214 | Prasad et al. | Jan 2008 | B1 |
7379424 | Krueger | May 2008 | B1 |
7437518 | Tsien | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7461236 | Wentzlaff | Dec 2008 | B1 |
7509619 | Miller et al. | Mar 2009 | B1 |
7564865 | Radulescu | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7583602 | Bejerano | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7590959 | Tanaka | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7693064 | Thubert et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7701252 | Chow et al. | Apr 2010 | B1 |
7724735 | Locatelli et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
7725859 | Lenahan et al. | May 2010 | B1 |
7774783 | Toader | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7808968 | Kalmanek, Jr. et al. | Oct 2010 | B1 |
7853774 | Wentzlaff | Dec 2010 | B1 |
7917885 | Becker | Mar 2011 | B2 |
7957381 | Clermidy et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
7973804 | Mejdrich et al. | Jul 2011 | B2 |
8018249 | Koch et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
8020163 | Nollet et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
8020168 | Hoover et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
8050256 | Bao et al. | Nov 2011 | B1 |
8059551 | Milliken | Nov 2011 | B2 |
8099757 | Riedle et al. | Jan 2012 | B2 |
8136071 | Solomon | Mar 2012 | B2 |
8203938 | Gibbings | Jun 2012 | B2 |
8213298 | Yamaguchi | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8261025 | Mejdrich et al. | Sep 2012 | B2 |
8281297 | Dasu et al. | Oct 2012 | B2 |
8306042 | Abts | Nov 2012 | B1 |
8312402 | Okhmatovski et al. | Nov 2012 | B1 |
8352774 | Elrabaa | Jan 2013 | B2 |
8407425 | Gueron et al. | Mar 2013 | B2 |
8412795 | Mangano et al. | Apr 2013 | B2 |
8438578 | Hoover et al. | May 2013 | B2 |
8448102 | Kornachuk et al. | May 2013 | B2 |
8490110 | Hoover et al. | Jul 2013 | B2 |
8492886 | Or-Bach et al. | Jul 2013 | B2 |
8514889 | Jayasimha | Aug 2013 | B2 |
8541819 | Or-Bach et al. | Sep 2013 | B1 |
8543964 | Ge et al. | Sep 2013 | B2 |
8601423 | Philip et al. | Dec 2013 | B1 |
8619622 | Harrand et al. | Dec 2013 | B2 |
8635577 | Kazda et al. | Jan 2014 | B2 |
8661455 | Mejdrich et al. | Feb 2014 | B2 |
8667439 | Kumar et al. | Mar 2014 | B1 |
8705368 | Abts et al. | Apr 2014 | B1 |
8711867 | Guo et al. | Apr 2014 | B2 |
8717875 | Bejerano et al. | May 2014 | B2 |
8726295 | Hoover et al. | May 2014 | B2 |
8738860 | Griffin et al. | May 2014 | B1 |
8793644 | Michel et al. | Jul 2014 | B2 |
8798038 | Jayasimha et al. | Aug 2014 | B2 |
8819611 | Philip et al. | Aug 2014 | B2 |
9210048 | Marr | Dec 2015 | B1 |
9571341 | Kumar et al. | Feb 2017 | B1 |
20020071392 | Grover et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020073380 | Cooke et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020083159 | Ward et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020095430 | Egilsson et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20030088602 | Dutta et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030145314 | Nguyen et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20040049565 | Keller et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040062237 | MacArthur | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040103218 | Blumrich et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040216072 | Alpert et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20050147081 | Acharya et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050203988 | Nollet et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20060002302 | Bejerano | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060002303 | Bejerano | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060031615 | Bruce et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060075169 | Harris et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060161875 | Rhee | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060206297 | Ishiyama et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060209846 | Clermidy et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060268909 | Langevin et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20070038987 | Ohara et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070088537 | Lertora et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070118320 | Luo et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070147379 | Lee et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070162903 | Babb, II et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070244676 | Shang et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070256044 | Coryer et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070267680 | Uchino et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070274331 | Locatelli et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20080072182 | He et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080120129 | Seubert et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080126569 | Rhim et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080184259 | Lesartre et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080186998 | Rijpkema | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080211538 | Lajolo et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080232387 | Rijpkema et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20090037888 | Tatsuoka et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090046727 | Towles | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090070726 | Mehrotra et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090122703 | Gangwal et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090172304 | Gueron et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090187716 | Comparan et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090187756 | Nollet et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090210184 | Medardoni et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090231348 | Mejdrich et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090268677 | Chou et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090285222 | Hoover et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20090300292 | Fang et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090307714 | Hoover et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090313592 | Murali et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100040162 | Suehiro | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100158005 | Mukhopadhyay et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100211718 | Gratz et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100223505 | Andreev et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20110022754 | Cidon et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110035523 | Feero et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110060831 | Ishii et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110072407 | Keinert et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110085550 | Lecler et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110085561 | Ahn | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110103799 | Shacham et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
20110145646 | Harris | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110154282 | Chang et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110191774 | Hsu et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110235531 | Vangal et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110276937 | Waller | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110302345 | Boucard et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20110307734 | Boesen et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20110320854 | Elrabaa | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120022841 | Appleyard | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120023473 | Brown et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120026917 | Guo et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
20120079147 | Ishii et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120099475 | Tokuoka | Apr 2012 | A1 |
20120110106 | De Lescure et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120110541 | Ge et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120144065 | Parker | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120155250 | Carney et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120173846 | Wang et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120195321 | Ramanujam | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120209944 | Mejdrich et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20130028090 | Yamaguchi et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130028261 | Lee | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130051397 | Guo et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
20130054811 | Harrand | Feb 2013 | A1 |
20130077562 | Boltz | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130080073 | de Corral | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130103369 | Huynh et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130103912 | Jones et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130117543 | Venkataramanan et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
20130148506 | Lea | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130151215 | Mustapha | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130159944 | Uno et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130163615 | Mangano et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130174113 | Lecler et al. | Jul 2013 | A1 |
20130179613 | Boucard et al. | Jul 2013 | A1 |
20130179902 | Hoover et al. | Jul 2013 | A1 |
20130191572 | Nooney et al. | Jul 2013 | A1 |
20130207801 | Barnes | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130219148 | Chen et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130250792 | Yoshida et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130254488 | Kaxiras et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130263068 | Cho et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130268990 | Urzi et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130326458 | Kazda et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20140068132 | Philip et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
20140068134 | Philip et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
20140092740 | Wang et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140098683 | Kumar et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140112149 | Urzi et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140115218 | Philip et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140115298 | Philip et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140211622 | Kumar et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20140254388 | Kumar et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140269333 | Boerjesson | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20150043575 | Kumar et al. | Feb 2015 | A1 |
20150109024 | Abdelfattah | Apr 2015 | A1 |
20150159330 | Weisman et al. | Jun 2015 | A1 |
20180033079 | Porter | Feb 2018 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
103684961 | Mar 2014 | CN |
5936793 | Jun 2016 | JP |
6060316 | Jan 2017 | JP |
10-2013-0033898 | Apr 2013 | KR |
101652490 | Aug 2016 | KR |
2010074872 | Jul 2010 | WO |
2013063484 | May 2013 | WO |
2014059024 | Apr 2014 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Ababei, C., et al., Achieving Network on Chip Fault Tolerance by Adaptive Remapping, Parallel & Distributed Processing, 2009, IEEE International Symposium, 4 pgs. |
Abts, D., et al., Age-Based Packet Arbitration in Large-Radix k-ary n-cubes, Supercomputing 2007 (SC07), Nov. 10-16, 2007, 11 pgs. |
Beretta, I, et al., A Mapping Flow for Dynamically Reconfigurable Multi-Core System-on-Chip Design, IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, Aug. 2011, 30(8), pp. 1211-1224. |
Das, R., et al., Aergia: Exploiting Packet Latency Slack in On-Chip Networks, 37th International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA '10), Jun. 19-23, 2010, 11 pgs. |
Ebrahimi, E., et al., Fairness via Source Throttling: A Configurable and High-Performance Fairness Substrate for Multi-Core Memory Systems, ASPLOS '10, Mar. 13-17, 2010, 12 pgs. |
Gindin, R., et al., NoC-Based FPGA: Architecture and Routing, Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Networks-on-Chip (NOCS'07), May 2007, pp. 253-262. |
Grot, B., Preemptive Virtual Clock: A Flexible, Efficient, and Cost-Effective QOS Scheme for Networks-on-Chip, Micro '09, Dec. 12-16, 2009, 12 pgs. |
Grot, B., Kilo-NOC: A Heterogeneous Network-on-Chip Architecture for Scalability and Service Guarantees, ISCA 11, Jun. 4-8, 2011, 12 pgs. |
Grot, B., Topology-Aware Quality-of-Service Support in Highly Integrated Chip Multiprocessors, 6th Annual Workshop on the Interaction between Operating Systems and Computer Architecture, Jun. 2006, 11 pgs. |
Hestness, J., et al., Netrace: Dependency-Tracking for Efficient Network-on-Chip Experimentation, The University of Texas at Austin, Dept. of Computer Science, May 2011, 20 pgs. |
Jiang, N., et al., Performance Implications of Age-Based Allocations in On-Chip Networks, CVA MEMO 129, May 24, 2011, 21 pgs. |
Lee, J. W., et al., Globally-Synchronized Frames for Guaranteed Quality-of-Service in On-Chip Networks, 35th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA), Jun. 2008, 12 pgs. |
Lee, M. M., et al., Approximating Age-Based Arbitration in On-Chip Networks, PACT '10, Sep. 11-15, 2010, 2 pgs. |
Li, B. et al., CoQoS: Coordinating QoS-Aware Shared Resources in NoC-based SoCs, J. Parallel Distrib. Comput., 71(5), May 2011, 14 pgs. |
Lin, S., et al., Scalable Connection-Based Flow Control Scheme for Application-Specific Network-on-Chip, The Journal of China Universities of Posts and Telecommunications, Dec. 2011, 18(6), pp. 98-105. |
Bolotin, Evgency, et al., “QNoC: QoS Architecture and Design Process for Network on Chip” 2004, 24 pages, Journal of Systems Architecture 50 (2004) 105-128 Elsevier. |
Munirul, H.M., et al., Evaluation of Multiple-Valued Packet Multiplexing Scheme for Network-on-Chip Architecture, Proceedings of the 36th International Symposium on Multiple-Valued Logic (ISMVL '06), 2006, 6 pgs. |
Yang, J., et al., Homogeneous NoC-based FPGA: The Foundation for Virtual FPGA, 10th IEEE International Conference on Computer and Information Technology (CIT 2010), Jun. 2010, pp. 62-67. |
Zaman, Aanam, et al., “Formal Verification of Circuit-Switched Network on Chip (NoC) Architectures using SPIN”, IEEE © 2014, 8 pages. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/US2014/023625, dated Jul. 10, 2014, 9 pgs. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/US2014/012012, dated May 14, 2014, 10 pgs. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/US2014/037902, dated Sep. 30, 2014, 14 pgs. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/US2014/048190, dated Nov. 28, 2014, 11 pgs. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/US2014/060745, dated Jan. 21, 2015, 10 pgs. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/US2014/060879, dated Jan. 21, 2015, 10 pgs. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/US2014/060892, dated Jan. 27, 2015, 10 pgs. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/US2014/060886, dated Jan. 26, 2015, 10 pgs. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/US2013/064140, dated Jan. 22, 2014, 9 pgs. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/US2014/012003, dated Mar. 26, 2014, 9 pgs. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Application No. PCT/US2013/064140, dated Apr. 23, 2015, 6 pages. |
Office Action for Japanese Patent Application No. 2016-516030 dated Aug. 30, 2016, 2 pages, Japan Patent Office. |
Decision to Grant for Japanese Patent Application No. 2016-516030 dated Nov. 22, 2016, 3 pages, untranslated, Japan Patent Office. |
Office Action for Korean Patent Application No. 10-2016-7019093 dated Sep. 8, 2016, 3 pages plus 1 page English translation. KIPO, Korea. |
Notice of Allowance for Korean Patent Application No. 10-2016-7019093 dated Dec. 5, 2016, 5 pages. KIPO, Korea. |
Notice of Grant for Japanese Patent Application No. 2015-535898 dated Jan. 17, 2017, 3 pages, untranslated. Japan Patent Office. |
Office Action for Japanese Patent Application No. 2015-535898 dated Oct. 25, 2016, 2 pages English, 2 pages untranslated copy. Japan Patent Office. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20180183715 A1 | Jun 2018 | US |