Executable dataflow benchmark generation technique for multi-core embedded systems

ABSTRACT

As the complexity of multi-core embedded systems continuously grows, the optimization and verification of such systems become non-trivial. Thus, it is important to secure a set of benchmarks of reasonable complexity to validate the design of multi-core embedded systems. Dataflow model has long been considered as a suitable model-of-computation for specifying the behavior of embedded systems. In this paper, we proposes a dataflow benchmark generation technique for multi-core embedded systems, leveraging two existing tools: a random dataflow topology generator and a random C code generator. In the proposed technique, as a preparatory step, a C code database is established by means of a random C code generation tool. Then, a random dataflow graph, with execution time information annotated to each node, is generated by an existing tool. For each node in the generated graph, a number of randomly generated C code segments are properly chosen and accommodated in a single function as per the given execution time information. In doing so, a set of linear equations are derived and solved. Subsequently, using existing model-based embedded system design frameworks, we automatically generate an executable benchmark for the entire dataflow graph. Further, in order to enhance the accuracy of the generated code, a simple calibration technique is applied after the generation and test runs. It is shown that the generated codes assure the diversity and complexity as embedded software benchmark for multi-core embedded systems.

References

1. Robert P Dick, David L Rhodes, and Wayne Wolf. 1998. TGFF: task graphs for free. In Proceedings of the 6th international workshop on Hardware/software codesign. IEEE Computer Society, 97--101.
2. Sander Stuijk, Marc Geilen, and Twan Basten. 2006. SDF*** 3: SDF for free. In Application of Concurrency to System Design, 2006. ACSD 2006. Sixth International Conference on. IEEE, 276--278.
3. Steven Cameron Woo, Moriyoshi Ohara, Evan Torrie, Jaswinder Pal Singh, and Anoop Gupta. 1995. The SPLASH-2 programs: Characterization and methodological considerations. In Computer Architecture, 1995. Proceedings., 22nd Annual International Symposium on. IEEE, 24--36.
4. Christian Bienia, Sanjeev Kumar, Jaswinder Pal Singh, and Kai Li. 2008. The PARSEC benchmark suite: Characterization and architectural implications. In Proceedings of the 17th international conference on Parallel architectures and compilation techniques. ACM, 72--81.
5. Amit Kumar Singh, Muhammad Shafique, Akash Kumar, and Jörg Henkel. 2013. Mapping on multi/many-core systems: survey of current and emerging trends. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual Design Automation Conference. ACM, 1.
6. Edward A Lee and David G Messerschmitt. 1987. Synchronous data flow. Proc. IEEE 75, 9 (1987), 1235--1245.
7. KAHN Gilles. 1974. The semantics of a simple language for parallel programming. In Information Processing 74 (1974), 471--475.
8. Kaivalya M Dixit. 1991. The SPEC benchmarks. Parallel computing 17, 10--11 (1991), 1195--1209.
9. SPEC CPU2006. 2006. Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. (2006).
10. Matthew R Guthaus, Jeffrey S Ringenberg, Dan Ernst, Todd M Austin, Trevor Mudge, and Richard B Brown. 2001. MiBench: A free, commercially representative embedded benchmark suite. In Workload Characterization, 2001. WWC-4. 2001 IEEE International Workshop on. IEEE, 3--14.
11. Jason A Poovey, Thomas M Conte, Markus Levy, and Shay Gal-On. 2009. A benchmark characterization of the EEMBC benchmark suite. IEEE micro 29, 5 (2009).
12. Amir Hossein Ghamarian, Sander Stuijk, Twan Basten, MCW Geilen, and Bart D Theelen. 2007. Latency minimization for synchronous data flow graphs. In Digital System Design Architectures, Methods and Tools, 2007. DSD 2007. 10th Euromicro Conference on. IEEE, 189--196.
13. Sander Stuijk, Twan Basten, MCW Geilen, and Henk Corporaal. 2007. Multi-processor resource allocation for throughput-constrained synchronous dataflow graphs. In Proceedings of the 44th annual Design Automation Conference. ACM, 777--782.
14. Lothar Thiele and Nikolay Stoimenov. 2009. Modular performance analysis of cyclic dataflow graphs. In Proceedings of the seventh ACM international conference on Embedded software. ACM, 127--136.
15. Shuvra S Bhattacharyya, Praveen K Murthy, and Edward A Lee. 1999. Synthesis of embedded software from synchronous dataflow specifications. The Journal of VLSI Signal Processing 21, 2 (1999), 151--166.
16. Harold J Curnow and Brian A Wichmann. 1976. A synthetic benchmark. Comput. J. 19, 1 (1976), 43--49.
17. Reinhold P Weicker. 1984. Dhrystone: a synthetic systems programming benchmark. Commun. ACM 27, 10 (1984), 1013--1030.
18. Shuai Che, Michael Boyer, Jiayuan Meng, David Tarjan, Jeremy W Sheaffer, Sang-Ha Lee, and Kevin Skadron. 2009. Rodinia: A benchmark suite for heterogeneous computing. In Workload Characterization, 2009. IISWC 2009. IEEE International Symposium on. Ieee, 44--54.
19. Xuejun Yang, Yang Chen, Eric Eide, and John Regehr. 2011. Finding and understanding bugs in C compilers. In ACM SIGPLAN Notices, Vol. 46. ACM, 283--294.
20. Yorick De Bock, Sebastian Altmeyer, Jan Broeckhove, and Peter Hellinckx. 2016. Task-Set Generator for Schedulability Analysis using the TACLeBench benchmark suite.. In EWiLi.
21. Lars Schor, Iuliana Bacivarov, Devendra Rai, Hoeseok Yang, Shin-Haeng Kang, and Lothar Thiele. 2012. Scenario-based design flow for mapping streaming applications onto on-chip many-core systems. In Proceedings of the 2012 international conference on Compilers, architectures and synthesis for embedded systems. ACM, 71--80.
22. Hanwoong Jung, Chanhee Lee, Shin-Haeng Kang, Sungchan Kim, Hyunok Oh, and Soonhoi Ha. 2014. Dynamic behavior specification and dynamic mapping for real-time embedded systems: Hopes approach. ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems (TECS) 13, 4s (2014), 135.

Index Terms

• Computer systems organization

  • Embedded and cyber-physical systems

    • Embedded systems