skip to main content


Title: How Good Is Your Verilog RTL Code? A Quick Answer from Machine Learning
Hardware Description Language (HDL) is a common entry point for designing digital circuits. Differences in HDL coding styles and design choices may lead to considerably different design quality and performance-power tradeoff. In general, the impact of HDL coding is not clear until logic synthesis or even layout is completed. However, running synthesis merely as a feedback for HDL code is computationally not economical especially in early design phases when the code needs to be frequently modified. Furthermore, in late stages of design convergence burdened with high-impact engineering change orders (ECO’s), design iterations become prohibitively expensive. To this end, we propose a machine learning approach to Verilog-based Register-Transfer Level (RTL) design assessment without going through the synthesis process. It would allow designers to quickly evaluate the performance-power tradeoff among different options of RTL designs. Experimental results show that our proposed technique achieves an average of 95% prediction accuracy in terms of post-placement analysis, and is 6 orders of magnitude faster than evaluation by running logic synthesis and placement.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
2106725
NSF-PAR ID:
10464459
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-Aided Design
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Hardware Description Language (HDL) is a common entry point for designing digital circuits. Differences in HDL coding styles and design choices may lead to considerably different design quality and performance-power tradeoff. In general, the impact of HDL coding is not clear until logic synthesis or even layout is completed. However, running synthesis merely as a feedback for HDL code is computationally not economical especially in early design phases when the code needs to be frequently modified. Furthermore, in late stages of design convergence burdened with high-impact engineering change orders (ECO’s), design iterations become prohibitively expensive. To this end, we propose a machine learning approach to Verilog-based Register-Transfer Level (RTL) design assessment without going through the synthesis process. It would allow designers to quickly evaluate the performance-power tradeoff among different options of RTL designs. Experimental results show that our proposed technique achieves an average of 95% prediction accuracy in terms of post-placement analysis, and is 6 orders of magnitude faster than evaluation by running logic synthesis and placement. 
    more » « less
  2. Processors are typically designed in Register Transfer Level (RTL) languages, which give designers low-level control over circuit structure and timing. To achieve good performance, processors are pipelined, with multiple instructions executing concurrently in different parts of the circuit. Thus even though processors implement a fundamentally sequential specification (the instruction set architecture), the implementation is highly concurrent. The interactions of multiple instructions---potentially speculative---can cause incorrect behavior. We present PDL, a novel hardware description language targeted at the construction of pipelined processors. PDL provides one instruction at a time semantics: the first language to enforce that the generated pipelined circuit has the same behavior as a sequential specification. This enforcement facilitates design-space exploration. Adding or removing pipeline stages, moving operations across stages, or otherwise changing pipeline structure normally requires careful analysis of bypass paths and stall logic; with PDL, this analysis is handled by the PDL compiler. At the same time, PDL still offers designers fine-grained control over performance-critical microarchitectural choices such as timing of operations, data forwarding, and speculation. We demonstrate PDL's expressive power and ease of design exploration by implementing several RISC-V cores with differing microarchitectures. Our results show that PDL does not impose significant performance or area overhead compared to a standard HDL. 
    more » « less
  3. The control of cryogenic qubits in today’s super-conducting quantum computer prototypes presents significant scalability challenges due to the massive costs of generating/routing the analog control signals that need to be sent from a classical controller at room temperature to the quantum chip inside the dilution refrigerator. Thus, researchers in industry and academia have focused on designing in-fridge classical controllers in order to mitigate these challenges. Due to the maturity of CMOS logic, many industrial efforts (Microsoft, Intel) have focused on Cryo-CMOS as a near-term solution to design in-fridge classical controllers. Meanwhile, Supercon-ducting Single Flux Quantum (SFQ) is an alternative, less mature classical logic family proposed for large-scale in-fridge controllers. SFQ logic has the potential to maximize scalability thanks to its ultra-high speed and very low power consumption. However, architecture design for SFQ logic poses challenges due to its unconventional pulse-driven nature and lack of dense memory and logic. Thus, research at the architecture level is essential to guide architects to design SFQ-based classical controllers for large-scale quantum machines.In this paper, we present DigiQ, the first system-level design of a Noisy Intermediate Scale Quantum (NISQ)-friendly SFQ-based classical controller. We perform a design space exploration of SFQ-based controllers and co-design the quantum gate decompositions and SFQ-based implementation of those decompositions to find an optimal SFQ-friendly design point that trades area and power for latency and control while ensuring good quantum algorithmic performance. Our co-design results in a single instruction, multiple data (SIMD) controller architecture, which has high scalability, but imposes new challenges on the calibration of control pulses. We present software-level solutions to address these challenges, which if unaddressed would degrade quantum circuit fidelity given the imperfections of qubit hardware.To validate and characterize DigiQ, we first implement it using hardware description languages and synthesize it using state-of-the-art/validated SFQ synthesis tools. Our synthesis results show that DigiQ can operate within the tight power and area budget of dilution refrigerators at >42,000-qubit scales. Second, we confirm the effectiveness of DigiQ in running quantum algorithms by modeling the execution time and fidelity of a variety of NISQ applications. We hope that the promising results of this paper motivate experimentalists to further explore SFQ-based quantum controllers to realize large-scale quantum machines with maximized scalability. 
    more » « less
  4. With the end of Dennard scaling, power constraints have led to increasing compute specialization in the form of differently specialized accelerators integrated at various levels of the general-purpose system hierarchy. The result is that the most common general-purpose computing platform is now a heterogeneous mix of architectures even within a single die. Consequently, mapping application code regions into available execution engines has become a challenge due to different interfaces and increased software complexity. At the same time, the energy costs of data movement have become increasingly dominant relative to computation energy. This has inspired a move towards data-centric systems, where computation is brought to data, in contrast to traditional processing-centric models. However, enabling compute nearer memory entails its own challenges, including the interactions between distance-specialization and compute-specialization. The granularity of any offload to near(er) memory logic would impact the potential data transmission reduction, as smaller offloads will not be able to amortize the transmission costs of invocation and data return, while very large offloads can only be mapped onto logic that can support all of the necessary operations within kernel-scale codes, which exacerbates both area and power constraints. For better energy efficiency, each set of related operations should be mapped onto the execution engine that, among those capable of running the set of operations, best balances the data movement and the degree of compute specialization of that engine for this code. Further, this offload should proceed in a decentralized way that keeps both the data and control movement low for all transitions among engines and transmissions of operands and results. To enable such a decentralized offload model, we propose an architecture interface that enables a common offload model for accelerators across the memory hierarchy and a tool chain to automatically identify (in a distance-aware fashion) and map profitable code regions on specialized execution engines. We evaluate the proposed architecture for a wide range of workloads and show energy reduction compared to an energy-efficient in-order core. We also demonstrate better area efficiency compared to kernel-scale offloads. 
    more » « less
  5. Obeid, I. ; Selesnik, I. ; Picone, J. (Ed.)
    The Neuronix high-performance computing cluster allows us to conduct extensive machine learning experiments on big data [1]. This heterogeneous cluster uses innovative scheduling technology, Slurm [2], that manages a network of CPUs and graphics processing units (GPUs). The GPU farm consists of a variety of processors ranging from low-end consumer grade devices such as the Nvidia GTX 970 to higher-end devices such as the GeForce RTX 2080. These GPUs are essential to our research since they allow extremely compute-intensive deep learning tasks to be executed on massive data resources such as the TUH EEG Corpus [2]. We use TensorFlow [3] as the core machine learning library for our deep learning systems, and routinely employ multiple GPUs to accelerate the training process. Reproducible results are essential to machine learning research. Reproducibility in this context means the ability to replicate an existing experiment – performance metrics such as error rates should be identical and floating-point calculations should match closely. Three examples of ways we typically expect an experiment to be replicable are: (1) The same job run on the same processor should produce the same results each time it is run. (2) A job run on a CPU and GPU should produce identical results. (3) A job should produce comparable results if the data is presented in a different order. System optimization requires an ability to directly compare error rates for algorithms evaluated under comparable operating conditions. However, it is a difficult task to exactly reproduce the results for large, complex deep learning systems that often require more than a trillion calculations per experiment [5]. This is a fairly well-known issue and one we will explore in this poster. Researchers must be able to replicate results on a specific data set to establish the integrity of an implementation. They can then use that implementation as a baseline for comparison purposes. A lack of reproducibility makes it very difficult to debug algorithms and validate changes to the system. Equally important, since many results in deep learning research are dependent on the order in which the system is exposed to the data, the specific processors used, and even the order in which those processors are accessed, it becomes a challenging problem to compare two algorithms since each system must be individually optimized for a specific data set or processor. This is extremely time-consuming for algorithm research in which a single run often taxes a computing environment to its limits. Well-known techniques such as cross-validation [5,6] can be used to mitigate these effects, but this is also computationally expensive. These issues are further compounded by the fact that most deep learning algorithms are susceptible to the way computational noise propagates through the system. GPUs are particularly notorious for this because, in a clustered environment, it becomes more difficult to control which processors are used at various points in time. Another equally frustrating issue is that upgrades to the deep learning package, such as the transition from TensorFlow v1.9 to v1.13, can also result in large fluctuations in error rates when re-running the same experiment. Since TensorFlow is constantly updating functions to support GPU use, maintaining an historical archive of experimental results that can be used to calibrate algorithm research is quite a challenge. This makes it very difficult to optimize the system or select the best configurations. The overall impact of all of these issues described above is significant as error rates can fluctuate by as much as 25% due to these types of computational issues. Cross-validation is one technique used to mitigate this, but that is expensive since you need to do multiple runs over the data, which further taxes a computing infrastructure already running at max capacity. GPUs are preferred when training a large network since these systems train at least two orders of magnitude faster than CPUs [7]. Large-scale experiments are simply not feasible without using GPUs. However, there is a tradeoff to gain this performance. Since all our GPUs use the NVIDIA CUDA® Deep Neural Network library (cuDNN) [8], a GPU-accelerated library of primitives for deep neural networks, it adds an element of randomness into the experiment. When a GPU is used to train a network in TensorFlow, it automatically searches for a cuDNN implementation. NVIDIA’s cuDNN implementation provides algorithms that increase the performance and help the model train quicker, but they are non-deterministic algorithms [9,10]. Since our networks have many complex layers, there is no easy way to avoid this randomness. Instead of comparing each epoch, we compare the average performance of the experiment because it gives us a hint of how our model is performing per experiment, and if the changes we make are efficient. In this poster, we will discuss a variety of issues related to reproducibility and introduce ways we mitigate these effects. For example, TensorFlow uses a random number generator (RNG) which is not seeded by default. TensorFlow determines the initialization point and how certain functions execute using the RNG. The solution for this is seeding all the necessary components before training the model. This forces TensorFlow to use the same initialization point and sets how certain layers work (e.g., dropout layers). However, seeding all the RNGs will not guarantee a controlled experiment. Other variables can affect the outcome of the experiment such as training using GPUs, allowing multi-threading on CPUs, using certain layers, etc. To mitigate our problems with reproducibility, we first make sure that the data is processed in the same order during training. Therefore, we save the data from the last experiment and to make sure the newer experiment follows the same order. If we allow the data to be shuffled, it can affect the performance due to how the model was exposed to the data. We also specify the float data type to be 32-bit since Python defaults to 64-bit. We try to avoid using 64-bit precision because the numbers produced by a GPU can vary significantly depending on the GPU architecture [11-13]. Controlling precision somewhat reduces differences due to computational noise even though technically it increases the amount of computational noise. We are currently developing more advanced techniques for preserving the efficiency of our training process while also maintaining the ability to reproduce models. In our poster presentation we will demonstrate these issues using some novel visualization tools, present several examples of the extent to which these issues influence research results on electroencephalography (EEG) and digital pathology experiments and introduce new ways to manage such computational issues. 
    more » « less