FPGAs are well-suited for accelerating deep learning (DL) applications owing to the rapidly changing algorithms, network architectures and computation requirements in this field. However, the generic building blocks available on traditional FPGAs limit the acceleration that can be achieved. Many modifications to FPGA architecture have been proposed and deployed including adding specialized artificial intelligence (AI) processing engines, adding support for smaller precision math like 8-bit fixed point and IEEE half-precision (fp16) in DSP slices, adding shadow multipliers in logic blocks, etc. In this paper, we describe replacing a portion of the FPGA’s programmable logic area with Tensor Slices. These slices have a systolic array of processing elements at their heart that support multiple tensor operations, multiple dynamically-selectable precisions and can be dynamically fractured into individual multipliers and MACs (multiply-and-accumulate). These slices have a local crossbar at the inputs that helps with easing the routing pressure caused by a large block on the FPGA. Adding these DL-specific coarse-grained hard blocks to FPGAs increases their compute density and makes them even better hardware accelerators for DL applications, while still keeping the vast majority of the real estate on the FPGA programmable at fine-grain.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on July 27, 2024
CoMeFa: Deploying Compute-in-Memory on FPGAs for Deep Learning Acceleration
Block random access memories (BRAMs) are the storage houses of FPGAs, providing extensive on-chip memory bandwidth to the compute units implemented using logic blocks and digital signal processing slices. We propose modifying BRAMs to convert them to CoMeFa (Co mpute-in-Me mory Blocks forF PGA s) random access memories (RAMs). These RAMs provide highly parallel compute-in-memory by combining computation and storage capabilities in one block. CoMeFa RAMs utilize the true dual-port nature of FPGA BRAMs and contain multiple configurable single-bit bit-serial processing elements. CoMeFa RAMs can be used to compute with any precision, which is extremely important for applications like deep learning (DL). Adding CoMeFa RAMs to FPGAs significantly increases their compute density while also reducing data movement. We explore and propose two architectures of these RAMs: CoMeFa-D (optimized for delay) and CoMeFa-A (optimized for area). Compared to existing proposals, CoMeFa RAMs do not require changing the underlying static RAM technology like simultaneously activating multiple wordlines on the same port, and are practical to implement. CoMeFa RAMs are especially suitable for parallel and compute-intensive applications like DL, but these versatile blocks find applications in diverse applications like signal processing and databases, among others. By augmenting an Intel Arria 10–like FPGA with CoMeFa-D (CoMeFa-A) RAMs at the cost of 3.8% (1.2%) area, and with algorithmic improvements and efficient mapping, we observe a geomean speedup of 2.55× (1.85×) across microbenchmarks from various applications and a geomean speedup of up to 2.5× across multiple deep neural networks. Replacing all or some BRAMs with CoMeFa RAMs in FPGAs can make them better accelerators of DL workloads.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1763848
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10488312
- Publisher / Repository:
- ACM
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- ACM Transactions on Reconfigurable Technology and Systems
- Volume:
- 16
- Issue:
- 3
- ISSN:
- 1936-7406
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 50:1-50:34
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
The continued growth in the processing power of FPGAs coupled with high bandwidth memories (HBM), makes systems like the Xilinx U280 credible platforms for linear solvers which often dominate the run time of scientific and engineering applications. In this paper, we present Callipepla, an accelerator for a preconditioned conjugate gradient linear solver (CG). FPGA acceleration of CG faces three challenges: (1) how to support an arbitrary problem and terminate acceleration processing on the fly, (2) how to coordinate long-vector data flow among processing modules, and (3) how to save off-chip memory bandwidth and maintain double (FP64) precision accuracy. To tackle the three challenges, we present (1) a stream-centric instruction set for efficient streaming processing and control, (2) vector streaming reuse (VSR) and decentralized vector flow scheduling to coordinate vector data flow among modules and further reduce off-chip memory access latency with a double memory channel design, and (3) a mixed precision scheme to save bandwidth yet still achieve effective double precision quality solutions. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work to introduce the concept of VSR for data reusing between on-chip modules to reduce unnecessary off-chip accesses and enable modules working in parallel for FPGA accelerators. We prototype the accelerator on a Xilinx U280 HBM FPGA. Our evaluation shows that compared to the Xilinx HPC product, the XcgSolver, Callipepla achieves a speedup of 3.94×, 3.36× higher throughput, and 2.94× better energy efficiency. Compared to an NVIDIA A100 GPU which has 4× the memory bandwidth of Callipepla, we still achieve 77% of its throughput with 3.34× higher energy efficiency. The code is available at https://github.com/UCLA-VAST/Callipepla.more » « less
-
Obeid, Iyad Selesnick (Ed.)Electroencephalography (EEG) is a popular clinical monitoring tool used for diagnosing brain-related disorders such as epilepsy [1]. As monitoring EEGs in a critical-care setting is an expensive and tedious task, there is a great interest in developing real-time EEG monitoring tools to improve patient care quality and efficiency [2]. However, clinicians require automatic seizure detection tools that provide decisions with at least 75% sensitivity and less than 1 false alarm (FA) per 24 hours [3]. Some commercial tools recently claim to reach such performance levels, including the Olympic Brainz Monitor [4] and Persyst 14 [5]. In this abstract, we describe our efforts to transform a high-performance offline seizure detection system [3] into a low latency real-time or online seizure detection system. An overview of the system is shown in Figure 1. The main difference between an online versus offline system is that an online system should always be causal and has minimum latency which is often defined by domain experts. The offline system, shown in Figure 2, uses two phases of deep learning models with postprocessing [3]. The channel-based long short term memory (LSTM) model (Phase 1 or P1) processes linear frequency cepstral coefficients (LFCC) [6] features from each EEG channel separately. We use the hypotheses generated by the P1 model and create additional features that carry information about the detected events and their confidence. The P2 model uses these additional features and the LFCC features to learn the temporal and spatial aspects of the EEG signals using a hybrid convolutional neural network (CNN) and LSTM model. Finally, Phase 3 aggregates the results from both P1 and P2 before applying a final postprocessing step. The online system implements Phase 1 by taking advantage of the Linux piping mechanism, multithreading techniques, and multi-core processors. To convert Phase 1 into an online system, we divide the system into five major modules: signal preprocessor, feature extractor, event decoder, postprocessor, and visualizer. The system reads 0.1-second frames from each EEG channel and sends them to the feature extractor and the visualizer. The feature extractor generates LFCC features in real time from the streaming EEG signal. Next, the system computes seizure and background probabilities using a channel-based LSTM model and applies a postprocessor to aggregate the detected events across channels. The system then displays the EEG signal and the decisions simultaneously using a visualization module. The online system uses C++, Python, TensorFlow, and PyQtGraph in its implementation. The online system accepts streamed EEG data sampled at 250 Hz as input. The system begins processing the EEG signal by applying a TCP montage [8]. Depending on the type of the montage, the EEG signal can have either 22 or 20 channels. To enable the online operation, we send 0.1-second (25 samples) length frames from each channel of the streamed EEG signal to the feature extractor and the visualizer. Feature extraction is performed sequentially on each channel. The signal preprocessor writes the sample frames into two streams to facilitate these modules. In the first stream, the feature extractor receives the signals using stdin. In parallel, as a second stream, the visualizer shares a user-defined file with the signal preprocessor. This user-defined file holds raw signal information as a buffer for the visualizer. The signal preprocessor writes into the file while the visualizer reads from it. Reading and writing into the same file poses a challenge. The visualizer can start reading while the signal preprocessor is writing into it. To resolve this issue, we utilize a file locking mechanism in the signal preprocessor and visualizer. Each of the processes temporarily locks the file, performs its operation, releases the lock, and tries to obtain the lock after a waiting period. The file locking mechanism ensures that only one process can access the file by prohibiting other processes from reading or writing while one process is modifying the file [9]. The feature extractor uses circular buffers to save 0.3 seconds or 75 samples from each channel for extracting 0.2-second or 50-sample long center-aligned windows. The module generates 8 absolute LFCC features where the zeroth cepstral coefficient is replaced by a temporal domain energy term. For extracting the rest of the features, three pipelines are used. The differential energy feature is calculated in a 0.9-second absolute feature window with a frame size of 0.1 seconds. The difference between the maximum and minimum temporal energy terms is calculated in this range. Then, the first derivative or the delta features are calculated using another 0.9-second window. Finally, the second derivative or delta-delta features are calculated using a 0.3-second window [6]. The differential energy for the delta-delta features is not included. In total, we extract 26 features from the raw sample windows which add 1.1 seconds of delay to the system. We used the Temple University Hospital Seizure Database (TUSZ) v1.2.1 for developing the online system [10]. The statistics for this dataset are shown in Table 1. A channel-based LSTM model was trained using the features derived from the train set using the online feature extractor module. A window-based normalization technique was applied to those features. In the offline model, we scale features by normalizing using the maximum absolute value of a channel [11] before applying a sliding window approach. Since the online system has access to a limited amount of data, we normalize based on the observed window. The model uses the feature vectors with a frame size of 1 second and a window size of 7 seconds. We evaluated the model using the offline P1 postprocessor to determine the efficacy of the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique. As shown by the results of experiments 1 and 4 in Table 2, these changes give us a comparable performance to the offline model. The online event decoder module utilizes this trained model for computing probabilities for the seizure and background classes. These posteriors are then postprocessed to remove spurious detections. The online postprocessor receives and saves 8 seconds of class posteriors in a buffer for further processing. It applies multiple heuristic filters (e.g., probability threshold) to make an overall decision by combining events across the channels. These filters evaluate the average confidence, the duration of a seizure, and the channels where the seizures were observed. The postprocessor delivers the label and confidence to the visualizer. The visualizer starts to display the signal as soon as it gets access to the signal file, as shown in Figure 1 using the “Signal File” and “Visualizer” blocks. Once the visualizer receives the label and confidence for the latest epoch from the postprocessor, it overlays the decision and color codes that epoch. The visualizer uses red for seizure with the label SEIZ and green for the background class with the label BCKG. Once the streaming finishes, the system saves three files: a signal file in which the sample frames are saved in the order they were streamed, a time segmented event (TSE) file with the overall decisions and confidences, and a hypotheses (HYP) file that saves the label and confidence for each epoch. The user can plot the signal and decisions using the signal and HYP files with only the visualizer by enabling appropriate options. For comparing the performance of different stages of development, we used the test set of TUSZ v1.2.1 database. It contains 1015 EEG records of varying duration. The any-overlap performance [12] of the overall system shown in Figure 2 is 40.29% sensitivity with 5.77 FAs per 24 hours. For comparison, the previous state-of-the-art model developed on this database performed at 30.71% sensitivity with 6.77 FAs per 24 hours [3]. The individual performances of the deep learning phases are as follows: Phase 1’s (P1) performance is 39.46% sensitivity and 11.62 FAs per 24 hours, and Phase 2 detects seizures with 41.16% sensitivity and 11.69 FAs per 24 hours. We trained an LSTM model with the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique for developing the online system. Using the offline decoder and postprocessor, the model performed at 36.23% sensitivity with 9.52 FAs per 24 hours. The trained model was then evaluated with the online modules. The current performance of the overall online system is 45.80% sensitivity with 28.14 FAs per 24 hours. Table 2 summarizes the performances of these systems. The performance of the online system deviates from the offline P1 model because the online postprocessor fails to combine the events as the seizure probability fluctuates during an event. The modules in the online system add a total of 11.1 seconds of delay for processing each second of the data, as shown in Figure 3. In practice, we also count the time for loading the model and starting the visualizer block. When we consider these facts, the system consumes 15 seconds to display the first hypothesis. The system detects seizure onsets with an average latency of 15 seconds. Implementing an automatic seizure detection model in real time is not trivial. We used a variety of techniques such as the file locking mechanism, multithreading, circular buffers, real-time event decoding, and signal-decision plotting to realize the system. A video demonstrating the system is available at: https://www.isip.piconepress.com/projects/nsf_pfi_tt/resources/videos/realtime_eeg_analysis/v2.5.1/video_2.5.1.mp4. The final conference submission will include a more detailed analysis of the online performance of each module. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Research reported in this publication was most recently supported by the National Science Foundation Partnership for Innovation award number IIP-1827565 and the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Universal Research Enhancement Program (PA CURE). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official views of any of these organizations. REFERENCES [1] A. Craik, Y. He, and J. L. Contreras-Vidal, “Deep learning for electroencephalogram (EEG) classification tasks: a review,” J. Neural Eng., vol. 16, no. 3, p. 031001, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/ab0ab5. [2] A. C. Bridi, T. Q. Louro, and R. C. L. Da Silva, “Clinical Alarms in intensive care: implications of alarm fatigue for the safety of patients,” Rev. Lat. Am. Enfermagem, vol. 22, no. 6, p. 1034, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1169.3488.2513. [3] M. Golmohammadi, V. Shah, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Deep Learning Approaches for Automatic Seizure Detection from Scalp Electroencephalograms,” in Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology: Emerging Trends in Research and Applications, 1st ed., I. Obeid, I. Selesnick, and J. Picone, Eds. New York, New York, USA: Springer, 2020, pp. 233–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36844-9_8. [4] “CFM Olympic Brainz Monitor.” [Online]. Available: https://newborncare.natus.com/products-services/newborn-care-products/newborn-brain-injury/cfm-olympic-brainz-monitor. [Accessed: 17-Jul-2020]. [5] M. L. Scheuer, S. B. Wilson, A. Antony, G. Ghearing, A. Urban, and A. I. Bagic, “Seizure Detection: Interreader Agreement and Detection Algorithm Assessments Using a Large Dataset,” J. Clin. Neurophysiol., 2020. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNP.0000000000000709. [6] A. Harati, M. Golmohammadi, S. Lopez, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved EEG Event Classification Using Differential Energy,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium, 2015, pp. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB.2015.7405421. [7] V. Shah, C. Campbell, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved Spatio-Temporal Modeling in Automated Seizure Detection using Channel-Dependent Posteriors,” Neurocomputing, 2021. [8] W. Tatum, A. Husain, S. Benbadis, and P. Kaplan, Handbook of EEG Interpretation. New York City, New York, USA: Demos Medical Publishing, 2007. [9] D. P. Bovet and C. Marco, Understanding the Linux Kernel, 3rd ed. O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2005. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/understanding-the-linux/0596005652/. [10] V. Shah et al., “The Temple University Hospital Seizure Detection Corpus,” Front. Neuroinform., vol. 12, pp. 1–6, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2018.00083. [11] F. Pedregosa et al., “Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python,” J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 12, pp. 2825–2830, 2011. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1953048.2078195. [12] J. Gotman, D. Flanagan, J. Zhang, and B. Rosenblatt, “Automatic seizure detection in the newborn: Methods and initial evaluation,” Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol., vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 356–362, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-4694(97)00003-9.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)Processing-in-memory (PIM) architectures attempt to overcome the von Neumann bottleneck by combining computation and storage logic into a single component. The content-addressable parallel processing paradigm (CAPP) from the seventies is an in-situ PIM architecture that leverages content-addressable memories to realize bit-serial arithmetic and logic operations, via sequences of search and update operations over multiple memory rows in parallel. In this paper, we set out to investigate whether the concepts behind classic CAPP can be used successfully to build an entirely CMOS-based, general-purpose microarchitecture that can deliver manyfold speedups while remaining highly programmable. We conduct a full-stack design of a Content-Addressable Processing Engine (CAPE), built out of dense push-rule 6T SRAM arrays. CAPE is programmable using the RISC-V ISA with standard vector extensions. Our experiments show that CAPE achieves an average speedup of 14 (up to 254) over an area-equivalent (slightly under 9mm^2 at 7nm) out-of-order processor core with three levels of caches.more » « less
-
Because FPGAs outperform traditional processing cores like CPUs and GPUs in terms of performance per watt and flexibility, they are being used more and more in cloud and data center applications. There are growing worries about the security risks posed by multi-tenant sharing as the demand for hardware acceleration increases and gradually gives way to FPGA multi-tenancy in the cloud. The confidentiality, integrity, and availability of FPGA-accelerated applications may be compromised if space-shared FPGAs are made available to many cloud tenants. We propose a root of trust-based trusted execution mechanism called TrustToken to prevent harmful software-level attackers from getting unauthorized access and jeopardizing security. With safe key creation and truly random sources, TrustToken creates a security block that serves as the foundation of trust-based IP security. By offering crucial security characteristics, such as secure, isolated execution and trusted user interaction, TrustToken only permits trustworthy connection between the non-trusted third-party IP and the rest of the SoC environment. The suggested approach does this by connecting the third-party IP interface to the TrustToken Controller and running run-time checks on the correctness of the IP authorization(Token) signals. With an emphasis on software-based assaults targeting unauthorized access and information leakage, we offer a noble hardware/software architecture for trusted execution in FPGA-accelerated clouds and data centers.more » « less
