{"title":"比较TILT叠加处理器与OpenCL HLS的性能、生产率和可扩展性","authors":"Rafat Rashid, J. Steffan, Vaughn Betz","doi":"10.1109/FPT.2014.7082748","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"High-Level-Synthesis (HLS) tools translate a software description of an application into custom FPGA logic, increasing designer productivity vs. Hardware Description Language (HDL) design flows. Overlays seek to further improve productivity by reducing application compile times and raising abstraction by enabling the designer to target a software-programmable substrate instead of the underlying FPGA. We compare the performance, development effort and scalability of two C-to-FPGA approaches: our TILT overlay processor and Altera's OpenCL HLS. Our application-customized TILT implementations of five data-parallel benchmarks have from 41 % to 80% of the throughput per unit of layout area achieved by our best OpenCL HLS designs. The time required for initial hardware compilation of these TILT designs and configuration of the target application onto the overlay is roughly comparable to the compile times of the OpenCL HLS designs: 28 and 103 minutes on average respectively. However subsequent reconfigurations due to changes in the application that do not require re-synthesis of the overlay are fast, taking 38 seconds on average. In contrast, OpenCL HLS applications require full recompilation after every code change. TILT also enables smaller, more area-efficient designs than OpenCL HLS when low to moderate throughput is sufficient. For high throughput, the larger spatially pipelined designs of OpenCL HLS are preferable.","PeriodicalId":6877,"journal":{"name":"2014 International Conference on Field-Programmable Technology (FPT)","volume":"50 1","pages":"20-27"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"42","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing performance, productivity and scalability of the TILT overlay processor to OpenCL HLS\",\"authors\":\"Rafat Rashid, J. Steffan, Vaughn Betz\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/FPT.2014.7082748\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"High-Level-Synthesis (HLS) tools translate a software description of an application into custom FPGA logic, increasing designer productivity vs. Hardware Description Language (HDL) design flows. Overlays seek to further improve productivity by reducing application compile times and raising abstraction by enabling the designer to target a software-programmable substrate instead of the underlying FPGA. We compare the performance, development effort and scalability of two C-to-FPGA approaches: our TILT overlay processor and Altera's OpenCL HLS. Our application-customized TILT implementations of five data-parallel benchmarks have from 41 % to 80% of the throughput per unit of layout area achieved by our best OpenCL HLS designs. The time required for initial hardware compilation of these TILT designs and configuration of the target application onto the overlay is roughly comparable to the compile times of the OpenCL HLS designs: 28 and 103 minutes on average respectively. However subsequent reconfigurations due to changes in the application that do not require re-synthesis of the overlay are fast, taking 38 seconds on average. In contrast, OpenCL HLS applications require full recompilation after every code change. TILT also enables smaller, more area-efficient designs than OpenCL HLS when low to moderate throughput is sufficient. For high throughput, the larger spatially pipelined designs of OpenCL HLS are preferable.\",\"PeriodicalId\":6877,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2014 International Conference on Field-Programmable Technology (FPT)\",\"volume\":\"50 1\",\"pages\":\"20-27\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"42\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2014 International Conference on Field-Programmable Technology (FPT)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/FPT.2014.7082748\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2014 International Conference on Field-Programmable Technology (FPT)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/FPT.2014.7082748","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparing performance, productivity and scalability of the TILT overlay processor to OpenCL HLS
High-Level-Synthesis (HLS) tools translate a software description of an application into custom FPGA logic, increasing designer productivity vs. Hardware Description Language (HDL) design flows. Overlays seek to further improve productivity by reducing application compile times and raising abstraction by enabling the designer to target a software-programmable substrate instead of the underlying FPGA. We compare the performance, development effort and scalability of two C-to-FPGA approaches: our TILT overlay processor and Altera's OpenCL HLS. Our application-customized TILT implementations of five data-parallel benchmarks have from 41 % to 80% of the throughput per unit of layout area achieved by our best OpenCL HLS designs. The time required for initial hardware compilation of these TILT designs and configuration of the target application onto the overlay is roughly comparable to the compile times of the OpenCL HLS designs: 28 and 103 minutes on average respectively. However subsequent reconfigurations due to changes in the application that do not require re-synthesis of the overlay are fast, taking 38 seconds on average. In contrast, OpenCL HLS applications require full recompilation after every code change. TILT also enables smaller, more area-efficient designs than OpenCL HLS when low to moderate throughput is sufficient. For high throughput, the larger spatially pipelined designs of OpenCL HLS are preferable.