Multi-core architectures

Multi-core architectures Jernej Barbic 15-213, Spring 2007 May 3, 2007

Single-core CPU chip the single core

Multi-core architectures This lecture is about a new trend in computer architecture: Replicate multiple processor cores on a single die. Core 1 Core 2 Core 3 Core 4 Multi-core CPU chip

Multi-core CPU chip The cores fit on a single processor socket Also called CMP (Chip Multi-Processor) core 1 core 2 core 3 core 4

The cores run in parallel core 1 core 2 core 3 core 4 thread 1 thread 2 thread 3 thread 4

Within each core, threads are time-sliced (just like on a uniprocessor) core 1 core 2 core 3 core 4 several threads several threads several threads several threads

Interaction with the Operating System OS perceives each core as a separate processor OS scheduler maps threads/processes to different cores Most major OS support multi-core today: Windows, Linux, Mac OS X, …

Why multi-core ? Difficult to make single-core clock frequencies even higher Deeply pipelined circuits: heat problems speed of light problems difficult design and verification large design teams necessary server farms need expensive air-conditioning Many new applications are multithreaded General trend in computer architecture (shift towards more parallelism)

Instruction-level parallelism Parallelism at the machine-instruction level The processor can re-order, pipeline instructions, split them into microinstructions, do aggressive branch prediction, etc. Instruction-level parallelism enabled rapid increases in processor speeds over the last 15 years

Thread-level parallelism (TLP) This is parallelism on a more coarser scale Server can serve each client in a separate thread (Web server, database server) A computer game can do AI, graphics, and physics in three separate threads Single-core superscalar processors cannot fully exploit TLP Multi-core architectures are the next step in processor evolution: explicitly exploiting TLP

General context: Multiprocessors Multiprocessor is any computer with several processors SIMD Single instruction, multiple data Modern graphics cards MIMD Multiple instructions, multiple data Lemieux cluster, Pittsburgh supercomputing center

Multiprocessor memory types Shared memory: In this model, there is one (large) common shared memory for all processors Distributed memory: In this model, each processor has its own (small) local memory, and its content is not replicated anywhere else

Multi-core processor is a special kind of a multiprocessor: All processors are on the same chip Multi-core processors are MIMD: Different cores execute different threads ( M ultiple I nstructions), operating on different parts of memory ( M ultiple D ata). Multi-core is a shared memory multiprocessor: All cores share the same memory

What applications benefit from multi-core? Database servers Web servers (Web commerce) Compilers Multimedia applications Scientific applications, CAD/CAM In general, applications with Thread-level parallelism (as opposed to instruction-level parallelism) Each can run on its own core

More examples Editing a photo while recording a TV show through a digital video recorder Downloading software while running an anti-virus program “Anything that can be threaded today will map efficiently to multi-core” BUT: some applications difficult to parallelize

A technique complementary to multi-core: Simultaneous multithreading Problem addressed: The processor pipeline can get stalled: Waiting for the result of a long floating point (or integer) operation Waiting for data to arrive from memory Other execution units wait unused Source: Intel BTB and I-TLB Decoder Trace Cache Rename/Alloc Uop queues Schedulers Integer Floating Point L1 D-Cache D-TLB uCode ROM BTB L2 Cache and Control Bus

Simultaneous multithreading (SMT) Permits multiple independent threads to execute SIMULTANEOUSLY on the SAME core Weaving together multiple “threads” on the same core Example: if one thread is waiting for a floating point operation to complete, another thread can use the integer units

Without SMT, only a single thread can run at any given time BTB and I-TLB Decoder Trace Cache Rename/Alloc Uop queues Schedulers Integer Floating Point L1 D-Cache D-TLB uCode ROM BTB L2 Cache and Control Bus Thread 1: floating point

Without SMT, only a single thread can run at any given time BTB and I-TLB Decoder Trace Cache Rename/Alloc Uop queues Schedulers Integer Floating Point L1 D-Cache D-TLB uCode ROM BTB L2 Cache and Control Bus Thread 2: integer operation

SMT processor: both threads can run concurrently BTB and I-TLB Decoder Trace Cache Rename/Alloc Uop queues Schedulers Integer Floating Point L1 D-Cache D-TLB uCode ROM BTB L2 Cache and Control Bus Thread 1: floating point Thread 2: integer operation

But: Can’t simultaneously use the same functional unit BTB and I-TLB Decoder Trace Cache Rename/Alloc Uop queues Schedulers Integer Floating Point L1 D-Cache D-TLB uCode ROM BTB L2 Cache and Control Bus Thread 1 Thread 2 This scenario is impossible with SMT on a single core (assuming a single integer unit) IMPOSSIBLE

SMT not a “true” parallel processor Enables better threading (e.g. up to 30%) OS and applications perceive each simultaneous thread as a separate “virtual processor” The chip has only a single copy of each resource Compare to multi-core: each core has its own copy of resources

Multi-core: threads can run on separate cores BTB and I-TLB Decoder Trace Cache Rename/Alloc Uop queues Schedulers Integer Floating Point L1 D-Cache D-TLB uCode ROM BTB L2 Cache and Control Bus BTB and I-TLB Decoder Trace Cache Rename/Alloc Uop queues Schedulers Integer Floating Point L1 D-Cache D-TLB uCode ROM BTB L2 Cache and Control Bus Thread 1 Thread 2

Multi-core: threads can run on separate cores BTB and I-TLB Decoder Trace Cache Rename/Alloc Uop queues Schedulers Integer Floating Point L1 D-Cache D-TLB uCode ROM BTB L2 Cache and Control Bus BTB and I-TLB Decoder Trace Cache Rename/Alloc Uop queues Schedulers Integer Floating Point L1 D-Cache D-TLB uCode ROM BTB L2 Cache and Control Bus Thread 3 Thread 4

Combining Multi-core and SMT Cores can be SMT-enabled (or not) The different combinations: Single-core, non-SMT: standard uniprocessor Single-core, with SMT Multi-core, non-SMT Multi-core, with SMT: our fish machines The number of SMT threads: 2, 4, or sometimes 8 simultaneous threads Intel calls them “hyper-threads”

SMT Dual-core: all four threads can run concurrently BTB and I-TLB Decoder Trace Cache Rename/Alloc Uop queues Schedulers Integer Floating Point L1 D-Cache D-TLB uCode ROM BTB L2 Cache and Control Bus BTB and I-TLB Decoder Trace Cache Rename/Alloc Uop queues Schedulers Integer Floating Point L1 D-Cache D-TLB uCode ROM BTB L2 Cache and Control Bus Thread 1 Thread 3 Thread 2 Thread 4

Comparison: multi-core vs SMT Advantages/disadvantages?

Comparison: multi-core vs SMT Multi-core: Since there are several cores, each is smaller and not as powerful (but also easier to design and manufacture) However, great with thread-level parallelism SMT Can have one large and fast superscalar core Great performance on a single thread Mostly still only exploits instruction-level parallelism

The memory hierarchy If simultaneous multithreading only: all caches shared Multi-core chips: L1 caches private L2 caches private in some architectures and shared in others Memory is always shared

“Fish” machines Dual-core Intel Xeon processors Each core is hyper-threaded Private L1 caches Shared L2 caches memory L2 cache L1 cache L1 cache C O R E 1 C O R E 0 hyper-threads

Designs with private L2 caches memory L2 cache L1 cache L1 cache C O R E 1 C O R E 0 L2 cache memory L2 cache L1 cache L1 cache C O R E 1 C O R E 0 L2 cache Both L1 and L2 are private Examples: AMD Opteron, AMD Athlon, Intel Pentium D L3 cache L3 cache A design with L3 caches Example: Intel Itanium 2

Private vs shared caches? Advantages/disadvantages?

Private vs shared caches Advantages of private: They are closer to core, so faster access Reduces contention Advantages of shared: Threads on different cores can share the same cache data More cache space available if a single (or a few) high-performance thread runs on the system

The cache coherence problem Since we have private caches: How to keep the data consistent across caches? Each core should perceive the memory as a monolithic array, shared by all the cores

The cache coherence problem Suppose variable x initially contains 15213 One or more levels of cache One or more levels of cache One or more levels of cache One or more levels of cache Main memory x=15213 multi-core chip Core 1 Core 2 Core 3 Core 4

The cache coherence problem Core 1 reads x One or more levels of cache x=15213 One or more levels of cache One or more levels of cache One or more levels of cache Main memory x=15213 multi-core chip Core 1 Core 2 Core 3 Core 4

The cache coherence problem Core 2 reads x One or more levels of cache x=15213 One or more levels of cache x=15213 One or more levels of cache One or more levels of cache Main memory x=15213 multi-core chip Core 1 Core 2 Core 3 Core 4

The cache coherence problem Core 1 writes to x, setting it to 21660 One or more levels of cache x=21660 One or more levels of cache x=15213 One or more levels of cache One or more levels of cache Main memory x=21660 multi-core chip assuming write-through caches Core 1 Core 2 Core 3 Core 4

The cache coherence problem Core 2 attempts to read x… gets a stale copy One or more levels of cache x=21660 One or more levels of cache x=15213 One or more levels of cache One or more levels of cache Main memory x=21660 multi-core chip Core 1 Core 2 Core 3 Core 4

Solutions for cache coherence This is a general problem with multiprocessors, not limited just to multi-core There exist many solution algorithms, coherence protocols, etc. A simple solution: invalidation -based protocol with snooping

Inter-core bus One or more levels of cache One or more levels of cache One or more levels of cache One or more levels of cache Main memory multi-core chip inter-core bus Core 1 Core 2 Core 3 Core 4

Invalidation protocol with snooping Invalidation: If a core writes to a data item, all other copies of this data item in other caches are invalidated Snooping: All cores continuously “snoop” (monitor) the bus connecting the cores.

The cache coherence problem Revisited: Cores 1 and 2 have both read x One or more levels of cache x=15213 One or more levels of cache x=15213 One or more levels of cache One or more levels of cache Main memory x=15213 multi-core chip Core 1 Core 2 Core 3 Core 4

The cache coherence problem Core 1 writes to x, setting it to 21660 One or more levels of cache x=21660 One or more levels of cache x=15213 One or more levels of cache One or more levels of cache Main memory x=21660 multi-core chip assuming write-through caches INVALIDATED sends invalidation request inter-core bus Core 1 Core 2 Core 3 Core 4

The cache coherence problem After invalidation: One or more levels of cache x=21660 One or more levels of cache One or more levels of cache One or more levels of cache Main memory x=21660 multi-core chip Core 1 Core 2 Core 3 Core 4

The cache coherence problem Core 2 reads x. Cache misses, and loads the new copy. One or more levels of cache x=21660 One or more levels of cache x=21660 One or more levels of cache One or more levels of cache Main memory x=21660 multi-core chip Core 1 Core 2 Core 3 Core 4

Alternative to invalidate protocol: update protocol Core 1 writes x=21660: One or more levels of cache x=21660 One or more levels of cache x= 21660 One or more levels of cache One or more levels of cache Main memory x=21660 multi-core chip assuming write-through caches UPDATED broadcasts updated value inter-core bus Core 1 Core 2 Core 3 Core 4

Which do you think is better? Invalidation or update?

Invalidation vs update Multiple writes to the same location invalidation: only the first time update: must broadcast each write (which includes new variable value) Invalidation generally performs better: it generates less bus traffic

Invalidation protocols This was just the basic invalidation protocol More sophisticated protocols use extra cache state bits MSI, MESI (Modified, Exclusive, Shared, Invalid)

Programming for multi-core Programmers must use threads or processes Spread the workload across multiple cores Write parallel algorithms OS will map threads/processes to cores

Thread safety very important Pre-emptive context switching: context switch can happen AT ANY TIME True concurrency, not just uniprocessor time-slicing Concurrency bugs exposed much faster with multi-core

However: Need to use synchronization even if only time-slicing on a uniprocessor int counter=0; void thread1() { int temp1=counter; counter = temp1 + 1; } void thread2() { int temp2=counter; counter = temp2 + 1; }

Need to use synchronization even if only time-slicing on a uniprocessor temp1=counter; counter = temp1 + 1; temp2=counter; counter = temp2 + 1 temp1=counter; temp2=counter; counter = temp1 + 1; counter = temp2 + 1 gives counter=2 gives counter=1

Assigning threads to the cores Each thread/process has an affinity mask Affinity mask specifies what cores the thread is allowed to run on Different threads can have different masks Affinities are inherited across fork()

Affinity masks are bit vectors Example: 4-way multi-core, without SMT 1 0 1 1 core 3 core 2 core 1 core 0 Process/thread is allowed to run on cores 0,2,3, but not on core 1

Affinity masks when multi-core and SMT combined Separate bits for each simultaneous thread Example: 4-way multi-core, 2 threads per core 1 core 3 core 2 core 1 core 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 thread 1 Core 2 can’t run the process Core 1 can only use one simultaneous thread thread 0 thread 1 thread 0 thread 1 thread 0 thread 1 thread 0

Default Affinities Default affinity mask is all 1s: all threads can run on all processors Then, the OS scheduler decides what threads run on what core OS scheduler detects skewed workloads, migrating threads to less busy processors

Process migration is costly Need to restart the execution pipeline Cached data is invalidated OS scheduler tries to avoid migration as much as possible: it tends to keeps a thread on the same core This is called soft affinity

Hard affinities The programmer can prescribe her own affinities (hard affinities) Rule of thumb: use the default scheduler unless a good reason not to

When to set your own affinities Two (or more) threads share data-structures in memory map to same core so that can share cache Real-time threads: Example: a thread running a robot controller: - must not be context switched, or else robot can go unstable - dedicate an entire core just to this thread Source: Sensable.com

Kernel scheduler API #include <sched.h> int sched_getaffinity (pid_t pid, unsigned int len, unsigned long * mask); Retrieves the current affinity mask of process ‘pid’ and stores it into space pointed to by ‘mask’. ‘ len’ is the system word size: sizeof(unsigned int long)

Kernel scheduler API #include <sched.h> int sched_setaffinity (pid_t pid, unsigned int len, unsigned long * mask); Sets the current affinity mask of process ‘pid’ to *mask ‘ len’ is the system word size: sizeof(unsigned int long) To query affinity of a running process: [barbic@bonito ~]$ taskset -p 3935 pid 3935's current affinity mask: f

Windows Task Manager core 2 core 1

Legal licensing issues Will software vendors charge a separate license per each core or only a single license per chip? Microsoft, Red Hat Linux, Suse Linux will license their OS per chip, not per core

Conclusion Multi-core chips an important new trend in computer architecture Several new multi-core chips in design phases Parallel programming techniques likely to gain importance

Multi-core architectures

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Multi-core architectures (20)

More from nextlib (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Multi-core architectures