Date post: | 14-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | collin-sellers |
View: | 213 times |
Download: | 0 times |
1
A Hybrid Adaptive Feedback Based Prefetcher
Santhosh Verma, David Koppelman and Lu PengLouisiana State University
2
Motivation
Can’t always expect high prefetch accuracy & timeliness
Potential can be lost when these are low Adaptive schemes adjust aggressiveness
based on effectiveness Adaption and selectiveness as important as
address prediction
3
Our Scheme – Hybrid Adaptive Prefetcher (HAP)
Start with good address prediction – Stride / Sequential hybrid Sequential prefetching scheme requires no warmup Stride prefetcher is more robust
Issue prefetches selectively Incorporate a published adaptive prefetch
method Feedback Directed Prefetching (Srinath et. al, HPCA
2007) Improve with bandwidth adaption
4
Related Work – Feedback Directed Prefetching (HPCA 2007)
Prefetcher aggressiveness defined by prefetch distance and degree
Aggressiveness adjusted dynamically based on three feedback metrics Percentage of useful prefetches Percentage of late prefetches Percentage of prefetches which cause demand
misses (cache pollution)
5
Differences between FDP and our scheme
Use both L1 and L2 prefetching Scheme is modified to support L1/L2
Use a hybrid stride / sequential prefetching scheme
A bandwidth based feedback metric is proposed
No cache pollution metric
6
Stride/Sequential Prefetching Scheme – Training Stride Prefetcher
Use a PC-indexed stride prediction scheme
Stride Prediction Table Entry
1. Compute new stride usingthis field and current address value
2. Store computed stride
3. Increment count for unchanged strideReset otherwise
Entry is trained if Count is above a threshold
value
7
Stride/Sequential Prefetching Scheme – Issuing Prefetches
Check stride table on demand miss / hit to prefetched line Issue stride prefetches based on degree and
distance
Sequential prefetches If no valid / trained stride entry If previous line present in cache Issue sequential prefetches based on degree
8
Adjusting Aggressiveness with Feedback Metrics
Prefetch Accuracy – Percentage of prefetches used by a demand request
Prefetch Lateness – Percentage of accurate prefetches which are late
Bandwidth Contention – Percentage of clock cycles during which cache bandwidth is above a threshold
Evaluate separately for L1 and L2 Evaluate periodically after fixed number of cycles.
Adjust aggressiveness if justified.
9
Storage efficient Miss Status Hit Registers (MSHRs)
Used to track all inflight / inqueue memory requests at both cache levels
MSHR Entry
1. Entry allocated for each outstanding L1 and / or L2 request. Valid bit set.
2. Two bit cache level field indicates L1 only, L2 only or combined L1 / L2
3. Two prefetch bits indicate prefetch requests
4. Concurrent L1 and L2 requests to the same line share the sameMSHR entry
10
Implementing Feedback Metrics
Prefetch Accuracy Prefetch bit set for prefetched line brought into
cache Bit set in MSHR for inflight / inqueue prefetched
lines Increment accurate count if demand request finds
a set bit Reset bit after increment Accuracy is based on percentage of total
prefetches issued
11
Implementing Feedback Metrics
Prefetch Lateness Prefetch bit (s) set in MSHR for a prefetched
inflight / inqueue line On demand miss, late prefetch detected
If a valid MSHR entry exists for this miss If prefetch bit for the correct cache level is set
Reset bit after incrementing late count Lateness is based on percentage of useful
prefetches
12
Implementing Feedback Metrics
Bandwidth Contention - 1 Use MSHR to monitor total outstanding L1 and L2
requests in every cycle Increment counter for every cycle that total is
above threshold The contention rate is based on percentage of total
cycles
Bandwidth Contention - 2 Prefetches not issued if outstanding requests are
above threshold
13
Adjusting Aggressiveness
Evaluate metrics at fixed intervals Determine if high or low based on a threshold May adjust aggressiveness based on following
criteria
Aggressiveness Policy
14
Prefetcher Aggressiveness Levels
Aggressiveness adjusted in increments of one
Prefetcher Aggressiveness Levels
Middle Aggressiveness
Very Conservative
Very Aggressive
15
Experimental Evaluation - Setup
Evaluate 15 SPEC CPU 2006 Benchmarks using CMPSim Simulator
Evaluate for three competition configurations Config 1 – 2048 KB L2 Cache, unlimited bandwidth Config 2 – 2048 KB L2 Cache, limited bandwidth Config 3 – 512 KB L2 Cache, limited bandwidth
Limited bandwidth configs allow one L1 issue per cycle and one L2 per 10 cycles
16
Experimental Evaluation - Setup
Compare our scheme, Hybrid Adaptive Predictor (HAP) to four configurations No prefetching Middle Aggressive Stride Very Aggressive Stride Modified Feedback Directed Prefetcher
Uses both L1 / L2 prefetching Does not use a cache pollution metric
17
Results - Expectations
Very aggressive stride will do better on some, worse on other benchmarks
Adaptive schemes will perform at least as well as non-adaptive
Unlimited bandwidth and large cache configurations benefit aggressive schemes
18
Results – Bandwidth Unlimited, 2 MB L2 Config
•HAP outperforms other prefetchers for all benchmarks except lbm
•Performance benefit compared to mid-aggressive stride is 11% on average and 46% versus no prefetching.
19
Results – Bandwidth Limited, 2 MB L2 Config
•HAP is best on average. Aggressive stride performs best in three benchmarks (mcf, lbm and soplex)
•Performance benefit compared to mid-aggressive stride is 9% on average and 45% versus no prefetching.
20
Results – Bandwidth Limited, 512 KB L2 Config
•Results are similar to Config 2
•Performance benefit compared to mid-aggressive stride is 8% on average and 44% versus no prefetching.
21
Results (All benchmarks) – Bandwidth Limited, 2 MB L2 Config
•Additional benchmarks are mostly unaffected by prefetching
•Performance benefit compared to mid-aggressive stride is 6% on average and 29% versus no prefetching for all benchmarks.
22
Conclusions
A well designed and adaptive prefetching scheme is very effective
Very aggressive stride works best for some benchmarks
A cache pollution metric may improve results
23
THANK YOU
QUESTIONS?