Overcoming Data Hazards with Dynamic Scheduling

A simple statically scheduled pipeline fetches an instruction and issues it, unless there is a data dependence between an instruction already in the pipeline and the fetched instruction that cannot be hidden with bypassing or forwarding. (Forwarding logic reduces the effective pipeline latency so that the certain dependences do not result in hazards.) If there is a data dependence that cannot be hidden, then the hazard detection hardware stalls the pipeline starting with the instruction that uses the result. No new instructions are fetched or issued until the dependence is cleared.

In this section, we explore dynamic scheduling, in which the hardware rearranges the instruction execution to reduce the stalls while maintaining data flow and exception behavior. Dynamic scheduling offers several advantages. First, it allows code that was compiled with one pipeline in mind to run efficiently on a different pipeline, eliminating the need to have multiple binaries and recompile for a different microarchitecture. In today’s computing environment, where much of the software is from third parties and distributed in binary form, this advantage is significant. Second, it enables handling some cases when dependences are unknown at compile time; for example, they may involve a memory reference or a data-dependent branch, or they may result from a modern programming environment that uses dynamic linking or dispatching. Third, and perhaps most importantly, it allows the processor to tolerate unpredictable delays, such as cache misses, by executing other code while waiting for the miss to resolve. In Section 3.6, we explore hardware speculation, a technique with additional performance advantages, which builds on dynamic scheduling. As we will see, the advantages of dynamic scheduling are gained at a cost of significant increase in hardware complexity.

Although a dynamically scheduled processor cannot change the data flow, it tries to avoid stalling when dependences are present. In contrast, static pipeline scheduling by the compiler (covered in Section 3.2) tries to minimize stalls by separating dependent instructions so that they will not lead to hazards. Of course, compiler pipeline scheduling can also be used on code destined to run on a processor with a dynamically scheduled pipeline.

Dynamic Scheduling: The Idea

A major limitation of simple pipelining techniques is that they use in-order instruction issue and execution: Instructions are issued in program order, and if an instruction is stalled in the pipeline no later instructions can proceed. Thus, if there is a dependence between two closely spaced instructions in the pipeline, this will lead to a hazard and a stall will result. If there are multiple functional units, these units could lie idle. If instruction j depends on a long-running instruction i, currently in execution in the pipeline, then all instructions after j must be stalled until i is finished and j can execute. For example, consider this code:

The SUB.D instruction cannot execute because the dependence of ADD.D on DIV.D causes the pipeline to stall; yet, SUB.D is not data dependent on anything in the pipeline. This hazard creates a performance limitation that can be eliminated by not requiring instructions to execute in program order.

In the classic five-stage pipeline, both structural and data hazards could be checked during instruction decode (ID): When an instruction could execute without hazards, it was issued from ID knowing that all data hazards had been resolved.

To allow us to begin executing the SUB.D in the above example, we must separate the issue process into two parts: checking for any structural hazards and waiting for the absence of a data hazard. Thus, we still use in-order instruction issue (i.e., instructions issued in program order), but we want an instruction to begin execution as soon as its data operands are available. Such a pipeline does out-of-order execution, which implies out-of-order completion.

Out-of-order execution introduces the possibility of WAR and WAW hazards, which do not exist in the five-stage integer pipeline and its logical extension to an in-order floating-point pipeline. Consider the following MIPS floating-point code sequence:

There is an antidependence between the ADD.D and the SUB.D, and if the pipeline executes the SUB.D before the ADD.D (which is waiting for the DIV.D), it will violate the antidependence, yielding a WAR hazard. Likewise, to avoid violating output dependences, such as the write of F6 by MUL.D, WAW hazards must be handled. As we will see, both these hazards are avoided by the use of register renaming.

Out-of-order completion also creates major complications in handling exceptions. Dynamic scheduling with out-of-order completion must preserve exception behavior in the sense that exactly those exceptions that would arise if the program were executed in strict program order actually do arise. Dynamically scheduled processors preserve exception behavior by delaying the notification of an associated exception until the processor knows that the instruction should be the next one completed.

Although exception behavior must be preserved, dynamically scheduled processors could generate imprecise exceptions. An exception is imprecise if the processor state when an exception is raised does not look exactly as if the instructions were executed sequentially in strict program order. Imprecise exceptions can occur because of two possibilities:

The pipeline may have already completed instructions that are later in program order than the instruction causing the exception.
The pipeline may have not yet completed some instructions that are earlier in program order than the instruction causing the exception.

Imprecise exceptions make it difficult to restart execution after an exception. Rather than address these problems in this section, we will discuss a solution that provides precise exceptions in the context of a processor with speculation in Section 3.6. For floating-point exceptions, other solutions have been used, as discussed in Appendix J.

To allow out-of-order execution, we essentially split the ID pipe stage of our simple five-stage pipeline into two stages:

Issue—Decode instructions, check for structural hazards.
Read operands—Wait until no data hazards, then read operands.

An instruction fetch stage precedes the issue stage and may fetch either into an instruction register or into a queue of pending instructions; instructions are then issued from the register or queue. The execution stage follows the read operands stage, just as in the five-stage pipeline. Execution may take multiple cycles, depending on the operation.

We distinguish when an instruction begins execution and when it completes execution; between the two times, the instruction is in execution. Our pipeline allows multiple instructions to be in execution at the same time; without this capability, a major advantage of dynamic scheduling is lost. Having multiple instructions in execution at once requires multiple functional units, pipelined functional units, or both. Since these two capabilities—pipelined functional units and multiple functional units—are essentially equivalent for the purposes of pipeline control, we will assume the processor has multiple functional units.

In a dynamically scheduled pipeline, all instructions pass through the issue stage in order (in-order issue); however, they can be stalled or bypass each other in the second stage (read operands) and thus enter execution out of order. Scoreboarding is a technique for allowing instructions to execute out of order when there are sufficient resources and no data dependences; it is named after the CDC 6600 scoreboard, which developed this capability. Here, we focus on a more sophisticated technique, called Tomasulo’s algorithm. The primary difference is that Tomasulo’s algorithm handles antidependences and output dependences by effectively renaming the registers dynamically. Additionally, Tomasulo’s algorithm can be extended to handle speculation, a technique to reduce the effect of control dependences by predicting the outcome of a branch, executing instructions at the predicted destination address, and taking corrective actions when the prediction was wrong. While the use of scoreboarding is probably sufficient to support a simple two-issue superscalar like the ARM A8, a more aggressive processor, like the four-issue Intel i7, benefits from the use of out-of-order execution.

Dynamic Scheduling Using Tomasulo’s Approach

The IBM 360/91 floating-point unit used a sophisticated scheme to allow out-of-order execution. This scheme, invented by Robert Tomasulo, tracks when operands for instructions are available to minimize RAW hazards and introduces register renaming in hardware to minimize WAW and WAR hazards. There are many variations on this scheme in modern processors, although the key concepts of tracking instruction dependences to allow execution as soon as operands are available and renaming registers to avoid WAR and WAW hazards are common characteristics.

IBM’s goal was to achieve high floating-point performance from an instruction set and from compilers designed for the entire 360 computer family, rather than from specialized compilers for the high-end processors. The 360 architecture had only four double-precision floating-point registers, which limits the effectiveness of compiler scheduling; this fact was another motivation for the Tomasulo approach. In addition, the IBM 360/91 had long memory accesses and long floating-point delays, which Tomasulo’s algorithm was designed to overcome. At the end of the section, we will see that Tomasulo’s algorithm can also support the overlapped execution of multiple iterations of a loop.

We explain the algorithm, which focuses on the floating-point unit and load-store unit, in the context of the MIPS instruction set. The primary difference between MIPS and the 360 is the presence of register-memory instructions in the latter architecture. Because Tomasulo’s algorithm uses a load functional unit, no significant changes are needed to add register-memory addressing modes. The IBM 360/91 also had pipelined functional units, rather than multiple functional units, but we describe the algorithm as if there were multiple functional units. It is a simple conceptual extension to also pipeline those functional units.

As we will see, RAW hazards are avoided by executing an instruction only when its operands are available, which is exactly what the simpler scoreboarding approach provides. WAR and WAW hazards, which arise from name dependences, are eliminated by register renaming. Register renaming eliminates these hazards by renaming all destination registers, including those with a pending read or write for an earlier instruction, so that the out-of-order write does not affect any instructions that depend on an earlier value of an operand.

To better understand how register renaming eliminates WAR and WAW hazards, consider the following example code sequence that includes potential WAR and WAW hazards:

There are two antidependences: between the ADD.D and the SUB.D and between the S.D and the MUL.D. There is also an output dependence between the ADD.D and the MUL.D, leading to three possible hazards: WAR hazards on the use of F8 by ADD.D and the use of F6 by the SUB.D, as well as a WAW hazard since the ADD.D may finish later than the MUL.D. There are also three true data dependences: between the DIV.D and the ADD.D, between the SUB.D and the MUL.D, and between the ADD.D and the S.D.

These three name dependences can all be eliminated by register renaming. For simplicity, assume the existence of two temporary registers, S and T. Using S and T, the sequence can be rewritten without any dependences as:

In addition, any subsequent uses of F8 must be replaced by the register T. In this code segment, the renaming process can be done statically by the compiler. Finding any uses of F8 that are later in the code requires either sophisticated compiler analysis or hardware support, since there may be intervening branches between the above code segment and a later use of F8. As we will see, Tomasulo’s algorithm can handle renaming across branches.

In Tomasulo’s scheme, register renaming is provided by reservation stations, which buffer the operands of instructions waiting to issue. The basic idea is that a reservation station fetches and buffers an operand as soon as it is available, eliminating the need to get the operand from a register. In addition, pending instructions designate the reservation station that will provide their input. Finally, when successive writes to a register overlap in execution, only the last one is actually used to update the register. As instructions are issued, the register specifiers for pending operands are renamed to the names of the reservation station, which provides register renaming.

Since there can be more reservation stations than real registers, the technique can even eliminate hazards arising from name dependences that could not be eliminated by a compiler. As we explore the components of Tomasulo’s scheme, we will return to the topic of register renaming and see exactly how the renaming occurs and how it eliminates WAR and WAW hazards.

The use of reservation stations, rather than a centralized register file, leads to two other important properties. First, hazard detection and execution control are distributed: The information held in the reservation stations at each functional unit determines when an instruction can begin execution at that unit. Second, results are passed directly to functional units from the reservation stations where they are buffered, rather than going through the registers. This bypassing is done with a common result bus that allows all units waiting for an operand to be loaded simultaneously (on the 360/91 this is called the common data bus, or CDB). In pipelines with multiple execution units and issuing multiple instructions per clock, more than one result bus will be needed.

Figure 3.6 shows the basic structure of a Tomasulo-based processor, including both the floating-point unit and the load/store unit; none of the execution control tables is shown. Each reservation station holds an instruction that has been issued and is awaiting execution at a functional unit and either the operand values for that instruction, if they have already been computed, or else the names of the reservation stations that will provide the operand values.

Figure 3.6 The basic structure of a MIPS floating-point unit using Tomasulo’s algorithm. Instructions are sent from the instruction unit into the instruction queue from which they are issued in first-in, first-out (FIFO) order. The reservation stations include the operation and the actual operands, as well as information used for detecting and resolving hazards. Load buffers have three functions: (1) hold the components of the effective address until it is computed, (2) track outstanding loads that are waiting on the memory, and (3) hold the results of completed loads that are waiting for the CDB. Similarly, store buffers have three functions: (1) hold the components of the effective address until it is computed, (2) hold the destination memory addresses of outstanding stores that are waiting for the data value to store, and (3) hold the address and value to store until the memory unit is available. All results from either the FP units or the load unit are put on the CDB, which goes to the FP register file as well as to the reservation stations and store buffers. The FP adders implement addition and subtraction, and the FP multipliers do multiplication and division.

The load buffers and store buffers hold data or addresses coming from and going to memory and behave almost exactly like reservation stations, so we distinguish them only when necessary. The floating-point registers are connected by a pair of buses to the functional units and by a single bus to the store buffers. All results from the functional units and from memory are sent on the common data bus, which goes everywhere except to the load buffer. All reservation stations have tag fields, employed by the pipeline control.

Before we describe the details of the reservation stations and the algorithm, let’s look at the steps an instruction goes through. There are only three steps, although each one can now take an arbitrary number of clock cycles:

Issue—Get the next instruction from the head of the instruction queue, which is maintained in FIFO order to ensure the maintenance of correct data flow. If there is a matching reservation station that is empty, issue the instruction to the station with the operand values, if they are currently in the registers. If there is not an empty reservation station, then there is a structural hazard and the instruction stalls until a station or buffer is freed. If the operands are not in the registers, keep track of the functional units that will produce the operands. This step renames registers, eliminating WAR and WAW hazards. (This stage is sometimes called dispatch in a dynamically scheduled processor.)
Execute—If one or more of the operands is not yet available, monitor the common data bus while waiting for it to be computed. When an operand becomes available, it is placed into any reservation station awaiting it. When all the operands are available, the operation can be executed at the corresponding functional unit. By delaying instruction execution until the operands are available, RAW hazards are avoided. (Some dynamically scheduled processors call this step “issue,” but we use the name “execute,” which was used in the first dynamically scheduled processor, the CDC 6600.)

Notice that several instructions could become ready in the same clock cycle for the same functional unit. Although independent functional units could begin execution in the same clock cycle for different instructions, if more than one instruction is ready for a single functional unit, the unit will have to choose among them. For the floating-point reservation stations, this choice may be made arbitrarily; loads and stores, however, present an additional complication.

3. Write result—When the result is available, write it on the CDB and from there into the registers and into any reservation stations (including store buffers) waiting for this result. Stores are buffered in the store buffer until both the value to be stored and the store address are available, then the result is written as soon as the memory unit is free.

Study Materials for Anna University Students

Pages

Monday, 28 December 2015

CS6501 INTERNET PROGRAMMING 2 marks with ans

Tuesday, 15 December 2015

Dynamic Scheduling:Tomosulo's Approach

Overcoming Data Hazards with Dynamic Scheduling

Dynamic Scheduling: The Idea

Dynamic Scheduling Using Tomasulo’s Approach