Title: COMP 206: Computer Architecture and Implementation
1COMP 206Computer Architecture and Implementation
- Montek Singh
- Wed, Sep 28, 2005
- Topic Pipelining -- Intermediate Concepts
- (Multicycle Operations Exceptions)
2Outline
- Multi-cycle operations
- Floating-point operations
- Structural and data hazards
- Interrupts, Faults and Exceptions
- Precise exceptions
- Complications in pipelines
- READING Appendix A
3Pipelining Multicycle Operations
- Assume five-stage pipeline
- Third stage (execution) has two functional units
E1 and E2 - Instruction goes through either E1 or E2, but not
both - E1 and E2 are not pipelined
- Stage delay of E1 2 cycles
- Stage delay of E2 4 cycles
- No buffering on inputs of E1 and E2
- Stage delay of other stages 1 cycle
- Consider an instruction sequence of five
instructions - Instructions 1, 3, 5 need E1
- Instructions 2, 4 need E2
4Space-Time Diagram Multicycle Operations
- Out-of-order completion
- 3 finishes before 2, and 5 finishes before 4
- Instructions may be delayed after entering the
pipeline because of structural hazards - Instructions 2 and 4 both want to use E2 unit at
same time - Instruction 4 stalls in ID unit
- This causes instruction 5 to stall in IF unit
5Floating-Point Operations in MIPS
IF
ID
EX
Out-of-order completion has ramifications
for exceptions
WAW hazards possible WAR hazards not possible
Longer operation latency implies more
frequent stalls for RAW hazards
MEM
Structural hazard instructions have varying
running times
WB
Structural hazard not fully pipelined
6Structural Hazard on WB Unit
- This is worst-case scenario max steady-state
number of write ports is 1 - Dont replicate resources detect and serialize
access as needed - Early resolution
- Track use of WB in ID stage (using shift
register), stall instructions there - reservation register
- Simplifies pipeline control all stalls occur in
ID - adds shift register and write-conflict logic
- Late resolution
- Stall instructions at entry to MEM or WB stage
- Complicates pipeline control (two stall locations)
7WAW Hazards
- WAW hazard arises only when no instruction
between ADD.D and L.D uses result computed by
ADD.D - Adding an instruction like ADD.D F8,F2,F4
before L.D would stall pipeline enough for RAW
hazard to avoid WAW hazard - Can happen through a branch/trap (example in HP3,
Section A.9) - Rare situation, but must still handle correctly
- Hazard resolution
- Delay the issue of L.D until ADD.D enters MEM
- Cancel write of ADD.D
8RAW Hazards
- Longer delays of FP operations increases number
of stalls in response to RAW hazards - Two methods for reducing stalls
- Compiler could have moved instruction D between
instructions M and A, which would allow D to
complete earlier or hardware could detect this
possibility and issue instruction D out of order - ID stage is a bottleneck because instructions
wait there for their operands to be available
could add buffers (reservation stations) to
functional units and let instructions await their
operands there
9Responsibilities of ID (all stalls in ID)
- Three sets of checks
- Structural hazards
- Check for availability of FP unit
- Ensure WB unit will be available when needed
- RAW hazards
- Stall current instruction until its source
registers are not listed as pending registers in
a pipeline register that will not be available
when current instruction needs the result - WAW hazards
- If any instruction in adder, divider, or
multiplier has same register destination as
current instruction, stall current instruction - Hazards between FP and integer instructions
- Integer and FP instructions use disjoint sets of
registers, except for FP-integer register moves - FP load-stores can conflict with integer
load-stores in MEM stage
10MIPS R4000 Floating-Point Pipeline
11Instruction Mixes in FP Pipeline Adds Only
Cant initiate another add on cycle 2 Conflict
here
- Forbidden latencies 1 and 2
- Steady-state utilization (cycles 4 through 18)
- (57)/(815) 35/120 29.17
- Total utilization (cycles 1 through 19)
- (5572)/(819) 42/152 27.63
Cant initiate another add on cycle 3 Conflict
here
12FP Pipeline Multiplies Only
- Collision vector
- 1 indicates forbidden latency
- 0 indicates allowed latency
- Steady-state utilization (cycles 5-24)
- (510)/(820) 50/160 31.25
- Total utilization (cycles 1-28)
- (55105)/(828) 60/224 26.79
Multiply
13FP Pipeline Adds and Multiplies
- Note out-of-order
- completion
- Steady-state utilization
- (cycles 6-21)
- (417)/(816) 68/128
- 53.13
- Total utilization
- (1241722)/(828)
- 85/224 37.95
14Interrupts, Faults, or Exceptions
- Synchronous, coerced interrupts that occur within
instructions and after which execution must
resume are the hardest to implement - See Figure A.27 in HP3
15Precise Interrupts (Sequential Processor)
- When interrupt occurs, state of interrupted
process is saved, including PC ( u), registers,
and memory - Interrupt is precise if the following three
conditions hold - All instructions preceding u have been executed,
and have modified the state correctly - All instructions following u are unexecuted, and
have not modified the state - If the interrupt was caused by an instruction, it
was caused by instruction u, which is either
completely executed (overflow) or completely
unexecuted (VM page fault) - Precise interrupts are desirable if software is
to fix up error that caused interrupt and
execution has to be resumed - Easy for external interrupts, could be complex
and costly for internal - Imperative for some interrupts (VM page faults,
IEEE FP standard)
16Problems on Sequential Processors
- Long-running instructions
- Not enough to be able to restore state, must make
progress from interrupt to interrupt - Example MVC on IBM 360 copies 256 bytes
- No virtual memory, so interrupts not allowed to
stop MVC - Example MVC on IBM 370 copies 256 bytes
- Has virtual memory, so first access all pages
involved after that, no interrupts allowed - Example MVCL on IBM 370 copies up to 224 bytes
- Has VM two addresses and length are in registers
- Registers saved and restored on interrupts
(making progress)
- Instruction modifies state early, then causes an
interrupt - State change must be undone
- Example First operand of VAX instruction uses
autodecrement addressing mode, which writes a
register. Trying to access second operand causes
a page fault. Since instruction execution cannot
be completed, we must restore the register
written by autodecrement to its original value
17Interrupts in MIPS Pipeline
- How do we stop and restart execution on an
interrupt to keep it precise? - What problems do delayed branches cause?
- What happens if multiple exceptions occur in the
pipeline? - Can exceptions occur out-of-order?
- What problems do multi-cycle instructions cause?
18MIPS Integer Pipeline, Single Interrupt
- Force TRAP instruction in pipeline on next IF
- Turn off all writes for faulting instruction and
subsequent instructions - After exception-handling routine in OS receives
control, save PC of faulting instruction - When exception has been handled, the RFE
instruction reloads PC and restarts sequential
instruction execution
19Complications with Delayed Branches
- Suppose instruction 2 causes an exception (e.g.,
a page fault) after the taken branch completes
(determining that the branch outcome is true) - Instruction 2 cannot complete
- Neither can instruction u
- On restart, we do not have sequential execution
- We must remember two PC values 2 and u
20Complications with Multiple Exceptions
- At same cycle, LW takes a data page fault and ADD
takes an arithmetic exception - On an unpipelined machine, LWs exception would
occur first - Handle the page fault
- Restart execution
- ADD will cause arithmetic exception to occur
handle it then
21Complications with Out-of-order Exceptions
- LW takes data page fault, ADD takes instruction
page fault - Relative timing differs between unpipelined and
pipelined machines - To maintain precise interrupts, we need to
consider both when they occur and the
instructions that caused them - Post exceptions in exception status vector, turn
off state modifications, and check vector in WB
unit
22Complications with Multicycle Operations
- Instructions are independent (no hazards) and
therefore issue immediately - Differences in running times causes out-of-order
termination - DIVF throws arithmetic exception late in its
execution - At that point, ADDF and SUBF have both completed
execution and destroyed one of their operands - Can we maintain precise interrupts under these
conditions?
23FP Pipeline Exceptions Solns. 1 and 2
- Settle for imprecise interrupts (CRAY, with
checkpointing) - Done on Alpha 21064 and 21164, IBM Power-1 and
Power-2, MIPS R8000 by supporting a fast
imprecise mode and a slow precise mode - Not an option if you have to support virtual
memory or IEEE floating point standard - Software finishes certain instructions (SPARC)
- Keep enough state around for trap handler to
create a precise sequence for exception and
finish work for some instruction stages - Only FP instructions cause this problem
24FP Pipeline Exceptions Solns. 3 and 4
- Stalling (MIPS R2000/3000, MIPS R4000, Pentium)
- An instruction is allowed to issue only if it is
certain that all the instructions before the
issuing instruction will complete without causing
an exception - To prevent excessive stalling, FP units must
decide on possibility of exceptions early in
pipeline - General methods (PowerPC 620, MIPS R10000)
- Reorder buffer, history file, future file
- An instruction is allowed to finalize its writes
only when all previously issued instructions are
complete - More naturally used in connection with ILP
(Chapter 4) - Significant complexity (to be discussed later)