The benefit of SMT in the multi-core era: flexibility towards degrees of thread-level parallelism

Abstract

The number of active threads in a multi-core processor varies over time and is often much smaller than the number of supported hardware threads. This requires multi-core chip designs to balance core count and per-core performance. Low active thread counts benefit from a few big, high-performance cores, while high active thread counts benefit more from a sea of small, energy-efficient cores.

This paper comprehensively studies the trade-offs in multi-core design given dynamically varying active thread counts. We find that, under these workload conditions, a homogeneous multi-core processor, consisting of a few high-performance SMT cores, typically outperforms heterogeneous multi-cores consisting of a mix of big and small cores (without SMT), within the same power budget. We also show that a homogeneous multi-core performs almost as well as a heterogeneous multi-core that also implements SMT, as well as a dynamic multi-core, while being less complex to design and verify. Further, heterogeneous multi-cores that power-gate idle cores yield (only) slightly better energy-efficiency compared to homogeneous multi-cores.

The overall conclusion is that the benefit of SMT in the multi-core era is to provide flexibility with respect to the available thread-level parallelism. Consequently, homogeneous multi-cores with big SMT cores are competitive high-performance, energy-efficient design points for workloads with dynamically varying active thread counts.

References

1. M. Annavaram, E. Grochowski, and J. Shen. Mitigating Amdahl's law through EPI throttling. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA), pages 298--309, June 2005.
2. L. A. Barroso and U. Hölzle. The case for energy-proportional systems. IEEE Computer, 40: 33--37, Dec. 2007.
3. C. Bienia, S. Kumar, J. P. Singh, and K. Li. The PARSEC benchmark suite: Characterization and architectural implications. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Parallel Architectures and Compilation Techniques (PACT), pages 72--81, Oct. 2008.
4. G. Blake, R. G. Dreslinski, T. N. Mudge, and K. Flautner. Evolution of thread-level parallelism in desktop applications. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA), pages 302--313, June 2010.
5. T. E. Carlson, W. Heirman, and L. Eeckhout. Sniper: Exploring the level of abstraction for scalable and accurate parallel multi-core simulation. In Proceedings of 2011 International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis (SC), pages 52:1--52:12, Nov. 2011.
6. K. Du Bois, S. Eyerman, J. Sartor, and L. Eeckhout. Criticality stacks: Identifying critical threads in parallel programs using synchronization behavior. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA), pages 511--522, June 2013.
7. S. Eyerman and L. Eeckhout. System-level performance metrics for multi-program workloads. IEEE Micro, 28 (3): 42--53, May/June 2008.
8. P. Greenhalgh. Big.LITTLE processing with ARM Cortex-A15 & Cortex-A7: Improving energy efficiency in high-performance mobile platforms. http://www.arm.com/files/downloads/big\_LITTLE\_Final\_Final.pdf, Sept. 2011.
9. L. Hammond, M. Willey, and K. Olukotun. Data speculation support for a chip multiprocessor. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS), pages 58--69, Oct. 1998.
10. M. D. Hill and M. R. Marty. Amdahl's law in the multicore era. IEEE Computer, 41 (7): 33--38, July 2008.
11. E. Ipek, M. Kirman, N. Kirman, and J. F. Martinez. Core fusion: Accommodating software diversity in chip multiprocessors. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA), pages 186--197, June 2007.
12. J. A. Joao, M. A. Suleman, O. Mutlu, and Y. N. Patt. Bottleneck identification and scheduling in multithreaded applications. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS), pages 223--234, Mar. 2012.
13. M. T. Jones. Inside the Linux scheduler: The latest version of this all-important kernel component improves scalability. http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-scheduler/index.html, June 2006.
14. R. Kalla, B. Sinharoy, W. J. Starke, and M. Floyd. Power7: IBM's next-generation server processor. IEEE Micro, 30: 7--15, March/April 2010.
15. C. N. Keltcher, K. J. McGrath, A. Ahmed, and P. Conway. The AMD Opteron processor for multiprocessor servers. IEEE Micro, 23 (2): 66--76, Mar. 2007.
16. K. Khubaib, M. Suleman, M. Hashemi, C. Wilkerson, and Y. Patt. MorphCore: An energy-efficient microarchitecture for high performance ILP and high throughput TLP. In 45th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO), pages 305--316, Dec. 2012.
17. C. Kim, S. Sethumadhavan, M. S. Govindan, N. Ranganathan, D. Gulati, D. Burger, and S. Keckler. Composable lightweight processors. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO), pages 381--394, Dec. 2007.
18. R. Kumar, K. I. Farkas, N. P. Jouppi, P. Ranganathan, and D. M. Tullsen. Single-ISA heterogeneous multi-core architectures: The potential for processor power reduction. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE Annual International Symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO), pages 81--92, Dec. 2003.
19. R. Kumar, D. M. Tullsen, P. Ranganathan, N. P. Jouppi, and K. I. Farkas. Single-ISA heterogeneous multi-core architectures for multithreaded workload performance. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA), pages 64--75, June 2004.
20. S. Li, J. H. Ahn, R. D. Strong, J. B. Brockman, D. M. Tullsen, and N. P. Jouppi. McPAT: An integrated power, area, and timing modeling framework for multicore and manycore architectures. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO), pages 469--480, Dec. 2009.
21. Y. Li, D. Brooks, Z. Hu, and K. Skadron. Performance, energy, and thermal considerations for SMT and CMP architectures. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA), pages 71--82, Feb. 2005.
22. NVidia. Variable SMP -- a multi-core CPU architecture for low power and high performance. http://www.nvidia.com/content/PDF/tegra\_white\_papers/Variable-SMP-A-Multi-%Core-CPU-Architecture-for-Low-Power-and-High-Performance-v1.1.pdf, 2011.
23. K. Olukotun, B. A. Nayfeh, L. Hammond, K. Wilson, and K.-Y. Chang. The case for a single-chip multiprocessor. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS), pages 2--11, Oct. 1996.
24. S. E. Raasch and S. K. Reinhardt. The impact of resource partitioning on SMT processors. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Parallel Architectures and Compilation Techniques (PACT), pages 15--26, Sept. 2003.
25. E. Rotem, A. Naveh, D. Rajwan, A. Ananthakrishnan, and E. Weissmann. Power-management architecture of the intel microarchitecture code-named sandy bridge. IEEE Micro, 32: 20--27, March/April 2012.
26. T. Sherwood, E. Perelman, G. Hamerly, and B. Calder. Automatically characterizing large scale program behavior. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS), pages 45--57, Oct. 2002.
27. A. Snavely and D. M. Tullsen. Symbiotic jobscheduling for simultaneous multithreading processor. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS), pages 234--244, Nov. 2000.
28. G. S. Sohi, S. E. Breach, and T. N. Vijaykumar. Multiscalar processors. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA), pages 414--425, June 1995.
29. M. A. Suleman, O. Mutlu, M. K. Qureshi, and Y. N. Patt. Accelerating critical section execution with asymmetric multi-core architectures. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS), pages 253--264, Mar. 2009.
30. M. A. Suleman, O. Mutlu, J. A. Joao, Khubaib, and Y. N. Patt. Data marshaling for multi-core architectures. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA), pages 441--450, June 2010.
31. D. M. Tullsen, S. J. Eggers, J. S. Emer, H. M. Levy, J. L. Lo, and R. L. Stamm. Exploiting choice: Instruction fetch and issue on an implementable simultaneous multithreading processor. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA), pages 191--202, May 1996.
32. R. Velasquez, P. Michaud, and A. Seznec. Selecting benchmark combinations for the evaluation of multicore throughput. In The IEEE International Symposium on Performance Analysis of Systems and Software (ISPASS), pages 173--182, Apr. 2013.

Index Terms

• Computer systems organization

  • Architectures

    • Parallel architectures