MPI as a Programming Model for High-Performance Reconfigurable Computers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-Performance Reconfigurable Computers (HPRCs) consist of one or more standard microprocessors tightly-coupled with one or more reconfigurable FPGAs. HPRCs have been shown to provide good speedups and good cost/performance ratios, but not necessarily ease of use, leading to a slow acceptance of this technology. HPRCs introduce new design challenges, such as the lack of portability across platforms, incompatibilities with legacy code, users reluctant to change their code base, a prolonged learning curve, and the need for a system-level Hardware/Software co-design development flow. This article presents the evolution and current work on TMD-MPI, which started as an MPI-based programming model for Multiprocessor Systems-on-Chip implemented in FPGAs, and has now evolved to include multiple X86 processors. TMD-MPI is shown to address current design challenges in HPRC usage, suggesting that the MPI standard has enough syntax and semantics to program these new types of parallel architectures. Also presented is the TMD-MPI Ecosystem , which consists of research projects and tools that are developed around TMD-MPI to further improve HPRC usability. Finally, we present preliminary communication performance measurements.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".