Exploiting Task- and Data-Level Parallelism in Streaming Applications Implemented in FPGAs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article describes the design and implementation of a novel compilation flow that implements circuits in FPGAs from a streaming programming language. The streaming language supported is called FPGA Brook and is based on the existing Brook language. It allows system designers to express applications in a way that exposes parallelism, which can be exploited through hardware implementation. FPGA Brook supports replication, allowing parts of an application to be implemented as multiple hardware units operating in parallel. Hardware units are interconnected through FIFO buffers which use the small memory modules available in FPGAs. The FPGA Brook automated design flow uses a source-to-source compiler, developed as a part of this work, and combines it with a commercial behavioral synthesis tool to generate the hardware implementation. A suite of benchmark applications was developed in FPGA Brook and implemented using our design flow. Experimental results indicate that performance of many applications scales well with replication. Our benchmark applications also achieve significantly better results than corresponding implementations using a commercial behavioral synthesis tool. We conclude that using an automated design flow for implementation of streaming applications in FPGAs is a promising methodology.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".