MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102892811 · doi:10.1145/1462586.1462587

Static and Dynamic Memory Footprint Reduction for FPGA Routing Algorithms

2009· article· en· W2102892811 on OpenAlexaff
Scott Y. L. Chin, Steven J. E. Wilton

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Reconfigurable Technology and Systems · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVLSI and FPGA Design Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRouting (electronic design automation)Static routingMemory footprintField-programmable gate arrayPolicy-based routingMultipath routingFootprintDistributed computingParallel computingEmbedded systemRouting protocol

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents techniques to reduce the static and dynamic memory requirements of routing algorithms that target field-programmable gate arrays. During routing, memory is required to store both architectural data and temporary routing data. The architectural data is static, and provides a representation of the physical routing resources and programmable connections on the device. We show that by taking advantage of the regularity in FPGAs, we can reduce the amount of information that must be explicitly represented, leading to significant memory savings. The temporary routing data is dynamic, and contains scoring parameters and traceback information for each routing resource in the FPGA. By studying the lifespan of the temporary routing data objects, we develop several memory management schemes to reduce this component. To make our proposals concrete, we applied them to the routing algorithm in VPR and empirically quantified the impact on runtime memory footprint, and place and route time.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on Reconfigurable Technology and SystemsSame topicVLSI and FPGA Design TechniquesFrench-language works237,207