MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114835190 · doi:10.1109/fpl.2011.21

Latch-Based Performance Optimization for FPGAs

2011· article· en· W2114835190 on OpenAlexaff
Bill Teng, Jason H. Anderson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLow-power high-performance VLSI design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetimingComputer scienceClock skewClock gatingSkewField-programmable gate arrayStatic timing analysisBenchmark (surveying)Digital clock managerTiming failureDuty cyclePower (physics)Embedded systemLogic synthesisExploitLogic gateParallel computingClock signalAlgorithmJitter

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We explore using pulsed latches for timing optimization -- a first in the FPGA community. Pulsed latches are transparent latches driven by a clock with a non-standard (non-50%) duty cycle. We exploit existing functionality within commercial FPGA chips to implement latch-based optimizations that do not have the power or area drawbacks associated with other timing optimization approaches, such as clock skew and retiming. We propose an algorithm that iteratively replaces certain flip-flops in a logic design with latches for an improvement in circuit speed. Results show that much of the performance improvement achieved by using multiple skewed clocks can also be achieved using a single clock and latches. We also consider the impact of short delay paths (i.e. minimum delays), which can cause hold-time violations. Under conservative minimum delay assumptions, our latch-based optimization, operating on the routed design, provides a 5% performance improvement, on average, essentially for "free" (i.e. without any re-routing/delay padding). We show that short paths greatly hinder the ability of using latches for speed improvement, motivating further work to reduce their effects.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.172
Teacher spread0.148 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLow-power high-performance VLSI designFrench-language works237,207