The challenges of using an embedded MPI for hardware-based processing nodes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents several challenges and solutions in designing an efficient Message Passing Interface (MPI) implementation for embedded FPGA applications. Popular MPI implementations are designed for general-purpose computers which have significantly different properties and trade-offs than embedded platforms. Our work focuses on two types of interactions that are not present in typical MPI implementations. First, a number of improvements designed to accelerate software-hardware interactions are introduced, including a Direct Memory Access (DMA) engine with MPI functionality; the use of non-interrupting, non-blocking messages; and a proposed function, called MPI_Coalesce, to reduce the function call overhead from a series of sequential messages. These improvements resulted in a speed-up of 5-fold compared to an embedded software-only MPI implementation. Next, a novel dataflow message passing model is presented for hardware-hardware interactions to overcome the limitations of atomic messages, allowing hardware engines to communicate and compute simultaneously. This dataflow model provides a natural method for hardware designers to build high performance, MPI systems. Finally, two hardware cores, Tee cores and message watchdog timers, are introduced to provide a transparent method of debugging hardware MPI designs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".