Impact of FPGA Architecture on Area and Performance of CGRA Overlays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coarse-grained reconfigurable arrays (CGRAs) are programmable logic devices with ALU-style processing elements and datapath interconnect. CGRAs can be realized as custom ASICs or implemented on FPGAs as overlays . A key element of CGRAs is that they are typically software programmable with rapid compile times - an advantage arising from their coarse-grained characteristics, simplifying CAD mapping tasks. We implement two previously published CGRAs as overlays on two commercial FPGAs (Intel and Xilinx), and consider the impact of the underlying FPGA architecture on the CGRA area and performance. We present optimizations for the overlays to take advantage of the FPGA architectural features and show a peak performance improvement of 1.93x, as well as maximum area savings of 31.1% and 48.5% for Intel and Xilinx, respectively, relative to a naive first-cut implementation. We also present a novel technique for a configurable multiplexer implementation, which embeds the select signals into SRAM configuration, saving 35.7% in area. The research is conducted using the open-source CGRA-ME (modeling and exploration) framework [1].
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".