Efficient Memory Arbitration in High-Level Synthesis From Multi-Threaded Code
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-level synthesis (HLS) is an increasingly popular method for generating hardware from a description written in a software language like C/C++. Traditionally, HLS tools have operated on sequential code, however in recent years there has been a drive to synthesise multi-threaded code. In this context, a major challenge facing HLS tools is how to automatically partition memory among parallel threads to fully exploit the bandwidth available on an FPGA device and minimise memory contention. Existing partitioning approaches require inefficient arbitration circuitry to serialise accesses to each bank because they make conservative assumptions about which threads might access which memory banks. In this article, we design a static analysis that can prove certain memory banks are only accessed by certain threads, and use this analysis to simplify or even remove the arbiters while preserving correctness. We show how this analysis can be implemented using the Microsoft Boogie verifier on top of satisfiability modulo theories (SMT) solver, and propose a tool named EASY using automatic formal verification. Our work supports arbitrary input code with any irregular memory access patterns and indirect array addressing forms. We implement our approach in LLVM and integrate it into the LegUp HLS tool. For a set of typical application benchmarks our results have shown that EASY can achieve 0.13× (avg. 0.43×) of area and 1.64× (avg. 1.28×) of performance compared to the baseline, with little additional compilation time relative to the long time in hardware synthesis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".