Subscribe to EDN

Guest blog: Grant Martin

February 26, 2009

TGrant Martinoday’s guest blog is from Grant Martin, Chief scientist at Tensilica. He worked for Burroughs in Scotland (in Cumbernauld, of all places, which makes Newark look attractive), Nortel in Canada, and then at Cadence before moving to Tensilica. He literally wrote the book on system design, most recently co-author of “ESL and System Design”. The British press used to have a rule that they would never mention another newspaper by name, but just say something like “in another newspaper.” Well, Grant has his own blog in another newspaper.

In some ways this a continuation of the power theme. Remember that it is much more power-effective to run a small processor at just the right slowish clock rate, than it is to run a powerful processor at huge clock rate for a short time and then idle it or shut it down while the rest of the system catches up.

Processor v hardware: the winner is…

 “Everyone” knows that processors are more flexible because they’re programmable, but “everyone” knows they are slower than dedicated hardware for high-performance algorithms.   But how do you decide between processor and hardware? There is a third way that lies between.

Although I do my best to ensure that designers I meet understand the idea of an   application-specific instruction set processor (ASIP), many people have never heard of them.   If they have, they may not realise that designers can configure them with automated tools.     And an ASIP is often so close to the performance, power consumption and area of dedicated hardware, that it is a superior option – especially with programmable flexibility.

Everyone is familiar with fixed general purpose processors, used for control tasks.   And fixed digital signal processors (DSPs) are found in many devices for data-intensive tasks – the ‘dataplane’. But what many don’t realise is how powerful the combination of configurable, extensible ASIP technology and dataplane tasks can be, compared to either a fixed processor or dedicated hardware.

Audio processing is an excellent example. An ASIP customised for audio, together with the right codec software, can decode MP3 running with a clockrate of just 5.7 MHz, producing near-CD quality sound and dissipating only 0.45 mW in TSMC’s 65nm LP process (details). Because this is a processor, other audio codecs can be downloaded to an audio player in the field long after it is sold.   Dedicated hardware could never provide this level of flexibility, and may not offer any significant advantage in performance, power or cost. Achieving 100+ hours of battery life on a portable audio appliance is more than possible with ASIPs.

Video is another dataplane application that can be mapped to ASIPs.   Standard definition decoding can be accomplished on a multiprocessor video subsystem running at 200 MHz in a TSMC 130 nm G process (details). And there are many other products, from baseband in wireless communications to high performance network processing, where you will find ASIPs.

ASIPs change the way in which system architecture is conceived. “Classical” hardware designers have a bias to implementing everything they can in dedicated hardware. “Classical” software developers have a bias to implementing all functions on general purpose processors – and running them at very high rates if necessary.   Running audio on a control processor at hundreds of MHz is possible, but hardly optimal. An ASIP-aware architect will instead use different tradeoffs. 

They will start by mapping control tasks to one or a cluster of control processors – in the latter case, possibly a cache-coherent “multicore” where processors can be powered down when not needed.   But every dataplane task is an opportunity to use ASIP technology.   Dedicated hardware blocks become a last resort – used by necessity, in order to meet system performance or energy consumption goals.   The result is a heterogeneous ASIP-dominated multiprocessor design where subsystems can be powered down whenever possible to minimise energy consumption.

Some recoil at the idea of sprinkling many processors in a design and “wasting” them when not needed. I remember the keypunch/card-reader/line-printer “cafeteria” line-up feeding the University of Waterloo’s mainframe. In that era, every computer cycle was indeed too precious to waste. 

But times change and the concerns of our youth give way to modern needs.   These days, every joule of energy is too precious to waste. Using ASIPs brings energy-efficient computation and communication to the exact places where they are needed. So the winner of “processor vs. hardware” is “neither” – but rather, the ASIP that lies in between.

Posted by Paul McLellan on February 26, 2009 | Comments (4)

December 17, 2009
In response to: Guest blog: Grant Martin
henrylow commented:

Often we forget the little guy, the SMB, in our discussions of the comings and goings of the Internet marketing industry. Sure there are times like this when a report surfaces talking about their issues and concerns but, for the most part, we like to talk about big brands and how they do the Internet marketing thing well or not so well. onlineuniversalwork


September 29, 2009
In response to: Guest blog: Grant Martin
ram commented:

Hi, A great, well-written article. I?ll be sending it to all my pals. Thanks.


February 26, 2009
In response to: Guest blog: Grant Martin
DaveW commented:

Actually, they are two complementary tools. Hardware provides performance, and software provides functionality. If you want something to go faster, you use more or faster hardware - at increased cost. If you want more functions, you add software. The incremental cost of adding function in software is [should be] close to zero. It just uses more memory. Almost all embedded systems have both. The system design problem is to balance the hardware and the software for good performance and good functionality at a good cost.


February 26, 2009
In response to: Guest blog: Grant Martin
Steve Cox commented:

Hi Grant, Excellent post! As a fellow ASIP purveyor and enthusiast, I too am frequently amazed at how entrenched people are in what I call the "two tools in the box" approach to SoC design (either fixed processors with little efficiency or fixed hardware with little flexibility). These status-quo design methods are so entrenched, in fact, that many designers have a very hard time imagining that there is another way. Yet, with ASIPs, there is a whole spectrum of possibilities between fixed processor and fixed hardware, as you state. As design methods progress, and more ASIP-based SoCs proliferate in the market, awareness of this design method will increase. I look forward to the time when all engineers graduate from "two tools in the box" to three! cheers, - stevec

POST A COMMENT
Display Name
captcha

Before submitting this form, please type the characters displayed above. Note the letters are case sensitive:

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
About EDN   |   Site Map   |   Contact Us   |   Subscription   |   RSS
© 2012 UBM Electronics. All rights reserved.
Use of this Web site is subject to its Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Please visit these other UBM Canon sites

UBM Canon | Design News | Test & Measurement World | Packaging Digest | EDN | Qmed | Pharmalive | Appliance Magazine | Plastics Today | Powder Bulk Solids | Canon Trade Shows