Abstract:
A method and apparatus are provided for dynamically allocating access bandwidth to one or more resources to the threads of a multithreaded processor. This is done by providing an execution based metric for each thread and providing access to the resource in dependence on the execution based metrics of the threads. In addition, or alternatively, a resource based metric can be determined and access to the resource provided in dependence on the resource based metric.

Description:
FIELD OF THE INVENTION  
       [0001]     This invention relates to a method and apparatus to dynamically allocate access bandwidth to one or more resources, such as memory to the threads of a multi-threaded microprocessor. In the case of memory access this improves memory latency, and in particular avoids overloading of an automatic MIPS allocation (AMA) control system in periods of intensive memory activity.  
       BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION  
       [0002]     Our British patent application no. 9607153.5 describes a multi-threaded processor and data processing management system in which a plurality of execution threads are routed between a plurality of data inputs and a plurality of data outputs via a data processing means. The data processing means has access to a data storage means. The system repeatedly determines which routing operations and which data processing operations are capable of being performed and commences execution of at least one of the routing or data processing operations on each clock cycle.  
         [0003]     The typical sub-modules for such a multi-threaded processor is shown in  FIG. 1 . For the purposes of this example the microprocessor core in this figure has only two execution threads.  
         [0004]     The microprocessor core  1  issues memory requests to the memory management unit  2 . In the case where the required data is not in its local memory (ie a cache miss), the required data would have to fetched from the external memory. Since the external memory only has a single data path, memory prearbiter  3  is used for arbitrating between requests from different threads.  
         [0005]     The simplest kind of arbitration scheme that can be used in  FIG. 1  is round-robin. However there are two main problems with such a scheme. These are as follows:  
         [0006]     Firstly, conventional dynamic random access memories (DRAM) are organised into banks. These banks are divided into regions called pages. Generally speaking, before a location of the memory can be accessed, the relevant page has to be opened. After the access the memory may choose to keep the current page open(open page policy) or closed(close page policy). For example, if the memory is operating on the open page policy and the pre-arbiter chooses to send a memory access which is not in the same page as the last access, a high memory cycle latency will result due to amount of time needed to open a new page. On the other hand, if the memory is operating on the close page policy, sending a memory request in the same page as the last would similarly result in a high latency.  
         [0007]     Secondly, the AMA of the multi-threaded processor addresses the problem of controlling the use of processor resources such that processing requirements of all programs running on all threads are to be met. The arbitration scheme of  FIG. 1  does not taken into account the current status of the threads. This means it is possible that the operation of the AMA could be impeded. In particular, in cases where there are periods of intense memory activity, the AMA control system could be overloaded simply due to the fact that the prearbiter  3  does not have any thread AMA information.  
       SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION  
       [0008]     Preferred embodiments of the present invention seek to optimise the memory latency in situations where more than one thread is requesting memory access. To achieve this, a register is used to store the page address of the last memory access accepted by the memory. For each access of each thread at the arbiter input the respective page addresses are calculated and compared with the page address held in the register storing the page address of the last memory access. This comparison can then be used to produce an in-page indication. In-page metrics of the various threads are then derived by multiplying the in-page indication with a user-defined weight, allowing user control over the in-page optimisation of memory accesses and between different threads. Note that memory with both open and close page policy could be optimised.  
         [0009]     To solve the second problem a preferred embodiment generates another metric called the AMA metric. Firstly a subset of the AMA delay count and deadline count values are taken. These values are manipulated to produce the AMA metric. The subset for each thread for each count is individually selectable by the user to provide control of the extent of the AMA status that should affect the arbitration of memory accesses.  
         [0010]     Preferred embodiments enable these two metrics to be either used individually or together in combination with a status thread priority to affect thread access to the memory. 
     
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS  
       [0011]     Preferred embodiments of the invention will now be described in detail by way of example with reference to the accompanying drawings in which:  
         [0012]      FIG. 1  shows the typical sub-modules for a multi-threaded processor discussed above;  
         [0013]      FIG. 2  shows schematically the architecture of a memory prearbiter embodying the invention;  
         [0014]      FIG. 3  shows schematically the implementation of in-page metric generation in an embodiment of the invention;  
         [0015]      FIG. 4  shows schematically the implementation of the AMA extraction block for a thread for use in an embodiment of the invention;  
         [0016]      FIG. 5  shows an implementation of overall metric generation for a thread N in an embodiment of the invention;  
         [0017]      FIG. 6  shows schematically the arbitration block in an embodiment of the invention; and  
         [0018]      FIG. 7  shows re-ordering of thread metrics in an embodiment of the invention. 
     
    
       [0019]      FIG. 2  shows schematically a memory prearbiter  1 . This comprises an AMA extraction unit  4  receiving AMA inputs for each thread and in parallel an in-page metric generation unit  7  which receives memory data and control inputs for each thread. The results of the AMA extraction unit and the in-page metric generation unit are supplied to an overall metric generation unit  5  and then to arbitration logic  6  which determines which thread should have access to the memory and provides this access at its output. The arbitration logic  6  is also coupled to the memory data and control inputs for each thread to enable it to pass the data to the memory via its output.  
         [0020]     AMA extraction unit  4  performs subset selection manipulation and concatenation of various AMA counts into AMA metrics for each thread. The in-page metric generation block  7  performs storage of the last memory page address and comparison with the page address of the input request and the necessary manipulation to give the in-page metrics. Normally the manipulation simply comprises a multiplication.  
         [0021]     The overall metric generation unit  5  includes all the logic needed to produce an overall metric for each thread for use by the arbitration logic  6  to derive its final thread decision. When threads are executing on the multi-threaded processor, each thread will provide AMA inputs and memory data and control inputs to the memory prearbiter which will then extract the AMA metrics and in-page metrics to produce an overall metric used by the arbitration logic to determine which thread should have access to the memory. The invention could be modified so that only the AMA metrics, or in-page metrics, or static thread priority is used to determine which thread has access to memory.  
         [0022]      FIG. 3  shows the implementation of the in-page metric block for N number of threads. A last memory access register  9  is provided to store the memory address of the last memory transaction sent to the external memory by the arbitration logic  6  of  FIG. 2 . A page size register  8  stores a fixed number representing the size of a page in bytes in the memory being accessed. N comparators  16  are provided, one for each thread. The comparators each make use of the value stored in the page size register  8  to compute from the input addresses the page address required by each thread. This is then compared with the last memory access value stored in register  9 . The outputs of the comparators are then multiplied by user specified in-page weightings to give N in-page metrics, one for each thread. Each in-page weighting is an 8-bit unsigned vector which gives an in-page metric of the same size.  
         [0023]     This per-thread in-page weighting allows the in-page effect of each thread to be independently fine-tuned. It also gives flexibility, for example establishing relative thread priorities by assigning different values to each thread, when requests of all threads are in-page.  
         [0024]     The AMA extraction block for one of the threads is shown in  FIG. 4 . The object of this block is to produce an 8-bit output vector per thread in this particular embodiment although different outputs may be appropriate in other embodiments. This 8-bit output vector should reflect the current AMA status of the threads. In AMA, the thread ranking algorithm is based on comparing the overall metric of the threads. This is a concatenation of DEADLINE COUNT, the time by which the thread must be executed, DELAY COUNT, the delay since execution of the thread was first requested, and priority, this being the priority given to the thread. The DEADLINE COUNT is the most important of these metrics. Therefore one reasonable form of AMA metrics to use for this block is a concatenation of DEADLINE COUNT and DELAY COUNT with DEADLINE COUNT being more significant.  
         [0025]     If the whole length of the two count values is used then quite stringent timing requirements will be imposed on the hardware in the following stages of the prearbiter. For example, the adders and comparators will have to work harder. In order to relieve this timing requirement whilst still allowing an acceptable usable range of sensitivity of the prearbiter to the AMA status, a bit slice of length  4  for example from each of the DEADLINE and DELAY COUNT are taken by a slice selection unit  10 . As can be seen from  FIG. 4 , the slices of 4-bits are taken from a 20-bit DEADLINE COUNT a 27-bit DELAY COUNT in this particular example. Different sized slices could be used, particularly with different sized DELAY and DEADLINE counts. After this has been done the bits are passed to over range logic  11  which checks to ensure that the slices truly represent a scaled down version of their originals. For example if the slice from bit  5  to bit  2  is taken with the original value being (MSB)xxxxx10000000(LSB) then the slice should be set to a maximum value of 1111 to indicate the value being over range at the top end. The over range checking logic  11  performs this function. A similar process is performed on the DELAY COUNT slice. If the value is not over the range limit it will be passed through unchanged. After this, the two slices are concatenated by a concatenation unit  12  to produce the AMA metric for that thread.  
         [0026]      FIG. 5  shows in more detail the overall metric generation unit  5  of  FIG. 2 . This comprises an adder  13  which receives three metric inputs. The first of these is an 8-bit fixed thread priority user-defined for the execution thread. The AMA metric and the in-page metric are the other two inputs. The output of the adder is 9 bits and is supplied to range limiting logic  14 . All the 8-bit input vectors are unsigned as is the 9-bit output.  
         [0027]     For each thread a respective adder  13  adds the AMA and the in-page metrics explained above to the fixed user specified thread priority. The range limiting logic then limits the sum to the maximum admissible value. The purpose of including the fixed thread priority is to enable the prearbiter to operate with a fixed thread priority scheme when AMA and/or in-page data is not being used.  
         [0028]     The proposed overall thread priority metric above is suitable to be used for the thread decision because the higher of this value, the higher the importance of the request would be considered by the arbitration logic. For example, a user may regard the memory latency performance as important for a particular thread so that a large in-page weight is set thereby producing a large overall metric when an in-page optimisation opportunity arrives. This gives the request a high chance to be considered by the arbitration logic. In the context of AMA control, a higher value in the derived AMA metric would correspond to a thread that has been heavily under scheduled. This will allow the prearbiter to make sure the thread has high memory bandwidth to reduce the time needed by the AMA to revert to its normal scheduling, thus reducing the chance of other thread&#39;s AMA counts being saturated during this balancing period.  
         [0029]     With an arbitration scheme based on an overall metric as discussed above, it is crucial that in both the situations that none of the execution threads are requesting or at least one execution thread is requesting, a sensibly and functionally correct cycle by cycle decision is generated. It is also crucial that in a situation where at least two execution threads have the same metric, the pre-arbiter should give equal shares of memory bandwidth to each of the threads, for example by using a round robin arbitration scheme.  
         [0030]      FIG. 6  illustrates the structure of arbitration logic of the prearbiter in  FIG. 2 . Inputs to this block are m_T 0 , m_T 1 , m_T 2  and m_T 3 , where m_T 0  is the overall metric of thread  0  and v_T 0 , v_T 1 , v_T 2 , v_T 3 , where a ‘1’ on v_T 0  indicates m_T 0  is valid. In order to understand how  FIG. 6  operates, operation of the sub-blocks are described first.  
         [0031]     The function of the re-ordering logic  15  is to assign each pair of the four inputs m_T 0 (v_T 0 ) . . . m_T 3 (v_T 3 ) to different output locations on every clock cycle. For example, on current cycle: 
        m_Ta=m_T 0 , m_Tb=m_T 1 , m_Tc=m_T 2 , m_Td=m_T 3  v_Ta=v_T 0 , v_Tb=v_T, v_Tc=v_T 2 , v_Td=v_T 3         
 
         [0033]     On the next cycle: 
        m_Ta=m_T 1 , m_Tb=m_T 2 , m_Tc=m_T 3 , m_Td=m_T 0  v_Ta=v_T 1 , v_Tb=v_T 2 , v_Tc=v_T 3 , v_Td=v_T 0         
 
         [0035]     The purpose of this shifting and the rule which it is based upon will become apparent later on in the discussion.  
         [0036]     The function of the comparator block  16  is to decide the highest overall metric amongst m_Ta, m_Tb, m_Tc and m_Td given their validity by v_Ta . . . v_Td, and output its corresponding thread number to be the ‘thread decision’. The truth table of such single comparator  17  in  FIG. 6  is given below. A 0  and A 1  are the two data inputs to be compared, and V 0  and V 1  are the valids. OUTPUT contains A 0  or A 1 , depending on which is bigger in size.  
                                                               A0, A1   V0   V1   OUTPUT           A0 = A1   0   0   A0(lowest)             A0 = A1       0       1       A1               A0 = A1       1       0       A0             A0 = A1   1   1   A0(lowest)           A0 &lt; A1   0   0   A0(lowest)             A0 &lt; A1       0       1       A1               A0 &lt; A1       1       0       A0               A0 &lt; A1       1       1       A1             A0 &gt; A1   0   0   A0(lowest)             A0 &gt; A1       0       1       A1               A0 &gt; A1       1       0       A0               A0 &gt; A1       1       1       A0                        
 
         [0037]     From the table it can be seen that the rows marked in BOLD have only one definite output. For example in the second column, comparing a valid A 1  with an invalid A 0  must produce an output of A 1 . The other rows not marked in BOLD represent situations such as ‘neither execution thread is requesting’ or ‘the two metrics are the same’. It follows that these outputs could be assigned arbitrarily. In this embodiment, A 0  would always be assigned the output.  
         [0038]     With this scheme, it can be seen that if the re-ordering logic is by-passed(ie m_Ta=m_T 0  . . . etc) and all the threads at the input of block  40  in  FIG. 6  are requesting with the same metric for some period of time, the thread  0  will always be granted access. This contravenes the equal bandwidth share requirement discussed above. This is why shifting is necessary and it should be done such that for these tie-break situations, equal share of the memory bandwidth is provided  
         [0039]     A final hardware block in  FIG. 6  which is unit  18  is used to connect the data and control inputs of the decision thread to the external memory as required. It receives the data inputs at  19  and connects these to the external memory at  20 . This is all done under the control of the thread decision  49  arrived at by the comparator block  40 .  
         [0040]     The above shows methods by which the thread priorities can be dynamically changed. Others are clearly possible. Whatever the metrics are, these metrics can then be used individually or in combination with other metrics to produce dynamic priority. For example, this system could use only the deadline count in numbers of clock cycles for access of each thread. In such a situation, the closer the access is to the deadline whilst still waiting to be granted, the higher the priority would be for that thread. The deadline settings can of course be changed at any time by a register to reflect the changes on the load of threads to ensure that all threads have time to complete execution.  
         [0041]     The method described in generating an overall thread deciding metric that represents a user specified combination of the fixed and dynamic priority aspects of the input streams could be applied to any kind of arbiter. In this particular application it is shown as a memory pre-arbiter. The implementation allows the arbitration scheme to be based on round robin, in-page optimisation, and AMA status alone or on a scale or mixture of all three giving it much flexibility.