1 / 9

Multicast Snooping

E. Bilir, R. Dickson, Y. Hu, M. Plakal, D. Sorin, M. Hill, D. Wood Presented By Derek Hower. Multicast Snooping. Why Multicast?. Goal: Reduce communication overhead in cache coherent multiprocessors Scalable snooping Reduced latency directories Solution:

juditharias
Télécharger la présentation

Multicast Snooping

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. E. Bilir, R. Dickson, Y. Hu, M. Plakal, D. Sorin, M. Hill, D. Wood Presented By Derek Hower Multicast Snooping

  2. Why Multicast? • Goal: • Reduce communication overhead in cache coherent multiprocessors • Scalable snooping • Reduced latency directories • Solution: • Hybrid snoop/directory protocol

  3. What is it? • Replace snooping bus with Multicast Address Network • Predict snoop transaction participants • Backup speculation with directory • Back end is Point-to-point data network (like Starfire)

  4. The Protocol • Snooping communication only with processors thought to be involved in the transaction • assume transaction is correct until told otherwise • Incorrect predictions are handled via nack and semiack • Small, predictive, directory protocol backs up the speculative snooping

  5. Mask Prediction • Node locality makes prediction feasible • local data (stack, some parts of the heap) • misses to the same block • Sticky-Spatial(k) prediction • Tracks block access, last invaldator • Introduced locality by using adjacent blocks in the prediction table • Possible for unrelated block to influence prediction • Memory corrects mistakes

  6. Address Network • Built as a fat tree (Modified Isotach) • Total ordering accomplished with timestamps • no need for synchronized delivery • Capable of multiple broadcasts in parallel

  7. Evaluation • “Big picture” simulations • mean number of sharers • prediction capability • mask set size • network availability • Simulated a MSI (not MOSI) protocol • only hurts results

  8. Results • Prediction accuracy: 73 – 95% • Avg. Nodes in Multicast: 2.4 – 5.6 (out of 32) • Avg. excess nodes predicted: 0.3 – 3.4 • Implementation better than half of optimal

  9. Deep Thinking • Evaluation of specifics • Timing: what if time to traverse fat tree overwhelms the benefits of decreased communication? • Complexity • What is the range (in system size) for which the benefits of multicast networking overcome complexity • Much room for improvement: • Better prediction • Smarter address network

More Related