1 An Improved Block-Based Thermal Model in HotSpot 4.0 with Granularity Considerations Wei Huang 1 , Karthik Sankaranarayanan 1 , Robert Ribando 3 , Mircea Stan 2 and Kevin Skadron 1 Departments of 1 Computer Science, 2 Electrical and Computer Engineering and 3 Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Virginia
34
Embed
An Improved Block-Based Thermal Model in HotSpot 4.0 with Granularity Considerations
An Improved Block-Based Thermal Model in HotSpot 4.0 with Granularity Considerations. Wei Huang 1 , Karthik Sankaranarayanan 1 , Robert Ribando 3 , Mircea Stan 2 and Kevin Skadron 1. Departments of 1 Computer Science, 2 Electrical and Computer Engineering and - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
An Improved Block-Based Thermal Model in HotSpot 4.0 with Granularity Considerations
Wei Huang1, Karthik Sankaranarayanan1,
Robert Ribando3, Mircea Stan2 and Kevin Skadron1
Departments of 1Computer Science,2Electrical and Computer Engineering and3Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,University of Virginia
2
Hi! I’m HotSpot Temperature is a primary design constraint
today HotSpot – an efficient, easy-to-use,
microarchitectural thermal model Validated against measurements from
Two finite-element solvers [ISCA03, WDDD07] A test chip with a regular grid of power
dissipators [DAC04] A Field-Programmable Gate Array [ICCD05]
Freely downloadable from http://lava.cs.virginia.edu/HotSpot
3
A little bit of History
Version 1.0 – a block-based model Version 2.0 – TIM added, better heat
spreader modeling Version 3.0 – grid-based model added Version 4.0 coming soon!
4
Why this work? Michaud et. al. [WDDD06] raised
certain accuracy concerns A few of those had already been
addressed pro-actively with the grid-based model
This work tries to address the remaining and does more
Improves HotSpot to Version 4.0 – downloadable soon!
5
Outline
Background Overview of HotSpot Accuracy Concerns Modifications to HotSpot Results Analysis of granularity Conclusion
6
Outline
Background Overview of HotSpot Accuracy Concerns Modifications to HotSpot Results Analysis of granularity Conclusion
7
Overview of HotSpot
Similarity between thermal and electrical physical equations HotSpot discretizes and lumps ‘electrical analogues’ (thermal R’s
for steady-state and C’s for transient) Lumping done at two levels of granularity
Thermal circuits formed based on floorplan Temperature computation by standard circuit solving
Analogy between thermal and electrical conduction
8
Structure of the `block-model’
Sample thermal circuit for a silicon die with 3 blocks, TIM, heat spreader and heat sink (heat sources at the silicon layer are not shown for clarity)
9
Outline
Background Overview of HotSpot Accuracy Concerns Modifications to HotSpot Results Analysis of granularity Conclusion
10
Accuracy concerns from [WDDD06] Spatial discretization – partly addressed
with the `grid-model’ since version 3.0 For the same power map, temperature varies
with floorplan Floorplans with larger no. of blocks better Floorplans with high-aspect-ratio blocks
inaccurate Transient response
Slope underestimated for small times Amplitude underestimated
11
Other issues and limitations
Forced isotherm at the surface of the heat sink
Temperature dependence of material properties – not part of this work
12
Outline
Background Overview of HotSpot Accuracy Concerns Modifications to HotSpot Results Analysis of granularity Conclusion
13
Block sub-division
Version 3.1 – a block is represented by a single node
Version 4.0 – sub-blocks with aspect ratio close to 1
14
Heat sink boundary condition
Version 3.1 – single convection resistance, isothermal surface
Version 4.0 – parallel convection resistances, center modeled at the
same level of detail as silicon
15
Other modifications Spreading R and C approximation formulas
replaced with simple expressions (R = 1/k x t/A, C = 1/k x t x A)
Distributed vs. lumped capacitance scaling factor – 0.5
‘grid-model’ enhancements – apart from the above: First-order solver upgraded to fourth-order
Runge-Kutta Performance optimization of the steady-state
solver
16
Outline
Background Overview of HotSpot Accuracy Concerns Modifications to HotSpot Results Analysis of granularity Conclusion
17
Experiment 1 – EV6-like floorplan
18
Results with good TIM (kTIM = 7.5W/(m-K))
5
10
15
20
25
30
Icac
he
Dcach
e
Bpred
DTB
FPAdd
FPReg
FPMul
FPMap
IntM
apIn
tQ
IntR
eg
IntE
xec
FPQ
LdStQ ITB
Re
lativ
e T
em
pe
ratu
re (
K)
ANSYS
HS4.0
HS3.1
FF3d
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
Icac
he
Dcach
e
Bpred
DTB
FPAdd
FPReg
FPMul
FPMap
IntM
apIn
tQ
IntR
eg
IntE
xec
FPQ
LdStQ ITB
Te
mp
era
ture
Err
or
to A
NS
YS
(K
)
HS4.0 error
HS3.1 error
FF3d error
19
Results with worse TIM (kTIM = 1.33W/(m-K))
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
Icac
he
Dcach
e
Bpred
DTB
FPAdd
FPReg
FPMul
FPMap
IntM
apIn
tQ
IntR
eg
IntE
xec
FPQ
LdStQ ITB
Re
lati
ve
Te
mp
era
ture
(K
)
ANSYS
HS4.0
HS3.1
FF3d
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Icac
he
Dcach
e
Bpred
DTB
FPAdd
FPReg
FPMul
FPMap
IntM
apIn
tQ
IntR
eg
IntE
xec
FPQ
LdStQ ITB
Te
mp
era
ture
Err
or
to A
NS
YS
(K
)
HS4.0 error
HS3.1 error
FF3d error
20
Transient response – bpred
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1.00E-05 1.00E-04 1.00E-03 1.00E-02 1.00E-01
time (s)
rela
tive
tem
per
atu
re (
K)
ANSYS
HS4.0
HS3.1
Heat Flux(W/mm^2)
Transient response for different power pulse widths applied to the branch predictor. Power density is 2W/mm2 (kTIM = 7.5W/(m-K)). Other blocks have zero power dissipation.