Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Tomi Äijö

dblp:174/8278 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2016
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Systems, architecture and hardware · 1 · 1 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper
Processor architecture and microarchitecture · 56% Parallel and multicore computing · 44%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Compilers and program optimization · 100%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Compilers and program optimization
code generation
0.212016
Integer Linear Programming-Based Scheduling for Transport Triggered Architectures · ACM Trans. Archit. Code Optim. 2016
Compilers and program optimization
instruction scheduling
0.212016
Integer Linear Programming-Based Scheduling for Transport Triggered Architectures · ACM Trans. Archit. Code Optim. 2016
Processor architecture and microarchitecture
instruction scheduling
0.212016
Integer Linear Programming-Based Scheduling for Transport Triggered Architectures · ACM Trans. Archit. Code Optim. 2016
Parallel and multicore computing › parallel scheduling
static scheduling
0.212016
Integer Linear Programming-Based Scheduling for Transport Triggered Architectures · ACM Trans. Archit. Code Optim. 2016
Processor architecture and microarchitecture › general-purpose processor architecture
transport triggered architecture
0.112016
Integer Linear Programming-Based Scheduling for Transport Triggered Architectures · ACM Trans. Archit. Code Optim. 2016

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

integer linear programming · 0.5
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2016 Integer Linear Programming-Based Scheduling for Transport Triggered Architectures
abstract
Static multi-issue machines, such as traditional Very Long Instructional Word (VLIW) architectures, move complexity from the hardware to the compiler. This is motivated by the ability to support high degrees of instruction-level parallelism without requiring complicated scheduling logic in the processor hardware. The simpler-control hardware results in reduced area and power consumption, but leads to a challenge of engineering a compiler with good code-generation quality. Transport triggered architectures (TTA), and other so-called exposed datapath architectures, take the compiler-oriented philosophy even further by pushing more details of the datapath under software control. The main benefit of this is the reduced register file pressure, with a drawback of adding even more complexity to the compiler side. In this article, we propose an Integer Linear Programming (ILP) -based instruction scheduling model for TTAs. The model describes the architecture characteristics, the particular processor resource constraints, and the operation dependencies of the scheduled program. The model is validated and measured by compiling application kernels to various TTAs with a different number of datapath components and connectivity. In the best case, the cycle count is reduced to 52% when compared to a heuristic scheduler. In addition to producing shorter schedules, the number of register accesses in the compiled programs is generally notably less than those with the heuristic scheduler; in the best case, the ILP scheduler reduced the number of register file reads to 33% of the heuristic results and register file writes to 18%. On the other hand, as expected, the ILP-based scheduler uses distinctly more time to produce a schedule than the heuristic scheduler, but the compilation time is within tolerable limits for production-code generation.
Tomi Äijö, Pekka Jääskeläinen, Tapio Elomaa, Heikki Kultala, Jarmo Takala
ACM Trans. Archit. Code Optim.1