Power Consumption Models for t... - HAL

Power Consumption Models for the Use of Dynamic and
Partial Reconfiguration
Robin Bonamy, Sebastien Bilavarn, Daniel Chillet, Olivier Sentieys
To cite this version:
Robin Bonamy, Sebastien Bilavarn, Daniel Chillet, Olivier Sentieys. Power Consumption Models for
the Use of Dynamic and Partial Reconfiguration. Microprocessors and Microsystems: Embedded
Hardware Design (MICPRO), Elsevier, 2014, <10.1016/j.micpro.2014.01.002>. <hal-00941532>
HAL Id: hal-00941532
Submitted on 31 Mar 2016
HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.
L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.
Power Consumption Models for the Use of
Dynamic and Partial Reconfiguration
Robin Bonamy
Sébastien Bilavarn
Olivier Sentieys
Daniel Chillet
Minimizing the energy consumption and silicon area are usually two
major challenges in the design of battery-powered embedded computing
systems. Dynamic and Partial Reconfiguration (DPR) opens up promising prospects with the ability to reduce jointly performance and area of
compute-intensive functions. However, partial reconfiguration management involves complex interactions making energy benefits very difficult
to analyze. In particular, it is essential to realistically quantify the energy
loss since the reconfiguration process itself introduces overheads. This
paper addresses this topic and presents a detailed investigation of the
power and energy costs associated to the different operations involved
with the DPR capability. From actual measurements considering a Xilinx ICAP reconfiguration controller, results highlight other components
involved in DPR power consumption, and lead to the proposition of three
power models of different complexity and accuracy tradeoffs. Additionally, we illustrate the exploitation of these models to improve the analysis
of DPR energy benefits in a realistic application example.
Run-time reconfiguration, i.e. the ability to modify hardware execution resources to ensure specific functions arrangement during execution, has been a
promising field of research since the 1990s [Lemoine and Merceron(1995)]. The
technology, now referred to as Dynamic and Partial Reconfiguration (DPR), is
fully operational and available in up to date devices from the two major FPGA
manufacturers, Xilinx and Altera. Run-time reconfiguration allows sharing a
piece of silicon area for the implementation of different hardware accelerators
when tasks are sequentially executed. This results in significantly less FPGA
resources for reconfigurable processing.
Whereas many tools are available for the actual management and programming of DPR functionalities, there are comparatively few methodologies helping
to explore and evaluate these benefits. However, the costs of reconfiguration and
hardware implementation of tasks involve complex issues that need to be well
understood to determine whether or not the gains exceed the costs. Considering
for example an application as a set of tasks with possible hardware implementations, different execution scenarios will influence the actual performance, area
and energy tradeoff of a solution: i) use static hardware tasks, ii) use dynamic
hardware tasks and reconfigure when necessary, iii) use software tasks and iv)
use a mix of software and hardware tasks, possibly statically or dynamically configurable, possibly at different cost-performance tradeoffs for hardware tasks. In
order to assess this very large opportunity of choices, fast and accurate models of DPR reconfiguration must be defined, especially in terms of power and
energy. This paper addresses this problem and investigates the definition, development and use of such models that can be able firstly, to explore combinations
of task implementations, and secondly to provide the associated schedule that
will allow minimizing the energy consumption. Therefore, providing reliable
power models is the main contribution of this work which is based on actual
experimentation of the DPR process in Xilinx devices. Fine measurements on a
Virtex5 FPGA have led to define three models of different accuracy/complexity
tradeoffs. Additionally, we also address an application study of the proposed
models on a representative real life example to show their usefulness in early
design space exploration for energy efficiency.
The outline of the paper is the following. First, we present the context of this
work with a state of the art on power consumption related to the DPR ability,
an introduction to FPGA architectural features for DPR and the experimental
setup developed for accurate power measurements. Extensive measurement results are then analyzed in detail in section III, and exploited in section IV to
define different models for power estimation that are further validated in section
V. The following section VI proposes a case study of these models in the design
space exploration of a HW/SW implementation of a H.264/AVC profile video
decoder application. Finally, section VII summarizes the main conclusions and
presents next directions of research.
Work Context
State of The Art
DPR is a technique enabled in reconfigurable hardware devices like FPGAs to
improve their processing flexibility. Indeed their configuration can be changed
during execution according to user constraints or environmental needs [Tadigotla et al.(2006)Tadigotla, Sliger, a
This run-time tasks configuration ability comes with various opportunities for
energy saving. First, dedicated hardware allows the definition of optimal implementations in terms of processing and energy efficiency. DPR can then be widely
used to increase the resource usage [Eldredge and Hutchings(1996)], further reducing the size of reconfigurable units and the associated static power consumption. Dynamic reconfiguration also lets the modification of clock configuration,
i.e. it provides dynamic frequency adaptation and variation of performances, to
adjust power consumption and energy efficiency on demand [Zhang et al.(2008)Zhang, Rabah, and Weber].
In addition, DPR can also be used to disable the routing of clock signals to some
of the FPGA resources, thus to implement a low overhead clock gating technique
with interesting results [Sterpone et al.(2011)Sterpone, Carro, Matos, Wong, and Fakhar].
An important drawback of DPR in most applications is the unavailability of
the region involved during the reconfiguration process. Limiting the reconfiguration time is thus a critical requirement that can be addressed with different techniques. A first one is to improve the reconfiguration speed to reach the maximum
reconfiguration port throughput [Claus et al.(2008)Claus, Zhang, Stechele, Braun, Hubner, and Becker].
For example, using higher performance memory for bitstream storage (DDR)
and DMA can greatly reduce memory access times to the bitstream. Another
solution is to reduce the size of the configuration data, based for instance on
coding only the differences with previous configuration instead of the completely
new configuration information. In any case, the overhead of reconfigurations is
important to consider in the design process. This has been shown in many recent
works [Rullmann and Merker(2008), Duhem et al.(2012)Duhem, Muller, and Lorenzini],
but reconfiguration delays are not the only issue. The energy cost of DPR is also
an important design parameter to manage, especially to ensure actual energy
gains from its utilization. We can find a few studies on the power consumption of
dynamic reconfiguration in the literature like [Becker et al.(2003)Becker, Huebner, and Ullmann],
[Lorenz et al.(2004)Lorenz, Mengibar, Valderas, and Entrena] and more recently
[Bonamy et al.(2012)Bonamy, Pham, Pillement, and Chillet]. These works generally address the reconfiguration controller and throughput optimization but
do not provide a thorough analysis and modeling of power consumption during
partial reconfiguration.
The fine investigation of power and energy consumption and modeling during DPR is the main focus of this paper. This contribution is part of a more
global design space exploration methodology developed in the context of a platform project focusing on power measurement, estimation and optimization for
heterogeneous hardware-software computing systems [ope(2013)]. In the following, we detail the elaboration of power estimations at different accuracy
and complexity tradeoffs from actual and fine power measurements. We also
show the applicability and usefulness of the proposed models in adapting the
level of estimation complexity to the best suited accuracy imposed by the application analysis. It is then demonstrated how these models greatly help the
analysis of difficult implementation choices including static hardware tasks, software execution and dynamic reconfiguration using the design space exploration
methodology mentioned previously.
FPGA Architecture and Partial Reconfiguration
Effective DPR is available in Xilinx FPGAs since the VirtexII pro series and
more recently in Altera Stratix V devices. This work is based on Xilinx technology and targets more specifically the Virtex5 XC5VLX50T device of a ML550
Evaluation platform for power measurement reasons. A view of the corresponding layout is presented in figure 1. This FPGA is organized in six clock domains where each clock domain is composed of several frames. These frames
are grouped in columns containing either CLBs (slices), DSPs, BRAMs or other
CLB Column
(36 Frames)
BRAM Column
(30 Frames)
DSP Column
(28 Frames)
Figure 1: Top left hand of Virtex-5 XC5VLX50T FPGA layout (Xilinx PlanAhead 12.1).
specific blocks. The number of frames in one column is fixed by the FPGA
architecture and is dependent on the type of these columns. The minimum addressable reconfiguration area is a frame whose configuration requires 41 words
of 4 bytes (164 bytes). The minimum recommended reconfiguration area is a
column, so a Partial Reconfigurable Region (PRR) must be a multiple of the
number of frames and mainly contains CLBs, DSPs and BRAMs.
Figure 2 represents the organization of the configuration file (bitstream) to
configure the PRR example of figure 1. The first few words represent the header
containing information on the bitstream and configuration startup procedure.
The next word is the address of the first frame to configure, followed by the
configuration words for the CLB frames. After four CLB columns comes the
successive configuration of a BRAM column, two CLB columns and a DSP
column. The configuration of this first clock domain ends with CLB data up to
the right bound of the PRR. The second clock domain starts with another frame
address corresponding to the first column and follows the same column pattern
(CLB, BRAM, CLB, DSP). Finally the BRAM content is addressed and a few
additional words end the configuration file.
Experimental Setup
Power Measurement
A Virtex-5 LXT ML550 Networking Interface & Power Measurement Platform
[ML5(2013)] is used in the following experiments. The choice of this platform
1st clock domain
2nd clock domain
BRAM data
Bitsream file content
Bitstream header
Frame address
Frame address
CLB Frames
CLB Frames
BRAM Frames
BRAM Frames
CLB Frames
CLB Frames
DSP Frames
DSP Frames
Frame address
CLB Frames
CLB Frames
Frame address
End of configuration
Figure 2: Bitstream composition to configure a PRR (Xilinx ISE 12.1).
10 mΩ
Figure 3: Power measurement procedure using a ML550 platform, high-precision
amplifier and digital oscilloscope.
was motivated by the availability of built-in resources that greatly helps analyzing power consumption. Indeed five connectors are present on the board to
access the currents consumed by the FPGA and its peripherals. FPGA power
measurement is based on monitoring the power rail of the core. As represented
in figure 3, a high-precision amplifier is used to improve the signal level which is
then sent to a digital oscilloscope. With this procedure, it is possible to measure
power values as low as 0.1mW . As it will be shown, this precision is sufficient
to clearly identify the different steps of a dynamic reconfiguration process and
derive accurate power models.
Platform Setup
The ML550 platform is configured using the Xilinx Reference Design described
in [Xilinx(2011)]. The system is composed of a MicroBlaze processor, a CompactFlash memory controller and a xps_hw_icap reconfiguration controller, as shown
in figure 4. The MicroBlaze processor and the reconfiguration controller operate both at 100M Hz. Reconfiguration requests are managed by the MicroBlaze
Microblaze Core
Hardware Task
Partially Reconfigurable Region
Figure 4: Reference Design used during measurement procedure.
Table 1: FPGA Resources and idle power of tasks used for measurements.
BRAMs Slices DSPs Idle power(mW )
FPGA without task
which reads a configuration bitstream from the CompactFlash and sends it to
the xps_hw_icap to apply the corresponding configuration to a PRR.
Since different tasks are used in the following experiments, one PRR fitting
the area of the biggest task is defined. We selected a PRR that holds in the
top left hand of the FPGA layout as shown in figure 1, and occupies the complete area over two clock domains. Doing this corresponds to a configuration
bitstream with a fixed size of 227700 Bytes. During a measurement process, the
FPGA core is powered at 1V and we make sure that the die temperature keeps
stable around 35◦ C in order to focus on power consumption variations only due
to the DPR. As it is visible for example in figure 5, we can clearly detect the
distinct phases of the reconfiguration process thanks to this procedure.
PRR and Tasks
Power measurements are made using previous PRR that can be configured with
three different tasks. The first task T1 is a matrix multiplication. The second
task T2 is a parallel version of the matrix multiplication. The two RTL implementations of the matrix multiplication are derived from High Level Synthesis
with different loop unrolling settings [Bonamy et al.(2011)Bonamy, Chillet, Sentieys, and Bilavarn].
They correspond to a sequential and a parallel solution which FPGA resources
are given in table 1. The third task is called a blank bitstream and will be
referred to as Tblank in the following. A blank bitstream corresponds to the
configuration of an empty PRR. This is useful to clear the configuration of a
PRR when it is unused and thus to reduce the associated power consumption
[Liu et al.(2010)Liu, Pittman, and Forin]. In the following, we analyze in detail how configuring from one task to another impacts the FPGA core power
Power Consumption Analysis
The overall DPR process consists mainly in transferring data to the different components involved (CompactFlash, MicroBlaze local BRAM memory,
xps_hw_icap reconfiguration controller and configuration memory). The full
procedure can be split into the following basic steps. The configuration data
are successively:
• loaded from a file stored on the CompactFlash and buffered to the MicroBlaze
local memory.
• written from the Microblaze local memory to the xps_hw_icap reconfiguration controller.
• written from the xps_hw_icap to the Internal Configuration Access Port
• written from the ICAP to the configuration memory.
• applied from the configuration memory to the configurable resources (CLB,
BRAM, DSP, interconnect).
Under these circumstances, the global reconfiguration power is the result
of a combination of two main elements: i) reconfiguration control involving
mainly configuration data accesses and ii) the actual configuration of the FPGA
Configuration Data Access
Top of figure 5 reports the power profiles of the FPGA core during DPR from T2
to T1 (black), and from T1 to T2 (gray). If we inspect closely the full reconfiguration process in this figure, we can observe the power variations due to the DPR
procedure. The bottom plot of figure 5 is a zoom on the first 10ms of DPR. To
provide even finer power analysis, we have introduced software triggered markers in the reconfiguration control to highlight each step of the process. Seven
steps are thus clearly identified and presented in the sequence diagram of figure
1. receive reconfiguration order
2. open bitstream file on the CompactFlash
3. read bitstream file header
4. check validity of bitstream file header
5. read file fragment on the CompactFlash
6. write data in xps_hw_icap
7. repeat steps 5 and 6 until the end of file.
Next task runs
BRAM content
CLBs configuration
BRAM configuration
CLBs configuration
DSPs configuration
CLBs configuration
2nd clock domain
CLBs configuration
CLBs configuration
DSPs configuration
BRAM configuration
Previous task runs
CLBs configuration
1st clock domain
6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5
Figure 5: Top plot is the FPGA core power consumption during DPR from T2
to T1 (black) and from T1 to T2 (gray). Bitstream composition is scaled to the
reconfiguration time to outline the reconfiguration steps. Bottom plot is a zoom
on the first 10ms of DPR.
We can notice that the lowest levels in the power profile of figure 5 (bottom
plot) correspond to read accesses to the CompactFlash (phases 3 and 5). Due
to the relative slowness of the CompactFlash, the MicroBlaze processor (which
has the largest part of FPGA power) is mostly waiting for data during these
accesses and does not generate a lot of activity. However writing implies much
more work (phase 6) involving bus traffic, reconfiguration controller activity
and FPGA resources configuration. The corresponding power overheads are
about 45mW which is more than 10% of the overall FPGA power consumption.
There is another power overhead during bitstream validity check (phase 4).
This overconsumption is also significant as it is processed by the MicroBlaze
processor. Note that these power peaks are not visible on top of figure 5 because
of an average filtering scheme used for display convenience. Finally reading file
fragments and writing configuration data to the xps_hw_icap are repeated up
to the end of the bitstream.
Figure 6: Sequence diagram of the reconfiguration process.
Configuration Application
Previous zoom highlighted the influence of configuration data transfers on power
consumption. Nevertheless, the effects of these read and write operations should
not bring significant variations on global power profiles (top of figure 5). Indeed,
if we compute an average sliding window over 0.7ms (black curve, bottom of
figure 5), the resulting profile is very regular and not far from constant. However, global power profiles are clearly not constant over the full duration of the
reconfiguration process. Firstly, two power overconsumptions located around
50 and 200ms are present and look like two “waves”. Secondly, power levels at
the beginning and at the end of the reconfiguration are different. This power
difference seems to be related to the transition from previous to the next task.
These two effects indicate that power profiles also depend on other parameters than configuration data accesses. We assume that the observed power variations are also due to the bitstream contents and we separate two kind of effects:
power surges and power steps. A reconfiguration can cause overconsumptions
due to the activity resulting from differences with previous configuration (power
surges). Then, configuration application enables or disables signals and blocks
that can cause power consumption breaks (power steps). The following sections
detail the analysis of power profiles that justifies these assumptions.
Power Surges
In the power profiles of figure 5 showing the reconfiguration of T2 from T1
(gray) and T1 from T2 (black), both curves have the same overall shape which is
mainly driven by the write operation in the reconfiguration memory. Practically,
when a task is configured over a previous task, reconfiguration consists in rewriting data on the existing content of the configuration memory. If both nth
words in the bitstreams of previous and next tasks are the same, the memory
cells don’t change and the power consumption is low. Inversely, if the two
words in the bitstreams are exactly complementary, each bit of the memory cell
changes and this leads to a larger power consumption. From this observation, we
assume that power consumption during the reconfiguration process is linked to
the differences between the bitstreams of previous and next task configurations.
These differences can be quantified by a metric like the Hamming distance.
On both curves of figure 5, two remarkable zones are present: the first one
is located around 50ms and the second one around 200ms. The amplitude of
these overconsumptions is about 15mW . Further analysis of the bitstream content shows that these two zones correspond to the configuration of two BRAM
frames. The BRAM frames belong in two distinct clock domains which explains
the presence of two overconsumption zones. By correlating this information
with the design view of Xilinx floorplanning tool (PlanAhead), we can notice
that the density of slices is higher close to the BRAM frames. This placement
of logic resources around the BRAM blocks can be explained by the Place and
Route algorithms which probably try to group the resources to limit the cost of
Top of figure 7 shows the power profile of the PRR reconfiguration from T1 to
T2 . Bottom of this figure shows the Hamming distance per configuration word of
32-bit between the two corresponding bitstreams. Abscissa values are adjusted
to tie in the reconfiguration time (ms). We can notice on these curves that the
shape of the Hamming distance is highly correlated to the shape of the power
consumption profile. The Hamming distance peaks at the same time when the
overconsumptions are present, around 50ms and 200 − 250ms. This tends to
confirm the link between configuration differences and overconsumption values
(power surges).
These results suggest that overconsumptions result from differences between
previous and next configurations, which in turn correspond to the activation
and deactivation of interconnects between FPGA resources. This may cause unwanted connections and perhaps small short circuits while the PRR is not fully
configured, as suggested by [Lorenz et al.(2004)Lorenz, Mengibar, Valderas, and Entrena]
for an ATMEL device. Modifications of the FPGA interconnect are indicated
in the bitstream and reflected in the Hamming distance.
Power Steps
Looking more closely at figure 5 reveals that the power levels at the beginning
and the end of the reconfiguration are different. This difference is coherent
FPGA core power (mW)
T2 t o T1 measurement
Bitstream Hamming
Hamming distance (bit/word)
Reconfiguration Time (ms)
Figure 7: Power consumption during DPR from T2 to T1 (straight black line)
and Hamming distance per configuration word of 32-bit in T2 and T1 bitstreams
(dashed gray plot).
with the power consumption of tasks presented in table 1 where the global
power is 402mW for an empty FPGA, and 428mW or 426mW respectively
when tasks T1 or T2 are configured. T1 and T2 don’t have the same idle power
consumption which depends on their size. Logically, using two tasks with more
idle power differences should emphasize this observation. As an illustration,
figure 8 presents the power profile during the partial dynamic reconfiguration
of a PRR from Tblank to T2 , where Tblank is an empty or blank task as defined
previously. This figure explicitly shows two power steps at 55ms and 220ms.
These steps raise progressively the power level from the idle power of previous
task Tblank to the idle power of next task T2 . Figure 8 also highlights the
corresponding bitstream composition of the Virtex5 device which reveals that
two steps appear just before the configuration of BRAMs. This behavior is
typical of activating or deactivating elements and suggests that there is probably
a link with the power consumption of BRAM memories and their associated
active state.
In this section, we have identified the main elements involved. First there
is a contribution from reconfiguration control involving mainly configuration
data accesses, and second from the actual application of a configuration. In
the actual configuration application, power surges are present because of differences between previous and next configuration, and power steps result from the
activation of new resources for the next task configuration. From these contributions, the following section defines three power models of DPR with different
accuracy levels.
Next task runs
BRAM content
CLBs configuration
BRAM configuration
CLBs configuration
DSPs configuration
CLBs configuration
2nd clock domain
CLBs configuration
CLBs configuration
DSPs configuration
BRAM configuration
CLBs configuration
Previous task runs
1st clock domain
Figure 8: Power consumption during DPR from Tblank to T2 and corresponding
bitstream composition.
Power Consumption Estimation
Coarse Grained DPR Model
The easiest way to estimate the power consumption of a PRR reconfiguration is
to record measurements of multiple reconfigurations and to consider the average
value. Idle power is subtracted from this value before reconfiguration to keep
only the component related to the reconfiguration. It can thus be considered as
the power consumption resulting from the control of the reconfiguration and will
be referred to as Pcontrol in the following. The FPGA idle power consumption
before reconfiguration is defined by the FPGA idle power consumption when
the configuration of the PRR is cleared (blank ): PF P GA . The idle power Pprev
of the PRR configured previously is obtained by subtracting PF P GA from the
global FPGA idle power measurement when Tprev is configured on the PRR. In
these conditions, the corresponding coarse grained power model is given by the
following expression:
PCG = PF P GA + Pprev + Pcontrol
This model has the advantage of being simple to setup, but deviations can occur
when there is a significant difference of idle power between the previous and the
next task configured on a given PRR.
Medium Grained DPR Model
An improved model can be defined by an interpolation between the idle power
before and after the reconfiguration. This requires to know the idle power of previous and next tasks configured, in addition to the power of the reconfiguration
control. The resulting linear equation is given in the following:
PM G (τ )
= PF P GA + Pprev + Pcontrol
BSsize × Tword
∀ 0 < τ ≤ BSsize × Tword
(Pnext − Pprev ) ×
where τ is a time unit corresponding to the read access of a configuration word
of 32-bit, BSsize is the bitstream size in Bytes of the PRR configured, Tword
is the time required to process a configuration word of 32-bit and Pnext is the
idle power consumption of the PRR with the new task. The estimation error
should be less important than previous model since the idle powers of tasks are
present. However the model does not consider the bitstream content which is
responsible of power steps as explained in section 3.2.2. In the next model, this
can be addressed by the Hamming distance.
Fine Grained DPR Model
In this section, the reconfiguration model is based on the same previous parameters, but the profile defined in this case evolves by steps which are dependent
on the bitstream content. In addition, power surges are also considered with
the Hamming distance reflecting the differences between configuration words
of both bitstreams. The resulting model involves advanced parameters whose
determination is further detailed in section 5.1.
The resulting model is defined by the following equation:
PF G (τ )
= PF P GA + Pprev + Pcontrol
+ steps(τ ) × (Pnext − Pprev )
+ α × dHamming (τ, Tprev , Tnext )
where steps(τ ) is a function whose result is between 0 and 1 depending on the
FPGA device and PRR size. In our measures, this function is linked to the position of BRAMs. This value is computed from the PRR resources, bitstream size
and reconfiguration speed. Multiple intermediate values are possible depending
on the PRR composition.
dHamming (τ, Tprev , Tnext ) is the Hamming distance between previous and
next configurations of a PRR, applied on configuration words of 32-bit. Finally
α is a coefficient adjusted for a given FPGA device, reflecting the weight of the
Hamming distance in power consumption.
This section has presented three power models with growing accuracies progressively improving the matching with the actual dynamic reconfiguration
power. In the following section, we set the parameters of these models for
the FPGA and task setup described in section 2.3 in order to compare the
estimation accuracy with actual measurement results.
Model Validation
Model Calibration
Under the experimental conditions presented in section 2.3, this section details
how the values of parameters in the different models are measured or computed
to enable power estimation.
Coarse Grained DPR Model
PF P GA is the FPGA idle power consumption with an empty PRR (402mW ).
Pprev and Pnext are the idle power of the PRR before and after the reconfiguration, they depend on the tasks involved Tprev and Tnext . These values
are measured on the FPGA and the corresponding results come from table 1.
Pcontrol is the average extra power required for the reconfiguration control to
transmit reconfiguration data from the storage memory to the configuration
memory through the ICAP port. This power has been measured by averaging power measurements of multiple reconfigurations of the same blank task
to avoid power variations due to configuration differences. The corresponding
power consumption is Pcontrol = 20mW .
Medium Grained DPR Model
Two additional parameters are used in the medium grained model: BSsize
and Tword . BSsize is the size of the reconfiguration bitstream for the PRR
considered, in this case 227700 Bytes. Tword is the time needed to configure one
word (4 Bytes) of the bitstream. Its actual value is 7.4ms which is derived from
the reconfiguration time of the bitstream and its size:
TReconf iguration
Fine Grained DPR Model
The fine grained model expressed in (3) requires three more parameters: dHamming (τ, Tprev , Tnext ),
α and steps(τ ).
dHamming (τ, Tprev , Tnext ) is the function that returns the Hamming difference computed word per word between the previous configuration and the next
configuration data. This value is filtered with a sliding window average over 100
words. This average is required because the same difference between two words
does not necessarily result in the same overconsumption (depending on the type
of resource under configuration in the bitstream position). Thus, the average
of the Hamming distance should be performed on at least one frame to allow
a better estimation of the real power consumption required during reconfiguration. However, this averaging process does not include the end of the bitstream
as it represents exclusively BRAM data. dHamming (τ, Tprev , Tnext ) returns 0 in
this case since BRAM content configuration does not have a significant power
α is a technology dependent parameter used to weight the Hamming distance. This parameter is determined with an iterative optimization algorithm
to minimize the average absolute power error between the estimated power and
actual measurements. Considering T2 to T1 configuration, the optimal value for
α is 2.98mW .
Finally, the determination of the power step function steps(τ ) is derived
from the FPGA layout. Presented in section 2.3.2, the PRR used occupies two
columns of BRAMs in two distinct clock domains. As seen in section 3.2.2,
power steps occur before the BRAM interconnect configuration, so there are
logically two power steps equally shared in this case. The position of these
steps correspond to the beginning of BRAM configuration frames. Since four
CLB columns precede the first BRAM configuration frame, and considering that
CLB column requires 36 frames and one frame is 41 words [Xilinx(2010)], the
first step is located at the 5904th word (41×36×4) of the bitstream. The second
step is at the same position in the second clock domain, i.e. at the 31898th word
of the bitstream which ends at the 56925th word. The resulting function steps
is defined as follows:
steps(τ ) = 0 ∀τ ∈ [0; 5903]
steps(τ ) = 0.5 ∀τ ∈ [5904; 31897]
steps(τ ) = 1
∀τ ∈ [31898; 56925].
The power profiles resulting from these models are represented in figures 9,
10, 11 and 12. Straight lines represent the measured power profiles. “x”, “+”
and “o” marked lines are the estimated power traces of the coarse, medium and
fine grained models respectively. These results are further analyzed in terms of
energy and power accuracy in the following sections.
Accuracy of energy estimations
Four reconfiguration scenarios are considered to evaluate the accuracy of energy
estimations: reconfiguration from T1 to T2 , from T2 to T1 , from T1 to Tblank
and from Tblank to T2 . The accuracy of each model is evaluated with regard
to energy consumption by computing the average error and root mean square
error (RMSE), reported in table 2.
Since we consider the same PRR, reconfiguration times are the same in the
four considered cases and energy is comparable to the average power. As visible
in the power profiles of T1 to T2 (figure 9) and T2 to T1 (figure 10), the coarse
grained and medium grained models perform well with less than 14% error on
energy. The error is low in this case because the difference of idle power between
T1 and T2 is fairly limited (2mW ). If we consider higher differences of idle power,
e.g. reconfiguring from T1 to Tblank (figure 11) or from Tblank to T2 (figure 12),
the coarse grained model is significantly more inaccurate with 77% and 68% of
estimation error on energy. Most of this inaccuracy comes from the fact that
the coarse grained model does not consider the idle power of previous and next
tasks. However, the medium grained model limits this estimation error to 20%
Coarse Grained Model
Medium Grained Model
Fine Grained Model
FPGA Core Power (mW)
Reconfiguration Time(ms)
Figure 9: DPR models vs. measurements for the reconfiguration of T1 to T2 .
by considering the idle power of previous and next tasks on the given PRR.
Finally, the fine grained model provides the best estimation results with less
than 6% of error in all cases, by including power surges and power steps to the
model. We can thus observe in figures 9, 10, 11 and 12 a close match between
the power estimated by the fine grained model (“o” round marked line) and the
real measured power (straight line).
Table 2: Average standard error and root mean square error of energy estimations for the coarse grained (CG), medium grained (MG) and fine grained (FG)
models compared to real measures (M)
M (mJ) CG error (mJ) MG err. (mJ) FG err. (mJ)
T2 to T1
-1.3 (-13.7%)
-0.84 (-9.2%)
0.5 (5.5%)
T1 to T2
-0.89 (-9.2%)
-1.3 (-13.5%) -0.22 (-2.3%)
T1 to Tblank
6.2 (77%)
0.59 (7.4%)
-0.13 (-1.7%)
Tblank to T2 10.41
-7.1 (-67.9%)
-2.1 (-19.7%)
0.5 (5%)
-0.77 (-8.3%) -0.9 (-9.8%) -0.16 (-1.8%)
4.77 (51.5%) 1.34 (14.5%) 0.38 (4.0%)
Accuracy of power profiles
In addition to the accuracy of energy estimations presented above, the ability of
power profiles to predict a correct behavior is also an important quality criterion
for the models. The variations of power models from actual power measurements
can be indicated by computing the differences of the models with reality on each
point of the profiles and taking an average. These variation values are presented
in table 3 for the three models and all reconfiguration scenarios.
As expected, the results show that the coarse grained model has an important deviation of 6.5mW , which is 17.6% of the average reconfiguration power.
Coarse Grained Model
Medium Grained Model
Fine Grained Model
FPGA Core Power (mW)
Reconfiguration Time(ms)
Figure 10: DPR models vs. measurements for the reconfiguration of T2 to T1 .
Coarse Grained Model
Medium Grained Model
Fine Grained Model
FPGA Core Power (mW)
Reconfiguration Time(ms)
Figure 11: DPR models vs. measurements for the reconfiguration of T1 to
Tblank .
Coarse Grained Model
Medium Grained Model
Fine Grained Model
FPGA Core Power (mW)
Reconfiguration Time(ms)
Figure 12: DPR models vs. measurements for the reconfiguration of Tblank to
T2 .
This error comes from not considering power surges and power steps. The
medium grained model reduces the average deviation to 4.05mW (10.5%) by
taking into account roughly the power steps. Finally, the fine grained model
is slightly better with an average deviation of 3.75mW which is 9.6% of the
average power of the reconfiguration. It might be noted here that there is an
over-estimation of power surges in the computation of the Hamming distance
in this case. This is caused by the dissymetry of power levels resulting from
the configuration involving Tblank that can be clearly seen in figures 11 and 12.
Moreover, finer variations of power are not estimated and contribute to increase
the error. However, most peak values are present and the general power trend
is globally well estimated.
Table 3: Power profiles deviation for coarse grained (CG), medium grained
(MG) and fine grained (FG) models, compared to measurements.
T2 to T1
T1 to T2
T1 to Tblank
Tblank to T2
CG (mW )
2.7 (5.8%)
4.9 (10.2%)
10 (31.8%)
8.2 (22.4%)
6.5 (17.6%)
MG (mW )
2.7 (5.8%)
4.6 (9.5%)
5 (16%)
3.9 (10.7%)
4.05 (10.5%)
FG (mW )
3.2 (6.9%)
3.8 (7.9%)
4.3 (13.5%)
3.7 (10%)
3.75 (9.6%)
Relevance of DPR Models
The three models proposed for DPR are useful to adjust the estimation accuracy
to the level of analysis and detail needed. In all cases, the fine grained model is
preferable in terms of precision, but it is not always the best choice in pratice
due to its high elaboration complexity (Hamming distance, step function and
calibration parameters). In addition, the accuracy of the fine grained model is
not necessary in many cases. Especially, fine power details become secondary
when the reconfiguration overhead is optimized and low compared to execution
times and power of hardware tasks (which is also a requirement for actual DPR
benefits). Therefore the choice of a model is driven by i) the availability of a fine
grained model for a device or technology, and ii) a tradeoff between accuracy and
elaboration complexity. In the absence of a fine grained model, coarse grained
and middle grained models are easier to use and relevant enough to provide fair
energy estimations and power profiles in a large number of cases. Next section
will illustrate the practical consideration of two of these models for a realistic
application example.
It is important to stress that the performance of a reconfiguration controller
has also a very large impact on the relevance of DPR in a real design. In the proposed experimental setup of section 2.3 based on the Xilinx Reference Design,
reconfiguration performance is dependent on the use of Xilinx xps_hw_icap,
MicroBlaze and CompactFlash. Higher reconfiguration performance can be
reached using an optimized framework such as [Duhem, F. and Muller, F. and Lorenzini, P.(2011)]
and [Bonamy et al.(2012)Bonamy, Pham, Pillement, and Chillet]. In [Bonamy et al.(2012)Bonamy, Pham, Pill
for example, reconfiguration is significantly faster but power variations are very
difficult to detect in this case because of the low level of currents involved and
bandwidth limits of current probes. Measurement is the main reason why a
standard Xilinx setup is used in this study. However, we have also developed
optimized DPR controller IPs under closely related works and we have a precise
knowledge of the mechanisms and techniques used. The steps involved in an
optimized DPR process are essentially the same, therefore the same power models apply. The use of an optimized controller is thus expected to affect mainly
the parameters of equations and depends on the DPR model concerned. For
the coarse grained model, power of the controller (Pcontrol ) is the only parameter impacted in equation (1), performance (Tword ) has also to be modified for
the medium grained model in equation (2). When considering the fine grained
model of equation (3), Pcontrol is affected. In addition, faster reconfiguration
could also decrease peaks of supply current due to the capacitance effect of
power rails. This can in turn impact the Hamming distance and require an adjustment of the sliding window used for computation, to correct the amplitude
of power peaks. Considering this, a relative deviation can occur for optimized
controller models but in this case, this would mainly relate to the fine grained
Application Study
AADL Exploration and modeling framework
In this section, we show the usefulness of previous DPR models for the analysis
of a relevant application example. The design framework used for this purpose is a system level approach based on the Architecture Analysis and Design
Figure 13: H.264/AVC decoder block diagram and profiling
Language (AADL [aad(2010)]) developed in the scope of the Open-PEOPLE
platform project [ope(2013)]. In this context, a methodology automating the
Design Space Exploration (DSE) of energy and performance tradeoffs in dynamically reconfigurable systems has been proposed, allowing the evaluation of
multiple application implementations on a heterogeneous System-on-Chip composed of processor(s) and dynamically reconfigurable unit(s). It starts from the
description of execution resources (CPU cores, FPGA) and application tasks
with their possible hardware and software instantiations. Then a greedy algorithm searches for all mapping solutions and computes the associated costs in
terms of energy and performance. Reliable analysis of dynamic hardware implementations in particular requires relevant energy models of the dynamic and
partial reconfiguration process. In the following, we illustrate the use of previous
DPR models in this DSE and modeling framework for the realistic application
example described in the following.
H264/AVC decoder
The application which is considered for this validation study is a H.264/AVC
profile video decoder. High Level Synthesis (HLS) is used to provide values of
cost performance tradeoffs for possible hardware functions, which serve as an
entry point to the exploration methodology. The H.264 decoder used corresponds to the block diagram of figure 13 which is a version derived from the
ITU-T reference code [h26(2005)] to comply with hardware design constraints
and HLS. From the original C++ code, a profiling step identifies four main
functionalities for acceleration that are, in order of importance, the deblocking
filter (24%), the inverse context-adaptive variable-length coding (Inv. CAVLC
21%), the inverse quantization (Inv. Quant. 19%) and the inverse integer transform (Inv. Transf. 12%). To achieve better results, we have merged the inverse
Table 4: H264 task parameters
T ask
Tex (ms) Tex (ms) Slices Tex (ms) Slices
MB Header
Inv QTr
Inv Pred
DB Filter
quantization and integer transform into a single block (Inv. QTr.). It might
be noted here that CAVLC was not added to this block because the HLS tool
(Catapult C Synthesis 2009a Release) could not handle the complexity of the
resulting C code. Therefore, this results in three potential hardware functions
representing 76% of the total processing time.
The deblocking filter, inverse CAVLC, and inverse quantization and transform block are the three functionalities of the decoder that can be either implemented in software or in dedicated hardware. For hardware implementations,
an exploration of loop level parallelism was carried out with the HLS tool in order to target varying performance and resource requirements. We have selected
from the results the fastest and the slowest solutions for each accelerator, except
for CAVLC where too little parallelism could be exploited by the HLS tool. Table 4 shows the corresponding hardware and software task parameters that will
be the inputs for the exploration example. In this table, hardware execution
parameters (section HWex ) are measured on a Virtex-6 LX240T FPGA (Xilinx
ML605 development board). Software tasks (section SWex ) are described over
a 600MHz ARM CortexA8 processor (Texas Instruments BeagleBoard) rather
than MicroBlaze in order to provide results and discussions that are more relevant of video processing constraints (25 fps).
Exploration Results
With the previously described exploration framework, we analyze different execution possibilities of the H264 decoder envisaging a heterogeneous computing
platform possibly composed of ARM CortexA8 cores and a Virtex-6 FPGA (supporting DPR). The exploration algorithm analyzes the power and time required
for running each task using a CPU or a hardware resource (PRR). Reconfiguration costs are considered based on the estimation models presented in section
4. Exploration results highlights one solution corresponding to the lowest energy consumption and execution time for the entire application. We chose to
setup the reconfigurable resource in two PRRs of different sizes derived from
the area of available hardware tasks described in table 4. The size of P RR1
and P RR2 are respectively 1200 and 3200 slices in such a way that all hardware
tasks can fit in the largest PRR (P RR2). The smallest PRR (P RR1) is suitable only for hardware sequential implementations (HWseq ) of Inv. QTr. and
DB Filter. As the reconfiguration speed of the xps_hw_icap can not exceed
15M B/s, which is too slow to meet video processing constraints, we set a faster
reconfiguration throughput of 40M B/s. In these conditions, the corresponding exploration results are reported considering the Coarse Grained and Fine
Grained DPR models.
Coarse Grained DPR Model
Exploration results using the coarse grained model for the first execution of a
hyper-period of the H264 decoder highlighted a best energy and performance
DPR solution whose details are represented in figure 14. Top of this figure is
the mapping of hardware and software tasks respectively on PRRs and CPUs
against time. For this solution, three tasks are executed on a unique CPU (in
blue) and three tasks are executed using the two PRRs (in green). We can notice the presence of dynamic and partial reconfiguration phases (in red) prior to
each hardware task execution. As expected, reconfiguration time overheads are
important (13ms for P RR2, 5ms for P RR1) but hardware DPR still outperforms software execution by 37%. On the corresponding estimated power profile
(bottom of figure 14), we can see the processor power consumption when it goes
from running to idle state when Inv. Pred. task is finished (21ms). Power consumption of the reconfigurations, based on the coarse grained model (constant
power), are represented before hardware execution (10 − 23ms, 37 − 42ms and
47 − 52ms).
Fine Grained DPR Model
The best energy and performance DPR solution provided by the exploration
results, using now the fine grained model, is reported in figure 15. Changing
the DPR model does not change the mapping of tasks which is exactly the same
as described previously in figure 14. Both overall power profiles of figure 14
and 15 are very similar except in some details resulting from the sophistication
of the finer grained model, putting into light additional variations impacting
the power profiles. Power surges, estimated with the Hamming distance, are
apparent in the global SoC power consumption. Power steps are also present
e.g. at 12ms and 19ms when configuring CAVLC and at 38ms and 40ms for
the configuration of Inv. QTr. These power steps are not visible for DB Filter
since idle power of Inv. QTr. and DB Filter are quite similar (33.4mW and
34.2mW ).
The overall energy, execution time and maximum power estimated with both
models are reported in table 5 for further discussion in the following.
Result Analysis
Table 5 summarizes key features of the best hardware DPR solution highlighted
by exploration, for both coarse grained and fine grained estimation results. It
CPU1 ExGolombMBHeader
Inv.QTr. DPR DBFilter
Exec Time (ms)
Exec Time (ms)
Power (mW)
Figure 14: Task mapping, scheduling and power profile estimation using the
coarse grained model.
CPU1 ExGolombMBHeader
Inv.QTr. DPR DBFilter
Exec Time (ms)
Exec Time (ms)
Power (mW)
Figure 15: Task mapping, scheduling and power profile estimation using the
fine grained model.
Table 5: Characteristics of exploration results
Energy (mJ) Time (ms) Max Power (mW )
Coarse Grain
Fine Grain 32.53 (1.9%)
816.5 (+9.1%)
Full software
HW (no DPR)
also compares these values against full software execution (one CPU, no accelerator) and static hardware implementation (no DPR, all IPs are statically
instantiated on the FPGA). First, the difference in energy estimations is only
0.62mJ(2%) between the fine grained and the coarse grained models. The reduced deviation comes from the efficient modeling of power steps and power
surges in the reconfiguration process. Secondly, the estimated execution time
is the same for both models, which shows that small energy differences did not
affect mapping choices during exploration. Finally, the maximum peak power
estimated by the fine grained model is 68mW (9%) higher than the peak power
estimated by the CG model. As mentioned in section 5.4, the fine grained model
illustrates its ability to consider more advanced level of characteristics, global
peak power in this case. In this example, the maximum SoC power consumption
is visibly impacted by DPR, this can have to be considered in the development
of power sensitive applications. On the flip side, the coarse grained model provides simple but accurate enough model (2% energy difference) to achieve early
system level estimation and exploration.
In this case study, DPR hardware / software execution of the application provides noticeable acceleration and energy reduction compared to a full processor
solution (based on single core CortexA8). Decoding rate is 18 frames per second
(fps) while single processor execution reaches 11 fps, which is 64% faster. The
energy gain is 17% for DPR against mono processor execution. However, compared to a static implementation of all accelerators (no DPR), the lowest energy
DPR solution consumes more, 32.53mJ versus 25.10mJ. The corresponding execution times are 31ms for the static solution and 55ms for the DPR solution.
It should be noted here that 24ms of this execution time (43%) is devoted to the
reconfiguration overhead. Using a more efficient controller would greatly reduce
this and the energy cost as well. For example, an optimized reconfiguration
controller such as [Bonamy et al.(2012)Bonamy, Pham, Pillement, and Chillet]
has a reconfiguration speed of 400MB/s for 384nJ/KB, compared to 96KB/s
for 213uJ/KB in a Xilinx ICAP based setup. Introducing these parameters in
the coarse grained model for exploration reduces the total part of reconfiguration time from 43% to 9% of the total execution time. This also results in a
lower power/energy overhead and reduces the overall energy of the best energy
solution to 19.45mJ, which is then 22.5% better than a static solution.
Further analysis of estimation accuracy
To complete the analysis of estimation accuracy (section 5), six additional reconfiguration scenarios using H.264 hardware tasks with a PRR of 1440 slices
have been considered in table 6 and table 7: Inv QT rpar to Tblank , Tblank to
Inv QT rpar , Inv QT rpar to Inv QT rseq , Inv QT rseq to DB F ilter, DB F ilter
to Inv QT rpar , Inv QT rpar to T1 . When compared to the measures, energy
Table 6: Average standard error and root mean square error of energy estimations for the coarse grained (CG), medium grained (MG) and fine grained (FG)
models compared to real measures (M)
M (mJ)
Inv QT rpar to Tblank
Tblank to Inv QT rpar
Inv QT rpar to Inv QT rseq
Inv QT rseq to DB F ilter
DB F ilter to Inv QT rpar
Inv QT rpar to T1
CG error (mJ) MG err. (mJ) FG err. (mJ)
24 (324%)
6.4 (86.8%)
6 (82%)
-12.9 (-80.6%) 2.2 (-13.7%)
10 (67%)
11.8 (87.5%)
0.4 (2.8%)
2.7 (19.6%)
-12.6 (-65.8%)
-5.4 (-28%)
2.9 (15%)
-22.9 (-78.6%) -15.2 (-52.4%) -2.1 (-7.2%)
-1.4 (-6.6%)
-8 (-36.7%)
-1.7 (-7.6%)
12.9 (89%)
6.1 (43%)
4 (27%)
estimations show larger deviations: 27% for FG, 43% for MG and 89% for CG
in average. Power profiles follow the same trend: 34% for FG, 31% for MG and
44% for CG (average). Closer analysis shows that the size of tasks increases
disparities of the models (e.g. Inv QT rpar with 1385 slices representing 96% of
the PRR’s resources). This means that the Hamming distance and power step
modeling functions (section 4) have to be refined for PRRs and tasks of very
important complexities. Additional modeling and analysis would be required to
further increase the precision of DPR estimates which depends on detailed low
level DPR knowledge (bitstream, PRR structure) that are protected information
not easy to investigate.
However, the estimation models are intended to be used at system level exploration where the current accuracy is sufficient. We chose not to develop finer
DPR modeling as it is not essential for our goals and would additionally lead to
technology dependent models. In previous exploration example, the improvement of FG over CG is due to a better matching with real power peaks (which
grew by 9% using FG), and results in more accurate energy estimations. However, the benefits of DPR FG modeling regarding the full application level is
relatively limited (1.9% better energy accuracy over CG for the H.264 decoder
example). DPR overheads in this example represent up to 43% of the total execution time due to the use of an unoptimized DPR controller for measurement
reasons. In a practical implementation, reconfiguration time would be reduced
to a smaller fraction of the global application execution time, limiting even further the impact of model deviations to a level that can be considered negligible
(e.g. significantly below 1.9% for the H.264 application example).
Table 7: Power profiles deviation for coarse grained (CG), medium grained
(MG) and fine grained (FG) models, compared to measurements.
Inv QT rpar to Tblank
Tblank to Inv QT rpar
Inv QT rpar to Inv QT rseq
Inv QT rseq to DB F ilter
DB F ilter to Inv QT rpar
Inv QT rpar to T1
CG (mW )
15.2 (142%)
13.7 (59%)
17.7 (91%)
6.6 (24%)
12.7 (30%)
16.9 (53%)
10.8 (44%)
MG (mW )
5 (47%)
6.3 (27%)
10.5 (54%)
6.5 (23%)
16.5 (39%)
13.7 (43%)
7.5 (31%)
FG (mW )
10.1 (94%)
12 (62%)
6.8 (23%)
15 (35%)
13.5 (43%)
8.3 (34%)
Conclusion and Perspectives
Based on a reference procedure of dynamic and partial reconfiguration for Xilinx
FPGAs, this paper has thoroughly investigated the measurements and modeling of power and energy during run-time partial reconfiguration. Results have
shown that power consumption was not as straightforward as expected. Components other than the reconfiguration controller have been identified, like the effect of previous configuration and the resources of reconfigurable regions. Three
analytic models have been proposed in order to help analyzing the power contribution of dynamic reconfiguration at different levels of detail. The applicability
and usefulness of these models have been illustrated on a representative example
of design space exploration for a H264/AVC decoder. In this application study,
the ability of models to determine if exploiting DPR in a SoC actually leads to
an overall energy saving or to a loss has also been shown.
The perspectives from this work1 are to continue developing the applicability, especially for more generic model calibration and interaction between
models and tools. Another issue in this context is also to investigate online
multiprocessor scheduling policies that would be able to support efficient execution of dynamic hardware and software tasks. The expected results from these
efforts are a complete system level approach for the design space exploration of
reconfigurable heterogeneous multicore System-on-Chips with power issues.
Robin Bonamy received his M.E. degree in Electronics and Embedded Systems from University of Rennes, France in 2009 and his Ph.D.
degree in signal processing at IRISA, France in 2013. He is currently
occupying a postdoc position. His research interests are power and
energy models and design space exploration especially for energy consumption reduction in micro-controllers, FPGAs and reconfigurable
1 This work was carried out under the Open-PEOPLE project, a platform project
funded within the framework of the Embedded Systems and Large Infrastructures program
(ARPEGE) from ANR, the french National Agency for Research.
Sebastien Bilavarn received the B.S. and M.S. degrees from the
University of Rennes in 1998, and the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from the University of South Brittany in 2002 (at formerly
LESTER, now Lab-STICC). Then he joined the Signal Processing
Laboratories at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL)
for a three year post-doc fellowship to conduct research with the System Technology Labs at Intel Corp., Santa Clara. Since 2006 he is
an Associate Professor at Polytech’Nice-Sophia school of engineering,
and LEAT Laboratory, University of Nice-Sophia Antipolis - CNRS.
His research interests are in design, exploration and optimization
from early specifications with investigations in heterogeneous, reconfigurable and multiprocessor architectures, on a number of french,
european and international collaborative research projects.
Daniel CHILLET is member of the Cairn Team, which is an Inria
Team located between Lannion and Rennes in France. Daniel CHILLET received the Engineering degree and the M.S. degree in electronics and signal processing engineering from University of Rennes
1, respectively, in 1992 and in 1994, the Ph.D. degree in signal processing and telecommunications from the University of Rennes 1 in
1997, and the habilitation to supervise PhD in 2010. He is currently
an Associate Professor of electrical engineering at the Enssat, engineering school of University of Rennes 1. Since 2010, he is the Head
of the Electronics Engineering department of Enssat. His research interests include memory hierarchy, reconfigurable resources, real-time
systems, and middleware. All these topics are studied in the context
of MPSoC design for embedded systems. Low power design based on
reconfigurable systems is one important topic and spatio-temporal
scheduling, memory organization and operating system services have
been previously addressed on several projects.
Olivier Sentieys joined University of Rennes (ENSSAT) and IRISA
Laboratory, France, as a full Professor of Electronics Engineering, in
2002. He is leading the CAIRN Research Team common to INRIA
Institute (national research institute in computer science) and IRISA
Lab. (research institute in computer science and random systems).
Since September 2012 he is on secondment at INRIA as a Senior Research Director. His research activities are in the two complementary
fields of embedded systems and signal processing. Roughly, he works
firstly on the definition of new system-on-chip architectures, especially the paradigm of reconfigurable systems, and their associated
CAD tools, and secondly on some aspects of signal processing like
finite arithmetic effects and cooperation in mobile systems. He is the
author or coauthor of more than 150 journal publications or peerreviewed conference papers and holds 5 patents. Olivier Sentieys is
the head of the Architecture department of IRISA.
[Lemoine and Merceron(1995)] E. Lemoine, D. Merceron, Run time reconfiguration
of FPGA for scanning genomic databases, in: FPGAs for Custom Computing
Machines, 1995. Proceedings. IEEE Symposium on, 1995.
[Tadigotla et al.(2006)Tadigotla, Sliger, and Commuri] V. Tadigotla, L. Sliger,
S. Commuri, FPGA implementation of dynamic run-time behavior reconfiguration in robots, in: Computer Aided Control System Design, 2006 IEEE
International Conference on Control Applications, 2006 IEEE International
Symposium on Intelligent Control, 2006 IEEE, 2006.
[Eldredge and Hutchings(1996)] J. G. Eldredge, B. L. Hutchings, Run-Time Reconfiguration: A Method for Enhancing the Functional Density of SRAM-based FPGAs, The Journal of VLSI Signal Processing 12 (1996) 67–86.
[Zhang et al.(2008)Zhang, Rabah, and Weber] X. Zhang, H. Rabah, S. Weber, Dynamic slowdown and partial reconfiguration to optimize energy in fpga based
auto-adaptive sopc, in: Electronic Design, Test and Applications, 2008. DELTA
2008. 4th IEEE International Symposium on, 2008.
[Sterpone et al.(2011)Sterpone, Carro, Matos, Wong, and Fakhar] L.
L. Carro, D. Matos, S. Wong, F. Fakhar, A new reconfigurable clock-gating
technique for low power SRAM-based FPGAs, in: Design, Automation & Test
in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE), 2011, 2011.
[Claus et al.(2008)Claus, Zhang, Stechele, Braun, Hubner, and Becker] C.
B. Zhang, W. Stechele, L. Braun, M. Hubner, J. Becker, A multi-platform
controller allowing for maximum dynamic partial reconfiguration throughput,
in: Field Programmable Logic and Applications, 2008. FPL 2008. International
Conference on, 2008.
[Rullmann and Merker(2008)] M. Rullmann, R. Merker, A cost model for partial dynamic reconfiguration, in: Embedded Computer Systems: Architectures, Modeling, and Simulation, 2008. SAMOS 2008. International Conference on, 2008.
[Duhem et al.(2012)Duhem, Muller, and Lorenzini] F. Duhem, F. Muller, P. Lorenzini, Reconfiguration time overhead on field programmable gate arrays: reduction
and cost model, Computers & Digital Techniques, IET 6 (2012) 105–113.
[Becker et al.(2003)Becker, Huebner, and Ullmann] J. Becker, M. Huebner, M. Ullmann, Power estimation and power measurement of Xilinx Virtex FPGAs: tradeoffs and limitations, in: Integrated Circuits and Systems Design, 2003. SBCCI
2003. Proceedings. 16th Symposium on, 2003.
[Lorenz et al.(2004)Lorenz, Mengibar, Valderas, and Entrena] M. Lorenz, L. Mengibar, M. Valderas, L. Entrena, Power consumption reduction through dynamic
reconfiguration, in: Field Programmable Logic and Application, Springer Berlin
/ Heidelberg, 2004.
[Bonamy et al.(2012)Bonamy, Pham, Pillement, and Chillet] R. Bonamy,
Pham, S. Pillement, D. Chillet, UPaRC - Ultra Fast Power aware Reconfiguration Controller, in: Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference &
Exhibition (DATE), 2012.
[ope(2013)] Open-PEOPLE - Open-Power and Energy Optimization PLatform and
Estimator, http://www.open-people.fr/, 2013.
[ML5(2013)] Virtex-5 LXT ML550 Networking Interface & Power Measurement
HW-V5-ML550-UNI-G.htm, 2013.
[Xilinx(2011)] Xilinx, UG744 - PlanAhead Software Tutorial: Partial Reconfiguration
of a Processor Peripheral, 2011.
[Bonamy et al.(2011)Bonamy, Chillet, Sentieys, and Bilavarn] R. Bonamy, D. Chillet,
O. Sentieys, S. Bilavarn, Parallelism Level Impact on Energy Consumption in
Reconfigurable Devices, ACM SIGARCH Computer Architecture News 39 (2011)
[Liu et al.(2010)Liu, Pittman, and Forin] S. Liu, R. N. Pittman, A. Forin, Energy reduction with run-time partial reconfiguration, in: Proceedings of the
ACM/SIGDA International Symposium on Field Programmable Gate Arrays,
[Xilinx(2010)] Xilinx, UG191 - Virtex-5 FPGA Configuration User Guide, 2010.
[Duhem, F. and Muller, F. and Lorenzini, P.(2011)] Duhem, F. and Muller, F. and
Lorenzini, P., FaRM: Fast Reconfiguration Manager for Reducing Reconfiguration
Time Overhead on FPGA, in: Reconfigurable Computing: Architectures, Tools
and Applications, Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, 2011.
[aad(2010)] Architecture Analysis & Design Language (AADL), version 2, http://
standards.sae.org/as5506a/, 2010.
[h26(2005)] ISO/IEC 14496-10, Advanced Video Coding for Generic Audiovisual Services, ITU-T Recommendation H.264, Version 4, 2005.
Download PDF