StallTime Fair Memory Access Scheduling - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Title: StallTime Fair Memory Access Scheduling


1
Stall-Time Fair Memory Access Scheduling

• Onur Mutlu and Thomas Moscibroda
• Computer Architecture Group
• Microsoft Research

2
Multi-Core Systems
Multi-Core Chip
CORE 0
CORE 1
CORE 2
CORE 3
L2 CACHE
L2 CACHE
L2 CACHE
L2 CACHE
unfairness
Shared DRAM Memory System
DRAM MEMORY CONTROLLER
. . .
DRAM Bank 0
DRAM Bank 1
DRAM Bank 2
DRAM Bank 7
3
DRAM Bank Operation
Access Address (Row 0, Column 0)
Access Address (Row 0, Column 1)
Access Address (Row 0, Column 9)
Access Address (Row 1, Column 0)
Columns
Row address 0
Row address 1
Row decoder
Rows
Row Buffer
HIT
HIT
CONFLICT !
Row 0
Empty
Row 1
Column decoder
Column address 0
Column address 1
Column address 9
Column address 0
Data
4
DRAM Controllers

• A row-conflict memory access takes significantly
  longer than a row-hit access
• Current controllers take advantage of the row
  buffer
• Commonly used scheduling policy (FR-FCFS)
  Rixner, ISCA00
• (1) Row-hit (column) first Service row-hit
  memory accesses first
• (2) Oldest-first Then service older accesses
  first
• This scheduling policy aims to maximize DRAM
  throughput
• But, it is unfair when multiple threads share the
  DRAM system

5
Outline

• The Problem
• Unfair DRAM Scheduling
• Stall-Time Fair Memory Scheduling
• Fairness definition
• Algorithm
• Implementation
• System software support
• Experimental Evaluation
• Conclusions

6
The Problem

• Multiple threads share the DRAM controller
• DRAM controllers are designed to maximize DRAM
  throughput
• DRAM scheduling policies are thread-unaware and
  unfair
• Row-hit first unfairly prioritizes threads with
  high row buffer locality
• Streaming threads
• Threads that keep on accessing the same row
• Oldest-first unfairly prioritizes
  memory-intensive threads

7
The Problem
Row decoder
T0 Row 0
T0 Row 0
T0 Row 0
T0 Row 0
T0 Row 0
T0 Row 0
T0 Row 0
T1 Row 5
T0 Row 0
T1 Row 111
T0 Row 0
T1 Row 16
Request Buffer
Row Buffer
Row 0
Row 0
Column decoder
Row size 8KB, cache block size 64B 128 requests
of T0 serviced before T1
T0 streaming thread
Data
T1 non-streaming thread
8
Consequences of Unfairness in DRAM
DRAM is the only shared resource
7.74
4.72
1.85
1.05

• Vulnerability to denial of service Moscibroda
  Mutlu, Usenix Security07
• System throughput loss
• Priority inversion at the system/OS level
• Poor performance predictability

9
Outline

• The Problem
• Unfair DRAM Scheduling
• Stall-Time Fair Memory Scheduling
• Fairness definition
• Algorithm
• Implementation
• System software support
• Experimental Evaluation
• Conclusions

10
Fairness in Shared DRAM Systems

• A threads DRAM performance dependent on its
  inherent
• Row-buffer locality
• Bank parallelism
• Interference between threads can destroy either
  or both
• A fair DRAM scheduler should take into account
  all factors affecting each threads DRAM
  performance
• Not solely bandwidth or solely request latency
• Observation A threads performance degradation
  due to interference in DRAM mainly characterized
  by the extra memory-related stall-time due to
  contention with other threads

11
Stall-Time Fairness in Shared DRAM Systems

• A DRAM system is fair if it slows down
  equal-priority threads equally
• Compared to when each thread is run alone on the
  same system
• Fairness notion similar to SMT Cazorla, IEEE
  Micro04Luo, ISPASS01, SoEMT Gabor,
  Micro06, and shared caches Kim, PACT04
• Tshared DRAM-related stall-time when the thread
  is running with other threads
• Talone DRAM-related stall-time when the thread
  is running alone
• Memory-slowdown Tshared/Talone
• The goal of the Stall-Time Fair Memory scheduler
  (STFM) is to equalize Memory-slowdown for all
  threads, without sacrificing performance
• Considers inherent DRAM performance of each
  thread

12
Outline

• The Problem
• Unfair DRAM Scheduling
• Stall-Time Fair Memory Scheduling
• Fairness definition
• Algorithm
• Implementation
• System software support
• Experimental Evaluation
• Conclusions

13
STFM Scheduling Algorithm (1)

• During each time interval, for each thread, DRAM
  controller
• Tracks Tshared
• Estimates Talone
• At the beginning of a scheduling cycle, DRAM
  controller
• Computes Slowdown Tshared/Talone for each
  thread with an outstanding legal request
• Computes unfairness MAX Slowdown / MIN Slowdown
• If unfairness lt ?
• Use DRAM throughput oriented baseline scheduling
  policy
• (1) row-hit first
• (2) oldest-first

14
STFM Scheduling Algorithm (2)

• If unfairness ?
• Use fairness-oriented scheduling policy
• (1) requests from thread with MAX Slowdown first
• (2) row-hit first
• (3) oldest-first
• Maximizes DRAM throughput if it cannot improve
  fairness
• Does NOT waste useful bandwidth to improve
  fairness
• If a request does not interfere with any other,
  it is scheduled

15
How Does STFM Prevent Unfairness?
T0 Row 0
T1 Row 5
T0 Row 0
T0 Row 0
T1 Row 111
T0 Row 0
T0 Row 0
T0 Row 0
T0 Row 0
T1 Row 16
Row Buffer
Row 16
Row 111
Row 0
Row 0
T0 Slowdown
1.00
1.03
1.04
1.04
1.07
1.10
T1 Slowdown
1.03
1.06
1.06
1.08
1.11
1.14
1.00
Unfairness
1.03
1.06
1.03
1.04
1.06
1.04
1.03
1.00
Data
?
1.05
16
Outline

• The Problem
• Unfair DRAM Scheduling
• Stall-Time Fair Memory Scheduling
• Fairness definition
• Algorithm
• Implementation
• System software support
• Experimental Evaluation
• Conclusions

17
Implementation

• Tracking Tshared
• Relatively easy
• The processor increases a counter if the thread
  cannot commit instructions because the oldest
  instruction requires DRAM access
• Estimating Talone
• More involved because thread is not running alone
• Difficult to estimate directly
• Observation
• Talone Tshared - Tinterference
• Estimate Tinterference Extra stall-time due to
  interference

18
Estimating Tinterference(1)

• When a DRAM request from thread C is scheduled
• Thread C can incur extra stall time
• The requests row buffer hit status might be
  affected by interference
• Estimate the row that would have been in the row
  buffer if the thread were running alone
• Estimate the extra bank access latency the
  request incurs

Extra latency amortized across outstanding
accesses of thread C (memory level parallelism)
19
Estimating Tinterference(2)

• When a DRAM request from thread C is scheduled
• Any other thread C with outstanding requests
  incurs extra stall time
• Interference in the DRAM data bus
• Interference in the DRAM bank (see paper)

Bank Access Latency of Scheduled Request
Tinterference(C)
K
Banks Needed by C Requests
20
Hardware Cost

• lt2KB storage cost for
• 8-core system with 128-entry memory request
  buffer
• Arithmetic operations approximated
• Fixed point arithmetic
• Divisions using lookup tables
• Not on the critical path
• Scheduler makes a decision only every DRAM cycle
• More details in paper

21
Outline

• The Problem
• Unfair DRAM Scheduling
• Stall-Time Fair Memory Scheduling
• Fairness definition
• Algorithm
• Implementation
• System software support
• Experimental Evaluation
• Conclusions

22
Support for System Software

• Supporting system-level thread weights/priorities
• Thread weights communicated to the memory
  controller
• Larger-weight threads should be slowed down less
• Each threads slowdown is scaled by its weight
• Weighted slowdown used for scheduling
• Favors threads with larger weights
• OS can choose thread weights to satisfy QoS
  requirements
• ? Maximum tolerable unfairness set by system
  software
• Dont need fairness? Set ? large.
• Need strict fairness? Set ? close to 1.
• Other values of ? trade-off fairness and
  throughput

23
Outline

• The Problem
• Unfair DRAM Scheduling
• Stall-Time Fair Memory Scheduling
• Fairness definition
• Algorithm
• Implementation
• System software support
• Experimental Evaluation
• Conclusions

24
Evaluation Methodology

• 2-, 4-, 8-, 16-core systems
• x86 processor model based on Intel Pentium M
• 4 GHz processor, 128-entry instruction window
• 512 Kbyte per core private L2 caches
• Detailed DRAM model based on Micron DDR2-800
• 128-entry memory request buffer
• 8 banks, 2Kbyte row buffer
• Row-hit round-trip latency 35ns (140 cycles)
• Row-conflict latency 70ns (280 cycles)
• Benchmarks
• SPEC CPU2006 and some Windows Desktop
  applications
• 256, 32, 3 benchmark combinations for 4-, 8-,
  16-core experiments

25
Comparison with Related Work

• Baseline FR-FCFS Rixner et al., ISCA00
• Unfairly penalizes non-intensive threads with
  low-row-buffer locality
• FCFS
• Low DRAM throughput
• Unfairly penalizes non-intensive threads
• FR-FCFSCap
• Static cap on how many younger row-hits can
  bypass older accesses
• Unfairly penalizes non-intensive threads
• Network Fair Queueing (NFQ) Nesbit et al.,
  Micro06
• Per-thread virtual-time based scheduling
• A threads private virtual-time increases when
  its request is scheduled
• Prioritizes requests from thread with the
  earliest virtual-time
• Equalizes bandwidth across equal-priority threads
  
• Does not consider inherent performance of each
  thread
• Unfairly prioritizes threads with non-bursty
  access patterns (idleness problem)
• Unfairly penalizes threads with unbalanced bank
  usage (in paper)

26
Idleness/Burstiness Problem in Fair Queueing
Thread 1s virtual time increases even though no
other thread needs DRAM
Only Thread 2 serviced in interval t1,t2 since
its virtual time is smaller than Thread 1s
Only Thread 3 serviced in interval t2,t3 since
its virtual time is smaller than Thread 1s
Only Thread 4 serviced in interval t3,t4 since
its virtual time is smaller than Thread 1s
Non-bursty thread suffers large performance loss
even though it fairly utilized DRAM when no
other thread needed it
27
Unfairness on 4-, 8-, 16-core Systems
Unfairness MAX Memory Slowdown / MIN Memory
Slowdown
1.26X
1.27X
1.81X
28
System Performance
29
Hmean-speedup (Throughput-Fairness Balance)
10.8
9.5
11.2
30
Outline

• The Problem
• Unfair DRAM Scheduling
• Stall-Time Fair Memory Scheduling
• Fairness definition
• Algorithm
• Implementation
• System software support
• Experimental Evaluation
• Conclusions

31
Conclusions

• A new definition of DRAM fairness stall-time
  fairness
• Equal-priority threads should experience equal
  memory-related slowdowns
• Takes into account inherent memory performance of
  threads
• New DRAM scheduling algorithm enforces this
  definition
• Flexible and configurable fairness substrate
• Supports system-level thread priorities/weights ?
  QoS policies
• Results across a wide range of workloads and
  systems show
• Improving DRAM fairness also improves system
  throughput
• STFM provides better fairness and system
  performance than previously-proposed DRAM
  schedulers

32
Thank you. Questions?
33
Stall-Time Fair Memory Access Scheduling

• Onur Mutlu and Thomas Moscibroda
• Computer Architecture Group
• Microsoft Research

34
Backup
35
Structure of the STFM Controller
36
Comparison using NFQ QoS Metrics

• Nesbit et al. MICRO06 proposed the following
  target for quality of service
• A thread that is allocated 1/Nth of the memory
  system bandwidth will run no slower than the same
  thread on a private memory system running at
  1/Nth of the frequency of the shared physical
  memory system
• Baseline with memory bandwidth scaled down by N
• We compared different DRAM schedulers
  effectiveness using this metric
• Number of violations of the above QoS target
• Harmonic mean of IPC normalized to the above
  baseline

37
Violations of the NFQ QoS Target
38
Hmean Normalized IPC using NFQ Baseline
7.3
5.9
5.1
10.3
9.1
7.8
39
Shortcomings of the NFQ QoS Target

• Low baseline (easily achievable target) for
  equal-priority threads
• N equal-priority threads ? a thread should do
  better than on a system with 1/Nth of the memory
  bandwidth
• This target is usually very easy to achieve
• Especially when N is large
• Unachievable target in some cases
• Consider two threads always accessing the same
  bank in an interleaved fashion ? too much
  interference
• Baseline performance very difficult to determine
  in a real system
• Cannot scale memory frequency arbitrarily
• Not knowing baseline performance makes it
  difficult to set thread priorities (how
  much bandwidth to assign to each thread)

40
A Case Study
Unfairness 7.28 2.07 2.08
1.87 1.27
Memory Slowdown
41
Windows Desktop Workloads
42
Enforcing Thread Weights
43
Effect of ?
44
Effect of Banks and Row Buffer Size