skip to main content
10.1145/3569052.3578905acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesispdConference Proceedingsconference-collections
invited-talk

A Case for Open EDA Verticals

Published:26 March 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

With the end of Dennard scaling and Moore's Law reaching its limits, domain-specific hardware specialization has become a crucial method for improving compute performance and efficiency for various important applications. Leading companies in competitive fields, such as machine learning and video processing, are building their own in-house technology stacks to better suit their accelerator design needs. However, currently this approach is only a viable option for a few large enterprises that can afford to invest in teams of experts in hardware, systems, and compiler development for high-value applications. In particular, the high license cost of commercial electronic design automation (EDA) tools presents a significant barrier for small and mid-size engineering teams to create new hardware accelerators. These tools are essential for designing, simulating, and testing new hardware, but can be too expensive for smaller teams with limited budgets, reducing their ability to innovate and compete with larger organizations.

More recently, open-source EDA toolflows [1] [12] [11] [5] have emerged which offer a promising alternative to commercial tools, with the potential to provide more cost-effective solutions for hardware development. For example, OpenROAD [1] allows the design of custom ASICs with minimal human intervention and no licensing fees. During initial development, it was also able to take advantage of existing tools such as Yosys [14] and KLayout [6] to reduce the amount of new code required to get a working flow. However, early adoption of open-source alternatives carries risk, as open-source EDA projects often lack important features and are less reliable than commercial options. Additionally, current open-source EDA tools may produce less competitive quality of results (QoR) and may not be able to catch up to commercial solutions anytime soon. Even when EDA tool access is not an issue, designing and implementing special-purpose accelerators using conventional RTL methodology can be unproductive and incurs high non-recurring engineering (NRE) costs. High-level synthesis (HLS) has become increasingly popular in both academia and industry to automatically generate RTL designs from software programs. However, existing HLS tools do not help maintain domain-specific context throughout the design flow (e.g., placement, routing), which makes achieving good QoR difficult without significant manual fine-tuning. This hinders wider adoption of HLS.

We advocate for open EDA verticals as a solution to enabling more widespread use of domain-specific hardware acceleration. The objective is to empower small teams of domain experts to productively develop high-performance accelerators using programming interfaces they are already familiar with. For example, this means supporting domain-specific frameworks like PyTorch or TensorFlow for ML applications. In order for EDA verticals to proliferate, there must first be extensible infrastructure similar to LLVM [8] and MLIR [9] from which to build new tool flows. The proper EDA infrastructure would include novel intermediate representations specifically tailored to the unique challenges in gradually lowering high-level code down to gates.

References

  1. T. Ajayi, V. Chhabria, M. Fogaça, S. Hashemi, A. Hosny, A. Kahng, M. Kim, J. Lee, U. Mallappa, M. Neseem, G. Pradipta, S. Reda, M. Saligane, S. Sapatnekar, C. Sechen, M. Shalan, W. Swartz, L. Wang, Z. Wang, M. Woo, and B. Xu. 2019. Toward an Open-Source Digital Flow: First Learnings from the OpenROAD Project. Design Automation Conference (DAC) (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. CIRCT 2020. CIRCT Charter. Retrieved January 28, 2023 from https://circt.llvm. org/docs/Charter/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. L. Guo, Y. Chi, J. Wang, J Lau, W. Qiao, E. Ustun, Z. Zhang, and J. Cong. 2021. "AutoBridge: Coupling Coarse-Grained Floorplanning and Pipelining for High-Frequency HLS Design on Multi-Die FPGAs". Int'l Symp. on Field-Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGA) (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. L. Guo, P. Maidee, Y. Zhou, C. Lavin, J. Wang, Y. Chi, W. Qiao, A. Kaviani, Z. Zhang, and J. Cong. 2022. "RapidStream: Parallel Physical Implementation of FPGA HLS Designs". Int'l Symp. on Field-Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGA) (2022).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Florent Kermarrec, Sébastien Bourdeauducq, Jean-Christophe Le Lann, and Hannah Badier. 2020. "LiteX: an open-source SoC builder and library based on Migen Python DSL". (2020). https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2005.02506Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. KLayout 2006. KLayout. Retrieved January 28, 2023 from https://www.klayout.deGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Y. Lai, Y. Chi, Y. Hu, J. Wang, C. Yu, Y. Zhou, J. Cong, and Z. Zhang. 2019. "HeteroCL: A Multi-Paradigm Programming Infrastructure for Software-Defined Reconfigurable Computing". Int'l Symp. on Field-Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGA) (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. C. Lattner and V. Adve. 2004. LLVM: A compilation framework for lifelong program analysis and transformation. Int'l Symp. on Code Generation and Optimization (2004).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. C. Lattner, J. A. Pienaar, M. Amini, U. Bondhugula, R. Riddle, A. Cohen, T. Shpeisman, A. Davis, N. Vasilache, and O. Zinenko. 2020. "MLIR: A Compiler Infrastructure for the End of Moore's Law". CoRR (2020). [arXiv]2002.11054Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. C. Lavin and A. Kaviani. 2018. "RapidWright: Enabling Custom Crafted Implementations for FPGAs". Int'l Symp. on Field-Programmable Custom Computing Machines (FCCM) (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. K. Murray, M. Elgammal, V. Betz, T. Ansell, K. Rothman, and A. Comodi. 2020a. "SymbiFlow and VPR: An Open-Source Design Flow for Commercial and Novel FPGAs". IEEE Micro (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. K. E. Murray, O. Petelin, S. Zhong, J. M. Wang, M. ElDafrawy, J.-P. Legault, E. Sha, A. G. Graham, J. Wu, M. J. P. Walker, H. Zeng, P. Patros, J. Luu, K. B. Kent, and V. Betz. 2020b. "VTR 8: High Performance CAD and Customizable FPGA Architecture Modelling". ACM Transactions on Reconfigurable Technology and Systems (TRETS) (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. R. Nigam, S. Thomas, Z. Li, and A. Sampson. 2021. "A Compiler Infrastructure for Accelerator Generators". Int'l Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS) (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. D. Shah, E. Hung, C. Wolf, S. Bazanski, D. Gisselquist, and M. Milanovic. 2019. "Yosysnextpnr: An Open Source Framework from Verilog to Bitstream for Commercial FPGAs". Int'l Symp. on Field-Programmable Custom Computing Machines (FCCM) (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. A Case for Open EDA Verticals

              Recommendations

              Comments

              Login options

              Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

              Sign in
              • Published in

                cover image ACM Conferences
                ISPD '23: Proceedings of the 2023 International Symposium on Physical Design
                March 2023
                278 pages
                ISBN:9781450399784
                DOI:10.1145/3569052

                Copyright © 2023 Owner/Author

                Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

                Publisher

                Association for Computing Machinery

                New York, NY, United States

                Publication History

                • Published: 26 March 2023

                Check for updates

                Qualifiers

                • invited-talk

                Acceptance Rates

                Overall Acceptance Rate62of172submissions,36%
              • Article Metrics

                • Downloads (Last 12 months)116
                • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)5

                Other Metrics

              PDF Format

              View or Download as a PDF file.

              PDF

              eReader

              View online with eReader.

              eReader