Pith. sign in

REVIEW

RapidLayout: Fast Hard Block Placement of FPGA-optimized Systolic Arrays using Evolutionary Algorithms

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2002.06998 v3 pith:EUYBJL6U submitted 2020-02-17 cs.AR

classification cs.AR
keywords placementtimesfpgahardrapidlayoutwirelengthalgorithmsblock
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
abstract

Evolutionary algorithms can outperform conventional placement algorithms such as simulated annealing, analytical placement as well as manual placement on metrics such as runtime, wirelength, pipelining cost, and clock frequency when mapping FPGA hard block intensive designs such as systolic arrays on Xilinx UltraScale+ FPGAs. For certain hard-block intensive, systolic array accelerator designs, the commercial-grade Xilinx Vivado CAD tool is unable to provide a legal routing solution without tedious manual placement constraints. Instead, we formulate an automatic FPGA placement algorithm for these hard blocks as a multi-objective optimization problem that targets wirelength squared and maximum bounding box size metrics. We build an end-to-end placement and routing flow called RapidLayout using the Xilinx RapidWright framework. RapidLayout runs 5-6$\times$ faster than Vivado with manual constraints and eliminates the weeks-long effort to generate placement constraints manually for the hard blocks. We also perform automated post-placement pipelining of the long wires inside each convolution block to target 650MHz URAM-limited operation. RapidLayout outperforms (1) the simulated annealer in VPR by 33% in runtime, 1.9-2.4$\times$ in wirelength, and 3-4$\times$ in bounding box size, while also (2) beating the analytical placer UTPlaceF by 9.3$\times$ in runtime, 1.8-2.2$\times$ in wirelength, and 2-2.7$\times$ in bounding box size. We employ transfer learning from a base FPGA device to speed-up placement optimization for similar FPGA devices in the UltraScale+ family by 11-14$\times$ than learning the placements from scratch.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools