Opensource RISC-V implemented from scratch in one night!
Developed in a magic night of 19 Aug, 2018 between 2am and 8am, the darkriscv is a very experimental implementation of the opensource RISC-V instruction set. Nowadays, after weeks of exciting sleepless nights of work (which explains the lots of typos you will found ahead), the darkriscv reached a very good quality result, in a way that the "hello world" compiled by the standard riscv-elf-gcc is working fine! :)
The general concept is based in my other early RISC processors and composed by a simplified two stage pipeline where a instruction is fetch from a instruction memory in the first clock and then the instruction is decoded/executed in the second clock. The pipeline is overlapped without interlocks, in a way the darkriscv can reach the performance of one clock per instruction most of time (the exception is after a branch, where one clock is lost in the pipeline flush). As addition, the code is very compact, with around two hundred lines of obfuscated but beautiful Verilog code.
Although the code is small and crude when compared with other RISC-V implementations, the darkriscv has lots of impressive features:
- implements most of the RISC-V RV32I instruction set
- works up to 75MHz and sustain 1 clock per instruction most of time
- flexible harvard architecture (easy to integrate a cache controller)
- works fine in a real spartan-6 lx9
- works fine with gcc 9.0.0 for RISC-V (no patches required!)
- uses only around 1000 LUTs (spartan-6, core only)
- and the best feature: BSD license
Feel free to make suggestions and good hacking! o/
Since my target is the ultra-low-cost Xilinx Spartan-6 family of FPGAs, the project is currently based in the Xilinx ISE 14.4 for Linux. However, no explicit references for Xilinx elements are done and all logic is inferred directly from Verilog, which means that the project is easily portable to other FPGA families and easily portable to other environments (I will add support for other FPGAs and tools in the future).
The main motivation for the darkriscv is create a migration path for some projects around the 680x0/coldfire family. My first approach was check around for some softcores and, after lots of tests, I found the picorv32 and the all the ecosystem around the RISC-V. Although a very good option to directly replace the 680x0 family, the picorv32 may be not powerful enough to replace some coldfire processors.
The main problem around the picorv32 is that most instructions requires 3 or 4 clocks per instruction, which resembles the 68020 in some ways, but running at 150MHz. Anyway, with 3 clocks per instruction, the peak performance is around 50MIPS only. As long I had some good experience with experimental RISC cores, I started code the darkriscv only to check the level of complexity. For my surprise, in the first night I mapped almost all instructions of the RV32I specification and the darkriscv started to execute the first instructions correctly at 75MHz and with one clock per instruction, which resembles a fast and nice 68040! wow! :)
The RV32I specification itself is really impressive and easy to implement (see , page 16). Of course, there are some drawbacks, such as the funny little-endian bus (opposed to the network oriented big-endian bus found in the 680x0 family), but after some empirical tests it is easy to make work.
The initial design was very simple, with a 2-stage pipeline composed by the instruction pre-fetch and the instruction execution. In the pre-fetch side, there is program counter always working one clock ahead. In the execution side we found all decoding, register bank read, arithmetic and logic operations, register bank write and IO operations. As long the 2 stages overlap, the result is a continuous flow of instructions at the rate of 1 clock per instruction and around 75MIPS.
This means that when comparing with the picorv32 running at 150MHz and with 3 clocks per instruction, the darkriscv at 75MHz and 1 clock per instruction is 50% faster.
Unfortunately, I had a small problem with the load instruction: the 1 stage execution needs faster external memory! This is not a problem for my early RISC processors, which used small and faster LUT-based memories, but in the case of darkriscv the proposal was a more flexible design, in a way is possible use blockRAM-based caches and slow external memories. The problem with the blockRAM is that two clocks are required to readback the memory: one clock to register the address and another to register the data. External memories requires lots of clocks.
My first solution was use two different clock edges: one edge for the darkriscv and another edge for the memory/bus interface.
In this case the processor with a 2-stage pipeline works like a 2*0.5+1-stage pipeline:
- 1/2 stage for instruction pre-fetch
- 1/2 stage for static instruction decode
- 1 stage for instruction execution
In the special case of load/store instructions, the last stage is divided in two different stages, working as a 4*0.5-stage pipeline:
- 1/2 stage for instruction pre-fetch
- 1/2 stage for static instruction decode
- 1/2 stage for execution and address generation
- 1/2 stage for data read/write
Anyway, from the processor point of view, there are only 2 stages.
In normal conditions, this is not recommended because decreases the performance by a 2x factor, but in the case of darkriscv the performance is always limited by the combinational logic regarding the instruction execution.
As reference, here some additional performance results (synthesis only) for other Xilinx devices available in the ISE:
- Spartan-3e: 47MHz
- Spartan-6: 75MHz
- Artix-7: 133MHz
- Virtex-6: 137MHz
- Kintex-7: 167MHz
Although is possible use the darkriscv directly connected to at least two blockRAM memories (one for instruction and another for data) working in the opposite clock edge and and deterministically keep a very good performance of 1 clock per instruction most of time at 75MHz, the most useful configuration is use a cache controller. In this case, is possible use large multi-megabyte memories with lots of wait-states and, at same time, reach a peak performance of 1 clock per instruction when the instructions and data are already cached. Of course, the cache controller impact the performance, reducing the clock from 75MHz to 50MHz and inserting lots of wait-states in the cache filling cycles.
Well, in order to bypass this performance limitation, the most logic step is increase the number of states. In this case, the darkriscv have the option to work with a real 3-stage pipeline:
- 1st stage: instruction pre-fetch (no operation other than cache)
- 2nd stage: instruction decode (no register or memory read here!)
- 3rd stage: instruction execution (register/memory read/write)
Of course, this is not solution for the load/store problem... the probably solution is increase the pipeline to 4-stages, splitting the 3rd. stage in a read/write stage. Although possible, this step adds some confusion, as long requires additional logic in order to interlock the pipeline when one instruction in the 3.rd stage uses a result from another instruction in the 4.th stage. However, with the cache controller, the 3-stage pipeline works pretty well and I guess is possible add some fixes in the future in order to make it more flexible.
In fact, when running the "hello world" code we have the following results:
- darkriscv@75MHz -cache -wait-states 2-stage pipeline 2-phase clock: 6.40us
- darkriscv@75MHz +cache +wait-states 3-stage pipeline 1-phase clock: 9.37us
- darkriscv@50MHz +cache +wait-states 2-stage pipeline 2-phase clock: 13.84us
Although the first configuration reaches the best performance, the second configuration is probably the most realistic at this time!
Development Tools (gcc)
About the gcc compiler, I am working with the experimental gcc 9.0.0 for RISC-V. No patches or updates are required for the darkriscv other than the -march=rv32i. Although the fence* and crg* instructions are not implemented, the gcc appears to not use of that instructions and they are not available in the core.
Although is possible use the compiler set available in the oficial RISC-V site, our colleagues from lowRISC project pointed a more clever way to build the toolchain:
git clone --depth=1 git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git gcc git clone --depth=1 git://sourceware.org/git/binutils-gdb.git git clone --depth=1 git://sourceware.org/git/newlib-cygwin.git mkdir combined cd combined ln -s ../newlib-cygwin/* . ln -sf ../binutils-gdb/* . ln -sf ../gcc/* . mkdir build cd build ../configure --target=riscv32-unknown-elf --enable-languages=c --disable-shared --disable-threads --disable-multilib --disable-gdb --disable-libssp --with-newlib --with-arch=rv32ima --with-abi=ilp32 --prefix=/usr/local/share/gcc-riscv32-unknown-elf make -j4 make make install export PATH=$PATH:/usr/local/share/gcc-riscv32-unknown-elf/bin/ riscv32-unknown-elf-gcc -v
and everything will magically work! (:
Finally, as long the darkriscv is not yet fully tested, sometimes is a very good idea compare the code execution with another stable reference!
In this case, I am working with the project picorv32:
When I have some time, I will try create a more well organized support in order to easily test both the darkriscv and picorv32 in the same cache, memory and IO sub-systems, in order to make possible select the core according to the desired features, for example, use the darkriscv for more performance or picorv32 for more features.
About the software, the most complex issue is make the memory design match with the linker layout. Of course, it is a gcc issue and it is not even a problem, in fact, is the way that the software guys works when linking the code and data!
In the most simplified version, directly connected to blockRAMs, the darkriscv is a pure harvard architecture processor and will requires the separation between the instruction and data blocks!
When the cache controller is activated, the cache controller provides separate memories for instruction and data, but provides a interface for a more conventional von neumann memory architecture.
In both cases, a proper designed linker script probably solves the problem!
- ise: the ISE project and configuration files (xise, ucf, etc)
- rtl: the source for the core and the test SoC
- sim: the simulation to test the core and the SoC
- src: the source code for the test firmware (hello.c, boot.c, etc)
- tmp: empty, but the ISE will create lots of files here)
The ise directory contains the xise project file to be open in the Xilinx ISE 14.x and the project is assembled in a way that all files are readily loaded.
Although a ucf file is provided in order to generate a complete build, the FPGA is NOT wired in any particular configuration and you must add the pins regarding your FPGA board! Anyway, although not wired, the build always gives you a good estimation about the FPGA utilization and about the timing.
The simulation, in the other hand will show some waveforms and is possible check the darkriscv operation when running the example code. The hello.c code prints the string "hello world!" in console and also in the UART register located in the SoC. In the future I will provide a real UART logic in order to test the darkriscv in a real FPGA.
As long some people are curious about the future of the darkriscv, I prepared a picture with a possible roadmap for the future:
The core with RV32I is implemented and the cache controller with LUTRAM is also implemented, but need some fixes in order to work fine. The next steps are include support for RV64I and RV128I in the core, as well make available a SoC with support for external SRAM and UART. All other features are for the short future (H2/2018), except the NoC (network on chip), which is more complex and I think will be available only in H1/2019.
The Friends of DarkRISCV!
Special thanks to: Paulo Matias (jedi master and verilog guru), Paulo Bernard (co-worker and verilog guru), Evandro Hauenstein (co-worker and git guru), Lucas Mendes (technology guru), Marcelo Toledo (technology guru), Fabiano Silos (technology guru and darkriscv beta tester), Guilherme Barile (technology guru and first guy to post anything about the darkriscv ), Alasdair Allan (technology guru, posted an article about the darkriscv ) and Gareth Halfacree (technology guru, posted an article about the darkriscv . Special thanks to all people who directly and indirectly contributed to this project, including the company I work for.