A neural branch predictor tested using CPU emulator, testing both supervised learning and reinforcement learning (for COS 583: Great Moments in Computing at Princeton University)
Branch: master
Clone or download
Fetching latest commit…
Cannot retrieve the latest commit at this time.
Permalink
Type Name Latest commit message Commit time
Failed to load latest commit information.
assets Finish README and fixed site May 17, 2017
predictor Updated testing scripts May 17, 2017
static
.gitignore
.slugignore
LICENSE
README.md
composer.json Rearranged directories for deployment May 15, 2017
figures.html Added figures pages May 17, 2017
home.html Changed descriptions May 17, 2017
index.php Rearranged directories for deployment May 15, 2017
template.html

README.md

neuropath

Branch prediction has become an essential part of the CPU pipeline, as more and more tricks are integrated into their designs to increase ILP (instruction-level parallelism). Specifically, branch predictors are responsible for pre-fetching instructions for decoding/execution in conditional branch locations, i.e. points in the code where it is impossible to know which instruction to fetch next. In other words, the CPU guesses the outcome of the branch and fetches instructions accordingly, hoping to avoid the seeming possible of needing to wait for the conditional branch to finish executing to fetch/process further instructions. Modern branch predictors typically integrate global history and local history, which respectively correspond to applying the result of previous branch outcomes in the overall program and at particular values for the program counter (i.e. by line number in the code). However, with the uprising of neural nets, it was unavoidable that they would too be tested in this regime.

The main issue with neural net implementations is the latency, i.e. how long it would take for the prediction to occur relative to the time spent. Despite maybe a few percentage points extra, perceptron use was largely relegated as not likely to be adopted, seeing as modern methods already achieve accuracies of upwards of 90-95%. However, recent research investigations have revealed otherwise, citing that perceptrons may in fact be comparable in accuracy and latency to those methods that are currently most widespread. This code sought to clarify/explore that claim in the Gem5 CPU simulator environment for an X86 ISA.

For COS 583: Great Moments in Computing at Princeton University

Results available at: http://fast-caverns-95520.herokuapp.com/

Conclusions

Conditional

Conditional represents the total number of conditional branches predicted incorrectly by the predictor. The following were the main takeaways from the conditional graphs:

  • LTAGE branch predictor almost always annihilated the rest of the predictors in sheer performance
  • NeuroBP (standard neural predictor) is quite heavily correlated with the LocalBP predictor. This makes sense, since the two base weight predictions based on past outcomes at a given branch
  • NeuroPathBP performance seems to generally be quite mediocre (worse than NeuroBP) - focus is on large speedup (not implemented due to needing parallelism)
    • Especially programs where the path may not be significant seems to throw off the NeuroPathBP predictor (i.e. sorting scripts)
    • Performs relatively fine on the matrix multiplications, where presumably the traces through successive rows being similar is captured
  • Very similar outputs for the integer matrix multiplication result vs. real matrices

Indirect

Indirect represents the number of mispredicted indirect branches, which are different from typical branches in that, rather than specifying the address of the next instruction to execute, as in a direct branch, the argument specifies where the address is located, i.e. the r1 register. The following were the main takeaways from the indirect graphs:

  • Local almost always lowest, likely because the value of a register is in scope for only a short while, meaning it is a local property to regions of the program
  • Usually path had less than the regular neural predictor, since the path can partially capture what values are in the register and thus use that information in making its predictions
  • The neural branch predictors typically fell in the middle range, making their performance quite average relative to all the other predictors
  • Path typically follows trends of LTAGE, presumably because LTAGE is essentially in line with the "path prediction" mentality, in that it considers different lengths of history for each of the local branches

Latency

Latency is simply how long the branch predictor took to run the program. Having held the environment relatively constant (i.e. same processes running in the computer background), this time rougly corresponds to how long the BP takes to make its predictions. The following were the main takeaways from the latency graphs:

  • The neural branch predictor and fast-path predictor often had at least significantly more latency of the others
    • Fast-path predictor often had more latency than the standard, even though its primary advantage was supposedly speedly, likely due to lack of the parallel implementation (though similar effects may appear in other BPs as well)
  • All of the rest were relatively comparable, meaning that LTAGE is still quite handily the superior branch predictor, given its performance and latency

Future Steps:

(1) Consider other ISAs

(2) Parallelize codebase