paper.tex 21 KB

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340341342343344345346347348349350351352353354355356357358359360361362363364365366367368369370371372373374375376377378379380381382383384385386387388389390391392393394395396397398399400401402403404405406407408409410411412413414415416417418419420421422423424425426427428429430431432433434435436437438439440441442443444445446447
  1. \documentclass{JINST}
  2. \usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
  3. \usepackage{lineno}
  4. \usepackage{ifthen}
  5. \usepackage{caption}
  6. \usepackage{subcaption}
  7. \usepackage{textcomp}
  8. \usepackage{booktabs}
  9. \usepackage{floatrow}
  10. \newfloatcommand{capbtabbox}{table}[][\FBwidth]
  11. \newboolean{draft}
  12. \setboolean{draft}{true}
  13. \newcommand{\figref}[1]{Figure~\ref{#1}}
  14. \title{A high-throughput readout architecture based on PCI-Express Gen3 and DirectGMA technology}
  15. \author{
  16. L.~Rota$^a$,
  17. M.~Vogelgesang$^a$,
  18. L.E.~Ardila Perez$^a$,
  19. M.~Caselle$^a$,
  20. S.~Chilingaryan$^a$,
  21. T.~Dritschler$^a$,
  22. N.~Zilio$^a$,
  23. A.~Kopmann$^a$,
  24. M.~Balzer$^a$,
  25. M.~Weber$^a$\\
  26. \llap{$^a$}Institute for Data Processing and Electronics,\\
  27. Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT),\\
  28. Herrmann-von-Helmholtz-Platz 1, Karlsruhe, Germany \\
  29. E-mail: \email{lorenzo.rota@kit.edu}, \email{matthias.vogelgesang@kit.edu}
  30. }
  31. \abstract{ Modern physics experiments have reached multi-GB/s data rates. Fast
  32. data links and high performance computing stages are required for continuous
  33. data acquisition and processing. Because of their intrinsic parallelism and
  34. computational power, GPUs emerged as an ideal solution to process this data in
  35. high performance computing applications. In this paper we present a high-
  36. throughput platform based on direct FPGA-GPU communication. The
  37. architecture consists of a Direct Memory Access (DMA) engine compatible with
  38. the Xilinx PCI-Express core, a Linux driver for register access, and high-
  39. level software to manage direct memory transfers using AMD's DirectGMA
  40. technology. Measurements with a Gen3\,x8 link show a throughput of 6.4~GB/s
  41. for transfers to GPU memory and 6.6~GB/s to system memory. We also assesed
  42. the possibility of using our architecture in low latency systems: preliminary
  43. measurements show a round-trip latency as low as 1 \textmu s for data
  44. transfers to system memory, while the additional latency introduced by OpenCL
  45. scheduling is the current limitation for GPU based systems. Our
  46. implementation is suitable for real- time DAQ system applications ranging from
  47. photon science and medical imaging to High Energy Physics (HEP) systems.}
  48. \keywords{FPGA; GPU; PCI-Express; OpenCL; DirectGMA}
  49. \begin{document}
  50. \ifdraft
  51. \setpagewiselinenumbers
  52. \linenumbers
  53. \fi
  54. \section{Introduction}
  55. GPU computing has become the main driving force for high performance computing
  56. due to an unprecedented parallelism and a low cost-benefit factor. GPU
  57. acceleration has found its way into numerous applications, ranging from
  58. simulation to image processing.
  59. The data rates of bio-imaging or beam-monitoring experiments running in
  60. current generation photon science facilities have reached tens of
  61. GB/s~\cite{ufo_camera, caselle}. In a typical scenario, data are acquired by
  62. back-end readout systems and then transmitted in short bursts or in a
  63. continuous streaming mode to a computing stage. In order to collect data over
  64. long observation times, the readout architecture and the computing stages must
  65. be able to sustain high data rates. Recent years have also seen an increasing
  66. interest in GPU-based systems for High Energy Physics (HEP) (\emph{e.g.}
  67. ATLAS~\cite{atlas_gpu}, ALICE~\cite{alice_gpu}, Mu3e~\cite{mu3e_gpu},
  68. PANDA~\cite{panda_gpu}) and photon science experiments. In time-deterministic
  69. applications, such as Low/High-level trigger systems, latency becomes
  70. the most stringent requirement.
  71. Due to its high bandwidth and modularity, PCIe quickly became the commercial
  72. standard for connecting high-throughput peripherals such as GPUs or solid
  73. state disks. Moreover, optical PCIe networks have been demonstrated a decade
  74. ago~\cite{optical_pcie}, opening the possibility of using PCIe as a
  75. communication link over long distances.
  76. Several solutions for direct FPGA-GPU communication based on PCIe are reported
  77. in literature, and all of them are based on NVIDIA's GPUdirect technology. In
  78. the implementation of Bittnerner and Ruf ~\cite{bittner} the GPU acts as
  79. master during an FPGA-to-GPU data transfer, reading data from the FPGA. This
  80. solution limits the reported bandwidth and latency to 514 MB/s and 40~\textmu
  81. s, respectively. When the FPGA is used as a master, a higher throughput can be
  82. achieved. An example of this approach is the \emph{FPGA\textsuperscript{2}}
  83. framework by Thoma et~al.\cite{thoma}, which reaches 2454 MB/s using a 8x
  84. Gen2.0 data link. Lonardo et~al.\ achieved low latencies with their NaNet
  85. design, an FPGA-based PCIe network interface card~\cite{lonardo2015nanet}. The
  86. Gbe link however limits the latency performance of the system to a few tens of
  87. \textmu s. If only the FPGA-to-GPU latency is considered, the measured values
  88. span between 1~\textmu s and 6~\textmu s, depending on the datagram size.
  89. Nieto et~al.\ presented a system based on a PXIexpress data link that makes
  90. use of four PCIe 1.0 links~\cite{nieto2015high}. Their system (as limited by
  91. the interconnect) achieves an average throughput of 870 MB/s with 1 KB block
  92. transfers.
  93. In order to achieve the best performance in terms of latency and bandwidth, we
  94. developed a high-performance DMA engine based on Xilinx's PCIe Gen3 Core. To
  95. process the data, we encapsulated the DMA setup and memory mapping in a plugin
  96. for our scalable GPU processing framework~\cite{vogelgesang2012ufo}. This
  97. framework allows for an easy construction of streamed data processing on
  98. heterogeneous multi-GPU systems. Because the framework is based on OpenCL,
  99. integration with NVIDIA's CUDA functions for GPUDirect technology is not
  100. possible at the moment. We therefore used AMD's DirectGMA technology to
  101. integrate direct FPGA-to-GPU communication into our processing pipeline. In
  102. this paper we report the throughput performance of our architecture together
  103. with some preliminary measurements about DirectGMA's applicability in low-
  104. latency applications.
  105. %% LR: this part -> OK
  106. \section{Architecture}
  107. As shown in \figref{fig:trad-vs-dgpu} (a), traditional FPGA-GPU systems route
  108. data through system main memory by copying data from the FPGA into
  109. intermediate buffers and then finally into the GPU's main memory. Thus, the
  110. total throughput and latency of the system is limited by the main memory
  111. bandwidth. NVIDIA's GPUDirect and AMD's DirectGMA technologies allow direct
  112. communication between GPUs and auxiliary devices over PCIe. By combining this
  113. technology with DMA data transfers (see \figref{fig:trad-vs-dgpu} (b)), the
  114. overall latency of the system is reduced and total throughput increased.
  115. Moreover, the CPU and main system memory are relieved from processing because
  116. they are not directly involved in the data transfer anymore.
  117. \begin{figure}[t]
  118. \centering
  119. \includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{figures/transf}
  120. \caption{%
  121. In a traditional DMA architecture (a), data are first written to the main
  122. system memory and then sent to the GPUs for final processing. By using
  123. GPUDirect/DirectGMA technology (b), the DMA engine has direct access to
  124. the GPU's internal memory.
  125. }
  126. \label{fig:trad-vs-dgpu}
  127. \end{figure}
  128. %% LR: this part -> Text:OK, Figure: must be updated
  129. \subsection{DMA engine implementation on the FPGA}
  130. We have developed a DMA engine that minimizes resource utilization while
  131. maintaining the flexibility of a Scatter-Gather memory
  132. policy~\cite{rota2015dma}. The main blocks are shown in \figref{fig:fpga-arch}. The engine is compatible with the Xilinx PCIe
  133. Gen2/3 IP- Core~\cite{xilinxgen3} for Xilinx FPGA families 6 and 7. DMA data
  134. transfers to/from main system memory and GPU memory are supported. Two FIFOs,
  135. with a data width of 256 bits and operating at 250 MHz, act as user- friendly
  136. interfaces with the custom logic with an input bandwidth of 7.45 GB/s. The
  137. user logic and the DMA engine are configured by the host through PIO
  138. registers. The resource
  139. utilization on a Virtex 7 device is reported in Table~\ref{table:utilization}.
  140. \begin{figure}[t]
  141. \small
  142. \begin{floatrow}
  143. \ffigbox{%
  144. \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/fpga-arch}
  145. }{%
  146. \caption{A figure}%
  147. \label{fig:fpga-arch}
  148. }
  149. \capbtabbox{%
  150. \begin{tabular}{@{}llll@{}}
  151. \toprule
  152. Resource & Utilization & (\%) \\
  153. \midrule
  154. LUT & 5331 & (1.23) \\
  155. LUTRAM & 56 & (0.03) \\
  156. FF & 5437 & (0.63) \\
  157. BRAM & 21 & (1.39) \\
  158. \bottomrule
  159. \end{tabular}
  160. }{%
  161. \caption{Resource utilization on a xc7vx690t-ffg1761 device}%
  162. \label{table:utilization}
  163. }
  164. \end{floatrow}
  165. \end{figure}
  166. The physical addresses of the host's memory buffers are stored into an internal
  167. memory and are dynamically updated by the driver or user, allowing highly
  168. efficient zero-copy data transfers. The maximum size associated with each
  169. address is 2 GB.
  170. %% LR: -----------------> OK
  171. \subsection{OpenCL management on host side}
  172. \label{sec:host}
  173. \begin{figure}[b]
  174. \centering
  175. \includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{figures/opencl-setup}
  176. \caption{The FPGA writes to GPU memory by mapping the physical address of a
  177. GPU buffer and initating DMA transfers. Signalling happens in reverse order by
  178. mapping the FPGA control registers into the address space of the GPU.}
  179. \label{fig:opencl-setup}
  180. \end{figure}
  181. %% Description of figure
  182. On the host side, AMD's DirectGMA technology, an implementation of the bus-
  183. addressable memory extension for OpenCL 1.1 and later, is used to write from
  184. the FPGA to GPU memory and from the GPU to the FPGA's control registers.
  185. \figref{fig:opencl-setup} illustrates the main mode of operation: to write
  186. into the GPU, the physical bus addresses of the GPU buffers are determined
  187. with a call to \texttt{clEnqueue\-Make\-Buffers\-Resident\-AMD} and set by the
  188. host CPU in a control register of the FPGA (1). The FPGA then writes data
  189. blocks autonomously in DMA fashion (2). To signal events to the FPGA (4), the
  190. control registers can be mapped into the GPU's address space passing a special
  191. AMD-specific flag and passing the physical BAR address of the FPGA
  192. configuration memory to the \texttt{cl\-Create\-Buffer} function. From the
  193. GPU, this memory is seen transparently as regular GPU memory and can be
  194. written accordingly (3). In our setup, trigger registers are used to notify
  195. the FPGA on successful or failed evaluation of the data. Using the
  196. \texttt{cl\-Enqueue\-Copy\-Buffer} function call it is possible to write
  197. entire memory regions in DMA fashion to the FPGA. In this case, the GPU acts
  198. as bus master and pushes data to the FPGA.
  199. %% Double Buffering strategy.
  200. Due to hardware restrictions the largest possible GPU buffer sizes are about
  201. 95 MB but larger transfers can be achieved by using a double buffering
  202. mechanism: data are copied from the buffer exposed to the FPGA into a
  203. different location in GPU memory. To verify that we can keep up with the
  204. incoming data throughput using this strategy, we measured the data throughput
  205. within a GPU by copying data from a smaller sized buffer representing the DMA
  206. buffer to a larger destination buffer. At a block size of about 384 KB the
  207. throughput surpasses the maximum possible PCIe bandwidth, and it reaches 40
  208. GB/s for blocks bigger than 5 MB. Double buffering is therefore a viable
  209. solution for very large data transfers, where throughput performance is
  210. favoured over latency. For data sizes less than 95 MB, we can determine all
  211. addresses before the actual transfers thus keeping the CPU out of the transfer
  212. loop.
  213. %% Ufo Framework
  214. To process the data, we encapsulated the DMA setup and memory mapping in a
  215. plugin for our scalable GPU processing framework~\cite{vogelgesang2012ufo}.
  216. This framework allows for an easy construction of streamed data processing on
  217. heterogeneous multi-GPU systems. For example, to read data from the FPGA,
  218. decode from its specific data format and run a Fourier transform on the GPU as
  219. well as writing back the results to disk, one can run the following on the
  220. command line:
  221. \begin{verbatim}
  222. ufo-launch direct-gma ! decode ! fft ! write filename=out.raw
  223. \end{verbatim}
  224. The framework takes care of scheduling the tasks and distributing the data
  225. items to one or more GPUs. High throughput is achieved by the combination of
  226. fine- and coarse-grained data parallelism, \emph{i.e.} processing a single
  227. data item on a GPU using thousands of threads and by splitting the data stream
  228. and feeding individual data items to separate GPUs. None of this requires any
  229. user intervention and is solely determined by the framework in an automatized
  230. fashion. A complementary application programming interface allows users to
  231. develop custom applications written in C or high-level languages such as
  232. Python.
  233. %% --------------------------------------------------------------------------
  234. \section{Results}
  235. \begin{table}[b]
  236. \centering
  237. \small
  238. \caption{Setups used for throughput and latency measurements}
  239. \label{table:setups}
  240. \tabcolsep=0.11cm
  241. \begin{tabular}{@{}llll@{}}
  242. \toprule
  243. & Setup 1 & Setup 2 \\
  244. \midrule
  245. CPU & Intel Xeon E5-1630 & Intel Atom D525 \\
  246. Chipset & Intel C612 & Intel ICH9R Express \\
  247. GPU & AMD FirePro W9100 & AMD FirePro W9100 \\
  248. PCIe slot: System memory & x8 Gen3 & x4 Gen1 \\
  249. PCIe slot: FPGA \& GPU & x8 Gen3 (different RC) & x8 Gen3 (same RC) \\
  250. \bottomrule
  251. \end{tabular}
  252. \end{table}
  253. We carried out performance measurements on two different setups, which are
  254. described in table~\ref{table:setups}. In both setups, a Xilinx VC709
  255. evaluation board was used. In Setup 1, the FPGA board and the GPU were plugged
  256. into a PCIe 3.0 slot, but they were connected to different PCIe Root Complexes
  257. (RC). In Setup 2, a low-end Supermicro X7SPA-HF-D525 system was connected to a
  258. Netstor NA255A xeternal PCIe enclosure, where both the FPGA board and the GPU
  259. were connected to the same RC, as opposed to Setup 1. As stated in the
  260. NVIDIA's GPUDirect documentation, the devices must share the same RC to
  261. achieve the best performance. In case of FPGA-to-CPU data
  262. transfers, the software implementation is the one described
  263. in~\cite{rota2015dma}.
  264. %% --------------------------------------------------------------------------
  265. \subsection{Throughput}
  266. \begin{figure}[t]
  267. \includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{figures/throughput}
  268. \caption{%
  269. Measured throughput for data transfers from FPGA to main memory
  270. (CPU) and from FPGA to the global GPU memory (GPU) using Setup 1.
  271. }
  272. \label{fig:throughput}
  273. \end{figure}
  274. In order to evaluate the maximum performance of the DMA engine, measurements
  275. of pure data throughput were carried out using Setup 1. The results are shown
  276. in \figref{fig:throughput} for transfers to the system's main memory as well
  277. as to the global memory. For FPGA-to-GPU data transfers bigger than 95 MB, the
  278. double buffering mechanism was used. As one can see, in both cases the write
  279. performance is primarily limited by the PCIe bus. Up until 2 MB data transfer
  280. size, the throughput to the GPU is approaching slowly 100 MB/s. From there on,
  281. the throughput increases up to 6.4 GB/s at about 1 GB data size. The CPU
  282. throughput saturates earlier and the maximum throughput is 6.6 GB/s. The slope
  283. and maximum performance depend on the different implementation of the
  284. handshaking sequence between DMA engine and the hosts. With Setup 2, the PCIe
  285. Gen1 link limits the throughput to system main memory to around 700 MB/s.
  286. However, transfers to GPU memory yielded the same results as Setup 1.
  287. %% --------------------------------------------------------------------------
  288. \subsection{Latency}
  289. \begin{figure}[t]
  290. \centering
  291. \begin{subfigure}[b]{.49\textwidth}
  292. \centering
  293. \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/latency-cpu}
  294. \label{fig:latency-cpu}
  295. \vspace{-0.4\baselineskip}
  296. \caption{}
  297. \end{subfigure}
  298. \begin{subfigure}[b]{.49\textwidth}
  299. \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/latency-gpu}
  300. \label{fig:latency-gpu}
  301. \vspace{-0.4\baselineskip}
  302. \caption{}
  303. \end{subfigure}
  304. \caption{Measured round-trip latency for data transfers to system main memory (a) and GPU memory (b).}
  305. \label{fig:latency}
  306. \end{figure}
  307. We conducted the following test in order to measure the latency introduced by the DMA engine :
  308. 1) the host starts a DMA transfer by issuing the \emph{start\_dma} command.
  309. 2) the DMA engine transmits data into the system main memory.
  310. 3) when all the data has been transferred, the DMA engine notifies the host that new data is present by writing into a specific address in the system main memory.
  311. 4) the host acknowledges that data has been received by issuing the the \emph{stop\_dma} command.
  312. A counter on the FPGA measures the time interval between the \emph{start\_dma}
  313. and \emph{stop\_dma} commands with a resolution of 4 ns, therefore measuring
  314. the round-trip latency of the system. The correct ordering of the packets is
  315. assured by the PCIe protocol. The measured round-trip latencies for data transfers to
  316. system main memory and GPU memory are reported in \figref{fig:latency}.
  317. When system main memory is used, latencies as low as 1.1 \textmu s are
  318. achieved with Setup 1 for a packet size of 1024 B. The higher latency and the
  319. dependance on size measured with Setup 2 are caused by the slower PCIe x4 Gen1
  320. link connecting the FPGA board to the system main memory.
  321. The same test was performed when transferring data inside GPU memory. Like in
  322. the previous case, the notification was written into systen main memory. This
  323. approach was used because the latency introduced by OpenCL scheduling in our
  324. implementation (\~ 100-200 \textmu s) did not allow a precise measurement
  325. based only on FPGA-GPU communication. When connecting the devices to the same
  326. RC, as in Setup 2, a latency of 2 \textmu is achieved (limited by the latency
  327. to system main memory, as seen in \figref{fig:latency}.a). On the contrary, if
  328. the FPGA board and the GPU are connected to different RC as in Setup 1, the
  329. latency increases significantly with packet size. It must be noted that the
  330. low latencies measured with Setup 1 for packet sizes below 1 kB seem to be due
  331. to a caching mechanism inside the PCIe switch, and it is not clear whether
  332. data has been successfully written into GPU memory when the notification is
  333. delivered to the CPU. This effect must be taken into account in future
  334. implementations as it could potentially lead to data corruption.
  335. \section{Conclusion and outlook}
  336. We developed a hardware and software solution that enables DMA transfers
  337. between FPGA-based readout systems and GPU computing clusters.
  338. The net throughput is primarily limited by the PCIe link, reaching 6.4 GB/s
  339. for a FPGA-to-GPU data transfer and 6.6 GB/s for a FPGA-to-CPU's main memory
  340. data transfer. The measurements on a low-end system based on an Intel Atom CPU
  341. showed no significant difference in throughput performance. Depending on the
  342. application and computing requirements, this result makes smaller acquisition
  343. system a cost-effective alternative to larger workstations.
  344. We measured a round-trip latency of 1 \textmu s when transfering data between
  345. the DMA engine with system main memory. We also assessed the applicability of
  346. DirectGMA in low latency applications: preliminary results shows that
  347. latencies as low as 2 \textmu s can by achieved during data transfers to GPU
  348. memory. However, at the time of writing this paper, the latency introduced by
  349. OpenCL scheduling is in the range of hundreds of \textmu s. Optimization of
  350. the GPU-DMA interfacing OpenCL code is ongoing with the help of technical
  351. support by AMD, in order to lift the current limitation and enable the use of
  352. our implementation in low latency applications. Moreover, measurements show
  353. that dedicated hardware must be employed in low latency applications.
  354. In order to increase the total throughput, a custom FPGA evaluation board is
  355. currently under development. The board mounts a Virtex-7 chip and features two
  356. fully populated FMC connectors, a 119 Gb/s DDR memory interface and a PCIe x16
  357. Gen3 connection. Two x8 Gen3 cores, instantiated on the board, will be mapped
  358. as a single x16 device by using an external PCIe switch. With two cores
  359. operating in parallel, we foresee an increase in the data throughput by a
  360. factor of 2 (as demonstrated in~\cite{rota2015dma}).
  361. The proposed software solution allows seamless multi-GPU processing of
  362. the incoming data, due to the integration in our streamed computing framework.
  363. This allows straightforward integration with different DAQ systems and
  364. introduction of custom data processing algorithms.
  365. Support for NVIDIA's GPUDirect technology is also foreseen in the next months
  366. to lift the limitation of one specific GPU vendor and compare the performance
  367. of hardware by different vendors. Further improvements are expected by
  368. generalizing the transfer mechanism and include Infiniband support besides the
  369. existing PCIe connection.
  370. Our goal is to develop a unique hybrid solution,
  371. based on commercial standards, that includes fast data transmission protocols
  372. and a high performance GPU computing framework.
  373. \acknowledgments
  374. This work was partially supported by the German-Russian BMBF funding programme,
  375. grant numbers 05K10CKB and 05K10VKE.
  376. \bibliographystyle{JHEP}
  377. \bibliography{literature}
  378. \end{document}