Past exam of the computer science course of the University of Oxford / 2015 / Computer architecture / 1

Register forwarding supplies a later instruction with a computed value before that value has reached the register file. It removes some read-after-write hazards without changing the program's meaning. Consider these symbolic machine instructions, with the destination first:In the five-stage in-order pipeline, the addition produces its result at the end of EX. In the next cycle the subtraction is in EX, although the addition has not yet reached WB. A bypass from the addition's EX/MEM pipeline register to the subtraction's arithmetic logic unit input supplies the new r1; the old value read in ID must be overridden.

The bypass control compares source and destination processor register identifiers and selects the youngest applicable older producer. It must also check that the producer actually writes that processor register. Forward the newest available result instead of waiting for its writeback. A load instruction is different: its value is normally available only at the end of MEM, so an immediately following dependent instruction still needs a pipeline stall in this five-stage arrangement.

A store buffer holds the memory address and value of a store instruction while the memory cache or backing computer memory completes the write. The in-order pipeline can continue after enqueueing the write, rather than waiting for a possibly long memory access latency. A full store buffer eventually causes a pipeline stall; buffering hides finite delays, not an indefinitely inadequate service rate.

Without a memory management unit, the comparison can use the actual physical addresses; there is no address translation or synonym problem to solve. Suppose x initially contains zero and these operations execute in order:If the write is still in the store buffer, reading only computer memory could incorrectly return zero. The load instruction searches older buffered store instructions for an overlapping memory address. If the newest matching write covers the requested bytes and its data are ready, store-to-load forwarding returns seven directly. With several pending writes to x, the youngest older matching write wins. If the relevant data are not ready, the load instruction waits; partial overlaps require merging the covered bytes or conservatively waiting for the writes to drain.

A load instruction from an unrelated address y can bypass those buffered writes, subject to the architecture's memory model. Buffer writes to overlap them with useful execution, but preserve each load's dependence on older writes to the same bytes. Device accesses through memory-mapped input-output need their specified ordering and should not be treated as ordinary cacheable computer memory.

Speculative execution allows younger instructions to proceed while some condition on an older instruction is unresolved. Here the prediction is that a store instruction will pass its memory management unit's protection and translation checks. Successful prediction avoids waiting; failure requires discarding younger work and taking the older instruction's synchronous processor exception. A result computed speculatively must not become an irreversible architectural change before it is safe.

In the displayed five-stage in-order pipeline, the store instruction's memory address is computed in EX and its memory operation is in MEM. Take the permission check to finish at the end of MEM, with a one-cycle cache hit, no data hazards and sufficient store buffer capacity. A concrete conservative implementation without speculative execution fetches no younger instruction until this check has passed. Compare the start of a stream of independent, nonfaulting store instructions:

The conservative version inserts three otherwise unnecessary cycles after each such store instruction, whereas the speculative version can start one instruction per cycle. For $N$ stores, counting through WB, the times are $4N+1$ and $N+4$ cycles. ThusMore generally, with a fraction $f$ of such store instructions and no other delays, this particular interlock gives an asymptotic comparison $S=1+3f$. The maximum is four, not five: the permission check is resolved in MEM, so waiting for the empty store WB stage is unnecessary.

The baseline's interlock position matters. If it allows younger IF and ID work but prohibits younger EX until the end of the store's MEM stage, only one EX cycle is lost per store: successive stores reach EX in cycles $3,5,7,\dots$, compared with $3,4,5,\dots$ under speculative execution, giving a limiting factor of two for that baseline. Holding at ID instead gives two lost cycles per store and a factor of three. The fourfold figure compares against a pipeline that stops younger fetch; an implementation that already permits younger front-end work has a smaller remaining benefit. The source specifies the five stages but does not prescribe this alternative's interlock position.^[ref]

On a protection failure detected at the end of MEM, younger instructions occupy EX, ID and IF and can be invalidated before their normal WB. Younger store instructions must also be prevented from draining from a store buffer before validation. Earlier updates to processor condition flags, if any, need delayed commitment or restoration too. This is what makes the prediction compatible with a precise exception; merely continuing to execute is insufficient.

Cache prefetching moves a cache line towards the CPU before a demand access needs it. A correctly timed request overlaps the cache miss penalty with earlier computation, so a subsequent load instruction can find a cache hit instead of stopping the in-order pipeline in MEM. Requests directed at several levels of a cache hierarchy can prepare nearby data in a small fast memory cache while staging more distant future data in larger levels. The separate request computer bus avoids making those address requests compete directly with returning data; returned cache lines still consume transfer capacity.

For a store instruction, the gain depends on the write policy. With a write-allocate cache, fetching its target cache line early can avoid the allocation cache miss and help the store buffer drain. On a multicore processor, a write-oriented prefetch may additionally obtain cache coherence ownership; an ordinary read prefetch alone does not guarantee write permission. A store buffer can already hide an individual write's latency, so the visible gain may appear only when it would otherwise fill. With a no-write-allocate cache, fetching the cache line just to overwrite it can be unnecessary. Loads benefit directly from earlier data arrival; stores benefit when prefetching removes a required allocation or ownership delay.

Define PREFETCH [a] as a software prefetch hint: initiate a request for the cache line containing memory address a, then continue without waiting for that cache line to arrive. It produces no value in a destination processor register, changes no program data and creates no data-result dependence for later instructions. It may be ignored if resources are unavailable. A useful hint is nonfaulting for an inaccessible or untranslated target: a later real load instruction must still perform its ordinary access checks. This is a proposed contract for the instruction, rather than a guarantee that the patent abstract alone fixes every detail of its semantics.

For example, after reading the next pointer of a linked list node, prefetch that next linked list node while processing the current one. Replacing the hint by an otherwise unused ordinary load instruction on this in-order pipeline would wait in MEM on a cache miss before the current computation could start. It would also consume a destination processor register and might raise a synchronous processor exception. A harmless hint can be scheduled earlier, even on a path where the data will never be demanded. The crucial semantic difference is that cache filling may continue after the prefetch instruction itself has finished.

A software prefetch is not a memory barrier and does not establish acquire-release synchronization or promise that later accesses will hit. Its purpose is performance; correctness must survive the hint being ignored.

In IF, fetch PREFETCH normally. In ID, recognize its opcode, read the base processor register and immediate offset, and set controls selecting a prefetch request rather than a load instruction or store instruction. Ordinary register forwarding and data hazard interlocks still apply to that base processor register. In EX, use the arithmetic logic unit to form the effective memory address.

Latch that memory address and a prefetch-valid control into EX/MEM. In MEM, put the memory address and any hint information on the dedicated request computer bus, or enqueue them in a small prefetch-request queue. The cache prefetching engine handles lookup, allocation and the later cache line return independently. Do not wait for the fill or select the returned data as a register file input. In WB, disable architectural processor register and processor condition flag writes; the instruction simply leaves the in-order pipeline.

If the request path is busy, dropping the hint is compatible with the contract in part (ii), and preserves its nonblocking purpose. A design that instead stalls until queue space exists can still be correct but reduces the performance benefit. A memory management unit must not turn a speculative hint into an ordinary protection fault: discard an invalid target, or use an appropriately checked nonfaulting translation path. Suppress device transactions for memory-mapped input-output and avoid speculative writes. Use the existing address-generation datapath, add a prefetch request/control path, and disable demand-load waiting and writeback.

The pointer to the next linked list node is unavailable until it has been read from the current linked list node; a software prefetch cannot invent that pointer. Once it is available, however, the current node's computation is useful independent work. Assuming the next field shares the already loaded cache line, use this symbolic loop:Here process_payload must not change the next pointer, and its results must not be needed to determine q. Move the hint before this computation. The real load instruction for the next node still occurs in the next iteration and waits if the prefetch has not finished. The null test can be omitted when the hint's contract safely ignores that target; its cost, when retained, belongs in the loop overhead.

Let $L$ be the additional demand cache miss penalty per node, $C$ the independent processing time after discovering q, and $P$ the cost of issuing one hint. Ignore common loop and cache hit overhead, assume requests do not contend, and assume the prefetched cache line remains resident. Without prefetching, a long traversal takes approximately $L+C$ cycles per node. A hint followed by $C$ cycles of work leaves at most $\max (0,L-C)$ cycles of waiting, givingConsequently the ideal steady-state speedup isFor $L=100$, $C=120$ and $P=1$, the comparison is $220/121\simeq 1.82$. Each hint has enough independent work behind it to hide the entire additional cache miss penalty. For $C=20$ instead, the comparison is $120/101\simeq 1.19$: most of the wait remains. With negligible $P$ the one-node-ahead model approaches a factor of two when $C=L$, not an unlimited speedup.

The first linked list node still has a startup miss. A node occupying several cache lines may need several hints, and a separately missing next field adds a genuine pointer chasing delay. Very short node computations, cache pollution or saturation of the data-transfer path can eliminate the benefit. The speedup comes from overlap with work on the current node; a prefetch does not remove the linked list's address dependence.