Texture Filtering Unit with Priority Arbitration for Lower GPU Latency

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing graphics processing units (GPUs) face challenges in reducing latency, power consumption, and size due to the computational expense and hardware requirements of texture filtering operations, particularly in implementing methods like bilinear, volumetric, anisotropic, and trilinear filtering.

Innovation Solution

A filtering unit is introduced with a control block and arbiter to prioritize operations based on priority rules, utilizing sequencers and a datapath block with hardware logic to efficiently perform texture filtering, including anisotropic and trilinear filtering, while optimizing resource allocation and reducing latency.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Loss of time

If texture filtering operations are performed using conventional GPU hardware, then filtering functionality is achieved, but latency increases and power consumption rises

Engineering Contradiction:
ImprovelatencyVSAvoidpower consumption
Core Design Contradiction:
Loss of timeVSUse of energy by moving object

Solution Approach 1:

The filtering unit is divided into multiple independent sequencers (first sequencer, second sequencer, third sequencer, fourth sequencer) that can process different filtering operations simultaneously. Each sequencer handles a specific portion of the filtering workload, allowing parallel execution that reduces overall latency and power consumption by distributing the computational burden across multiple independent units.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The arbiter dynamically schedules which sequencer executes which filtering operation based on real-time priorities and availability. The system can switch between different filtering modes (bilinear, volumetric, anisotropic, trilinear) and adjust the execution sequence adaptively, optimizing performance for different rendering scenarios and reducing unnecessary computations that would consume power.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

2Measurement precision

If comprehensive filtering methods (bilinear, volumetric, anisotropic, trilinear) are implemented, then filtering quality is improved, but hardware size and complexity increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvefiltering qualityVSAvoidhardware size
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

Each sequencer is designed as a universal filtering unit capable of performing multiple filtering types (bilinear, volumetric, anisotropic, trilinear) by receiving different control signals. The same hardware structure can be configured for different filtering operations through software control, eliminating the need for separate dedicated hardware circuits for each filtering method and reducing overall hardware complexity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Solution Approach 2:

The filtering unit changes its operational parameters (filtering type, number of samples, computation sequence) based on control signals rather than having fixed hardware configurations. By dynamically adjusting parameters like the number of filtering passes and sample points, the system achieves high filtering quality across different methods without requiring proportional increases in hardware size.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

3Productivity

If multiple sequencers are used to process filtering operations in parallel, then productivity increases, but control complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvefiltering throughputVSAvoidcontrol complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The arbiter acts as an intermediary control unit between the multiple sequencers and the filtering operations. It receives requests from all sequencers, determines priority based on predefined rules, and schedules execution accordingly. This intermediary layer simplifies the control architecture by centralizing the scheduling logic rather than requiring complex inter-sequencer coordination circuits.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Solution Approach 2:

The system implements feedback mechanisms where the arbiter monitors the status of each sequencer and adjusts scheduling decisions based on real-time conditions. This allows the control system to adapt to varying workloads and maintain optimal productivity while managing complexity through intelligent scheduling rather than rigid fixed-priority schemes.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

Data Source

PatentEP4654120A1Filtering unit
Publication Date: 2025.11.26 IMAGINATION TECH LTD
  • EP4654120A1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP4654120A1 patent drawingFigure 2A~2C
  • EP4654120A1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

A processing unit comprising a filtering unit which is configured to apply filtering to a plurality of sequences of input values to determine output values is provided. The filtering unit comprises a control block comprising a plurality of sequencers and an arbiter. The control block is configured to allocate each of the sequences of input values to one of the sequencers, and each of the sequencers is configured to define a sequence of operations of a filtering process to be performed in respect of a sequence of input values allocated to that sequencer. The filtering unit also comprises a datapath block comprising a hardware logic component configured to perform operations by processing values for the operations to generate results of the operations as part of the filtering process. The arbiter is configured to control access to the hardware logic component of the datapath block by the sequencers according to prioritization rules, where each operation to be performed by the hardware logic component has a priority in accordance with the prioritization rules. Operations of a first set of operations have a high priority, wherein the first set of operations comprises input operations which involve input values. Operations of a second set of operations have a medium priority, wherein the second set of operations comprises intermediate operations which do not involve input values and which determine intermediate result values rather than determining output values. Operations of a third set of operations have a low priority, wherein the third set of operations comprises output operations which determine output values.