Timeline Dependency Graph for Dataflow Timing

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Determining optimal timing constraints for data flow models in complex computer-based systems is challenging due to the complexity of heterogeneous hardware platforms and the need for intuitive mapping of applications across processing elements, which is not feasible through exhaustive exploration.

Innovation Solution

A method is introduced to determine timing constraints by creating a timeline dependency graph (TDG) based on node information, coupling between dataflow nodes, and timing information, allowing for automated mapping of program functions to distributed heterogeneous hardware platforms, considering constraints like bandwidth and area.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Measurement precision

If exhaustive exploration is used to find optimal mapping, then mapping quality may be improved, but computational complexity and time consumption become infeasible

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvemapping qualityVSAvoidcomputational complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments the complex mapping problem into two distinct phases: (1) generating an initial mapping using a simplified evaluation function, and (2) performing localized optimization through swap operations. This segmentation avoids exhaustive exploration while still achieving high-quality mappings by focusing computational effort on promising candidates rather than evaluating all possible mappings.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent performs preliminary action by generating an initial mapping using a simplified evaluation function before applying optimization. This preliminary mapping serves as a starting point that captures the most important constraints and objectives, allowing subsequent optimization to refine the solution without needing to explore the entire solution space from scratch.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

2Adaptability or versatility

If more hardware elements are integrated into the system, then system capability is improved, but system complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesystem capabilityVSAvoidplatform complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent implements a universal mapping framework that can handle heterogeneous hardware platforms (FPGAs, CPUs, GPUs, ASICs) using a unified evaluation function and optimization approach. The framework evaluates mappings based on multiple criteria (area, timing, bandwidth, power) simultaneously, allowing the same system to adapt to diverse hardware configurations without requiring platform-specific optimization algorithms.

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

Solution Approach 2:

The patent manages hardware complexity by dynamically adjusting evaluation parameters and weights based on the specific platform configuration and application requirements. The system can change the relative importance of different constraints (area vs. timing vs. bandwidth) to optimize mappings for different heterogeneous platform compositions, making the system adaptable without proportionally increasing complexity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

3Measurement precision

If timing constraints are applied to all nodes, then timing precision is improved, but computational overhead increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvetiming precisionVSAvoidcomputational overhead
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies local quality by differentiating timing constraint application based on node characteristics. Rather than uniformly applying strict timing constraints to all nodes, the system identifies critical nodes (particularly those with side effects representing I/O operations) and applies timing constraints selectively where they are most impactful. This localized approach maintains timing precision for critical operations while reducing computational overhead for non-critical internal computations.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

Data Source

PatentUS10467059B2Determination of timing configurations for program dataflow models
Publication Date: 2019.11.05 NATIONAL INSTRUMENTS CORP
  • US10467059B2 patent drawing
  • US10467059B2 patent drawing
  • US10467059B2 patent drawing

AI summary

A method for determining timing constraints in dataflow models is disclosed. The method includes receiving node information specifying a plurality of dataflow nodes, as well as coupling between various ones of the dataflow nodes. The method further comprising receiving timing information specifying timing constraints for at least some of the dataflow nodes. Based on the node information, the couplings between the nodes, and the timing information, a timeline dependency graph (TDG). The timeline dependency graph illustrates a timeline, mappings between nodes with side effects to firing times of those nodes on the timeline, and dependencies between nodes.