Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary
- Subject
- Posted on
- Christopher Holmes
December 18, 2003, 7:14 pm
In an upcoming hardware design I'm thinking about using a CPU without
a floating point unit. The application uses floating point numbers,
so I'll have to do software emulation. However, I can't seem to find
any information on how long these operations might take in software.
I'm trying to figure out how much processing power I need & choose an
appropriate CPU.
I have plently of info on MIPS ratings for the CPU's, and I figured
out how many MFLOPS my application needs, but how do I figure out how
many MIPS it takes to do so many MFLOPS?
Does anyone know of any info resources or methods?
Thanks for any help!
Chris
a floating point unit. The application uses floating point numbers,
so I'll have to do software emulation. However, I can't seem to find
any information on how long these operations might take in software.
I'm trying to figure out how much processing power I need & choose an
appropriate CPU.
I have plently of info on MIPS ratings for the CPU's, and I figured
out how many MFLOPS my application needs, but how do I figure out how
many MIPS it takes to do so many MFLOPS?
Does anyone know of any info resources or methods?
Thanks for any help!
Chris
Re: estimating CPU load /MFLOPS for software emulation of floating point
Lots of the latter, but the former are mostly in people's heads or
on paper. Old paper.
If you want to emulate a hardware floating-point format, you are
talking hundreds of instructions or more, depending on how clever
you are and the interface you use. If you merely want to implement
floating-point in software, then you can get it down to tens of
instructions. For example, holding floating-point numbers as a
structure designed for software, like:
struct (unsigned long mantissa, int exponent, unsigned char sign)
is VASTLY easier than emulating IEEE. It's still thoroughly messy.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Re: estimating CPU load /MFLOPS for software emulation of floating point
Why would you muck about with a separate sign, rather than just using a
signed mantissa, for a non-standard software implementation? Does it buy
you something in terms of speed? Precision, I guess, given that long is
only 32 bits on many systems, and few have 64x64->128 integer multipliers
anyway. The OP didn't say what the application was, so it's hard to say
whether more than 32 bits of mantissa would be needed.
Frankly, he's almost certainly going to be able to translate to
fixed-point or block-floating-point anyway, and not bother with the
per-value exponent field. That's what all of the "multi-media"
applications that run on integer-only ARM, MIPS, SH-RISC etc do. Modern
versions of these chips all have strong (low latency, pipelined) integer
multipliers, so performance can be quite good.
Cheers,
--
Andrew
Andrew
Re: estimating CPU load /MFLOPS for software emulation of floating point
(Nick Maclaren) writes:
And speaking of emulating IEEE 754 float operations, speed and
code size go south in a big hurry if infinities, denormalized
numbers, NaNs, and rounding are handled properly. Add some
more adverse impact if double-precision float is implemented
instead of or in addition to the usual single-precision float.
Regardless, MFLOPS will be measured in fractions and quite
small fractions at that. Any relation between MIPS and MFLOPS
will be purely coincidental.
And speaking of emulating IEEE 754 float operations, speed and
code size go south in a big hurry if infinities, denormalized
numbers, NaNs, and rounding are handled properly. Add some
more adverse impact if double-precision float is implemented
instead of or in addition to the usual single-precision float.
Regardless, MFLOPS will be measured in fractions and quite
small fractions at that. Any relation between MIPS and MFLOPS
will be purely coincidental.
Re: estimating CPU load /MFLOPS for software emulation of floating point
Regrettably not :-(
That has been stated for years, but isn't true. Yes, it is true, if
measured over the space of all applications on all data. No, it is
not true for all analyses, even excluding perverse and specially
selected ones. It isn't all that rare to get into a situation where
5-10% of all floating-point calculations are in a problem area (i.e.
underflowing or denormalised), despite the data and results being
well scaled.
Yes and no. They are only if the characteristics of the machine
remains constant. As branch misprediction becomes more serious,
MFlops degrades relative to MIPS.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Re: estimating CPU load /MFLOPS for software emulation of floating point
Not really:
All the special values (NaN, Inf, Zero and Denorm) can be handled (at
least approximately) with a simple test of the exponent field, before
falling through with the normal case.
Since the Denorms all would be included in the normal
'Special_exponent()' test, the overhead is only in the fixup part.
Terje
--
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"
Re: estimating CPU load /MFLOPS for software emulation of floating point
If you absolutely must use normalized FP (a la IEEE) it could be hundreds or
even thousands depending onthe CPU resources and the cleverness of the code.
Look and un-normalized FP or even integer. Normalization results in
non-deterministic timing. Of course, if your CPU doesn't have hardware
multiply, then all your math timing is non-deterministic ;-)
Very few things really need FP - the algorithm designers are just lazy. A 32
bit integer has better than 1 ppb (1 part per billion) resolution. Most
things in the real world (like ADCs and DACs) aren't anywhere near that.
Bob
Re: estimating CPU load /MFLOPS for software emulation of floating point
Floating point multiplication and division is not much worse than
doing integer multiplication or division with operands of similar
sizes. Only an extra addition/subtraction is involved.
However, floating point addition and subtractions are nasty, since you
first have to denormilze the smaller value and then perform the
addition/subtraction in the normal way. Especially after subtraction,
you often have to find the most significant bit set and do the
denormalisation, which can be quite time consuming.
However, even if you would have to normalize a 64 bit mantissa with an
8 bit processor, you could first test in which byte the first "1" bit
is located and by byte copying (or preferably pointer arithmetic) move
that byte to the beginning of the result. After that you have to
perform 1-7 full sized (64 bit) left shift operations (or 1-4 bit
left/right shifts) to get into correct positions. Rounding requires up
to 8 adds with carry.
Even so, I very much doubt that you would require more than 100
instruction in addition to the actual integer multiply/add/sub
operation with the same operand sizes.
An 8 by 8 bit multiply instruction would reduce the computational load
considerably.
Paul
Re: estimating CPU load /MFLOPS for software emulation of floating point
Hi, such an open ended question is impossible to answer. It takes forever on a
typical 8 bit micro. 16 bit is much quicker but still slow. It's possible to
emove fp operations from most applications, try that first. You can easily
measure performance, on the hardware with some test routines, try that second.
typical 8 bit micro. 16 bit is much quicker but still slow. It's possible to
emove fp operations from most applications, try that first. You can easily
measure performance, on the hardware with some test routines, try that second.
Re: estimating CPU load /MFLOPS for software emulation of floating point
There was a time when you had no choice. You should also decide
on the precision levels needed in the FP system. Many years ago I
decided that my applications could be adequately handled with a 16
bit significand, and the result was the FP system for the 8080
published in DDJ about 20 years ago. The actual code is probably
of little use today, but the breakdown may well be.
That was fairly efficient and speedy because the 8080 was capable
of 16 bit arithmetic, and it was not hard to extend it to 24 and
32 bits where needed.
--
Chuck F ( snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com) ( snipped-for-privacy@worldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
Chuck F ( snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com) ( snipped-for-privacy@worldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Site Timeline
- » Powering a LPC2114 ARM7
- — Next thread in » Embedded Programming
- » 24C04 with my microcontroller
- — Previous thread in » Embedded Programming
- » RabbitWeb and BL2600
- — Newest thread in » Embedded Programming
- » J'envisage de me séparer d'un Tektronix 2445B
- — The site's Newest Thread. Posted in » Electronics (French)