QoS in Networks-on-Chip – Beyond Priority and Circuit Switching Techniques

  • Aline Mello
  • Ney Calazans
  • Fernando Moraes
Part of the IFIP International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 291)

The idea behind the proposition of Networks-on-Chip (NoCs) for modern and future systems on chip capitalizes on the fact that busses do not scale well when shared by a large number of cores. Even if NoC research is a relatively young field, the literature abounds with propositions of NoC architectures. Several of these propositions claim providing quality of service (QoS) guarantees, which is essential for real time and multimedia applications. The most widespread approach to attain some degree of QoS guarantee relies on a two-step process. The first step is to characterize application performance through traffic modeling and simulation. The second step consists in tuning a given network template to achieve some degree of QoS guarantee. These QoS targeted NoC templates usually provide specialized structures to allow either the creation of connections (circuit switching) or the assignment of priorities to connectionless flows. It is possible to identify three drawbacks in this two-step process approach. First, it is not possible to guarantee QoS for new applications expected to run on the system, if those are defined after the network design phase. Second, even with end-to-end delay guarantees, connectionless approaches may introduce jitter. Third, to model traffic precisely for a complex application is a very hard task. If this problem is tackled by oversimplifying the modeling phase, errors may arise, leading to NoC parameterization that is poorly adapted to achieve the required QoS. This Chapter has two main objectives. The first one is to evaluate the area-performance trade-off and the limitations of circuit switching and priority scheduling to meet QoS. This evaluation will show where such implementations are really suited for QoS, and when more elaborate mechanisms to meet QoS are needed. The second objective comprises proposing a method, called rate-based scheduling, to approach QoS requirements considering the execution time state of the NoC. The evaluation of circuit switching and priority scheduling show that: (i) circuit switching can guarantee QoS only to a small number of flows; the technique do not scale well, and can potentially waste significant bandwidth; (ii) priority-based approaches may display best-effort behavior and, in worst-case situations, may lead to unacceptable latency for low priority flows, besides being subject to jitter. In face of these limitations, rate-based scheduling arises as an option to improve the performance of QoS flows when varying traffic scenarios are used.


Clock Cycle Virtual Channel Good Effort Circuit Switching Priority Schedule 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

7 References

  1. [1]
    Rijpkema, E.; Goossens, K.; Rădulescu, A. “Trade-offs in the Design of a Router with Both Guaranteed and Best-Effort Services for Networks on Chip”. In: DATE’03, pp. 350–355.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Benini, L.; De Micheli, G. “Networks on chips: a new SoC paradigm”. Computer, v.35(1), Jan. 2002, pp. 70–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Arteris. “Arteris Network on Chip Company”. 2005. Available at
  4. [4]
    Duato, J.; Yalamanchili, S.; Ni, L. “Interconnection Networks”. Elsevier Science, 2002, 600 p.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Bolotin, E; Cidon, I.; Ginosar R.; Kolodny A. “QNoC: QoS Architecture and Design Process for Network on Chip”. Journal of Systems Architecture, v.50(2–3), Feb. 2004, pp 105–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Bertozzi, D.; Benini, L. “Xpipes: A Network-on-chip Architecture for Gigascale Systems-on-Chip”. IEEE Circuits and Systems Magazine, v.4(2), 2004, pp. 18–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Goossens, K.; Dielissen, J.; Radulescu, A. “Æthereal Network on Chip: Concepts, Architectures, and Implementations”. IEEE Design and Test of Computers, v.22(5), Sep./Oct. 2005, pp. 414–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Liang, J.; Swaminathan, S.; Tessier, R. “aSOC: A Scalable Single-Chip communications Architecture”. In: IEEE International Conference on Parallel Architectures and Compilation Techniques, 2000, pp. 37–46.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Karim, F.; Nguyen, A.; Dey, S. “An interconnect architecture for network systems on chips”. IEEE Micro, v.22(5), Sep.–Oct. 2002, pp. 36–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Millberg, M.; Nilsson, E.; Thid, R.; Jantsch, A. “Guaranteed Bandwidth Using Looped Containers in Temporally Disjoint Networks Within the NOSTRUM Network on Chip”. In: DATE, 2004, pp. 890–895.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Wiklund, D.; Liu D. “SoCBUS: Switched Network on Chip for Hard Real Time Systems”. In: IPDPS, 2003, 8p.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Véstias, M.; Neto, H. “A Reconfigurable SoC Platform Based on a Network on Chip Architecture with QoS”. In: XX DCIS, 2005, 6 p.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Andreasson, D.; Kumar, S. “Improving BE Traffic QoS Using GT Slack in NoC Systems”. In: NORCHIP, 2005, pp. 44–47.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Harmanci, M.D.; Escudero, N.P.; Leblebici, Y.; Ienne, P. “Quantitative Modelling and Comparison of Communication Schemes to Guarantee Quality-of-Service in Networks-on-Chip”. In: ISCAS, 2005, pp. 1782–1785.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Shin, J.; Lee, D.; Kuo, C.-C. “Quality of Service for Internet Multimedia”. Prentice Hall, 2003, 204 p.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Dally, W.J.; Towles, B. “Principles and Practices of Interconnection Networks”. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 2004, 550p.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Kumar, S.; Andreasson, D. “Slack-Time Aware Routing in NoC Systems”. In: ISCAS, 2005, pp. 2353–2356.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Bjerregaard, T.; Mahadevan, S. “A survey of research and practices of Network-on-chip”. ACM Computing Surveys, v.38(1), 2006, pp. 1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Moraes, F.; Calazans, N.; Mello, A.; Möller, L.; Ost, L. “Hermes: an Infrastructure for Low Area Overhead Packet-switching Networks on Chip”. Integration the VLSI Journal, v.38(1), Oct. 2004, pp. 69–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Mello, A.; Tedesco, L.; Calazans, N.; Moraes, F. “Virtual Channels in Networks on Chip: Implementation and Evaluation on Hermes NoC”. In: 18th SBCCI, 2005, pp. 178–183.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Giroux, N.; Ganti, S. “Quality of Service in ATM Networks: State-of-Art Traffic Management”. Prentice Hall, 1998, 252 p.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Lee, J.W.; Kim, C.K.; Lee, C. W. “Rate-based scheduling discipline for packet switching networks”. Electronic Letters, v.31(14), 1995, 1130–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Kumar, A.; Manjunath, D.; Kuri, J. “Communication Networking: An Analytical Approach”. Morgan Kaufman Publishers, 2004, 929 p.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    Pande, P.; Grecu, C.; Jones, M.; Ivanov, A.; Saleh, R. “Performance Evaluation and design Trade-Offs for Network-on-Chip Interconnect Architectures”. IEEE Transactions on Computers, v.54(8), Aug. 2005, pp. 1025–1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag US 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul(FACIN-PUCRS)RSBRASIL

Personalised recommendations