RIT - EECC - 551

Reduction of Data Hazards Stalls with Dynamic Scheduling So far we have dealt with data hazards in instruction pipelines by: Result forwarding and bypassing to reduce latency and hide or reduce the effect of true data dependence. Hazard detection

San Jose State - CN - 1412

RIT - EECC - 551

So far we have dealt with data hazards in instruction pipelines by: Result forwarding and bypassing to reduce latency and hide or reduce the effect of true data dependence. Hazard detection hardware to stall the pipeline starting with the instruc

RIT - EECC - 551

Static Conditional Branch Prediction Branch prediction schemes can be classified into static and dynamic schemes. Static methods are usually carried out by the compiler. They are static because the prediction is already known before the program is e

RIT - EECC - 551

Evolution of Processor PerformanceMulti-cycle Pipelined (single issue) Multiple Issue (CPI <1) Superscalar/VLIWCPI> 101.1-100.5 - 1.1.35 - .5 (?)Source: John P. Chen, Intel LabsEECC551 - Shaaban#1 lec # 6 Winter 2002 1-8-2003Multipl

RIT - EECC - 551

Evolution of Processor PerformanceMulti-cycle Pipelined (single issue) Multiple Issue (CPI <1) Superscalar/VLIWCPI> 101.1-100.5 - 1.1.35 - .5 (?)Source: John P. Chen, Intel LabsEECC551 - Shaaban#1 lec # 6 Winter 2002 1-8-2003Multipl

RIT - EECC - 551

Static Compiler Optimization Techniques We already examined the following static compiler techniques aimed at improving pipelined CPU performance: Static pipeline scheduling (in ch 4.1). Loop unrolling (ch 4.1). Static branch prediction (in ch 4.

RIT - EECC - 551

Main Memory Main memory generally utilizes Dynamic RAM (DRAM), which use a single transistor to store a bit, but require a periodic data refresh by reading every row (~every 8 msec). Static RAM may be used for main memory if the added expense, low

RIT - EECC - 551

Main memory generally utilizes Dynamic RAM (DRAM), which use a single transistor to store a bit, but require a periodic data refresh by reading every row (~every 8 msec). Static RAM may be used for main memory if the added expense, low density, hi

RIT - EECC - 551

Types of Cache Misses: The Three C's1 Compulsory: On the first access to a block; the blockmust be brought into the cache; also called cold start misses, or first reference misses.2 Capacity: Occur because blocks are being discardedfrom cache b

RIT - EECC - 551

Types of Cache Misses: The Three C's1 Compulsory:On the first access to a block; the block must be brought into the cache; also called cold start misses, or first reference misses. Occur because blocks are being discarded from cache because cache c

RIT - EECC - 551

Main Memory Main memory generally utilizes Dynamic RAM (DRAM), which use a single transistor to store a bit, but require a periodic data refresh by reading every row. Static RAM may be used for main memory if the added expense, low density, high po

RIT - EECC - 551

Main memory generally utilizes Dynamic RAM (DRAM), which use a single transistor to store a bit, but require a periodic data refresh by reading every row. Static RAM may be used for main memory if the added expense, low density, high power consump

RIT - EECC - 551

Input/Output & System Performance Issues System I/O Connection Structure Types of Buses in the system. I/O Data Transfer Methods. Cache & I/O. I/O Performance Metrics. Magnetic Disk Characteristics. I/O System Modeling Using Queuing Theory.

RIT - EECC - 551

Input/Output & System Performance Issues System I/O Connection Structure Types of Buses in the system. I/O Data Transfer Methods. Cache & I/O. I/O Performance Metrics. Magnetic Disk Characteristics. I/O System Modeling Using Queuing Theory.

RIT - EECC - 551

Magnetic Disk Characteristics I/O Connection Structure Types of Buses Cache & I/O I/O Performance Metrics I/O System Modeling Using Queuing Theory Designing an I/O System RAID (Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks) I/O Benchmarks ABCs o

RIT - EECC - 551

Magnetic Disk Characteristics I/O Connection Structure Types of Buses Cache & I/O I/O Performance Metrics I/O System Modeling Using Queuing Theory Designing an I/O System RAID (Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks) I/O Benchmarks ABCs o

San Jose State - CN - 1412

RIT - EECC - 551

EECC551 Review Instruction In-order Floating Point/Multicycle Pipelining Instruction-Level Parallelism (ILP). Loop-unrolling Dynamic Pipeline Scheduling. The Tomasulo Algorithm Dynamic Branch Prediction. Multiple Instruction Issue (CPI < 1): S

San Jose State - CN - 1412

San Jose State - CN - 1412

San Jose State - CN - 1412

San Jose State - CN - 1412

San Jose State - CN - 1412

Stevens - CS - 540

CS 540 Quantitative Software EngineeringLecture 1 Think like an engineerRoadmapq q q q q q qMy history Class mechanics Quantitative Software Engineering Software Process Models CMM and the SEI Ethics of our profession Reading: first chapter

Stevens - CS - 540

CS 540 Quantitative Software EngineeringLecture Summary 1-11Objectives, Projects, Requirements, Design, Prototyping, Architecture, Estimation, Risk, Usability, Construction, and TestingHistory: Software Crisis PersistsqThe software crisis,

Stevens - CS - 540

CS 540 Quantitative Software EngineeringLecture 2 People, Process, Product, ProjectPeopleSoftware Trustworthiness depends on people: I propose that customers insist that software products identify a Software Architect and Software Project Mana

Stevens - CS - 540

CS 540 Quantitative Software EngineeringLecture 3 RequirementsSoftware Requirements Processq q q q q qRequirements Elicitation Requirements Analysis Use Cases Requirements Specification Prototype/Modeling Requirements ManagementHighlights

Stevens - CS - 540

CS 540 Quantitative Software EngineeringLecture 4 PrototypingSoftware Requirements Processq q q q q qRequirements Elicitation Requirements Analysis Use Cases Requirements Specification Prototype/Modeling Requirements ManagementSerial devel

Stevens - CS - 540

CS 540 Quantitative Software EngineeringLecture 7 EstimationEstimate size, then Estimate effort, schedule and cost from size Bound estimatesProject Metrics: Why Estimate?q q q q q qCost and schedule estimation Measure progress Calibrate mod

Stevens - CS - 540

CS 540 Quantitative Software EngineeringLecture 8 Risks & MetricsRisk Exposure = Prob(failure) x Cost of FailureSoftware RiskqRisk is the possibility that an undesirable event in the life of a software project can happen Requires uncertain

Stevens - CS - 540

CS 540 Quantitative Software EngineeringLecture 9 Metrics and Ease of UseFun, Function and FreedomHistorical Background from Hardware to Softwareq q q q q q qMan machine interface Cognitive Psychology Human Factors engineering Human-Compute

Stevens - CS - 540

CS 540 Quantitative Software EngineeringLecture 11 Testing, Verification, Validation and CertificationYou can't test in quality Independent system testersSoftware Quality vs. Software TestingqSoftware Quality Management (SQM) refers to proc

Stevens - CS - 540

CS 540 Fall 2007CS 540: Fundamentals of Quantitative Software Engineering (Issue August 07)CS 540A Fundamentals of QSE I Call #: Instructor: Ogden, G. D. 10247 Credits: 3.00 - 3.00 Session: Normal Academic Term 08/29/2007-12/22/2007 Enrollment Cap

Oregon State - SR - 1053

Table 1. Vectors used in transformation experiments. Vector name GFP type Antibiotic resistance pAGR2 DsRed ApR, GmR pAGC cyanFP ApR, GmR pAGY yellowFP ApR, GmR pAGY408 GFPuv ApR, KmR, GmR gfp+ pUT mini-Tn5gfp GFPmut2 ApR pFP6301 GFPuv KmR pFP6158 Ds

Oregon State - SR - 1053

Table 2b. Recovery of Xcc from foliage and roots from Field B of two seed fields in central Oregon, mid-August 2003. Field B Foliage Foliage Roots Roots Plant # CFU/g dry wt Log[CFU/g dry wt] CFU/g dry wt Log[CFU/g dry wt 1 0 0 2 17.4 x 107 7.9 0 3 0

Oregon State - SR - 1053

Table 1. Effect of herbicides on stand reduction of native grass species grown for seed, Madras, Oregon, 2000-2002.Herbicide Axiom Beacon Clarity Diuron Frontier Goal Kerb Maverick Sencor Sinbar Surflan untreated1 2Rate per acre 11 oz 0.76 oz 4 p

Oregon State - SR - 1053

Table 4. Effect of herbicides on reduced heading of native grass species grown for seed, Madras, Oregon, 2000-2002.Herbicide Axiom Beacon Clarity Diuron Frontier Goal Kerb Maverick Sencor Sinbar Surflan untreated1 2Rate per acre 11 oz 0.76 oz 4 p

Oregon State - SR - 1053

Table 2. Effect of application timing for Beacon on seed set in rough bluegrass cultivars near Madras, Oregon, 2002-2003. Treatment Rate Application date Percent reduction in seed set `Sabre' `Laser' Beacon 0.75 oz Oct 8 0.0 b1 8.3 Beacon 0.75 oz Nov

San Jose State - CN - 1411

Oregon State - SR - 1053

Table 1. Carrot seed crops monitored for development of Xanthomonas campestris pv. carotae in 20012002 and 2002-2003 in central Oregon and central Washington.Years, state & field code Type of carrot 2001/02 Oregon OA Nantes OB Nantes OC Nantes x Ams

Oregon State - SR - 1053

Frequency of Plants on whichFrequency of Plants on which Xanthomonas campestris pv. carotae was Detected20Xanthomonas campestris detectedpv. carotae was20 18 16 14 12Incidence (of 20 plants sampled)18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 WA WB WC WDJul

Oregon State - SR - 1053

Population of Xanthomonas campestris pv. carotae Detected on Infected Plants from Washington Carrot Fields 1.00E+09 1.00E+08 1.00E+07Population of Xanthomonas campestris pv. carotae Detected on Infected Plants from Washington Carrot Fields1.00E+1

Oregon State - SR - 1053

Ave incidence infected plants - ORIncidence of plants with X. campestris carotae: OR 2002/0320 1820 18Incidence (of 20 plants sampled)1616 14 12 10 01 OctNov 01Incidence (of 20 plants sampled)14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 OA OB OC OD OE8 02 Ap

Oregon State - SR - 1053

1.0E+01 9.0E+00 8.0E+00 7.0E+00log avg cfu/g dry wt1.0E+09 1.0E+08Log (cfu/g dry tissue) of infected plants1.0E+07 1.0E+06 1.0E+05 1.0E+04 1.0E+03 1.0E+02 1.0E+01 1.0E+006.0E+00 5.0E+00 4.0E+00 3.0E+00 2.0E+00 1.0E+00 0.0E+00 OA OB OC ODAu

Oregon State - SR - 1053

Table 2. Mean incidence of plants on which Xanthomonas campestris pv. carotae was detected in direct-seeded and steckling carrot seed crops sampled through the 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 seasons in central Oregon and central Washington. State & method o

Oregon State - SR - 1053

1.00E+09 1.00E+08 1.00E+07 Stock Seed Harvest Seed1.0E+09 1.0E+08 1.0E+07log cfu/g seed1.00E+05 1.00E+04 1.00E+03 1.00E+02 1.00E+01 1.00E+00Ave cfu/g seedOA OB OE1.00E+061.0E+06 1.0E+05 1.0E+04 1.0E+03 1.0E+02 1.0E+01 1.0E+00OAOCOG

Oregon State - SR - 1053

Table 1. Soil test results from samples taken on March 15, 2003, state-wide variety test trial, at Central Oregon Agricultural Research Center, Madras, Oregon. NH4 P K S Soil depth pH NO3 (lb/a) (lb/a) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) 0-12 7.8 18 17 38 333 18.4 12-

Oregon State - SR - 1053

Table 1. Soil test results from samples taken on March 15, 2003, state-wide variety test trial, at Central Oregon Agricultural Research Center, Madras, Oregon. NH4 P K S Soil depth pH NO3 (lb/a) (lb/a) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) 0-12 7.8 18 17 38 333 18.4 12-

Oregon State - SR - 1053

Table 4. Peppermint performance in noninfested and infested variety trials OSU-Central Oregon Agricultural Research Center, Madras, 2003. Proportion of plot with healthy mint at harvest3 7/29/03 (%) 85 ab 96 a 100 a 98 a 99 a 88 ab 94 ab 31 c 73 bN

Oregon State - SR - 1053

Table 5. First year peppermint oil partial compositional analysis from infested and noninfested variety trial, Central Oregon Agricultural Research Center, Madras, 2000. Variety APIN1 (%) Infested Black Mitcham Todds 84M0107-7 M90-11 87M0109-1 KcKell

Oregon State - SR - 1053

Table 2. Peppermint performance in noninfested and infested variety trials OSU-Central Oregon Agricultural Research Center, Madras, 2001.Non-infested Proportion of plot with healthy mint at harvest3 8/1/01 (%) 91 96 94 94 95 85 91 50 87 Hay yield dr

Oregon State - SR - 1053

Table 3. Peppermint performance in noninfested and infested variety trials OSU-Central Oregon Agricultural Research Center, Madras, 2002.Non-infested Stand1 4/22/02 (%) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 85 100 Non-wilted2 7/29/02 (%) 94.8 a 96.5 a 99.5 a

Oregon State - SR - 1053

Table 7. Third year peppermint oil partial compositional analysis from infested and noninfested variety trials OSU-Central Oregon Agricultural Research Center, Madras, 2002. Variety APIN1 SAB BPIN OCT EUC LIM (%) Infested Black Mitcham Todds 84MO107-

Oregon State - SR - 1053

Table 8. Fourth year peppermint oil partial compositional analysis from infested and noninfested soil, Central Oregon peppermint variety trial, Madras, 2003. Variety APIN1 SAB BPIN OCT EUC (%) Infested Black Mitcham Todds 84M0107-7 M90-11 87M0109-1 K

Oregon State - SR - 1053

Figure 1. Spring plant stand (percent plot area with mint ground cover) in noninfested and infested variety trials at OSU-Central Oregon Agricultural Research Center, Madras, 2002-2003.Black Mitchem120120McKellip 98120Todds120B90-91001

Oregon State - SR - 1053

Table 1. Soil test analyses from alfalfa variety trial soil samples taken at the Central Oregon Agricultural Research Center, Madras, Oregon.Date 1998 2000 2002 3/2003 Depth (in) 0-10 0-12 pH 6.7 6.7 7.4 P (ppm) 25 29 29 K (ppm) 539 215 386 Ca (meq

Oregon State - SR - 1053

Table 3. The fall dormancy, winter hardiness, disease, insect, and pest ratings for the 1998 planted fall dormancy alfalfa variety trial conducted at COARC, Madras, OR.Variety FD Bw Vw Fw An PRR SAA PA BAA SN APH SNKN NRKN RLN Spreador 1 4 1 4 1 1 4

Oregon State - SR - 1053

Table 4. Total yield results of the fall dormancy alfalfa trial planted on August 25, 1998 at the Central Oregon Agricultural Research Center at Madras, Oregon. Fall dormancy 1999 total yield (ton/acre) 8.74 8.66 8.50 8.51 8.56 8.47 8.57 NS NS NS 0.7

Oregon State - SR - 1053

Table 6. 1999 yield results of the fall dormancy alfalfa trial planted on August 25, 1998 at the Central Oregon Agricultural Research Center at Madras, Oregon. Fall dormancy 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mean PLSD 0.01 PLSD 0.05 PLSD 0.10 Pr. > F CV% Harvest date 1st

Oregon State - SR - 1053

Table 7. 2000 yield results of the fall dormancy alfalfa trial planted on August 25, 1998 at the Central Oregon Agricultural Research Center at Madras, Oregon.Fall dormancy 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mean PLSD 0.01 PLSD 0.05 PLSD 0.10 Pr. > F CV% Harvest date1s