English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

How should we perform component-specific adaptation for FPGAs? Prior work has demonstrated that the negative effects of variation can be largely mitigated using complete knowledge of device characteristics and full per-FPGA CAD flow. However, the cost of per-FPGA characterization and mapping could be prohibitively expensive. We explore light-weight options for per-FPGA mapping that avoid the need for a priori device characterization and perform less expensive per FPGA customization work. We characterize the tradeoff between Quality-of-Results (energy, delay) and per-device mapping costs for 7 design points ranging from complete mapping based on knowledge to no per-device mapping. We show that it is possible to get 48-77% of the component-specific mapping delay benefit or 57% of the energy benefit with a mapping that takes less than 20 seconds per FPGA. An incremental solution can start execution after a 21 ms bitstream load and converge to 77% delay benefit after 18 seconds of runtime.

Quality-Time Tradeoffs in Component-Specific Mapping