Programmable Multi-PU Synchronization

• Programmable multi-PU synchronization is a technique that enables explicit control and flexible coordination among multiple processing units in diverse architectures.
• It integrates hardware support and software-driven protocols to minimize latency and energy consumption while ensuring fault tolerance in safety-critical and real-time applications.
• Scalable frameworks, from dynamic lockstep to hardware-accelerated barriers, facilitate efficient synchronization in distributed systems, AI accelerators, and quantum control environments.

Programmable multi-PU synchronization comprises architectural frameworks and mechanisms that provide deterministic, flexible, and efficient ordering and coordination among multiple processing units (PUs)—cores, boards, tiles, or devices—based on software or hardware triggers, task requirements, or application-level synchronization semantics. The concept subsumes a diversity of approaches spanning multicore lockstep, fine-grained language-level concurrency, hardware synchronization engines, scalable barrier networks, and cross-device orchestration. In contrast to fixed, monolithic synchronization schemes, programmable solutions enable explicit control—often at runtime—over which PUs synchronize, the duration of synchrony, policy (e.g., dynamic redundancy, barrier, lock, DRF primitives), and the mapping of synchronization events to tasks, ISRs, or software constructs. This adaptability is required for modern complex systems including safety-critical multicore processors, AI accelerators, tightly coupled clusters, and experimental quantum controllers.

1. Dynamic and Modular Lockstep Synchronization

Dynamic lockstep methods allow a subset M of N homogeneous cores to be brought into a tightly synchronized operating mode (M-out-of-N lockstep) on demand, e.g., to execute safety-critical routines, and then rapidly released for independent or asynchronous execution when high-integrity execution is not required. Unlike classical lockstep, which permanently couples cores (doubling area and energy overhead), programmable lockstep binds resources only as needed, supporting flexible, runtime-initiated fault tolerance (Doran et al., 2021).

The control architecture consists of per-core logic for requesting and relinquishing lockstep (via bus transactions on a dedicated sync address), a central lockstep monitor FSM that collects "volunteered" requests, admits exactly M into the barrier, coordinates entry and exit points, and supervises lockstep execution via a continuous voter (N×N compare matrix, bus multiplexer) and error observer (timeout/checker for late arrivals or missed releases). Dynamic selection policies, configurable degraded modes (e.g., fallback to 2oo3 if a core fails), and programmable "enabled" group vectors provide operational flexibility. Area impact is minimal (<10% additional LUTs for 3oo5 lockstep). The software interface is limited to memory-mapped operations, with no ISA extensions—compatibility with standard toolchains is preserved. This framework enables modular redundancy, flexible scheduling, and reliability tailoring crucial for both hard real-time and mixed-criticality embedded systems.

2. Domain-Specific Synchronization Primitives and APIs

High-level language constructs and hardware support are combined in several architectures to create expressive, memory-order-aware, and progress-safe synchronization. Ada 202x, for instance, generalizes "synchronized" and "read-modify-write" types augmented by four memory-ordering attributes (Relaxed, Acquire, Release, Sequentially_Consistent), providing C++11-style DRF→SC semantics (Blieberger et al., 2018). Programmable synchronization is exported as "concurrent objects": fine-grained, non-blocking critical sections where synchronization is expressed as atomic guards and labeled RMW operations. Domain-specific intrinsics (e.g., Compare-Exchange, annotate Acquire/Release) permit per-access control over inter-thread ordering, backoff strategies, and explicit fencing—in contrast to the all-or-nothing mutual exclusion of protected objects or kernel-locked regions.

On tightly coupled RISC-V clusters with lightweight hardware SCU (Synchronization and Communication Unit), synchronization primitives (barrier, mutex, event, notifier) are mapped to minimal-latency control buses and a tailor-made Event-Load-Word (ELW) instruction, which provides single-instruction barrier, lock, or event wait capability (Glaser et al., 2020). Registers expose event masks, barrier and mutex state, and atomic notification, reducing protocol overhead from hundreds of cycles (software test-and-set) to under 10 cycles, making sub-50 cycle synchronization regions viable and minimizing energy.

3. Hardware-Accelerated and Hierarchical Synchronization Architectures

Near-Data-Processing (NDP) and many-core systems require programmable synchronization mechanisms with minimal inter-core or inter-unit communication overhead and zero dependency on cache coherence. SynCron exemplifies a distributed hardware engine approach for NDP memory stacks: each PU integrates a small, local Synchronization Engine (SE) with an on-die Synchronization Table (ST). All local synchronization variables are handled in the fast-path ST, with global synchronization managed through a two-level message protocol (local and global Engine layers) (Giannoula et al., 2021). Overflow management is handled via hardware counters and structured DRAM fallback, limiting the performance impact of high-concurrency workloads. ISA-level synchronization ops (REQ_SYNC, REQ_ASYNC) enable tight SW/HW integration and portable programming.

In AI accelerators, scalable hardware-accelerated synchronization is deployed via dedicated synchronization trees. FractalSync implements an H-tree barrier network in the MAGIA BSP AI accelerator: each "FractalSync" (FS) module synchronizes two leaf or internal nodes, forming a hierarchical, logarithmic-latency reduction/broadcast tree completely decoupled from the main NoC (Isachi et al., 13 Jun 2025). The domain and grain of each barrier (global, subgroup) are programmable by instruction operand or API, supporting both all-to-all and subset synchronization at O(log N) cycle cost. Dedicated instructions (e.g., fsync) provide compiler/runtime mapping for massively parallel jobs, closing at 1 GHz for 256+ tiles with <0.01% area.

4. Multi-Device and Multi-Board Synchronization for Distributed Systems

Programmable synchronization among independent processing boards, FPGAs, or SoCs—particularly in quantum control and measurement—leverages deterministic reference clock distribution, lightweight digital handshake protocols (PTP or custom), and host-exposed, programmable APIs. For multi-board RFSoC platforms, a ring of GPIO-based PTP engines periodically aligns local counters and phase across all devices to within a few picoseconds, with clock distribution over matched-length cables and zero-delay-mode PLLs (Xu et al., 11 Jun 2025). Data- and event-plane integration uses high-throughput Aurora links for real-time result sharing and feedback. The API exposes commands for counter (re)alignment, event scheduling, and pulse programming, delivering deterministic experiment scheduling and low-latency mid-circuit feedback. The synchronization precision (sub-10 ps) and latency (∼450 ns) fulfill quantum experiment requirements, and the system logic supports runtime reconfiguration of participants and protocols.

Pulse control hardware for quantum information experiments follows the same abstraction: global sync triggers, deterministic event queues, and low-latency per-channel updates coordinate pulse sequences across up to 32 RF channels (multiple PUs) (Keitch et al., 2017). Host-side APIs (Python, C++) map real-time decision-making (e.g., quantum error correction logic), with overall synchronization error (clock+bus+DDS) kept below 15 ns RMS.

5. Synchronization in Heterogeneous and Large-Scale Parallel Systems

Emerging DNN inference and real-time scheduling platforms also deploy programmable multi-PU synchronization as a core abstraction. FPGA-based deep learning accelerators partition DNN computation across multiple heterogeneous PUs, each controlled by an Instruction Controller Unit (ICU) and a distributed Instruction Synchronization Network (ISN) (Petropoulos et al., 19 Nov 2025). Load, compute, and store operations are decoupled into their own instruction streams. Synchronization is embedded as REQ/ACK single-token transactions over point-to-point AXI-Stream links—producer and consumer sides each emit or wait for tokens, forming a programmable, explicit dependency graph among all computation groups and batches. Programmatic control over pipeline configuration, partitioning, dependency depth, and mode-switching is achieved via software-generated instruction BRAM contents, without hardware modification. Measured synchronization overhead is negligible: under 1% of compute time, with 98% measured compute efficiency on complex workloads (ResNet-50).

In the real-time domain, the Distributed Priority Ceiling Protocol for parallel tasks (DPCP-p) enables lock-based distributed resource access among DAG-structured jobs scheduled under federated (mixed heavy/light) policies (Yang et al., 2020). Local and global resources are partitioned by a programmable, fit-decreasing heuristic, with blocking bounded by priority ceiling analysis and all critical sections bound per queue and request. This ensures that schedulability and predictability are not compromised by the synchronization protocol, even as the system dynamically partitions workloads and resources.

6. Performance Analysis, Trade-Offs, and Evaluation

Across these architectures, performance metrics are grounded in cycle-accurate measurements and analytic latency/area/energy formulas. Hardware-accelerated synchronization consistently reduces barrier/lock latency from 100–1000+ cycles (software-based, cache-coherent, or atomic memory operations) to the 4–30 cycle range, enabling tight pipelining, small synchronization-free regions, and minimal energy dissipation (Glaser et al., 2020, Isachi et al., 13 Jun 2025). Overhead reduction factors exceeding 30× are typical; in some prototypes, barrier protocol energy is 98% lower than classic schemes.

Area impacts are tightly constrained: hardware monitors, SCUs, and FractalSync modules occupy <0.05–0.01% of system die area. Synchronization scalability is generally O(log N) in optimized trees and O(1) per unit in token-based distributed fabric. Overflow and pathological cases are mitigated by hardware-managed spillover and two-level protocols, elevating performance within <10% of ideal ("zero overhead") even under synthetic extreme contention (Giannoula et al., 2021).

In large-scale GPU/accelerator settings, the choice among programmable primitives (e.g., block, grid, device, and multi-device barriers in CUDA) is dictated by required granularity, occupancy, and coordination needs (Zhang et al., 2020). Host-mediated and cooperative group mechanisms allow runtime adaptation but bring corresponding performance and compatibility caveats. The main limiting factors are network topology, stalled cores, and correctness, all amenable to careful scheduling and API-layer handling.

7. Limitations, Design Guidelines, and Future Directions

Current programmable synchronization approaches reveal key limitations arising from core heterogeneity, group size variability, and memory hierarchy divergence. Branch-prediction divergence, cache disparities, and stack pointer alignment demand explicit mitigation—static prediction, integrated shadow RAM/stack logic, and flush protocols are recommended (Doran et al., 2021). Table sizes and hardware resource limits impose physical upper bounds, but typical applications are well below occupancy saturation. Some architectures (e.g., H-tree barrier overlay) are best suited to regular power-of-2 tile arrays; runtime variability or dynamic domain re-partitioning may require further logic or indirection (Isachi et al., 13 Jun 2025).

Best practices include:

• Hardware support for fast-path, local synchronization, decoupled from memory or interconnect by dedicated on-die modules;
• Application/OS-level APIs mapping synchronization primitives to single-instruction or call-level abstractions, with explicit memory-order and progress semantics;
• Avoidance of fallback to global memory for hot sync variables (hardware cache or register-based fast path suffices in most scenarios);
• Physical layout and network design cognizant of synchronization traffic (e.g., matched cables for clock rings, pipeline registers on long H-tree links);
• Compiler/runtime partitioners leveraging workload profiling for optimal mapping of synchronization domains, program segments, and resource groupings.

A plausible implication is that with continued scaling of parallel systems, future frameworks will extend programmable multi-PU synchronization to cross-ISA, cross-trust-domain, and dynamic topology contexts. Mechanisms such as instruction stream-embedded dependency tokens, API-driven subgroup barriers, and hardware memory-model enforcement can be expected to generalize beyond current single-node or single-SoC boundaries, integrating runtime reconfiguration, resource heterogeneity, and real-time constraints without fundamental trade-offs in performance or energy.

---

References:

• Dynamic lockstep synchronization for functional safety (Doran et al., 2021)
• Ada 202x non-blocking synchronization primitives (Blieberger et al., 2018)
• Parallel Synchronous Software formalism (Kiaei et al., 2020)
• Multi-FPGA sub-10 ps synchronization for quantum (Xu et al., 11 Jun 2025)
• SynCron near-data-processing synchronization (Giannoula et al., 2021)
• Energy-efficient hardware barrier for RISC-V clusters (Glaser et al., 2020)
• FractalSync BSP barrier for AI accelerators (Isachi et al., 13 Jun 2025)
• Multi-qubit pulse sequencing synchronization (Keitch et al., 2017)
• CUDA multi-device/barrier analysis (Zhang et al., 2020)
• DPCP-p distributed real-time task locking (Yang et al., 2020)
• Instruction-based multi-PU DNN synchronization (Petropoulos et al., 19 Nov 2025)