The default project is to do some original research in a group of three students. For example, you could examine a modest extension to a paper studied in class or simply re-validate the data in some paper by writing your own simulator or using SimpleScalar.
You will be graded on (1) how well you define your problem, (2) survey previous work, (3) design and conduct experiments, and (4) present your results. The goal to shoot for is conference paper like the ones in your reader. Since time is limited, however, the above goal is hard to reach, and I will reward those that aim high even if they do not completely succeed. The key is insuring that some aspects of your work are completely done; it is very hard to grade a project where the simulator did not quite work. This type of project is especially recommended for students considering a Ph.D.
Alternatively, you may work in a group of two to write a paper that surveys an area within computer architecture. The paper should: (1) summarize work in an area, giving extensive references, (2) present opinions of others for and against various options (with references), and (3) conclude with your opinion of the strengths and weaknesses of arguments presented above. You will be graded on the completeness of your survey, the accuracy of your summaries, the support you give for your opinions, and the quality of your presentation. Since a survey paper is "safer" than a research project, I will hold survey papers to a higher standard of completeness and analysis of the literature.
I normally accept no late assignments. For this project, reports turned up to 48 hours late will be accepted with a 25% penalty. Don't avail yourself of this option; your hard work deserves full credit.
Proposals turned in earlier will get earlier feedback. Proposals should be about one-two pages long. They should include:
The text and the papers we've read point to many papers. See also Proceedings of the International Symposium on Computer Architecture, Proceedings of the High-Performance Computer Architecture, Proceedings of the conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, Microprocessor Report, IEEE Transactions on Computers, ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, IEEE Computer, IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, ACM Digital Library (Full text available from campus networks.), World-Wide Computer Architecture Information, and Readings in Computer Architecture Web Component.
We will divide up the last couple lectures into 20-minute-ish conference-style talks. We will probably have to schedule some additional class time to complete the talks. All group members should deliver part of the talk. The talk should give highlights of the final report, including the problem, motivation, results, conclusions, and possible future work. Time limits will be enforced to let everyone present. Please, practice your talk to make it better and see how long it is. Have a plan for what slides to skip if you get behind. Please see Oral Presentation Advice, including David Patterson's How to Give a Bad Talk.
Reports should consist of an abstract, body and optional appendices. The abstract should summarize the contributions of the report in one or two paragraphs. The length of the body should be the equivalent of 15-20 pages at double-spaced 10-point. Additional supporting material of any length can be put in appendices. I will read the body and only skim appendices.
Limited to those at University of Wisconsin-Madison