open-sourcehardwarebenchmarks

Open-Source Tools to Simulate NVLink and RISC-V Performance for Query Engine Devs

UUnknown

2026-02-24

11 min read

Practical guide (2026) to emulate NVLink + RISC‑V + GPU for query engines using open‑source simulators, benchmarks, and a hands‑on walkthrough.

Build NVLink-connected RISC-V + GPU prototypes when you don't own the hardware

If you’re a query engine developer or platform engineer, you’re facing three related pain points: slow and unpredictable query performance, fragmented compute across CPU and accelerators, and limited access to the bleeding‑edge hardware that might fix both. Buying NVLink‑connected RISC‑V servers with GPUs is expensive and often impossible early in development. The good news: by 2026 there is a practical open‑source toolchain stack that lets you prototype, benchmark, and profile NVLink‑style systems without physical silicon.

This article surveys the open‑source emulators, simulators, and toolchains you can stitch together to emulate a RISC‑V host and high‑bandwidth GPU fabric, shows a concrete walkthrough for a TPC‑H scan offload, and gives actionable benchmarks, validation strategies, and recommended tradeoffs for production‑grade query engine research.

Why this matters in 2026

Two trends converged in late 2025 and early 2026 that make NVLink + RISC‑V prototyping urgent: first, vendor movement to integrate NVLink Fusion with RISC‑V IP (SiFive announced NVLink Fusion integration in early 2026), and second, rising interest in heterogeneous database query acceleration as OLAP systems like ClickHouse push more compute toward GPUs and specialized accelerators. Query engines need to understand cross‑device latency, peer‑to‑peer bandwidth, and memory model semantics long before hardware arrives.

Because NVLink itself is a vendor IP with closed implementation details, the pragmatic approach for most teams is to approximate NVLink using packet‑level interconnect models and transaction‑level memory semantics, and combine those with GPU functional or cycle‑approximate simulation. The goal is not 1:1 gate‑level accuracy; it’s actionable system‑level insight and design iteration speed.

High‑level simulation strategy

I recommend a layered strategy with three fidelity tiers. Each tier trades accuracy for speed and reproducibility; mix and match to fit your use case.

Functional prototyping (fast) — Validate software stacks, drivers, and end‑to‑end offload logic. Use QEMU/Spike + emulated GPUs or GPU API stubs.
Packet‑level performance (medium) — Model the interconnect (NVLink‑like) using BookSim, gem5’s network models, or SystemC TLM, combined with GPGPU‑Sim or Multi2Sim for GPU kernels.
Cycle‑approximate / FPGA‑accelerated (high) — Use FireSim or gem5 + FPGA backends for longer, accurate runs when you need latency and contention fidelity for schedulers and memory placement policies.

When to use which tier

Startup R&D and CI: Tier 1 for fast iteration (< hours).
Architecture exploration and bandwidth design: Tier 2 for meaningful numbers (days).
Performance verification and production knobs: Tier 3 for final validation (days–weeks).

Open‑source tools and what they buy you

Below is a curated list of open tools that when combined let you prototype NVLink‑style RISC‑V + GPU systems. I include the role each tool plays and practical notes for query engine developers.

RISC‑V hosts and functional emulation

Spike — The RISC‑V ISA simulator. Fast for bare‑metal and early boot testing. Use it to validate kernel patches and syscall behavior.
QEMU (RISC‑V target) — Run Linux and your query engine on a RISC‑V userland quickly. QEMU supports device models and is ideal for driver and stack integration tests.
Renode — A higher‑level framework good for orchestrating multiple virtual devices and sensors; useful if your prototype includes management controllers or telemetry flows.

GPU functional & performance simulation

GPGPU‑Sim — Mature, open GPU simulator that models many CUDA‑style behaviors. Good for kernel latency and bandwidth experiments.
Multi2Sim — Offers CPU+GPU co‑simulation for x86 and AMD GPU models. Useful if you need different GPU models and API coverage.
gem5‑gpu — gem5 integration with GPU simulation backends for end‑to‑end heterogeneous simulation.

Interconnect & network models (emulating NVLink)

BookSim — Packet‑level network‑on‑chip simulator widely used to explore topologies and throughput limits. You can configure link widths, latencies, virtual channels, and model NVLink‑class bandwidths.
gem5 (Garnet network model) — Supports detailed memory system and interconnect modeling; use this when you need cache coherence and memory ordering semantics simulated alongside the network.
SystemC / TLM — Transaction‑level modeling for custom link semantics if you need to prototype specific NVLink Fusion behaviors (e.g., remote memory access semantics) without building a cycle‑accurate link model.

Cycle‑approximate / FPGA accelerated platforms

FireSim — FPGA‑accelerated simulation environment that runs RTL models (RocketChip and others) on clouds with FPGAs. Useful for cycle‑approximate RISC‑V + real accelerators or synthesized GPU models.
Verilator + FPGA flows — If you have an RTL model or an open GPU microarchitecture, use Verilator and an FPGA flow to accelerate long runs.

Tracing, profiling and metrics

perf / ftrace — Profiling on the simulated Linux host (via QEMU or gem5 Linux images).
GPGPU‑Sim counters — Built‑in GPU metrics for occupancy, warp divergence, memory throughput.
Prometheus / Grafana — Collect simulation metrics and visualize latency/throughput heat maps across virtual nodes.

Approximating NVLink: model the link as a high‑bandwidth, low‑latency packet fabric with transaction semantics, and validate with microbenchmarks against vendor numbers.

Walkthrough: a concrete prototype workflow

The example below shows how to stitch tools together to test a query engine that offloads grouped aggregation to a GPU over an NVLink‑like fabric. The goal: measure end‑to‑end query latency and the break‑even data size for offload versus CPU processing.

Step 0 — Prep

Host: Linux workstation or cloud VM (16 vCPUs, 64 GB RAM; more for gem5/FireSim).
Repos: QEMU (riscv), GPGPU‑Sim, gem5 (optional), BookSim, and your query engine codebase.
Build artifacts: RISC‑V Linux rootfs or a QEMU RISC‑V userland image.

Step 1 — Functional stack with QEMU

Boot a RISC‑V Linux image in QEMU. Validate your query engine runs and produces identical results on a software fallback path.
Implement a userland GPU API shim that exposes the minimal offload interface your engine needs (async memcpy, kernel launch, peer copy). Initially the shim can be a stub that calls CPU implementations to validate correctness.

Step 2 — Add GPU functional simulation

Install GPGPU‑Sim and compile your GPU kernels (CUDA‑to‑PTX where possible). Run kernels in GPGPU‑Sim to collect kernel latency, device memory bandwidth, and PCIe NVMe‑like transfer costs. GPGPU‑Sim outputs counters you’ll use for calibration.
Integrate the shim to forward kernel invocations to GPGPU‑Sim over a socket or IPC bridge. This lets QEMU‑hosted RISC‑V processes offload to a simulated GPU instance.

Step 3 — Model NVLink with BookSim or gem5

Configure BookSim with link width (e.g., 50–200 GB/s equivalent), latency, and topology (point‑to‑point pairs or mesh) to emulate NVLink lanes between the host and GPU nodes.
Plug BookSim into your simulation pipeline so that memcpy and peer‑to‑peer deadlines traverse the BookSim model. You can model concurrent transfers, flow control, and backpressure to study contention under multi‑query workloads.

Step 4 — Run the benchmark (TPC‑H scan offload)

Dataset: scale down TPC‑H to manageable sizes for your simulator (e.g., SF=1–10). Generate randomized chunking to test many transfer sizes.
Workloads: single large scan, many concurrent small scans, group‑by aggregations with different cardinalities.
Metrics: wall clock query latency, host‑GPU memcpy latency, kernel execution time, link utilization, memory bandwidth, and energy proxies (if available).

Step 5 — Analyze and iterate

Plot break‑even points: data size where GPU offload outperforms CPU.
Run sensitivity sweeps: vary link bandwidth, kernel latency, and GPU memory capacity to observe how the break‑even point shifts.
Use results to prioritize engine changes: batching thresholds, async copy pipelining, and prefetch strategies.

Benchmarks and microbenchmarks to include

To make simulation outputs actionable, run these focused microbenchmarks in addition to full queries.

Memcpy size sweep — Measure round‑trip latency and effective bandwidth for 4KB, 64KB, 1MB, 16MB transfers over the simulated link.
Concurrent streams — Saturate the link with 1..N concurrent transfers to measure fairness and tail latency under contention.
Kernel launch cost — Small compute kernels with varying shared memory use to estimate launch overhead relative to data movement.
Peer‑to‑peer rates — Simulate GPU→GPU copies to evaluate cross‑GPU reduction strategies for distributed query execution.
Latency vs throughput tradeoff — Use pipeline depth sweeps to find the point where increased concurrency improves throughput but hurts tail latency.

Validating your simulations — calibration tips

Simulators are only useful when calibrated. Here are practical validation steps:

Compare microbenchmark bandwidth and latency numbers to vendor published NVLink/PCIe specs and NVIDIA kernel counters (if you can access one GPU for spot checks).
Use GPGPU‑Sim counters to validate memory throughput and warp efficiency against real device profilers (Nsight metrics) on similar GPU families.
For network models, validate BookSim link latencies by building simple ping/echo tests and ensuring that simulated per‑packet overheads map to expected nanoseconds per transfer.
Document error margins. Typical packet‑level approximations can be within 10–30% of vendor‑measured system throughput; use that range to guide architectural decisions, not as guarantees.

Limitations and practical tradeoffs

Be explicit about what simulation can and cannot give you.

No gate‑level fidelity: You cannot emulate proprietary NVLink micro‑optimizations or exact silicon power characteristics. Expect deviations, especially in latency tails and driver‑specific behavior.
Runtime: Cycle‑approximate sims are slow. Use sampling, microbenchmarks, and FPGA acceleration (FireSim) to manage wall time.
Software stack gaps: Some vendor drivers and tightly integrated runtime features (like NVLink peer memory primitives exposed via vendor libraries) are closed. You’ll need to model or stub these APIs carefully.

Advanced strategies — emerging 2026 patterns

Looking forward to the rest of 2026, expect these trends to impact how you simulate:

NVLink Fusion + RISC‑V — With SiFive announcing integration, expect vendor‑provided IP blocks and reference models to appear. When available, swap in vendor TLM models to tighten your sim fidelity.
CXL and coherent fabrics — Compute Express Link (CXL) is standardizing coherent memory across hosts and accelerators. Add CXL semantics into your transaction models to experiment with unified memory optimizations for query state sharing.
Heterogeneous memory tiers — Simulate combinations of on‑GPU HBM, host DRAM, and persistent memory. Query engines can exploit tiering for large intermediate results; your simulation should measure the cost of moves between tiers.
Open hardware toolchain maturity — Expect more RISC‑V cores and open accelerator microarchitectures in public repos, enabling higher‑fidelity RTL co‑simulation with FireSim and Verilator flows.

Actionable checklist to get started (copy‑paste ready)

Clone: QEMU (riscv), Spike, GPGPU‑Sim, BookSim, gem5. Allocate a multi‑core cloud VM or workstation.
Build a RISC‑V Linux image and validate your engine in QEMU. Add a GPU shim that can be toggled between CPU‑fallback and simulator targets.
Run GPGPU‑Sim kernel tests and collect baseline kernel latencies and device bandwidths.
Configure BookSim with a NVLink‑equivalent link width and run memcpy microbenchmarks to measure simulated link performance.
Integrate and run a TPC‑H SF=1 scan offload, collect query latency, and sweep link bandwidth to extract offload break‑even points.
Calibrate against any real hardware you can access; document assumptions and expected error margins.

Closing recommendations for query engine teams

If your team is exploring GPU acceleration for OLAP workloads, you should treat simulation as a first‑class engineering activity. Start with a fast functional loop (QEMU + shim), add GPU kernel simulation (GPGPU‑Sim), and only invest in heavier cycle‑approximate runs when the design converges. Use packet‑level interconnect models to reason about contention and latency tails before you spend on hardware labs.

In 2026, with RISC‑V and NVLink Fusion becoming a real commercial path, these prototypes will let you define software contracts, decide where to place computation and state, and quantify performance wins before silicon or cloud instances are available.

Resources

Spike — RISC‑V ISA simulator
QEMU — RISC‑V target for Linux images
GPGPU‑Sim — GPU functional and performance simulator
BookSim — on‑chip packet network simulator
gem5 & gem5‑gpu — system and GPU co‑simulation
FireSim — FPGA‑accelerated RTL simulation platform

Final takeaway

You don’t need NVLink‑enabled RISC‑V hardware to start optimizing your query engine for heterogeneous, accelerator‑driven datacenters. By combining open‑source functional emulation, GPU simulation, and packet‑level interconnect models you can produce reproducible, actionable numbers that guide design decisions — from batching and pipelining to memory placement and scheduling — long before the hardware shows up.

Ready to run a ready‑made prototype pipeline and a reproducible TPC‑H experiment on simulated NVLink? Get our starter repo, sample configs, and a one‑page lab guide designed for query engine teams. Click to download or contact us for a hands‑on workshop tailored to your stack.

Unknown

Contributor

Senior editor and content strategist. Writing about technology, design, and the future of digital media. Follow along for deep dives into the industry's moving parts.