Forest vs. Trees: Where's the slack?

P. Rodman
{"title":"Forest vs. Trees: Where's the slack?","authors":"P. Rodman","doi":"10.1145/996566.996645","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Timing closure has been a headache, is still a headache, and always will be a headache.The fast - track evolution of consumer electronics (especially) acts to keep our pain level high: if timing closure isn't currently painful, the push for quality of result (QOR) will soon make it painful again. All of the metrics below can be traded off against each other:.QOR Metrics faster silicon (more capable product) cheaper (e.g. smaller die area, fewer metal layers) lower power (for cheaper cooling or for battery life) manufacturable (yield at reasonable cost) time-to-market (total project delay as well as schedule predictability) Timing closure has to be discussed in the context of the simultaneous design closure issues today.Point tools (The \"Trees\") will always evolve to help relieve the timing closure headache, however, this presentation will focus on chip level optimizations and build methodologies (\"The Forest\") that go beyond block \"P&R\" point tools. Full-chip design approaches can harvest large improvements on all of the metrics and we shall show how exploiting \"full-chip design slack\" in one area can be used to ease timing closure.In the past, there have been many heated arguments have been fought over the relative benefits and dangers of hierarchical physical design. In 2004, we find that most SoCs are being built hierarchically. Using hierarchical design creates boundaries that normally limit cross-block optimization. Typically, design teams do \"over-design\" or \"guard-banding\" on individual blocks to insure good probability of design closure. This \"over-design\" has varying negative effects on the full-chip QOR in the worst case even the system architecture can suffer.Rather than sacrifice QOR, we will show chip-level automatic optimization results. Optimizations in wire length, repeaters, timing budgets, routeability and power distribution all translate into timing closure improvements. This tool uses bottom-up feedback from previously built versions of the design to achieve \"as-if-flat\" QOR in all the metrics listed.With automatic high quality block optimization now available, we can then harvest the true power of hierarchy: fast full chip builds. Fast builds enable design teams to explore and verify many more design choices. Obviously the highest leverage improvements come from exploring chip architecture alternatives assuming they can be verified with fast and accurate what-if builds. In addition, hierarchy with its inherent compartmentalized changes to the design, overcomes the chaotic behavior of P&R tools, to as much determinism and replayability as possible.Fast builds using the actual production tools, in a synergistic way, enable the continuous bottom-up feedback optimization, with testing and 'lock-in' of solutions to the timing (and other) closure requirements of the design. The result is very smooth path from final netlist (and other deliverables) to tapeout.","PeriodicalId":115059,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings. 41st Design Automation Conference, 2004.","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings. 41st Design Automation Conference, 2004.","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/996566.996645","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Timing closure has been a headache, is still a headache, and always will be a headache.The fast - track evolution of consumer electronics (especially) acts to keep our pain level high: if timing closure isn't currently painful, the push for quality of result (QOR) will soon make it painful again. All of the metrics below can be traded off against each other:.QOR Metrics faster silicon (more capable product) cheaper (e.g. smaller die area, fewer metal layers) lower power (for cheaper cooling or for battery life) manufacturable (yield at reasonable cost) time-to-market (total project delay as well as schedule predictability) Timing closure has to be discussed in the context of the simultaneous design closure issues today.Point tools (The "Trees") will always evolve to help relieve the timing closure headache, however, this presentation will focus on chip level optimizations and build methodologies ("The Forest") that go beyond block "P&R" point tools. Full-chip design approaches can harvest large improvements on all of the metrics and we shall show how exploiting "full-chip design slack" in one area can be used to ease timing closure.In the past, there have been many heated arguments have been fought over the relative benefits and dangers of hierarchical physical design. In 2004, we find that most SoCs are being built hierarchically. Using hierarchical design creates boundaries that normally limit cross-block optimization. Typically, design teams do "over-design" or "guard-banding" on individual blocks to insure good probability of design closure. This "over-design" has varying negative effects on the full-chip QOR in the worst case even the system architecture can suffer.Rather than sacrifice QOR, we will show chip-level automatic optimization results. Optimizations in wire length, repeaters, timing budgets, routeability and power distribution all translate into timing closure improvements. This tool uses bottom-up feedback from previously built versions of the design to achieve "as-if-flat" QOR in all the metrics listed.With automatic high quality block optimization now available, we can then harvest the true power of hierarchy: fast full chip builds. Fast builds enable design teams to explore and verify many more design choices. Obviously the highest leverage improvements come from exploring chip architecture alternatives assuming they can be verified with fast and accurate what-if builds. In addition, hierarchy with its inherent compartmentalized changes to the design, overcomes the chaotic behavior of P&R tools, to as much determinism and replayability as possible.Fast builds using the actual production tools, in a synergistic way, enable the continuous bottom-up feedback optimization, with testing and 'lock-in' of solutions to the timing (and other) closure requirements of the design. The result is very smooth path from final netlist (and other deliverables) to tapeout.
森林vs树木:哪里有懈怠?
关闭的时机一直是一个令人头痛的问题,现在仍然是一个令人头痛的问题,而且将永远是一个令人头痛的问题。消费电子产品的快速发展(尤其是)使我们的痛苦水平居高不下:如果时间关闭目前并不痛苦,那么对结果质量(QOR)的推动将很快使其再次痛苦。以下所有参数都可以相互权衡:QOR指标更快的硅(更有能力的产品)更便宜(例如更小的模具面积,更少的金属层)更低的功耗(更便宜的冷却或电池寿命)可制造(合理成本的产量)上市时间(总项目延迟以及进度可预测性)时间关闭必须在当今同步设计关闭问题的背景下讨论。点工具(“树”)将不断发展,以帮助缓解时间关闭的头痛,然而,本演讲将重点关注芯片级优化和构建方法(“森林”),超越块“P&R”点工具。全芯片设计方法可以在所有指标上获得巨大的改进,我们将展示如何利用一个领域的“全芯片设计松弛”来缓解时序关闭。在过去,关于分层物理设计的相对好处和危险有过许多激烈的争论。在2004年,我们发现大多数soc都是分层构建的。使用分层设计创建了通常限制跨块优化的边界。通常,设计团队会对单个块进行“过度设计”或“保护”,以确保设计完成的可能性。这种“过度设计”对全芯片QOR有各种各样的负面影响,在最坏的情况下,甚至系统架构也会受到影响。我们将展示芯片级自动优化结果,而不是牺牲QOR。导线长度、中继器、时序预算、可路由性和功率分配的优化都转化为时序关闭的改进。该工具使用来自先前构建的设计版本的自底向上反馈,以在列出的所有指标中实现“as-if-flat”QOR。现在有了自动高质量的块优化,我们就可以收获层次结构的真正力量:快速的全芯片构建。快速构建使设计团队能够探索和验证更多的设计选择。显然,最大的改进来自探索芯片架构的替代方案,假设它们可以通过快速和准确的假设构建进行验证。此外,层次结构及其对设计的固有划分变化,克服了P&R工具的混乱行为,尽可能多地具有确定性和重玩性。使用实际生产工具的快速构建,以一种协同的方式,实现持续的自下而上的反馈优化,通过测试和“锁定”解决方案来满足设计的时间(和其他)关闭要求。结果是非常顺利的路径从最终网表(和其他可交付成果)到绦草。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信