1 / 28

Benchmarking for [Physical] Synthesis

Benchmarking for [Physical] Synthesis. Igor Markov and Prabhakar Kudva The Univ. of Michigan / IBM. In This Talk …. Benchmark ing vs benchmarks Benchmarking exposes new research Qs Why industry should care about benchmarking

jaden
Download Presentation

Benchmarking for [Physical] Synthesis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Benchmarking for [Physical] Synthesis Igor Markov and Prabhakar Kudva The Univ. of Michigan/ IBM

  2. In This Talk … • Benchmarking vs benchmarks • Benchmarking exposes new research Qs • Why industry should care about benchmarking • What is (and is not) being doneto improve benchmarking infrastructure • Not in this talk, but in a focus group • Incentives for verifying published work • How to accelerate a culture change

  3. Benchmarking • Design benchmarks • Data model / representation; Instances • Objectives (QOR metrics) and constraints • Algorithms, methodologies; Implementations • Solvers: ditto • Empirical and theoretical analyses, e.g., • Hard vs easy benchmarks (regardless of size) • Correlation between different objectives • Upper / lower bounds for QOR, statistical behavior, etc • Dualism between benchmarks and solvers • For more details, see http://gigascale.org/bookshelf

  4. Industrial Benchmarking • Growing size & complexity of VLSI chips • Design objectives • Area / power / yield / etc • Design constraints • Timing / FP + fixed-die partitions / fixed IPs /routability / pin access / signal integrity… • Can the same algo excel in all contexts? • Sophistication of layout and logic motivate open benchmarking for Synthesis and P&R

  5. Design Types • ASICs • Lots of fixed I/Os, few macros, millions of standard cells • Design densities : 40-80% (IBM) • Flat and hierarchical designs • SoCs • Many more macro blocks, cores • Datapaths + control logic • Can have very low design densities : < 20% • Micro-Processor (P) Random Logic Macros(RLM) • Hierarchical partitions are LS+P&R instances (5-30K) • High placement densities : 80%-98% (low whitespace) • Many fixed I/Os, relatively few standard cells • Note: “Partitioning w Terminals”DAC`99, ISPD `99, ASPDAC`00

  6. Why Invest in Benchmarking • Academia • Benchmarks can identify / capture new research problems • Empirical validation of novel research • Open-source tools/BMs can be analyzed and tweaked • Industry • Evaluation and transfer of academic research • Support for executive decisions(which tools are relatively week & must be improved) • Open-source tools/BMs can be analyzed and tweaked • When is an EDA problem (not) solved? • Are there good solver implementations? • Can they “solve” existing benchmarks?

  7. Participation / Leadership Necessary • Activity 1: Benchmarking platform / flows • Activity 2: Establishing common evaluators • Static timing analysis • Congestion / yield prediction • Power estimation • Activity 3: Standard-cell libraries • Activity 4: Large designs w bells & whistles • Activity 5: Automation of benchmarking

  8. Activity 1: Benchmarking Platform • Benchmarking “platform”: a reasonable subset of • data model • specific data representations (e.g., file formats) • access mechanisms (e.g., APIs) • reference implementation (e.g., a design database) • design examples in compatible formats • Base platforms available (next slide) • More participation necessary • regular discussions • additional tasks / features outlined

  9. Common Methodology Platform Common Model (Open Access?) Synthesis (SIS, MVSIS…) Blif  Bookshelf format Placement (Capo, Dragon, Feng Shui, mPl,…) Blue Flow exists, Common model hooks: To be Done

  10. Placement Utilities http://vlsicad.eecs.umich.edu/BK/PlaceUtils/ • Accept input in the GSRC Bookshelf format • Format converters • LEF/DEF  Bookshelf • Bookshelf  Kraftwerk (DAC98 BP, E&J) • BLIF(SIS)  Bookshelf • Evaluators, checkers, postprocessors and plotters • Contributions in these categories are welcome

  11. Placement Utilities (cont’d) • Wirelength Calculator (HPWL) • Independent evaluation of placement results • Placement Plotter • Saves gnuplot scripts ( .eps, .gif, …) • Multiple views (cells only, cells+nets, rows,…) • Probabilistic Congestion Maps (Lou et al.) • Gnuplot scripts • Matlab scripts • better graphics, including 3-d fly-by views • .xpm files ( .gif, .jpg, .eps, …)

  12. Placement Utilities (cont’d) • Legality checker • Simple legalizer • Layout Generator • Given a netlist, creates a row structure • Tunable %whitespace, aspect ratio, etc • All available in binaries/PERL at http://vlsicad.eecs.umich.edu/BK/PlaceUtils/ • Most source codes are shipped w Capo

  13. Activity 2: Creating Evaluators • Contribute measures/analysis tools for: • Timing Analysis • Congestion/Yield • Power • Area • Noise….

  14. Benchmarking Needs for Timing Opt. • A common, reusable STA methodology • High-quality, open-source infrastructure • False paths; realistic gate/delay models • Metrics validated against phys. synthesis • The simpler the better,but must be good predictors • Buffer insertion profoundly impacts layout • The use of linear wirelength in timing-driven layout assumes buffers insertion (min-cut vs quadratic) • Apparently, synthesis is affected too

  15. Vertical Benchmarks • “Tool flow” • Two or more EDA tools, chained sequentially(potentially, part of a complete design cycle) • Sample contexts: physical synthesis, place & route, retiming followed by sequential verification • Vertical benchmarks • Multiple, redundant snapshots of a tool flowsufficient info for detailed analysis of tool performance • Herman Schmit @CMU is maintaining a resp. slot in the VLSI CAD Bookshelf • See http://gigascale.org/bookself • Include flat gate-level netlists • Library information ( < 250nm) • Realistic timing & fixed-die constraints

  16. Infrastructure Needs • Need common evaluators of delay / power • To avoid inconsistent / outdated results • Relevant initiatives from Si2 • OLA (Open Library Architecture) • OpenAccess • For more info, see http://www.si2.org • Still: no reliable public STA tool • Sought: OA-based utilities for timing/layout

  17. Activity 3: Standard-cell Libraries • Libraries carry technology information • Impact of wirelength delays increases in recent technology generations • Cell characteristics must be compatible • Some benchmarks in the Bookshelfuse 0.25m and 0.35m libraries • Geometry info is there, + timing (in some cases) • Cadence test library? • Artisan libraries? • Use commercial tools to create libraries • Prolific, Cadabra,…

  18. Activity 4: Need New BenchmarksTo Confirm / Defeat Tool Tuning • Data on tuning from the ISPD03 paper“Benchmarking for Placement”, Adya et al. • Observe that • Capo does well on Cadence-Capo, grid-like circuits • Dragon does well on IBM-Place (IBM-Dragon) • FengShui does well on MCNC benchmarks • mPL does well on PEKO • This is hardly a coincidence • Motivation for more / better benchmarks • P.S. Most differences above have been explained,all placers above have been improved

  19. Activity 4: Large Benchmark Creation • www.opencores.org has large designs • May be a good starting point –use vendor tools to create blif files(+post results) • Note: there may be different ways to convert • A group of design houses (IBM, Intel, LSI, HP)is planning a release of new largegate-level benchmarks for layout • Probably no logic information

  20. Activity 5: Benchmarking Automation • Rigorous benchmarking is laborious. Risk of errors is high • How do we keep things simple / accessible? • Encapsulate software management in an ASP • Web uploads for binaries and source in tar.gz w Makefiles • Web uploads for benchmarks • GUI interface for NxM simulations; tables created automatically • GUI interface for composing tool-flows; flows can be saved/reused • Distributed back-end includes job scheduling • Email notification of job completion • All files created are available on the Web (permissions & policies) • Anyone can re-run / study your experiment or interface with it

  21. Follow-on Action Plan • Looking for volunteers to -test Bookshelf.exe • Particularly, in the context of synthesis & verification • Contact: Igor imarkov@eecs.umich.edu • Create a joint benchmarking groupfrom industry and academia • Contact: Prabhakar kudva@us.ibm.com • Regular discussions • Development basedon common infrastructure

More Related