Upload
jonas-reed
View
217
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Wire Length Prediction-based Technology Mapping and
Fanout Optimization
Qinghua Liu
Malgorzata Marek-Sadowska
VLSI Design Automation Lab
UC-Santa Barbara
2
Outline Motivation and previous work Pre-layout wire length prediction Technology mapping with wire-length
prediction Fanout optimization with wire-length
prediction Experimental results Conclusions and future work
3
Motivation
Traditional logic synthesis does not consider accurate layout information
Placement quality depends on netlist structure placement algorithm
4
Previous work Logic and physical co-synthesis
Layout-driven logic synthesis Local netlist transformations Metric-driven structural logic synthesis
Adhesion Distance
5
Pre-layout wire-length prediction Previous work
Statistical wire-length prediction Lou Sheffer et al. “Why Interconnect Prediction Doesn’t
work?” SLIP’00
Individual wire-length prediction Qinghua Liu et al. “Wire Length Prediction in Constraint
Driven Placement” SLIP’03
Semi-individual wire-length prediction Predict that nets have a tendency to be long or short
Qinghua Liu et al. “Pre-layout Wire Length and Congestion Estimation” DAC’04
6
Summary of the semi-individual wire length prediction technique Predict lengths of connections
Mutual contraction
Predict lengths of multi-pin nets by Net range
7
Mutual contractionB.Hu and M.Marek-Sadowska, “Wire length prediction based clustering andits application in placement” DAC’03
uu
vv
xx
yy
8
Relative weight of a connection
uu
vv
xx
yyWr(x, y) = 0.5
Wr(u, v) = 0.71
EQ1
EQ2
9
EQ3Cp(x, y) = Wr(x, y) Wr(y, x)
xx
yyj
Wr(x, y) = 0.71
Wr(y, x) = 0.6
Cp(x, y) = 0.426uu
vvi
Wr(u, v) = 0.71
Wr(v, u) = 0.33
Cp(u, v) = 0.234
Mutual contraction of a connection
10
Predictions on connections
(a) (b)
Mutual contraction vs. Connection length
11
Net range
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Example of net range
Circuit depth
12
Net range vs. average length for multi-pin nets
Predictions on multi-pin nets
13
Technology mapping with wire-length prediction (WP-Map) Node Decomposition Technology Mapping
14
Gabc
ab
c
a
bc
Node decomposition
T.Kutzschebauch and L.Stok, “Congestion aware layout driven logic synthesis”, ICCAD’01
15
CurrentPinNum=CurrentPinNum-1
CurrentPinNum=n
Decompose(G,n1,n2)Remove n1 and n2,
insert new net
Y
DoneN
Decompose n-input gate G with wire length prediction
CurrentPinNum>2?
(n1,n2)=two input netswith largest
mutual contraction
Updatemutual contraction
Greedy node decomposition algorithm
16
Correlation between mutual contraction and interconnection complexity
Average mutual contraction vs. Rent’s exponent
17
Technology mapping
EQ4
18
Fanout optimization with wire-length prediction (WP-Fanout) Net selection
Select all large-degree nets Select small-degree nets with large net range
Net decomposition
Circuit depth LT-tree Balanced tree
19
Experiment setting LGSyn93 benchmark suite
Optimized by script.rugged Mapped with 0.13um industrial standard cell
library
Placement is done by mPL4 Global routing is done by Labyrinth
20
Experimental results Compare with the traditional area-driven
technology mapping algorithm implemented in SIS
Results of the WP-Map algorithm Results of combined WP-Map and WP-
Fanout algorithm
21
Compare WP-Map with SIS
1 1 1
0. 93
1. 09
1. 03
0. 85
0. 9
0. 95
1
1. 05
1. 1
1. 15
p #gate area
SI SWP- Map
Compare mapped netlists
22
Compare WP-Map with SIS (cont.)
Average cut number distribution of C6288
23
Compare WP-Map with SIS (cont.)
Results after placement and global routing
1 1 1 1
0. 97
0. 95
0. 9
1. 01
0. 84
0. 86
0. 88
0. 9
0. 92
0. 94
0. 96
0. 98
1
1. 02
TWL ave_con peak_con cr i _path
SI SWP- Map
24
Compare WP-Map + WP-Fanout with SIS
Results after placement and global routing
1 1 1 10. 97
1
0. 83
0. 99
0. 910. 93
0. 86
0. 98
0. 75
0. 8
0. 85
0. 9
0. 95
1
1. 05
TWL ave_con peak_con cri _path
SI SWP-Map+WP-Fanout(B- tree)WP-Map+WP-Fanout(LT- tree)
25
ConclusionsWire length can be predicted in structural
level Mutual contraction Net range
Wire length prediction technique can be applied into technology mapping and fanout optimization 8.7% improvement on average congestion 17.2% improvement on peak congestion
26
Future work Logic extraction with wire-length and
congestion prediction Timing-driven technology mapping with
wire-length prediction