Upload
azriel
View
49
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
EE4271 VLSI Design Interconnect Optimizations Buffer Insertion. Moore’s law. Twice the number of transistors, approximately every two years, so double clock frequency accordingly. Interconnects Dominate. 300. 250. Interconnect delay. 200. 150. Delay (psec). 100. Transistor/Gate delay. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
EE4271 VLSI DesignInterconnect Optimizations
Buffer Insertion
Moore’s law
Twice the number of transistors, approximately every two years, so double clock frequency accordingly
3
0.18
Source: Gordon Moore, Chairman Emeritus, Intel Corp.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Technology generation (m)
Del
ay (
pse
c)
Transistor/Gate delay
Interconnect delay
0.8 0.5 0.250.25
0.150.35
Interconnects Dominate
This is why Moore’s law is not true anymore.This is why Moore’s law is not true anymore.
Objectives
• What have we learned?– Compute circuit delay on wires and gates– Gate delay optimization
• What are we going to learn?– Interconnect delay optimization: buffer
insertion• Why reducing delay• How to perform it
– This is the most important optimization in circuit design
5
0.18
Source: Gordon Moore, Chairman Emeritus, Intel Corp.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Technology generation (m)
Del
ay (
pse
c)
Transistor/Gate delay
Interconnect delay
0.8 0.5 0.250.25
0.150.35
Why is this trend?
A scaling primer
• Ideal process scaling:– Device geometries shrink by S= 0.7x)
• Device delay shrinks by s
– Wire geometries shrink by • Unit resistance R/ : /(ws.hs) = r/s2
• Unit coupling capacitance
Cc/ : (hs)/(Ss)
• Resistance doubled, capacitance roughly unchanged for unit length
• How about the change in wire length?
SS
GG
DD
h
w
l
S
l
h
Sw
Technology scaling
• Global (long) interconnect lengths don’t shrink– Global interconnect link cells far apart
• Local (short) interconnect lengths shrink by s– Local interconnects link cells nearby
Interconnect delay scaling• Delay of a wire of length l :
int = (rl)(cl) = rcl2 (a quadratic function of length)
• Local interconnects : int : (r/s2)(c)(ls)2 = rcl2
– Local interconnect delay unchanged
• Global interconnects : int : (r/s2)(c)(l)2 = (rcl2)/s2
– Global interconnect delay doubled – unsustainable!
• Interconnect delay increasingly more dominant
Buffer Insertion For Delay Reduction
Elmore Delay for Wire
x
C
unit wire capacitance c
unit wire resistance r
Elmore Delay for Buffer
v
C
u
Driving resistanceInput capacitance
Elmore Delay for A Circuit
• Delay = all Ri all Cj downstream from Ri Ri*Cj
• Elmore delay to n1 R(B)*(C1+C2)• Elmore delay to n2 R(B)*(C1+C2)+R(w)*C2
R(B)C1 R(w) C2
n1
B
n2
R
Buffers Reduce Wire Delay
x/2
cx/4 cx/4rx/2
t_unbuf = R( cx + C ) + rx( cx/2 + C )
t_buf = 2R( cx/2 + C ) + rx( cx/4 + C )
t_buf – t_unbuf = RC – rcx2/4
x/2
cx/4 cx/4rx/2
C
C R
x
∆t
Buffered global interconnects: Intuition
Interconnect delay = r.c.l2/2
Interconnect delay = r.c.li2 /2 < r.c.l2 /2 (where l = lj )
since (lj 2) < (lj )2
(Of course, we need to consider buffer delay as well)
l1 lnl3l2
l
Optimal Buffer Insertion on A Wire
• Delay before buffer insertion = rcL2/2
• Assume N identical buffers with equal inter-buffer length l (L = Nl)
• For minimum delay,
gddg
ggd
CRl
cRrCrclL
clCrlclCRNT
12/
2/
0dldT
02 2
opt
gd
l
CRrcL
rc
CRl gdopt
2
L
Rd – On resistance of inverterCg – Gate input capacitancer,c – unit resistance and capacitance
… …
l
Optimal interconnect delay
• Substituting lopt back into the interconnect delay expression:
rc
CR
CRcRrC
rc
CRrcL
CRl
cRrCrclLT
gd
gddg
gd
gdopt
dgoptopt
2
2
12/
cRrCrcCRLT dggdopt 2
Delay grows linearly with L (instead of quadratically)
Total buffer count
• Ever-increasing fractions of total cell count will be buffers– 70% in 32nm– 25% is widely observed
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90nm 65nm 45nm 32nm
% c
ells
use
d t
o b
uff
er n
ets
clk-buf
buf
tot-buf
Source: ITRS, 2003Source: ITRS, 20030.1
1
10
100
250 180 130 90 65 45 32
Feature size (nm)Relative
delay
Gate delayLocal interconnect (M1,2)Global interconnect with repeatersGlobal interconnect without repeaters
ITRS projections
Exercise 1
• Given a wire of length 10 with r=2, c=2, what is its delay?
• Given a buffer with Rd =10, Cg=20, after optimally buffering the wire, what is the delay?
• What if wire length is 100?
• Any conclusion?
Exercise 2
• Relationship with gate sizing– If we can size the buffer, what is the best
buffer size?
– Let R0 denote the unit size buffer driving resistance, and C0 denote the unit size buffer input capacitance. Thus, Rd=R0/h and Cg=C0h
– What is best h leading to smallest delay?
Analogy
Analogy
• Advancing technology = period of city expansion, more transistors = larger city
• Interconnects = streets
• Buffers = gas stations
• Signal delay (timing) = time to cross the city
• Buffer insertion = gas station construction
Previous Result is Only Theoretical: Discrete Buffer Locations
Candidate buffer locations
RAT: Required Arrival TimeRAT = 100
Wire delay = 80
AT = 0
RAT = 100
Wire delay = 80
AT = 0
RAT = 20 AT = 80
Slack: RAT - AT
RAT = 100
Wire delay = 80
AT = 0
RAT = 20 AT = 80
Slack = 20 Slack = 20
Minimizing circuit delay = maximizing RAT at driver = maximizing slack at driver
Motivation for Problem Formulation
RAT = 300AT = 350Slack = RAT-AT= -50
RAT = 700AT = 600Slack = 100
RAT = 300AT = 250Slack = 50
RAT = 700AT = 400Slack = 300
slack = -50
slack = 50Decouple capacitive load from critical path
RAT = Required Arrival Time
Slack = RAT - AT
We need to maximum slack or RAT at driver
Timing Driven Buffering Problem Formulation
• Given– A Steiner tree– RAT at each sink– A buffer type– RC parameters– Candidate buffer locations
• Find buffer insertion solution such that the slack (or RAT) at the driver is maximized
An Example for Buffer Insertion
(v1, 1, 20)22
v1 v1
(v2, 3, 16)
• r = 1, c = 1• Rb = 1, Cb = 1• Rd = 1
(v2, 1, 13)
v1
(v3, 5, 8)
v1
(v3, 3, 9)
slack = 6
slack = 3
Add wire
Add wire
Insert buffer Add wire
Add driver
Add driver
C Q
Candidate Buffering Solution
• Definition• Each candidate
solution is associated with– vi: a node
– ci: downstream capacitance
– qi: RAT
vi is a sinkci is sink capacitance
v is an internal node
Van Ginneken’s Algorithm
Candidate solutions are propagated toward the source
Solution Propagation: Add Wire
• c2 = c1 + cx
• q2 = q1 – rcx2/2 – rxc1
• r: wire resistance per unit length
• c: wire capacitance per unit length
(v1, c1, q1)(v2, c2, q2)x
32
Solution Propagation: Insert Buffer
• c1b = Cb
• q1b = q1 – Rbc1
• Cb: buffer capacitance
• Rb: buffer resistance
(v1, c1, q1)(v1, c1b, q1b)
Solution Propagation: Add Driver
• q0d = q0 – Rdc0
• Rd: driver resistance
• Pick solution with max slack
(v0, c0, q0)(v0, c0d, q0d)
Exercise
(20,400)22
Unit Wire Cap = 5Unit Wire Res = 3Buffer C=5, R=1Perform buffer insertion to maximize the slack at driver
2
Exponential Runtime
2 solutions
4 solutions
8 solutions
16 solutions
n candidate buffer locations lead to 2n solutions
Solution Pruning
• Two candidate solutions– (v, c1, q1)
– (v, c2, q2)
• Solution 1 is inferior if – c1 c2 : larger load
– and q1 q2 : tighter timing
LOAD
An Analogy - 1
Faster -> Smaller Delay -> Larger RAT (since RAT = RAToutput - Delay)
Larger Load -> Larger Capacitance
LOAD
LOAD
Faster & smaller load(larger RAT, smaller
capacitance):Good
Slower & larger load(smaller RAT, larger
capacitance):Inferior
END
An Analogy - 2
END
Who will be the winner?Cannot tell at this moment,
so keep both of them.
An Analogy - 3
END
Who will be the winner?Cannot tell at this moment,
so keep both of them.
An Analogy - 4
Pruning When Insert Buffer
They have the same load cap Cb, only the one with max q is kept
42
Generating Candidates
(1)
(2)
(3)
From Dr. Charles Alpert
43
Pruning Candidates
(3)
(a) (b)
Both (a) and (b) “look” the same to the source.Throw out the one with the worse slack
(4)
44
Candidate Example Continued
(4)
(5)
45
Candidate Example ContinuedAfter pruning
(5)
At driver, compute which candidate maximizesslack. Result is optimal.
46
Example
(20,400)
(20,400)(30,250)(5, 220)
(20,400)(30,250)(5, 220)
(40, 40)(5, 0)(15,160)(5, 145)
Unit Wire Cap = 5Unit Wire Res = 3Buffer C=5, R=1
2 2 2
47
Example Cont’d
(20,400)(30,250)(5, 220)
(40, 40)(5, 0)(15,160)(5, 145)
(5,0) is inferior to (5,145). (45,40) is inferior to (15,160)
(20,400)(30,250)(5, 220)
(15,160)(5, 145)(5,15)
(5,70)
Pick solution with largest slack, follow arrows to get solution
Exercise
• Without pruning, there will be exponential number of candidate solutions (i.e., given n candidate buffer locations, there will be 2n solutions). With pruning, how many solutions will we have?
Exercise
Unit Wire Cap = 1Unit Wire Res = 1Buffer C=1, R=1
2 2
(10,40)(8,50)(5,10)(15,40)(7,10)(9,30)(12,20)
• Continue the following buffer insertion process. Assume that all partial candidate buffering solutions are as shown.
Summary
• Interconnect delay increases with technology scaling
• Linear interconnect delay with buffer insertion
• Buffer insertion with candidate buffer locations
• Pruning for accelerating buffer insertion technique