1 / 33

Large-Scale Optimization in VLSI CAD

Large-Scale Optimization in VLSI CAD. Igor Markov http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~imarkov. Goals/Outline of the Talk. Give a general idea about the field success stories and applications potential for cross-pollination What drives the field Reusable Intellectual Property in CAD

Download Presentation

Large-Scale Optimization in VLSI CAD

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. Large-Scale Optimizationin VLSI CAD Igor Markov http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~imarkov

  2. Goals/Outline of the Talk • Give a general idea about the field • success stories and applications • potential for cross-pollination • What drives the field • Reusable Intellectual Property in CAD • Consequences of “large-scale” • Sample wide-open problems Igor Markov, U. of Michigan

  3. General (VLSI CAD) • Very Large System Integration • numerous components + interconnect • emergent properties • not apparent in isolated components • Computer-Aided Design • better than human design (super-human!) • and then some FOR MORE INFO... http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~imarkov/EECS527 Igor Markov, U. of Michigan

  4. Integrated Circuits • Excellent examples of “large systems” • manufacturing is enormously expensive • research can prevent blunders… and pays off • two Moore’s laws keep everyone busy • circuits are growing • circuit design is getting harder • decreased market windows • must design quickly (or else…) • digital circuits amenable to auto- manipulation • have a lot of regularity (easier to represent) Igor Markov, U. of Michigan

  5. Just How Large? • As large as we can handle • a priori (physical) limitsare at least 20 years away • pushing the boundaries is ourgoal • Current limits • need to solve many NP-hard problems • poor understanding, mathematical models • lack of efficient algorithms • (typical problem sizes will follow) Igor Markov, U. of Michigan

  6. Design via Optimization • Think of all possible design solutions • “solution space” • need to choose one solution (or several) • What parameters should be optimized? • “objective functions” f1(x), f2(x),… • Need to observe design constraints • The EDA revolution of the 1980s: • searching, combinatorial and mathematical optimization may outperform engineeringintuition when implemented in software Igor Markov, U. of Michigan

  7. A Meta-Approach to Optimization • Global Optimization • often cannotoptimize “accurate” objectives • they can be hopeless to evaluate • e.g., min routed wirelength as f(placement) • find simpler objectives that correlate well • ditto for constraints • Detailed Optimization • improve global solutions by local search • can now worry about weird constraints • can optimize a better measure of signal delay, etc Igor Markov, U. of Michigan

  8. Consequences of “Large-Scale” • Runtimes must scale near-linearly • strict limitation on used primitives(e.g., no Gaussian elimination) • wide-spread use of multi-level methods • Same goes for memory consumption • cannot represent graphs as dense matrices • use random sampling/walks instead of enumeration • Trading solution quality for runtime • especially for randomized algorithms Igor Markov, U. of Michigan

  9. Historic Opportunism • In early days of VLSI CAD… • the Electronic Design Automation revolution • enabling, but short-lived results (can easily do better) • e.g., “this new algorithm addresses objective f(x)” • many proposed approaches never picked up • As ICs became larger, most CAD toolscould not handle leading-edge circuits… • “algorithms for Deep SubMicron circuits” • soon turned out that many algos were weak • partitioning, placement, SAT, etc. Igor Markov, U. of Michigan

  10. Competitiveness • Outdated algorithms cause costly software rewrites and lost opportunity • commercial tools may sell for $400,000+ • Learningcircuit physics, optics, semiconductor technologies, applied math, CS theory, AI, databases, proper software design, etcis well worth the effort • competitive edge • As a result of competitiveness, VLSI CAD offers • some of the best algorithms, very strong implementations • frequent contributions to other fields Igor Markov, U. of Michigan

  11. Success Stories • Min-cut [hyper-] graph partitioning • (“very good” solutions) • 200K 0/1 variables, 1-2 mins of CPU time • Minimal Steiner trees (optimal) • hundreds of points in 1 second • Provably good routing (approximation) • 500K nets in several hours (!!!) Igor Markov, U. of Michigan

  12. Min-cut Partitioning • Given • [hyper-] graph • k bins • each accommodates up to N vertices • Seek • to assign each vertex to a bin • Minimize • # of [hyper-] edges between bins Igor Markov, U. of Michigan

  13. Min-cut Partitioning (cont’d) • Numerous apps in VLSI CAD + beyond • supercomputing, data mining, Internet,… • Progress in partitioning algorithms • started in 1972 and still going • many approaches invented / discarded • now can auto-partition 1M-gate circuits • better than manually, with free software • couldn’t, even commercially, just 3 years ago • (this has nothing to do with Deep SubMicron) Igor Markov, U. of Michigan

  14. Min-cut Partitioning (cont’d) • UCLA MLPart(ASPDAC 2000) • faster than hMetis per start • returns better solutions on average • never worse than5% offfrom hMetis • sometimes (ibm06,2%aa) 30% better • available in source code (C++) and binaries • at “the bookshelf”, free for any use w/o notification • Used at Cadence, Intel, start-ups • Vital to UCLA Capo placer Igor Markov, U. of Michigan

  15. Steiner Minimal Trees • Given • k points in the plane • Seek • a Steiner tree connecting the points • add extra points • connect all points by straight-line segments • Minimize • total edge-length of the tree Igor Markov, U. of Michigan

  16. Steiner Minimal Trees (cont’d) • Applications • routing signal nets • connecting cities by highways • 1989, Scientific American • “cannot find an SMT for 100 US cities” • 1999, SODA (Warme/Zachariasen) • with GeoSteiner can do that in <1sec • implementation available in source code Igor Markov, U. of Michigan

  17. Routing of Multiple Nets • Given • n-tuples of locations to be connected • with Steiner trees (think of signal nets) • Constraints (not trivial to satisfy!) • routes cannot occupy same space • Minimize • total length of routes, “congestion” Igor Markov, U. of Michigan

  18. Routing Of Multiple Nets • One of the first circuit design automations (late 1960s) • Has enormous solution space • A classic AI problem • Current commercial tools (e.g., Cadence) • up to a day for 500K nets, no guarantees • ISPD 2000, Albrecht (using multi-commodity flows) • 500K nets in several hours, within 20% of opt. • (IBM Power 3 chip) Igor Markov, U. of Michigan

  19. What Makes a Break-through?(or at least a splash) • Study sample splashes • Is it enough to minimize a function? (function - relevant, minimization - efficient) • Yes • Yes, but … • No • Absolutely not Igor Markov, U. of Michigan

  20. Background: VLSI Placement bad placement good placement Igor Markov, U. of Michigan

  21. Global WL-driven Placement • Objective • total Half-Perimeter WireLength • approximates Steiner Minimal Tree • UCLA Capo placer(DAC 2000) • beats Cadence QPlace on many benchmarks • <50k gates; unpublished: 30% better on a 280K gate bm. • compared by “routed WL” after Cadence WarpRoute • in congestion-driven mode; 1 routing violation = failure • used for research at IBM, Intel, Phillips; CMU,… • available in source code (C++), free for any use • (timing-driven mode not yet released) Igor Markov, U. of Michigan

  22. Background: Detailed Placement • Detailed circuit placement • given locations of circuit elements (“cells”),improve them by local changes (e.g., swaps) • minimize total length of signal nets • “Local”, but large-scale problem • entails a very large number of small sub-problems • Practically important • local improvements directly translate to large scale • very similar to floorplanning (a high-level problem) Igor Markov, U. of Michigan

  23. Background: Detailed Placement • Naïve “detailed” optimization • consider 7-8 “cells” at a time • enumerate all permutations • compute HPWL for each • pick the best permutation • repeat for another group of 7-8 • Greater groups  better solutions • practical limit: 0.01sec per group • Use Branch-and-bound for each group (ISPD `99) • Overall linear runtime • Easy parallelization (optimize many groups in ||) Igor Markov, U. of Michigan

  24. Optimal Interleaving • Can handle 30+ elements at a time • easier to implement than B&B • the order constraint turns out very mild • Very good result • but, seemingly, nothing more than min f(x) ! • ICCAD 2000, Hur and Lillis (TR available) A B C D E 1 2 3 4 5 Optimally inO(n2) time by Dynamic Programming A 1 2 B C 3 4 D 5 E Igor Markov, U. of Michigan

  25. Popularity Comparison w GeoSteiner • The Hur/Lillis algorithm • appeared several months ago (on paper) • already implemented by several groups • with great results • … but Warme’s GeoSteiner • is barely used • source code published 2 years ago • instead, used are simple heuristics that are slower • Difference: ease of reuse! • of result itself and/or of its representation Igor Markov, U. of Michigan

  26. Intellectual Property in CAD • Reuse? • today hundreds of VLSI CAD engineersare implementing the same, known, but difficult algorithms • Breakthroughs typically producevalidated and reusable intellectual property • yet another algorithm to min f(x) does not automatically qualify for validated, reusable CAD IP • applicability, generality, quality of description, etc. • CAD IP is not just algorithms and code • CAD IP: benchmarks, evaluation techniques, empirical studies/results, algorithm analyses,etc • Studies of CAD IP suggest: • to effectively reuse, need infrastructure Igor Markov, U. of Michigan

  27. Intellectual Property in CAD • GRSC Bookshelf for Fundamental Algorithms in CAD • a repository for reusable CAD IP, a publication medium • a way to communicate with industry • problem formulations are also considered CAD IP • http://vlsicad.cs.ucla.edu/GSRC/bookshelf • Existing bookshelf “slots” include • SAT, Graph Coloring, Hypergraph Partitioning, Mathematical Optimization, Circuit Placement, Clock Tree Routing, Global Routing, Interconnect Optimization, etc… • Leading-edge implementations (free for all uses) • UCLA Physical Design Tools (graph partitioners, placers,etc) • many more (SAT solvers from U. Michigan, GeoSteiner, etc) Igor Markov, U. of Michigan

  28. Reuse and Education • Both are necessary to sustain Moore’s laws • not enough designers to implement new chips • not enough CAD engineers to automate design • Need to teach/studyreusable design • hardware, software/CAD IP (similar? different?) • note: typical “promising” research demos not reusable • Design of reusable software • “theory” has been available for years (processes, code metrics, interface languages, modeling, robust public-domain tools, etc) • need [more] infrastructure, practice, experience of reuse • first: reuse software • then: design reusable software Igor Markov, U. of Michigan

  29. Research Directions (1) • “Citius, Altius, Fortius” • faster, leaner implementations • higher-quality solutions • stronger impact on applications • aid available: latest advances in CS theory, Mathematics, AI, software engineering, etc • Large-scale computing aspects of VLSI CAD • memory locality (big deal for irregular circuits) • “memory-less” algorithms (and trade-offs) Igor Markov, U. of Michigan

  30. Research Directions (2) • Quantified suboptimality of heuristics • (for NP-hard problems) • how close can we get to optima in practice? • estimate suboptimality of specific solutions • study dependence on input distributions • related to CS theory / approximation algos • example: detection of symmetries in Logic Synthesis • Kravets/Sakallah, ICCAD 2000 and TR • Lower bounds and impossibility arguments for fundamental algorithms Igor Markov, U. of Michigan

  31. Research Directions (3) • Using better, but still computable, models of reality • simulation as a driver for optimization • modeling semiconductor effects • Alpert et al, ISPD 2000 --- a new interconnect delay model, better than Elmore delay; all optimizations assuming Elmore are open to “porting” • inductance, noise, etc • effects of statistical variations • CAD for new types of semi technologies and styles • subwavelength lithography (optical proximity correction, etc) • System-On-Chip (high-level partitioning, etc) • CAD for analog circuits (including RF, MW) Igor Markov, U. of Michigan

  32. Research Directions (4) • Self-conscious optimization tools • prediction and estimation • of solution quality before optimization • SLIP 2001 - http://www.ee.pdx.edu/~slip • GTX -http://www.gigascale.org/gtx • calibration (which solutions/tools are good?) • Support for intelligent/expert users • “computer-aided” does not always mean “w/o people” • efficient visualization, diagnostics and interactivity • how do you visualize a partitioning solution? • how do you visualize many unrouted 2-pin netsin same row? Igor Markov, U. of Michigan

  33. Conclusions • Large-scale optimization in VLSI CAD • dynamic and challenging field • benefits from other fields and gives back • IP reuse is paramount • research is respected and economically justified • opportunities available FOR MORE INFO... http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~imarkov/ Igor Markov, U. of Michigan

More Related