1 / 34

# Carnegie Mellon University - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Boolean Satisfiability with Transitivity Constraints. Randal E. Bryant Miroslav N. Velev. Carnegie Mellon University. http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~bryant. Outline. Application Domain Verify correctness of a pipelined processor Based on Burch-Dill correspondence checking Burch & Dill, CAV ‘94

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.

## PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Carnegie Mellon University' - dasan

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

with

Transitivity Constraints

Randal E. Bryant

Miroslav N. Velev

Carnegie Mellon University

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~bryant

• Application Domain

• Verify correctness of a pipelined processor

• Based on Burch-Dill correspondence checking

• Burch & Dill, CAV ‘94

• Decide validity of formula in logic of equality with uninterpreted functions

• Translate into equational logic

• Propositional logic with equations of form vi = vj

• Bryant, German & Velev, CAV ’99

• Goel, Sahid, Zhou, Aziz, & Singhal, CAV ‘98

• New Contribution

• Efficient handling of transitivity constraints

1

f

T

F

Ù

e

Ø

0

=

x

f

0

T

Ú

=

F

T

F

d

0

Decision Problem

• Logic of Equality with Uninterpreted Functions (EUF)

• Truth Values

• Dashed Lines

• Model control signals

• Domain Values

• Solid lines

• Model data words

• Determine whether formula is universally valid

• True for all interpretations of variables and function symbols

• Prove: x = f(f(x))  x = f(f(f(x)))  x = f(x)

• Instance of: x = y x = f(y) x = f(x)

• Ackermann’s Method

• Replace: f(x)  f1 f(f(x))  f2 f(f(f(x)))  f3

• Gives: x = f2 x = f3 x = f1

• Functional Consistency Constraints

x = f1 f1 = f2

f1= f2  f2 = f3

x = f2  f1 = f3

• Equational Formula

• Complement of substituted formula + consistency constraints

Clauses Origin

x = f2 x = f3x f1[x = f2 x = f3 x = f1]

 (x f1  f1 = f2) x= f1 f1 = f2

 (f1f2  f2 = f3) f1= f2  f2 = f3

 (x f2 f1 = f3) x = f2  f1 = f3

• Prove that equational formula is not satisfiable

x = f2 x = f3x f1

 (x f1  f1 = f2)

 (f1f2  f2 = f3)

 (x f2 f1 = f3)

• Historically

• E.g., Nelson & Oppen ‘80

• Create special purpose search engine

• Davis-Putnam search

• Data structure to maintain equivalence classes

• Question

• Can we translate problem into pure propositional logic?

• Would enable use of BDDs or SAT checkers

• Relational Variables

• Goel, Sahid, Zhou, Aziz, & Singhal, CAV ‘98

• Replace vi = vj by propositional variable ei,j

• Propositional Formula Fsat

• Relabeling: x v1f1  v2f2  v3f3  v4

Clauses Origin

e13 e14e12x = f2 x = f3x f1

 (e12 e23)  (x f1  f1 = f2)

 (e23 e34)  (f1f2  f2 = f3)

 (e13 e24)  (x f2 f1 = f3)

e13 e14e12

 (e12 e23)

 (e23 e34)

 (e13 e24)

• Propositional Formula Fsat

e13 e14e12

 (e12 e23)

 (e23 e34)

 (e13 e24)

• Solution

e13 = true e14 = true e12 = false e23 = true e34 = true e24 = true

• Transitivity Violation in Solution

e13 = true e23 = true e12 = false

• Corresponds to x = f2andf2= f1butx f1

• Complexity

• Finding solution to Fsat that satisfies transitivity constraints is NP-Hard

• Even when Fsat represented as OBDD

• Their method

• Enumerate implicants of Fsat from OBDD representation

• Discard any implicant that contains transitivity violation

• Eventually find solution or run out of implicants

• Our Experiments

• Works well for small benchmarks

• Far too many implicants for larger benchmarks

• Idea

• Generate propositional formula Ftrans expressing transitivity constraints

• Satisfy formula FsatFtrans

• Using OBDDs or SAT checker

• Sources of Efficiency

• Equational structure very sparse

• Far fewer than n(n-1)/2 relational variables

• Only need to enforce limited set of transitivity constraints

• With OBDDs, can reduce set of relational variables

• Only those in true support of Fsat

• Single Issue Pipeline: 1xDLX-C

• Analogous to DLX model in Hennessy & Patterson

• Verified in ‘94 by Burch & Dill

• Dual Issue Pipeline #1: 2xDLX-CA

• Second pipeline can only handle R-R and R-I instructions

• Burch (DAC ‘96) required 28 manual case splits, 3 commutative diagrams, and 1800s.

• Dual Issue Pipeline #2: 2xDLX-CC

• Second pipeline can also handle all instructions

• None Require Transitivity Constraints

• Fsat is unsatisfiable in every case

• Circuits don’t make use of transitivity in forwarding or stall decisions

• Performance

Circuit OBDD Secs. FGRASP Secs.

1xDLX-C 0.2 3

2xDLX-CA 11. 176

2xDLX-CC 29. 5,035

• Modified, but Correct Circuits

• Modify forwarding logic

ESrc1=MDest

ESrc1=MDest (ESrc1=ESrc2ESrc2=MDest)

• Equivalent under transitivity

• Circuit names 1xDLX-Ct, 2xDLX-CAt, 2xDLX-CCt

• Buggy Circuits

• 100 buggy versions of 2xDLX-CC

• Each contains single modification of control logic

• Must ensure that counterexample satisfies transitivity constraints

• Vertices

• For each vi

• 13 different register identifiers

• Edges

• For each equation

• Control stalling and forwarding logic

• 27 relational variables

• Out of 78 possible

• Equations

• Between 25 different register identifiers

• 143 relational variables

• Out of 300 possible

=

=

=

=

=

=

Graph Interpretation of Transitivity

• Transitivity Violation

• Cycle in graph

• Exactly one edge has ei,j= false

Exploiting Chords

• Chord

• Edge connecting two non-adjacent vertices in cycle

Property

• Sufficient to enforce transitivity constraints for all chord-free cycles

• If transitivity holds for all chord-free cycles, then holds for arbitrary cycles

• Strategy

• Enumerate chord-free cycles in graph

• Each cycle of length k yields k transitivity constraints

Problem

• Potentially exponential number of chord-free cycles

1

2

k

• • •

2k+k chord-free cycles

• • •

2k+1 chord-free cycles

• Strategy

• Add edges to graph to reduce number of chord-free cycles

1

2

k

• • •

2k+k chord-free cycles

• • •

• Reduces formula size

• Increases number of relational variables

• Definition

• Every cycle of length > 3 has a chord

• Goal

• Add minimum number of edges to make graph chordal

• Relation to Sparse Gaussian Elimination

• Choose pivot ordering that minimizes fill-in

• NP-hard

• Simple heuristics effective

27 relational variables

286 cycles

858 clauses

Augmented

33 relational variables

40 cycles

120 clauses

143 relational variables

2,136 cycles

8,364 clauses

Augmented

193 relational variables

858 cycles

2,574 clauses

• Strategy

• Run on clauses encoding Fsat and Ftrans

• FGRASP Performance (Secs.)

Circuit FsatFsatFtrans

1xDLX-C 3 4

1xDLX-Ct --- 9

2xDLX-CA 176 1,275

2xDLX-CAt --- 896

2xDLX-CC 5,035 9,932

2xDLX-CCt --- 15,003

• Observation

• Much more challenging with transitivity constraints imposed

• Performance Penalty with Transitivity Constraints

• Geometric average slowdown = 2.3X

• Possible Strategy

• Build OBDDs for Fsat and Ftrans

• Compute FsatFtrans

• Find satisfying solution

• OBDD for Ftrans can be of exponential size

• Regardless of variable ordering

• Formal result

• Relational variables forming k X k mesh

• OBDD representation has (2k/4) nodes

• Experimental Results

• Unable to build OBDD of Ftrans for large benchmarks

6 X 6 mesh

• Strategy

• Build OBDD for Fsat

• Determine relational variables in true support

• Easy with OBDD

• Generate Ftrans for these variables

• Compute conjunction and find satisfying solution

• Performance

• When Fsat unsatisfiable, no further steps required

• For other benchmarks, yields tractable Ftrans

• Relational variables

• 46 original

• 6 chordal

• OBDD Representation

• 7,168 nodes

• Relational Variables

• 17 original

• 3 chordal

• OBDD Representation

• 70 nodes

• Relational variables

• 52 original

• 16 chordal

• OBDD Representation

• 93,937 nodes

• CUDD Performance (Secs.)

Circuit Time

1xDLX-C 0.2

1xDLX-Ct 2

2xDLX-CA 11

2xDLX-CAt 109

2xDLX-CC 29

2xDLX-CCt 441

• Observation

• Significantly more effort with transitivity constraints

• Better performance than FGRASP

• Performance Penalty with Transitivity Constraints

• Geometric average slowdown = 1.01X

• Equational Formulas can be Solved by Propositional Methods

• Exploit sparse structure of equations

• Reduces number of variables

• Reduces formula size

• With OBDDs, can identify essential relational variables

• In true support of Fsat

• Can use either SAT checker or OBDDs

• OBDDs do best for unsatisfiable formulas

• Formulas with Ordering Constraints

• Constraints of form vivj

• Symbolic Solution

• Introduce variables ai,j and aj,i for each constraint virelvj

• ai,j true when vivj

• Solution defines partial ordering

• Application

• Scheduling problems