1 / 21

Backward Reasoning with Formal Properties: A methodology for bug isolation on simulation traces

Backward Reasoning with Formal Properties: A methodology for bug isolation on simulation traces. Anvesh Komuravelli 1 Srobona Mitra 1 Ansuman Banerjee 2 Pallab Dasgupta 1 1 Dept. of Comp. Sc. & Engg., IIT Kharagpur 2 Adv. Comp. & Microelectronics Unit, ISI Kolkata

berne
Download Presentation

Backward Reasoning with Formal Properties: A methodology for bug isolation on simulation traces

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. Backward Reasoning with Formal Properties: A methodology for bug isolation on simulation traces Anvesh Komuravelli1 Srobona Mitra1 Ansuman Banerjee2 Pallab Dasgupta1 1Dept. of Comp. Sc. & Engg., IIT Kharagpur 2Adv. Comp. & Microelectronics Unit, ISI Kolkata Presented by: Srobona Mitra 2011 Asian Test Symposium

  2. Outline • Background and Objective • Example • The Approach • Running on the example • Experimental Results • Conclusion and Future Work

  3. Background • When a logical bug is sensitized, it may take several cycles for the bug to propagate to the design interface and manifest itself in the trace • Automated bug localization techniques for hardware designs typically work on the design implementation to root-cause the given bug • Advantage: complete approach • Disadvantage: scalability issues • Assertions are scattered throughout the design, at the interface of each component module and globally

  4. Objective • To pinpoint the location of bug with the help of the assertions given the buggy trace • Advantage: • highly scalable • Works for incompletely specified designs, where the RTL code of some components is not available • new properties can be added in hindsight to perform what-if analysis • Disadvantage: • incomplete approach

  5. The Problem • Given: • A buggy simulation trace where the simulation output differs from the golden output • The set of assertions scattered all over the design • Goal: • To use causal deduction using the assertions to locate the bug • Challenges: • To use the properties to propagate the cause-effect relationships through internal signals of design not visible in the trace • To do the deduction backwards starting from the bug manifestation

  6. Example Buggy Trace Cycle: a b 1: 0 0 2: 0 1 3: 0 1 ……. …….. 11: 1 1 12: 1 1 13: 1 1 14: 0 1 15: 0 1 16: 0 1 17: 0 1 18: 0 1 19: 0 1 20: 0 0 a c f d b e b20 = FALSE d16 = FALSE c14 = TRUE f12 = TRUE e11 = FALSE a11 = FALSE Refutation! G(a → e) G(e → ¬Xf ) G(f ↔ F[2,2]c) G(c V XXd) G(d → XXXXb)

  7. Bounded LTL Semantics Let π = < s0, s1, … > be the infinite state sequence corresponding to an infinite execution of the system beginning at s0 So πk = < sk, sk+1, … >

  8. Subformulae of an LTL formula

  9. Rewriting of LTL formulae

  10. Overall Methodology • Extract all the subformulae of all the properties. • G(pi) → pi → sf(pi) • Form the bi-implications corresponding to all the subformulae (using rewrite rules) • Form the conjuncts corresponding to the properties • a & Xb → (a) & (Xb) • Create new variables for all subformulae at each time step while going back • Add the signal valuations at each cycle • Form a SAT expression and check for unsatisfiability

  11. On the example - Subformulae G(a → e) {a, e} G(e → ¬Xf ) {e, f, Xf} G(f ↔ F[2,2]c) {f, F[2,2]c, F[1,1]c, F[0,0]c, c} G(c V XXd) {c, XXd, Xd, d} G(d → XXXXb) {d, XXXXb, XXXb, XXb, Xb, b} E = {a, b, c, d, e, f, XXXXb, XXXb, XXb, Xb, F[2,2]c, F[1,1]c, F[0,0]c, XXd, Xd, Xf}

  12. Bi-implications Xb (Xb)t ↔ bt+1 XXb (XXb)t ↔ (Xb)t+1 XXXb (XXXb)t ↔ (XXb)t+1 XXXXb (XXXXb)t ↔ (XXXb)t+1 F[0,0]c (F[0,0]c)t ↔ ct F[1,1]c (F[1,1]c)t ↔ (F[0,0]c)t+1 F[2,2]c (F[2,2]c)t ↔ (F[1,1]c)t+1 Xd (Xd)t ↔ dt+1 XXd (XXd)t ↔ (Xd)t+1 Xf (Xf)t ↔ ft+1

  13. Conjuncts for formulae a → e ¬at V et e → ¬Xf ¬et V ¬(Xf)t f ↔ F[2,2]c (¬ft V (F[2,2]c)t) Λ (¬(F[2,2]c)t V ft) c V XXd ct V (XXd)t d → XXXXb ¬dt V (XXXXb)t

  14. Running of the algorithm ¬b20(Xb)19 ↔ b19+1 ¬(Xb)19 (XXb)18 ↔ (Xb)18+1 ¬(XXb)18(XXXb)17 ↔ (XXb)17+1 ¬(XXXb)17 (XXXXb)16 ↔ (XXXb)16+1 ¬(XXXXb)16 ¬d16 V (XXXXb)16 ¬d16 (Xd)15 ↔ d15+1 ¬(Xd)15(XXd)14 ↔ (Xd)14+1 ¬(XXd)14 c14 V (XXd)14 c14 (F[0,0]c)14 ↔ c14 (F[0,0]c)14 (F[1,1]c)13 ↔ (F[0,0]c)13+1

  15. Running of the algorithm (F[1,1]c)13 (F[2,2]c)12 ↔ (F[1,1]c)12+1 (F[2,2]c)12 (¬f12 V (F[2,2]c)12) Λ (¬(F[2,2]c)12V f12) f12 (Xf)11 ↔ f11+1 (Xf)11 ¬e11 V ¬(Xf)11 ¬e11 ¬a11 V e11 ¬a11 a11 (from trace) Refutation!

  16. Experimental Results • Experiments with randomly generated safety properties and randomly generated traces • Varied the average length of the properties, visibility, total number of signals, length of refutation trace • To analyze, formed a digraph with properties as vertices and an edge from p1 to p2 iff p1 affects p2. • G(a Λ Xb) affects G(b → c)

  17. Experimental Results • Despite wide variations in the properties of the digraph like number of components, component size, longest path in a component, significant factors affecting the time and space are: • Number of properties • Length of property • Length of counterexample

  18. Experimental Results Tabulated • Average Property Length = 6 and Properties# = 10 • Average Property Length = 6 and Properties# = 50

  19. Experimental Results Tabulated • Average Property Length = 20 and Properties# = 10 • Average Property Length = 20 and Properties# = 50

  20. Conclusion and Future Work • We propose a methodology for property-assisted debugging of a hardware design • Future direction is to explore how to use the refutation provided by the methodology • Can a subset of the total set of properties be reasoned which accounts for the refutation? • Constrain the search space of the design to locate and fix the bug • Combine property assisted debugging with design assisted debugging

  21. Thank You! Questions? E-mail ID: srobona@cse.iitkgp.ernet.in

More Related