1 / 22

ISPD’2005 Fast Interval­Valued Statistical Interconnect Modeling And Reduction

ISPD’2005 Fast Interval­Valued Statistical Interconnect Modeling And Reduction. James D. Ma and Rob A. Rutenbar Dept of ECE, Carnegie Mellon University {jdma, rutenbar@ece.cmu.edu} Funded in part by C2S2, the MARCO Focus Center for Circuit & System Solutions.

Download Presentation

ISPD’2005 Fast Interval­Valued Statistical Interconnect Modeling And Reduction

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. ISPD’2005Fast Interval­Valued StatisticalInterconnect Modeling And Reduction James D. Ma and Rob A. Rutenbar Dept of ECE, Carnegie Mellon University {jdma, rutenbar@ece.cmu.edu} Funded in part by C2S2, the MARCO Focus Center for Circuit & System Solutions

  2. New Battlefield: Manufacturing Variations • CMOS scaling… • Good for speed • Good for density • Bad for variation • Bad for manufacturability • Bad for predictability • No longer realistic to regard device or interconnect as deterministic • Continuous random distribution with complex correlations

  3. max, max, ? ? New Problem: Statistical Analysis • Statistical static timing analysis • Propagate correlated normal distribution • A limited number of operators: sum and maximum • Statistical interconnect timing analysis • Require a richer palette of computations • Not easy to represent statistics and push them through model reduction algorithms

  4. Our interest — new correlated interval technique for representing statistics “inside” algorithms Approaches to Statistical Interconnect Analysis • Straight-forward Monte Carlo simulation • Repeat model reduction algorithms at the outermostloop • General, accurate, but computationally expensive • Control-theoretic (model order reduction) • Based on perturbation theory [Liu-et al, DAC’99] • Multi-parameter moment matching [Daniel-et al, TCAD’04] • Circuit performance evaluation • Low-order analytical delay formula [Agarwal-et al, DAC’04] • Asymptotic non-normal probability extraction [Li-et al, ICCAD’04] • Classicalinterval delay analysis [Harkness-Lopresti, TCAD’92]

  5. x0 -x2 x1 x2 -x1 x hi lo x = x0 + x11 + x22 1 -1 1 -1 x – x R (xa) = | x1 | + | x2 | -2 2 x – x = (x0 – x0) + (x1 – x1) 1 + (x2 – x2) 2 = 0 Should be 0 ! New Interval Ideas • Affine interval • Define central point and radius • Keep source of uncertainties • Handles correlations by uncertainty sharing • Classical interval • Define two end-points • No “inside” information • Unable to consider correlations

  6. x = x0 + ∑ xii y = y0 + ∑ yii z = x0 y0 + ∑(x0yi + y0xi) εi + (∑xiεi) (∑xiεi) z = x0 + y0 + ∑ (xi + yi) i z = x0 y0 + ∑(x0yi + y0xi) εi + R (xy) ζ Affine Arithmetic: An Overview • Develop a library for most affine arithmetic operations • More accurate or efficient approximations are also available Results are still affine (accurate or conservative) Replace second-order terms with one new uncertainty termζ

  7. From Intervals to Statistics • Statistical assumption for the uncertainty symbols? • Uniform distribution? • Keep conservative bounds • Not realistic for modeling manufacturing variations • Choose normal distribution • μ = 0, σ2 = 1 for each symbol εi • Probability not equal in the interval • Model the central mass of the infinite, continuous distribution • Essential assumption • Mechanics of calculation for finite affine intervals are a reasonably good approximation of how statistics move through the same computations

  8. 3 0 4 0 2 3 0 0 –4 x1 x2 x3 –1 –10 16 x1 x2 x3 5 1 –4 = = [1 5] 0 [1 7] 0 [1 3] [1 5] 0 0 [–6 –2] –1 –10 16 x1 x2 x3 x1 x2 x3 [0.3 55] [–7.3 30] [–8 –2.7] = = Putting Altogether: From Intervals to Algorithms • Scalar-valued linear solve • Backward substitution • Classical interval-valued linear solve • Backward substitution • Classical interval arithmetic

  9. –1 –10 16 x1 x2 x3 3 + ε1 + ε2 0 4 – ε1 + 2ε3 0 2 + ε1 3 + ε1 – ε3 0 0 –4 + ε1 – ε3 Sample matrix element intervals & scalar solve = x1 x2 x3 5 – 3ε1 – 3 ε2 + 1.8ε3 – 2.7ε5 1 + 3.4ε1 – 4ε3 – 2.3ε4 –4 – ε1 + ε3 = Cube for the range of x1, x2, x3 Classical Polytope for the range of x1, x2, x3 Affine From Intervals to Algorithms (Cont’d) • Affine interval-valued linear solve

  10. delay Our New Approach: Affine Interval-Valued Statistical Interconnect Model Reduction • Represent variational RLC elements as correlated intervals • [Ma-Rutenbar, ICCAD’2004] • Replace scalar computation with interval-valuedcomputationby pushingintervals through chain of model reduction Interval computation Reduced set of intervals • Stop, and repeatedly sample a reduced set of intervals Sampling Scalar computation • Continue with scalar-valued computation • Obtain delay distribution

  11. R = R0+ ∑(∆Rii ) +∑(∆Rjj) +∑(∆Rkk) One variation source may contribute to multiple RLC’s & lead to correlation C = C0+ ∑(∆Cii ) +∑(∆Cjj) –∑(∆Ckk) L = L0+ ∑(∆Lii ) –∑(∆Ljj) –∑(∆Lkk) Any variation can have positive or negative impact on RLC Interval Modeling of Interconnect Parameters • Global variations — inter-die • Affect all the device and interconnect, in a similar way • Local variations — intra-die • Affect device and interconnect close to each other, in a similar way • Linearized combination of global and local variations Affine forms

  12. MNA formulation LU decomposition Hankel matrix & vector Intervals Solve for poles Vandemonde matrix Solve for residues Poles/residues Sampling Transient analysis Scalars Delay distribution Interval-Valued AWE: 1st Generation • Interval-valued MNA and LU for model reduction • Interval-valued pole/residue analysis • Mostly fundamental affine operations • Compare intervals based on their centralvalues • Obtain a reduced, small set of interval poles and residues • Sample and continue scalar transient analysis • Monte Carlo sampling over this reduced model is very fast • Similar approach for interval-valued PRIMA

  13. C 4 3 C R 2 1 R 2 0 1 3 4 6 5 R 6 5 R R C 0 C Interval-Valued AWE: 2nd Generation • 1st improvement • Replace MNA formulation & LU decomposition with path-tracing for tree-structured circuits to compute interval-valued moments much more efficiently • 2nd improvement • Stop interval-valued computation at moments, not poles/residues • Then switch to sampling and scalar-valued computation

  14. range range Path-tracing LU decomposition 1st Improvement: Interval LU vs. Path-Tracing • Path-tracing — DC analyses for moments via depth-first search • Tree topology does not change — DFS only once • Tracing order can be stored and “remembered” • Interval estimation errors • Like floating-point errors, but more macroscopic, not so easy to ignore • The longer the chain of computation, the more errors • Replace interval LU with interval path-tracing • Reduce number of approximate affine operations significantly • Improve greatly both efficiency and accuracy

  15. Intervals Tree & path-tracing Moments Hankel matrix & vector & Vandemonde matrix Solve for poles/residues Sampling Scalars Poles/residues Transient analysis & delay distribution Interval-Valued AWE: 2nd Generation • A reduced, small set of interval moments via interval-valued path-tracing • Sample over moment intervals to produce a set of scalar moments • Continue scalar computation, just like a standard AWE • Monte Carlo sampling over the reduced model is very fast • Similar approach for interval path-tracing-based PRIMA

  16. Interval tree & path-tracing Interval MNA & LU Intervals Intervals Interval moments Interval moments Interval root finding Scalar root finding Sampling Scalars Interval poles/residues Scalar poles/residues Sampling Scalars Scalar delay Scalar delay 2nd Improvement: AWE Interval/Scalar Tradeoff • 2nd generation • Hybrid interval/scalar strategy • 1st generation • Pervasive interval computation • Interval computation for large-scale near-linear model reduction • Scalar sampling & small-scale nonlinear root finding • Similar tradeoff for 2nd generation of interval-valued PRIMA

  17. ε1 ε4 ε3 ε2 ε5 Benchmarks • 3 tree-structured RC(L) interconnects • From 120 to 2400 elements • Deterministic unit step input • 6 — 21 variation symbols • One global, shared by all RLC’s • Others local,shared by a cluster of “nearby” RLC’s • Relative σ of global / local vars • 20% / 10%, 10% / 20%, 5% / 30% • Able to accommodate • Any number of uncertainties, from most types of variation sources • Any reasonable combinations of global / local variations

  18. Sample RC(L)’s Scalar AWE/PRIMA RC(L) intervals Interval AWE/PRIMA Monte Carlo Monte Carlo Sample intervals 2nd Generation: Implementation • Interval arithmetic library and AWE/PRIMA in C/C++ • Compare distribution of 50% delay • 2nd generation (statAWE/statPRIMA)vs. RICE4/5 used in a simple Monte Carlo loop (RMC) • Determine proper number of Monte Carlo samples using standard confidence interval techniques [Burch-et al, TVLSI’93] • Specify accuracy within 1%, with 99% confidence level • ~ 3000 samples for each design combination vs.

  19. 10000 samples of RLC’s 10000 samples in moment intervals Monte Carlo simulation Interval-valued estimation Pole Distribution • At the end of 2nd generation interval AWE/PRIMA, an interval-valued reduced model is obtained • How well do the reduced interval model produce scalar poles? • design0, 123 RLC’s, 5% global variation, 30% local variation, 6 variation terms, 8th order AWE, distributions of 4 dominant poles on complex plane

  20. Monte Carlo 25% Interval PRIMA AWE 20% 20% 15% Monte Carlo 15% 10% 10% Interval 5% 5% 0% 0% delay delay Accuracy & Efficiency • Delay PDFs ex: 1275 RC’s, 5% global, 30% local, 4th order models • CPU time: 1 intervalanalysis ≈300 deterministic runs 25%

  21. Run time vs. mean error Run time vs. std error II II IV IV I I III III Interval/Scalar Tradeoff • Compare 4 AWE interval strategies • If ~5–10% error is OK, one can still use intervals pervasively • 1st 2nd generation: ~10XlessCPU, ~3–4X less %error

  22. Conclusions and Ongoing Work • Affine interval model & statistical interpretation allow us to • Represent the essential mass of a random distribution • Preserve 1st-order correlations among uncertainties • Retarget classical model reduction to interval-valued computations • Improved 2nd generation • Smarter interval linear solves and interval/scalar tradeoffs • ~10X faster, and ~3–4X less %error • What’s next? • Works well for interconnect reduction – but how general is the idea? • Can we bring statistics into arbitrary CAD tools efficiently? • In progress: interval-valued physics-based TCAD/DFM modeling

More Related