1 / 22

Interconnect Complexity-Aware FPGA Placement Using Rent’s Rule

Interconnect Complexity-Aware FPGA Placement Using Rent’s Rule. G. Parthasarathy Malgorzata Marek-Sadowska Arindam Mukherjee Amit Singh University of California, Santa Barbara. Outline. Motivation Rent’s Parameter Analysis New Placement Algorithm Results Conclusions Future Work.

carlo
Download Presentation

Interconnect Complexity-Aware FPGA Placement Using Rent’s Rule

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. Interconnect Complexity-Aware FPGA Placement Using Rent’s Rule G. Parthasarathy Malgorzata Marek-Sadowska Arindam Mukherjee Amit Singh University of California, Santa Barbara

  2. Outline • Motivation • Rent’s Parameter • Analysis • New Placement Algorithm • Results • Conclusions • Future Work

  3. Motivation • 80-90% of die area = interconnects • increased programmability • routing resource utilization (RRU) is low • 100% logic utilization • unused LUTs -> better RRU • maybe at the cost of increased area? • Maybe not! • interconnect complexity guided placement - Rent’s parameter

  4. Rent’s Parameter • Common measure for Interconnect Complexity Nio = K NgP Nio – Number of IO pins/terminals external to the logic partition K - Average number of interconnections per LUT Ng – Number of LUTs in a logic partition p – Rent’s parameter after E.F.Rent • E.F.Rent,1960 • Landman, Russo, 1971

  5. Local Rent’s parameter Pld • Complexity Varies across design. • Solution – Use local interconnect complexity measure based in interconnect length distributions. (Van Marck et al.,95) • Reduces to Landman’s Rent’s exponent for uniform design at the top level

  6. Rent’s Parameter • Van Marck, Stroobandt, Campenhout, 1995 • p : D(log Ni) / D(log Li) p – Rent’s parameter Li - length of a net Ni - number of nets of length Li

  7. Analysis • Consists of LUTs, connection boxes and switch-boxes • Regular 2-D mesh array of unit tiles FPGA Architecture

  8. FPGA Fabric Min-Size-Up • Definitions • Pa – Rent’s parameter for Architecture • Pd – Rent’s parameter for Design • Case 1: Pd <= Pa • Design routable. Try to get best placement. • Case 2: Pd > Pa • Design Un-routable. Need more resources. • Solution – Increase FPGA fabric size by scaling factor C Pa = = Pd ) Nio K N K(C.N g g - Pd Pa = C N Pd g

  9. n Bounding_b ox_length( Bi) pld pla ) (1+ - å Track Crossing Function q(i) net = i 1 New Placement Algorithm • Simulated Annealing - VPR • scale-up fabric by C • modify VPR’s existing Cost Function • | pld - pla | used as scaling factor for bounding-box based cost function • uniform distribution of interconnect complexity

  10. placed and routed design pla pld ? > no yes scale-up fabric by C use MVPR Place-and-Route CAD Flow • Generate Benchmarks • Known Pd • Uniform Distribution • Map to Net-list • Place-and-route • VPR • MVPR • Compare

  11. Results - Benchmarks gnl generated ckts p1d = p2d = p3d = p4d = p5d = p6d p6d p5d p4d p1d p2d p3d random ckts - ISCAS benchmarks

  12. Results Rent’s Parameter for Architecture1 • Segmentation = 1, channel width = 7, Pa = 0.62

  13. Rent’s parameter for Architecture2 • Segmentation = 2, channel width = 7, Pa = 0.64

  14. Routing Utilization for seg = 1 • MVPR produces better routing utilization: • 15-25% better

  15. Routing Utilization for seg = 1:2 • MVPR produces better routing utilization: • 10-15% better

  16. Routing Utilization for seg = 2 • MVPR produces only minimally better routing utilization: • 1-5% better

  17. Routing Overhead Results (MVPR vs VPR) seg = 1 • results follow trend for changes in architecture

  18. CLB Area Utilization (MVPR v/s VPR) seg = 1 • results follow trend for changes in architecture • logic area utilization falls with increasing Pd

  19. MVPR over VPR for gnl generated ckts • 25% higher RRU • 10-15% lower Area

  20. MVPR over VPR for ISCAS ckts • same track utilization • 5% lower average wire length • 2-5% higher RRU • 10-15% higher Area

  21. Conclusions • Pluses • New Cost Function • Minimum size fabric derived for Pd > Pa • Min-Area <-> Max-RRU • Minuses • Errors in the estimation of Pd and Pa • second-order effects • Non-uniform interconnect complexities

  22. Future Work • Modifying MVPR • non-uniform interconnect complexity • timing/power-dissipation and complexity-aware FPGA placement • correlating track segmentation with accurate estimation of Rent’s parameter

More Related