1 / 58

The Design-Manufacturing Roadmap Andrew B. Kahng UC San Diego CSE & ECE Departments vlsicad.ucsd

The Design-Manufacturing Roadmap Andrew B. Kahng UC San Diego CSE & ECE Departments http://vlsicad.ucsd.edu. Outline. The Design Roadmap DFM: Symptoms, Problem, Solution DFM Futures: Some Examples. Big Picture. Message: Cost of Design threatens continuation of the semiconductor roadmap

marci
Download Presentation

The Design-Manufacturing Roadmap Andrew B. Kahng UC San Diego CSE & ECE Departments vlsicad.ucsd

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. The Design-Manufacturing RoadmapAndrew B. KahngUC San Diego CSE & ECE Departmentshttp://vlsicad.ucsd.edu

  2. Outline • The Design Roadmap • DFM: Symptoms, Problem, Solution • DFM Futures: Some Examples

  3. Big Picture • Message: Cost of Design threatens continuation of the semiconductor roadmap • Design cost model • Challenges are now Crises • Strengthen bridge from semiconductors to applications, software, architectures • Hertz and bits are not the same as efficiency and utility • System Drivers chapter, with productivity and power foci • Strengthen bridges among ITRS technologies • “Shared red bricks” can be solved (or, worked-around) more cost-effectively • “Manufacturing Integration” cross-cutting challenge • “Living ITRS” framework to promote consistency validation

  4. “Living ITRS” Framework • “Living roadmap”: internally consistent, transparent models as basis of ITRS predictions • ORTCs: Models for layout density, system clock speed, total system power in various drivers, circuit fabrics • Visualization tool (at Sematech website) for capture, exploration of ITRS models under alternative scenarios • “Is --- worth it?”

  5. Design Challenges - Silicon • Silicon Complexity = impact of process scaling, new materials, new device/interconnect architectures • Non-ideal scaling (leakage, power management, circuit/device innovation, current delivery) • Coupled high-frequency devices and interconnects (signal integrity analysis and management) • Manufacturing variability (library characterization, analog and digital circuit performance, error-tolerant design, layout reusability, static performance verification methodology/tools) • Scaling of global interconnect performance (communication, synchronization) • Decreased reliability (SEU, gate insulator tunneling and breakdown, joule heating and electromigration) • Complexity of manufacturing handoff (reticle enhancement and mask writing/inspection flow, manufacturing NRE cost)

  6. Design Challenges - System • System Complexity = exponentially increasing transistor counts, with increased diversity (mixed-signal SOC, …) • Reuse (hierarchical design support, heterogeneous SOC integration, reuse of verification/test/IP) • Verification and test (specification capture, design for verifiability, verification reuse, system-level and software verification, AMS self-test, noise-delay fault tests, test reuse) • Cost-driven design optimization (manufacturing cost modeling and analysis, quality metrics, die-package co-optimization, …) • Embedded software design (platform-based system design methodologies, software verification/analysis, codesign w/HW) • Reliable implementation platforms (predictable chip implementation onto multiple fabrics, higher-level handoff) • Design process management (team size / geog distribution, data mgmt, collaborative design, process improvement)

  7. Design Chapter Outline • Introduction • Scope of design technology • Complexities (silicon, system) • Design Cross-Cutting Challenges • Productivity • Power • Manufacturing Integration • Interference • Error-Tolerance • Details of five traditional technology areas: Design Process, System-Level, Logical/Physical/Circuit, Functional Verification, Test • Key 2003 changes • Increased analog and circuits content • Refinement of design cost metrics • Design system architecture and flow • SEU and reliability

  8. Design Technology Crises Incremental Cost Per Transistor Test Manufacturing Manufacturing • 2-3X more verification engineers than designers on microprocessor teams • Software = 80% of system development cost (and Analog design hasn’t scaled) • Design NRE > 10’s of $M  manufacturing NRE $1M • Design TAT = months or years  manufacturing TAT = weeks • Without DFT, test cost per transistor grows exponentially relative to mfg cost SW Design NRE Cost Turnaround Time Verification HW Design

  9. Challenge: “Manufacturing Integration” • Goal: share red bricks with other ITRS technologies • Lithography CD variability requirement new Design techniques that can better handle variability ? • Mask data volume requirement  new Design-Mfg interfaces and flows that pass functional requirements, verification knowledge to mask writing and inspection ? • ATE cost and speed red bricks  new DFT, BIST/BOST techniques for high-speed I/O, signal integrity, analog/MS ? • Can technology development reflect ROI (value / cost) analysis: Who should solve a given red brick? • Shared Red Bricks

  10. Example: Manufacturing Test • High-speed interfaces (networking, memory I/O) • Frequencies on same scale as overall tester timing accuracy • Heterogeneous SOC design • Test reuse • Integration of distinct test technologies within single device • Analog/mixed-signal test • Reliability screens failing • Burn-in screening not practical with lower Vdd, higher power budgets  overkill impact on yield • Design Challenges: DFT, BIST • Analog/mixed-signal • Signal integrity and advanced fault models • BIST for single-event upsets (in logic as well as memory) • Reliability-related fault tolerance

  11. Example: Lithography • 10% CD uniformity requirement causes red bricks • 10% < 1 atomic monolayer at end of ITRS • This year: Lithography, PIDS, FEP agreed to relax CD uniformity requirement (but we still see red bricks) • Design challenge: Design for variability • Novel circuit topologies • Circuit optimization (conflict between slack minimization and guardbanding of quadratically increasing delay sensitivity) • Centering and design for $/wafer • Design challenge: Design for when devices, interconnects no longer 100% guaranteed correct • Can this save $$$ in manufacturing, verification, test costs?

  12. Outline • The Design Roadmap • DFM: Symptoms, Problem, Solution • DFM Futures: Some Examples

  13. Symptoms: Routing Rules (1) • Minimum area rules and via stacking • Stacking vias through multiple layers can cause minimum area violations (alignment tolerances, etc.) • Via cells can be created that have more metal than minimum via overlap (used for intermediate layers in stacked vias) • Multiple-cut vias • Use multiple-cut vias cells to increase yield and reliability • Can be required for wires of certain widths • Multiple via cut patterns have different spacing rules • Four cuts in quadrilateral; five cuts in cross; six cuts in 2x3 array; … • With wide-wire spacing rules, complicates pin access • Cut-to-cut spacing rules  check both cut-to-cut and metal-to-metal when considering via-to-via spacing • Line-end extensions • Vias or line ends need additional metal overlap (0th-order OPC)

  14. Symptoms: Routing Rules (2) • Width- and Length-dependent spacing rules • Width-dependent rules: domino effects • Variant: “parallel-run rule” (longer parallel runs  more spacing) • Measuring length and width: halo rules affect computation • Influence rules or stub rules • A fat wire, e.g., power/ground net, will influence the spacing rule within its surroundings  any wire that is X um away from the fat wire needs to be at least Y um away from any other geometry. • Example: fat wire with thin tributaries • bigger spacing around every wire within certain distance of the thin tributaries • ECO insertion of a tributary causes complications • Strange jogs and spreading when wires enter an influenced area

  15. Example: LEF/DEF 5.5, April 2003

  16. Symptoms: Routing Rules (3) • Density • Grounded metal fills (dummy fill*) • Via isodensity rules and via farm rules (via layers must be filled and slotted, have width-dependent spacing rule analogs, etc.) • Non-rectilinear (-geometry) routing • X-Architecture: http://www.xinitiative.org/ • Y-Architecture: http://vlsicad.ucsd.edu/Yarchitecture/ , LSI Logic patents • Landing pad shapes (isothetic rectangle vs. octagon vs. circle), different spacings (~1.1x) between diagonal and Manhattan wires, etc. • More exceptions • More non-default classes (timing, EM reliability, …) • Not just power and clock • >0.25um width may be “wide”  many exceptions

  17. Symptoms: Routing Rules • Degrade completion rates, runtime efficiency • “Postprocessing” likely no longer suffices • E.g., antennas • There is no chip until the router is done • Must / Should / Can tomorrow’s IC routers “independently” address these issues?

  18. Corollaries of Moore’s Law Number of design rules per process node • Data volume, mask write time explosion • RET layers explosion • Design rules explosion:

  19. Whose Job Is It To Solve: • Mask NRE cost ( runtimes  shapes complexity) • BEOL catastrophic yield loss • Deposited copper  can infer yield loss mechanisms • Open faults more prevalent than short or bridging faults • High-resistance via faults • Cf. “non-tree routing” for reliability and yield? • Variability budget for planarization • Copper is soft dual-material polish mechanisms • Oxide erosion and copper dishing  cross-sectional variability, inter-layer bridging faults, … • Low-k: thermal properties, anisotropy, nonuniformity • Resistivity at small conductor dimensions

  20. The Problem: Evolution • Conflicting goals • Designer: “freedom”, “reuse”, “migration” • EDA: “maintenance mode” • Process/foundry: “enhance perceived value” (= add rules) •  Prisoner’s Dilemma: who will invest in change? • Fiddling: Incremental, linear extrapolation of current trajectory • “GDS-3” • Thin post-processing layers (decompaction, RET insertion, …) • Leads to “dark future” (12th Japan DA Show keynote)

  21. DAC-2003 Nanometer Futures Panel:Where should extra R&D $ be spent?

  22. The Solution: Co-Evolution • Designer, EDA, and process communities cooperate and co-evolve to maintain the cost (value) trajectory of Moore’s Law • Must escape Prisoner’s Dilemma • Must be financially viable • At 90nm to 65nm transition, this is a matter of survival for the worldwide semiconductor industry • Example Focus Areas: • Explicit manufacturability and cost/value optimization • Restricted layout • Intelligent mask data prep • “Analog” (not binary) rules • (Many layout and design optimizations) • Disclaimer: Not a complete listing

  23. Example: Today’s RET Flow Design Rules Device Models Library (Library Team) Litho/Process (Tech. Development) Layout & libs (Corner CaseTiming) RET Mask: Dataprep (Mask House) Design (ASIC Chip) Layout (collection of polygons ?) Tapeout Guardbanding all the way in all stages!! (e.g. clock ACLV guardband ~ 30%) • What do we lose ? • Performance  Too much worst-casing • Turnaround time  Huge OPC runtimes, overdesign • Predictability  RET is applied post-design • Mask costs  Overcorrection • Designer’s intent  RET is not driven by design

  24. Foundation of the DFM Solution • Bidirectional design-manufacturing data pipe • Fundamental drivers: cost, value • Pass functional intent to manufacturing flow • Example: RET for predictable timing slack, leakage, yield • RETs should win $$$, reduce performance variation •  cost-driven, parametric yield constrained RET • Pass limits of manufacturing flow up to design • Example: avoid corrections that cannot be manufactured or verified  e.g., design should be aware of metrology N.B.: 1998-2003 papers/tutorials: http://vlsicad.ucsd.edu/~abk/TALKS/

  25. Outline • The Design Roadmap • DFM: Symptoms, Problem, Solution • DFM Futures: Some Examples

  26. #1: Design for Value* • Mask cost trend Design for Value (DFV) Design for Value Problem: Given • Performance measure f • Value function v(f) • Selling points ficorresponding to various values of f • Yield function y(f) MaximizeTotal Design Value = i y(fi)*v(fi) [or,MinimizeTotal Cost] • Probabilistic optimization regime * See "Design Sensitivities to Variability: Extrapolation and Assessments in Nanometer VLSI", IEEE ASIC/SoC Conference, September 2002, pp. 411-415.

  27. Obvious Step: Function-Aware OPC • Annotate features with “required amount” of OPC • E.g., why correct dummy fill? • Determined by design properties such as setup and hold timing slacks, parametric yield criticality of devices and features • Reduce total OPC inserted (e.g., SRAF usage) • Decreased physical verification runtime, data volume • Decreased mask cost resulting from fewer features • Supported in data formats (OASIS, IBM GL-I, OA/UDM) • Design through mask tools need to make, use annotations • N.B.: General RET trajectory: rules  models  libraries

  28. DFV in OPC Regime Given: Admissible levels of (OPC) correction for each layout feature, and corresponding delay impact (mean and variance) Find: Level of correction for each layout feature, such that a prescribed selling point delay is attained Objective:Minimize total cost of corrections

  29. Variation-Aware Library Models • Each capacitance or delay value replaced by (,) pair • Variation aware .lib pin(A) { direction : input; capacitance : (0.002361,0.0003) ; } … timing() { related_pin : "A"; timing_sense : positive_unate; cell_rise(delay_template_7x7) { index_1 ("0.028, 0.044, 0.076"); index_2 ("0.00158, 0.004108, 0.00948"); values ( \ “(0.04918,0.001), (0.05482,0.0015), (0.06499,0.002)", ….

  30. Correction = Mask Cost = CD Control • Levels of RET = Levels of CD control • Levels of RET = levels of CD control OPC solutions due to K. Wampler, MaskTools, March 2003 CD studies due to D. Pramanik, Numerical Technologies, December 2002

  31. Nominally Correct SP&R Netlist Min. Corrected Library SSTA Yield Target met ? Y EXIT N All Correction Libraries Correction Algorithm All Correction Libraries SSTA Generic SSTA-Based Cost of Correction Methodology • Statistical STA (SSTA) provides PDFs of arrival times at all nodes • Assume variation aware library models (for delay) are available • Statistical STA currently has runtime and scalability issues

  32. MinCorr: Parallels to Gate Sizing • Assume • Gaussian-ness of distributions prevails • + 3 corresponds to 99% yield • Perfect correlation of variation along all paths • Die-to-Die variation • 1+2 + 31+2 = 1 + 31 + 2 + 32 • Resulting linearity allows propagation of (+3) or 99% (selling point) delay to primary outputs using standard Static Timing Analysis (STA) tools • (See DAC-2003 paper)

  33. MinCorr delay (+k) costs of correction selling point delay cost of OPC MinCorr: Parallels to Gate Sizing Gate Sizing Problem: Given allowed areas and corresponding delays of each cell, minimize total diearea subject to a cycle time constraint

  34. MinCorr Methodology (DAC-03) • Mapping of area minimization to RET cost optimization • “Yield library” analogous to timing libraries (e.g., .lib) • Synthesis tool (Design Compiler) performs “gate sizing” • Figure counts, critical dimension (CD) variations derived from Numerical Technologies OPC tool* • Restricted TSMC 0.13 m library (7 cell masters: BUF, INV, NAND, NOR) • Approach tested on small combinational circuits • alu128: 8064 cells • c7552: 2081 cell ISCAS85 circuit • c6288: 2769 cell ISCAS85 circuit • Up to 79% reduction in figure complexity without any parametric yield impact

  35. Library-Based OPC • OPC applied post-tapeout • Overcorrection (matching corners)  mask cost • Large runtimes • Impact of OPC on performance unknown • Designer’s intent  OPC quality metrics • CD (Poly over active) • Non-critical poly needs less control • Contact Coverage • “Perfect” corners not needed if there is enough contact overlap

  36. Library Based OPC • Idea: Dataprep each cell once per definition (during library generation) rather than once per placement • Model-based OPC very compute-intensive • reduce runtime and data size by (#cell placements)/(#cell definitions) (~100s to millions) • Radius of influence for 193nm light is about 600nm • Most cells have 200-300nm empty space at the boundaries  distance to nearest poly line in any placement > 400nm • Small loss in accuracy for fingers at the periphery of the library cell • Post-OPC GDSII much smaller in size • Impact of RET predictable during design: characterize library cells post-OPC  can prevent a lot of guardbanding, avoid intricate OPC 640nm 760nm

  37. Experiments: Environment • Need to emulate a “typical” environment for the cell in a placement • Border Poly: 160nm from outline • Affects final CD • Top-Bottom Poly: 70nm from outline • Affects contact coverage, mask rule violations • Contact Poly: depends on contacts • Affects contact coverage, mask rule violations

  38. Results: Average CD CD error: Library-OPC vs Full Chip OPC N-i% denotes % of devices with less than i% error w.r.t. full-chip OPC Library OPC Runtime is 90 seconds for 10 masters

  39. #2: Process-Aware Design • Anisotropy in H vs. V bias • Features in one direction (scanning, raster write, …) may be better controllable than those in the orthogonal direction • Single orientation throughout layout is preferred • Dominant (critical-feature) orientation in layout design should match write direction • Wafer symmetries (e.g., etch gradient due to spin-on) • Iso-Dense balancing (imaging through focus)

  40. Systematic ACLV • ACLV = Through-pitch variation (50%) + Topography variation (10%) + Mask variation + Etch, residuals • Current timing analysis (statistical or deterministic STA) assumes all variation is ‘random’ • 50% of ACLV can be predictable by analyzing layout • “Smile-frown” plots indicate: • Through focus variation is systematic • Corners for timing analysis are derived from worst-case ACLV tolerance  instance specific tolerances are much tighter Figure courtesy ASML MaskTools

  41. Taming Pattern and Focus Variation • Obtain a set of nominal CD (wafer image simulation) for typical environments of the cell in a chip  environment specific timing libs (typical ASIC libs very limited set of environments) • Run in-context STA (post-placement) with context-specific timing libs  accurate nominal timing at zero focus condition • Input to output delay modeling based on the iso-ness and dense-ness of transistors in the input to output paths  more accurate delay variation analysis in STA

  42. Example of Smile-Frown Aware STA • If all timing arcs frown, then the path delay will always decrease through focus  one corner is trimmed off ! • If slopes of smile/frown curves are known  circuit sensitivity to focus variation can be computed + = + +

  43. Taming..: Timing Results

  44. #3: Intelligent MDP + Mask Write • MDP driven by (write error * MEEF) = wafer CD error • Partitioning into multiple gray-scale writing passes • Apertures, beam currents, dwell times, shot ordering, … • EDA tools define stripe, major field, subfield boundaries! • Electrical / functional defect criteria

  45. #4: Mask Write Optimizations • Conflicting goals: resolution, CD control, throughput • Resist heating = large contributor to mask CD variation • Knobs: beam current, flash size, idle times, grayscale passes • Subfield writing order = example new knob • Reduced heating  increased beam current density • Reduced dwell time compensates for travel and settling time Ordering #1 Ordering #2 • Ordering #2 is “self-avoiding”  lower pre-flash temps

  46. Max 48.85C Mean 27.59C Sequential schedule “Self-Avoiding” Subfield Order for Mask Write • SPIE Microlithography ’03, Photomask Japan ’03 • Simulation of subfield temperatures within a main deflection field for sequential vs. greedily optimized writing schedules Max 32.68C Mean 16.07C Greedily optimized schedule

  47. #5: Fill Parametric Yield Impact • Performance Impact Limited Fill (PIL-Fill), DAC-2003 • Fill adds capacitance, hurts timing and SI closure • Plain capacitance minimization objective is not sufficient • CMP modeling  layout density vs. dimensions built into RLCX 1 top view Active lines 2 A B C Active lines 3 w fill grid pitch D E 4 5 buffer distance F G 6

  48. Min-Slack, Fill-Constrained PIL-Fill • Inputs: LEF/DEF, extracted RSPF, STA (slack) report • Drive ILP and greedy PIL-Fill methods by estimated lateral coupling and Elmore delay impact • Baseline comparison = LP/Monte-Carlo methods • Iterated greedy method for MSFC PIL-Fill reduces timing slack impact of fill by 80% (average over all nets), 63% (worst net)

  49. #6: Analog Rules • We don’t need no $#(*&(! “rules” • Rules just make lithographers feel better (?) • Ultimately, bottom line is cost of ownership, TCOG • Given adequate models of MDP, RET and Litho flows, design tools can and should optimize parametric yield, $/wafer, profits • More examples: critical-area reduction by decompaction, introducing redundancy (vias, wires), … • Automated learning of models and “implicit rules” • Current approach: test wafers, test structures, second-hand understanding • Future: machine learning techniques

  50. Phase Shifters 180 0 #7: Restricted Layout Dual Exposure Result Islands Checkerboard • “Soft reset” = 1-time hit on Moore’s Law density scaling • Restricted Design Rules (“RDR”) can be compensated many ways • embedded 1-T SRAM fabric, stacking, I/O circuit design, … • N.B.: Moore’s Law is a “meta” Law! Example: PhasePhirst! (Levenson et al.) 0 180 Transparent Opaque Trim Mask Exposure First Exposure Dark-Field PSMs or M. D. Levenson, 2003

More Related