1 / 46

Pattern Sensitive Placement For Manufacturability

Pattern Sensitive Placement For Manufacturability. Shiyan Hu, Jiang Hu Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Texas A&M University College Station, TX, 77843. Outline. Lithography system Motivation Problem formulation Algorithms Experimental results Conclusion.

petraw
Download Presentation

Pattern Sensitive Placement For Manufacturability

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. Pattern Sensitive Placement For Manufacturability Shiyan Hu, Jiang Hu Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Texas A&M University College Station, TX, 77843

  2. Outline • Lithography system • Motivation • Problem formulation • Algorithms • Experimental results • Conclusion

  3. Lithography Process optical Part of layout mask oxidation photoresist photoresist coating removal (ashing) stepper exposure Typical operations in a single photolithographic cycle (from [Fullman]). photoresist development acid etch process spin, rinse, dry step

  4. 193nm wavelength 45nm features Lithography System Illumination Source Mask Objective Lens Wafer

  5. Motivation • Printability problem • Lithography technology: 193nm wavelength • VLSI technology: 45nm features • Lithography induced variations • Impact on timing and power • Even for 180nm technology, variations up to 20x in leakage power and 30% in frequency were reported.

  6. 28nm, tolerable distortion: 2nm 193nm Lithography Tech. v.s. VLSI Tech.

  7. Improve Printability by RET • Resolution Enhancement Technique (RET) • Post Physical Layout Design • Weakness: • Limited capacity and increasingly difficult • Expensive mask cost OPC

  8. Design For Manufacturability (DFM) • Efforts are needed in all design and process stages. • Physical design considering printability: Design For Manufacturability (DFM). • To make RET easier and cheaper to apply

  9. (From DAC’05) Previous Works on DFM • Regular fabric: • Introduce regular geometry, similar to FPGA • Compromised performance • Restricted design rules: • Not able to accurately capture lithography effects • Rule explosion: 2000 pages in 22nm technology

  10. Previous Works on DFM Regular fabric: Introduce regular geometry, similar to FPGA Compromised performance • Restricted design rules: • Not able to accurately capture lithography effects • Rule explosion: 2000 pages in 22nm technology • RET-friendly detailed placement (ASPDAC’05): • Small spacing perturbation • No cell flipping, no cell relocation

  11. Placement Our Problem • Physical layout design considering manufacturability • Cell Placement • Given a circuit, decide the physical location of each gate • A major step in the physical layout design flow • Objectives: small wirelength, small area, good timing, etc.

  12. This Work • Post-placement optimization for printability • Post-placement optimization • Applicable to any existing placement to make it easier to print • Limit modification to retain benefits • Improve printability • Measurement of printability • How? • Relocation and Flipping

  13. : EPE Measurement of Printability • Manufacturability cost • Edge Placement Error (EPE), Image Log Slope (ILS), process window,… From http://www.vlsitechnology.org/

  14. Existing Placer Our Optimization Relocation and Flipping Hard to print by simulation Easy to print by simulation

  15. 50% reduction in gate length deviation Cell Flipping to Improve Printability From http://www.vlsitechnology.org/

  16. Pattern: part between horizontally adjacent cell pair Our Approach • Offline: • For each possible pattern formed by two cells, assign a manufacturability cost • Accurate lithography simulations • Results saved in a lookup table • Online: • Prefer easy-to-print patterns in design From http://www.vlsitechnology.org/

  17. Problem Formulation • Given a cell placement • Perform post-processing optimizations, which can be cell flipping and relocation • Total manufacturability cost (sum of manufacturability cost over all patterns) is reduced subject to the modification (wire length) constraint.

  18. Optimization Considering Cell Flipping • The algorithm is for row-based layout. • Perform optimization row by row. • For each row of cells, perform the dynamic programming style optimization.

  19. Optimizing A Row by Cell Flipping 1 After processing the last cell, pick the solution with best manufacturability cost while satisfying wirelength constraint 2

  20. Solution Characterization and Update • Each candidate solution is associated with • c: a cell • CE: cumulative manufacturability cost • CW: cumulative wire length • c is being processed, • CE  CE + manufacturability cost of new pattern • CW  HPWL on all nets not spanning on any unprocessed cell. c

  21. Solution Pruning • Two candidate solutions • Solution 1: (c, CE1, CW1) • Solution 2: (c, CE2, CW2) • Solution 1 is inferior if • CE1 > CE2 : larger cumulative manufacturability cost • and CW1 > CW2 : larger cumulative wirelength • Whenever a solution becomes inferior, it is pruned.

  22. Single Row Optimization • Allow both cell flipping and cell relocation. • Partition a row of cells into groups. • Small modification  a cell movable only within a group.

  23. Pick groups for optimization Perform group optimization tentatively Accept the result if printability is improved and overhead satisfies constraint Flow for Single Row Optimization Partition a row of cells into groups Difficult

  24. Difficult Difficult Group Optimization Compute the placement with best manufacturability cost (no wirelength constraint) Compute the placement with best wirelength (initial placement) Tradeoff: gradually tune best manufacturability placement towards the best wirelength placement

  25. Placement with Best Manufacturability Cost : 0 : manufacturability cost 25

  26. Placement with Best Manufacturability Cost : 0 : manufacturability cost

  27. Placement with Best Manufacturability Cost : 0 : manufacturability cost

  28. Placement with Best Manufacturability Cost Flipped : 0 : manufacturability cost 28

  29. Placement with Best Manufacturability Cost : 0 : manufacturability cost 29

  30. Placement with Best Manufacturability Cost : 0 : manufacturability cost Every placement corresponds to a Hamiltonian path

  31. Minimum Cost Hamiltonian Path Problem • The placement with best manufacturability cost  the minimum cost Hamiltonian Path • No wirelength constraint • Well-known NP-hard problem • Closest point heuristic is used

  32. Handle Wirelength Constraint • Start from best manufacturability solution • Gradually adjust it to satisfy wirelength constraint Best Manufacturability A B C D E Best Wire B A E D C • Reduce crossings: fewer crossings  closer to best wire solution  possible to satisfy the wirelength constraint

  33. Handle Wirelength Constraint • Start from best manufacturability solution • Gradually adjust it to satisfy wirelength constraint Best Manufacturability A B C D E Best Wire B A E D C

  34. Handle Wirelength Constraint • Start from best manufacturability solution • Gradually adjust it to satisfy wirelength constraint A B E D C Best Wire B A E D C • Able to get the solution with good manufacturability cost satisfying the wirelength constraint

  35. Multiple Row Based Optimization • Motivation • A net often spans adjacent rows • Moving cells in different rows simultaneously may reduce wirelength • Some previously “infeasible” manufacturability-driven placement may become “feasible”. More options. • Feasible: satisfy wirelength constraint • Improved manufacturability cost

  36. Experiments • Experiment Setup • ISCAS’ 89 (>10K cells in a circuit) and ISPD’ 04 benchmark (>200K cells in a circuit) • 130nm technology • SPLAT for lithography simulation • 1% wire length increase bound • Lookup table size: <1M • Lookup table access time: <0.1ɥs per entry • A Pentium 4 machine with a 3.0GHz CPU 2G memory

  37. ISCAS’89: EPE reduction %

  38. ISCAS’89: Wirelength Increase %

  39. ISCAS’89: Runtime (seconds)

  40. Observations • Cell Flipping: • 9% EPE reduction • 0.17% additional wire • Fastest • Single Row Optimization: • 14.6% EPE reduction • 0.35% additional wire • 2x slower compared to Cell Flipping • Multiple Row Optimization • 22% EPE reduction • 0.57% additional wire • 4x slower compared to Cell Flipping

  41. ISPD’04: EPE Reduction % 41

  42. ISPD’04: Wirelength Increase % Percentage 42

  43. ISPD’04: CPU (s) 43

  44. Observations Cell Flipping: 11% EPE reduction 0.16% additional wire Very fast Single Row Optimization: 18% EPE reduction 0.29% additional wire 50% slower Multiple Row Optimization: 25% EPE reduction 0.41% additional wire 2x slower 44

  45. Conclusion • Propose three algorithms for pattern sensitive placement for manufacturability: • Cell Flipping only • Single Row Optimization • Multiple Row Optimization • >20% edge placement error reduction. • <1% wire length overhead. • Runtime acceptable for large placement benchmark.

  46. Thanks

More Related