140 likes | 302 Views
Paper Report. Specification-based Compaction of Directed Tests for Functional Validation of Pipelined Processors. Heon-Mo Koo Intel Corporation, 1900 Prairie City Road Folsom, CA 95630, USA Prabhat Mishra
E N D
Paper Report Specification-based Compaction of Directed Tests for Functional Validation of Pipelined Processors Heon-Mo Koo Intel Corporation, 1900 Prairie City Road Folsom, CA 95630, USA PrabhatMishra Computer & Information Science & Engineering ,University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA CODES+ISSS '08 Proceedings of the 6th IEEE/ACM/IFIP international conference on Hardware/Software codesign and system synthesis Presenter: Jyun-Yan Li
Abstract • Functional validation is a major bottleneck in microprocessor design methodology. Simulation is the widely used method for functional validation using billions of random and biased-random test programs. Although directed tests require a smaller test set compared to random tests to achieve the same functional coverage goal, there is a lack of automated techniques for directed test generation. Furthermore, the number of directed tests can still be prohibitively large. • This paper presents a methodology for specification-based coverage analysis and test generation. The primary contribution of this paper is a compaction technique that can drastically reduce the required number of directed test programs to achieve a coverage goal. Our experimental results using a MIPS processor and an industrial processor (e500) demonstrate more than 90% reduction in number of directed tests without sacrificing the functional coverage goal.
What is the Problem Random and biased-random test program generation is widely used • Simulation-based validation in the design cycle • Directed test generation has shorter tests in the same coverage Directed test still large • Multiple pipeline interactions reaches the target functional • Test generation after compact • This paper present FSM directed test generation
Related work FSM model [2, 20] Complex FSM models, state explosion problem Static Test compaction Architecture Description Language (ADL) [12] Model checker [10, 11] Remove unreachable & redundant state Abstraction FSM model [3, 8, 13,15, 17] Produce test program Generated from the abstract FSM Reduce unnecessary state Define processor’s functionalities Specification-based Compaction of Directed Tests for Functional Validation of Pipelined Processors This paper:
Proposal method outline • FSM modeling of pipelined processor • Remove unreachable states • Remove illegal transitions • Remove redundancy state • Test generation
Pipeline processor FSM model • Modeling of FSM state • Total number of state = • Modeling of FSM transition N bits Processor’s state Sk: SS2 SS1 SSU stall stall
Compaction of FSM model • Identifying unreachable states • Pass instruction to either EX1 or EX2 • State: xx0100xx or xx0001xx ,not xx0101xx EX1 ID EX2 EX2 EX1
Identifying illegal stage transitions • Table 1 • State: xx0001xx -> xx0101xx , not xx0001xx • Table 2 • State: xx01xx -> xx00xx or xx01xx or xx11xx , not xx10xx • Table 3 • State: xx11xxxx -> xx0000xx ID EXE ID EXE normal normal ID normal normal ID EXE idle exception idle ID EXE
Identify redundancy • Inevitable state • Only one state in the next state list • Example • State: xx11xx -> xx00xx • No need state : xx01xx, xx10xx MEM exception idle
Test generation • Coverage-driven test selection • StateCovered flag • Initial = 0 • TransitionCovered flag • Initial = 0 ID SC idle =0 … SC oper =0 … stall SC =0 =1 IF ps TC =0 =1 IALU ns TC =0 …
Directed test generation [10] • Multi-exception at clock cycle 7 • overflow exception in IALU • divide by zero exception in DIV • memory exception in the MEM Input source Original property Negated property Test program Decomposed into 3 sub-properties
Experimental result of MIPS • 17 function units • WB: 2 states • IALU, DIV: 4 states • Else: 3 states • Total possible states = • Test compaction results for MIPS processor Remove unreachable state Remove illegal state & redundancy
Conclusion • Functional test compaction technique to reduce test program and achieve functional coverage • 3 methods for compaction • Identifying unreachable states • Identifying illegal stage transitions • Identifying inevitable state • My comment • A idea for functional verification by the state FSM • How to select test program to achieve 100% state and transition coverage
Function coverage • State coverage • Visit every state • m units, r states, total states • Transition coverage • Visit every transition • N states, maximum state transitions