1 / 11

C.A.D. Intellectual Agenda

C.A.D. Intellectual Agenda. Roadmapping: “Living Roadmap” to connect applications, architectures, components, technologies Design envelopes; Impacts of innovations; FCRP portfolio gaps Synergies: Drivers, Power-Energy, Reliability, C2S2 Fabrics, MSD, IFC

doyle
Download Presentation

C.A.D. Intellectual Agenda

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. C.A.D. Intellectual Agenda • Roadmapping: “Living Roadmap” to connect applications, architectures, components, technologies • Design envelopes; Impacts of innovations; FCRP portfolio gaps • Synergies: Drivers, Power-Energy, Reliability, C2S2 Fabrics, MSD, IFC • Focus on SiP physical implementation platforms (CLC, SOS) • Huge hole in FCRP understanding • Need technology and cost modeling, tools, implementation, roadmapping • Concrete high-end design driver (initially, CLC SiP driver highlighting logic-DRAM integration, DARPA MSP (Boeing STAP)) • Interfaces and standards (“infrastructure”) for design process • Internal to flows and methodologies • External: down (manufacturing variability models, mask flow handoff, cluster tool abstractions, … ) or up (IO cells, signaling standards, logic, system-level, …) • Measurement and quantification of design quality, design productivity

  2. Concrete Outcomes • Task 1: Living Roadmap (from applications through ITRS technologies) • Cost-aware • Gaps  research + tool needs • Manufacturing handoff, die-package interface, variability, global signaling, synchronization, power delivery, robustness, … • GTX grows into a system-level analysis tool that is validated with design drivers • Task 2A: Develop SiP implementation platforms • Platform-specific tools and roadmapping • Task 2B: High-End (“Radar on a Chip”) Driver • Demonstration vehicle for overall GSRC methodology and CLC SiP-specific tools • Driver scaling + extrapolation • Integration paths for GSRC’s and other design methodologies • Task 3: Design process infrastructure • Design data models and interfaces  current enablers, future standards • Reusable, composable solvers  rapid flow synthesis/optimization • Concrete realizations of GSRC and other methodologies • with metrics and automated evaluators (bX)

  3. Working Sessions • Goals • Drivers: Which ones? How they unify GSRC activities? Key research gaps? Roadmaps of functional requirements, technology showstoppers • Roadmapping: PED and Reliability • Design Infrastructure: OpenAccess data model and extensions; mini-flows and benchmarking (placement focus) • Today 10:30 – noon (joint with PED and Reliability) • CLC SIP and MSP, Radar-on-Chip Driver (Dai) • PicoRadio (PicoNode) Driver (Rabaey) • Today 1:00 – 2:30 pm • Home Gateway Driver (Kulkarni, Keutzer, Hwu) – brainstorming session • Today 3:00 – 4:00 pm • Roles of Drivers in new GSRC

  4. Driver Discussions • Which ones? • How do they unify GSRC activities? • Key research gaps? • Roadmaps of functional requirements, technology showstoppers • Today 10:30 – noon (joint with PED and Reliability) • CLC SIP and MSP, Radar-on-Chip Driver (Dai) • PicoRadio (PicoNode) Driver (Rabaey) • MicroLab (alternative space) (Gupta) • Today 1:00 – 2:30 pm • Home Gateway Driver (Kulkarni, Keutzer, Hwu) – brainstorming session • Today 3:00 – 4:00 pm • Roles of Drivers in new GSRC

  5. Driver Discussions • A DRIVER IS: • A concrete design for a specific application • (Lots of $, very few papers  ) • WHAT (D&T) PROBLEM IS THE DRIVER TRYING TO GET US TO SOLVE? • Continuation of the Moore’s Law for COST • Scalability of design or its infrastructure • Conceptualization (modeling, representation, validation) of systems • Unreliability and Unpredictability at component level • (Validation should be on this list, but how exactly are the drivers such as Radar-On-Chip driving validation?) • (Should Power be a first-class citizen?) • (N.B.: “Mixed-*” is mostly implicit in Conceptualization) • WHAT ARE DELIVERABLES ASSOCIATED WITH A DRIVER? • Design data (spec, arch, netlist, implementation, simulation, verification) and hardware • Tools

  6. Driver Discussions • Axes for Drivers: • Metrics: heterogeneity, performance, power, size, reliability/RAS, cost • Impact: intrinsic value, interest (DARPA? HP/IBM/? Or Bechtel/PGE/?), technology leading edge • Synergy: semiconductor technologies, bridges within GSRC, package, system • System-Level vs. Fabric/Block Level • Application-level vs. implementation-level challenges • Bottom-up super-components (= top-down subsystems) that enable system: are these created by GSRC or C2S2? • Candidates • Batteryless • Ambient embedded networked sensing (= proxy for “next-gen”) • PicoNode, LabOnChip, MICA, SmartDust • High-performance computing • SIP / stacking: Radar On Chip: STAP DSP + Memory integration, CLC-SIP physical platform • General-purpose computing (500 5GHz MIPS cores on chip) • Utility computing (data center

  7. Driver Discussions • Drivers + Infrastructure = third dimension • Are we picking drivers as a minimum-size cover, or are we picking drivers as “impactful”? Need to bound the goals, scope, … of this discussion • Communication-based, soft systems • DFX: Test, Verification, Power, Reliability, … • Other • Logistics • Leveraging (“how we do it now”), not building (rather, “hypothesis testing”) • Common access • Need a driver taxonomy + metrics: access/interfacing, heterogeneity, etc. • Links: OpenGIS.org, Security (SEC Disaster Recovery + Business Continuance), Recover-Oriented Computing, … • Home Gateway: How does drive VLSI and IC design? • What criticality is being overcome by spending $$$ on this driver?

  8. PD Open Problems (Payman and Amir) • Incremental • Combined Placement and Floorplanning • <Clustering cells; Floorplanning clusters+blocks; Placing cells> locks solution into a bad subspace • Timing is a constraint (not an objective); WL is an objective • Problem = lack of understanding of interrelationships between different objectives, e.g., timing, area (fixed-die) and congestion • N.B.: WL may not really be an objective: it is a proxy for congestion (area) • Issue of capturing timing in top-down partitioning-based placement (partitioning is net-based; timing is path-based) • How is SI solved at placement? • IR drop placement? IR drop has impact on timing and reliability and hence important • Variability-aware placement?

  9. PD Open Problems (Payman and Amir) • Thermal placement (not just dynamic power minimization) • Given activities of all gates, find a placement to minimize a linear combination of dynamic power and maximum thermal variation • Hierarchy? • Probably moving to • Datapath-based (timing-constrained) placement • People have tried but have not achieved notably better results • 2 literature from late 1980’s: Ebeling et al. subgraph isomorphism, Odawara/Szymanski/Nijssen-Jess/Varadarajan-Arikati on regularity extraction

  10. PD Open Problems (Payman and Amir) • Power implications (voltage islands) • Chuck also mentions this • Clock gating • Multi-Vdd islands: granularity of several hundred cells (?) – 1-2 rows min in V, stripe pitch min in H • Ground islands (shutdown of blocks keeping memory partially powered up) • Cf. Amir’s work at Northwestern ~1995 • Placement for BIST (check with Tim Cheng et al.) • Signal Integrity Issues (crosstalk handling at floorplan and placement) • Clock distribution • Suggestion: Single-width, single-pitch cell layout, synthesis, place and route flow: WOULD BE HEROES !!! (PhasePhirst!, SCAAM, etc. == next-generation lithography proposals, all of which depend on “hyper-resolution” (“2-beam imaging”)  basically, only one direction and one pitch will print (the layout is a subset of a grating). Goal: C.A.D. people should prove a one-time, bounded hit on Moore’s Law (e.g., 30% density) but then scalability of SP&R thereafter. • X, Y Architectures March 5th EE Design ? • Design for Variability • Backend Process Optimization • Complex objective: marketing, methodology, integration • Marketing: BEOL should be optimized for many designs (derivatives, etc.) – range of size, frequency, etc. • Methodology: Crosstalk, IR drop, routing density, etc. • Statistical information : %WL per layer, %designs having X #gates, Y MHz, • Integration: cost of fabrication (e.g., AR limits, low metal-layer count, #layers, thickness (mfg throughput, pitch LBs from AR limits, …))

  11. Working Sessions • Friday parallel session #1: Roadmapping • 9:00 – 11:00am (joint with PED and Reliability) • Background (Energy, Reliability, Variability) • Panel: PED Roadmapping Needs and Research Gaps • 11:00am – noon • Roadmapping of Process Variability, Cost Optimizations • Friday parallel session #2: Infrastructure, Benchmarking • 9:00 – 10:00am • BX and Benchmarking Status • 10:00am – 11:00am • Placement-Centered Directions (Mini-Flows, New Problems) • 11:00am – noon • Concrete steps with OpenAccess • Friday 1:30 – 2:30pm • Discussion of C.A.D. Roles in the “New GSRC”: collaborations, projects, milestones

More Related