1 / 25

Subthreshold Logic Energy Minimization with Application-Driven Performance

Subthreshold Logic Energy Minimization with Application-Driven Performance. EE241 Final Project Will Biederman Dan Yeager. Outline. Motivation and Introduction Problem Analysis Prior Work Proposed Solution Design Procedure Minimum Energy Tracking Loop Results. Motivation.

Download Presentation

Subthreshold Logic Energy Minimization with Application-Driven Performance

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. Subthreshold Logic Energy Minimization with Application-Driven Performance EE241 Final Project Will Biederman Dan Yeager

  2. Outline • Motivation and Introduction • Problem Analysis • Prior Work • Proposed Solution • Design Procedure • Minimum Energy Tracking Loop • Results

  3. Motivation • Emerging Markets: Wireless Sensors • Shipment tracking, biomedical electronics, environmental monitoring • Fixed Computation -> Minimize E/op • 10-year life applications (100k hrs) AAA Battery • > ~ 10 uA * Vdd

  4. Introduction: Conventional MEP • Lowering E/op • Lower VDD! How Far? • Minimum Energy Point may not provide sufficient performance

  5. Problem Analysis: Fop Set by MEP • Fop set by MEP (VDD) • Fop can change with environment conditions (T) • MEP doesn’t track with throughput demands • Wasted power during sleep or low computation

  6. Problem Analysis: σVth • Variation in Vth • LER & RDF • Economics motivate continued technology scaling • ( Moore’s Law!! )

  7. Prior Work: Adaptive Fop • Correlated Path Delay - Temp/Process - Critical path exceeds Tclk • Replica circuits can be used to compensate • ABB • AVS • These circuits cannot adapt to uncorrelated Vth variations from LER and RDF!

  8. Prior Work: Dealing with σVth • σVth due to LER/ RDF • Spatially Uncorrelated • Upsizing- C increases • Pipeline Depth- α decrease) • Increase technology node (C increase & Moore’s Law)

  9. Proposed Solution • Compensate for correlated temperature and process variation with an analog VTH sensor • Compensate for uncorrelated delay variation with timing error detection -> How do we optimize device sizing and pipeline depth in this regime?

  10. Energy Optimization • Delay is stochastic:

  11. Energy Optimization • Energy is also stochastic:

  12. Energy Optimization • Its all pretty messy… how do we optimize? • Yield • Pick a target yield -> sets conf, (# of sigma) • Allocate half of the yield to timing and half to energy • YTotal = √(YEnergy + Ytiming) • Design • MATLAB model to find optimal design parameters • Choose Vdd_opt, Vth_opt, n (pipeline logic depth), etc. • Power On • Our tracking loop ensures that all chips meet the timing constraint, but at the expense of energy • We can quickly pass / fail chips based on the supply voltage set by the tracking loop

  13. Energy Tracking Loop

  14. ABB (Adaptive Body Bias) • Optimal Vdd, Vth at some process node, freq is constant Optimal Body Bias at FF Corner Optimal Body Bias at SS Corner • Optimal body bias keeps Vth constant

  15. Idea: Try to keep Vth constant Vdd Vdd/2 - bias sense + vbp Charge Pump vbn Charge Pump

  16. Body Bias Correction Works! Process Corner Body Bias Voltage Temperature

  17. DVS (Dynamic Voltage Scaling)

  18. Tracking Loop Results – No ABB VDD = 300mV ERROR Pipeline In/Out Timing: VDD = 175mV ERROR Pipeline In/Out Timing:

  19. Tracking Loop Results – With ABB VDD = 225mV ERROR Pipeline In/Out Timing:

  20. Conclusion • Maximum energy efficiency -> subthreshold operation -> serious variability problems • Correlated (P,T) vs. uncorrelated (RDF) variations • ex situ (replica) vs. in situ (timing detection) • ABB and DVS can effectively provide optimal region of operation

  21. References

  22. Backup

  23. Razor II Flip Flop Schematic

  24. Razor II Timing

  25. Energy Optimization • We are concerned with the longest of p critical paths:

More Related