Skip to content

M
macroplacement
Commit 651a3662 by sakundu
Options

Updated our progress. 

Signed-off-by: sakundu <sakundu@ucsd.edu>
parent 2dae4729
Showing with 360 additions and 5 deletions
Docs/OurProgress/README.md
......@@ -1200,16 +1200,16 @@ The following table and screenshots show results for (max_x, max_y), where max_x
<a id="Question3"></a>
**<span style="color:blue">Question 3.</span>** Is a testcase such as Ariane-133 “probative”, or do we need better testcases?
*A preliminary exercise has examined Innovus P&R outcomes when the Circuit Training macro placement locations for Our Ariane133-NanGate45_68 are **randomly shuffled**. The results for four seed values used in the shuffle, and for the original Circuit Training result, are as follows.*
*A preliminary exercise has examined Innovus P&R outcomes when the Circuit Training macro placement locations for Our Ariane133-NanGate45_68 are **randomly shuffled**. The results for four seed values used in the shuffle, and for the original Circuit Training result, are as follows.* (We have extended this experiment [here](#Question3ext).)
<table>
<thead>
<tr>
<th>Metric</th>
<th>CT_Shuffle_1</th>
<th>CT_Shuffle_2</th>
<th>CT_Shuffle_3</th>
<th>CT_Shuffle_4</th>
<th>Shuffle-1</th>
<th>Shuffle-2</th>
<th>Shuffle-3</th>
<th>Shuffle-4</th>
<th>CT_Result</th>
</tr>
</thead>
......@@ -1857,6 +1857,7 @@ The following table and screenshots show the CT result.
</p>
**September 18:**
<a id="September18"></a>
- To address [Question 8](#Question8), we have performed a sweep of target clock period (TCP) constraint for Ariane133-68 in NG45. Experiments above were performed with a loose TCP of 4.0ns. According to our studies, the “hockey stick” ends at a TCP of 1.3ns, so we have generated netlists and run CT for TCP values of 1.3ns and 1.5ns. The results are shown below (post-physical synthesis summary results with TCP values of 4.0ns, 1.5ns, 1.3ns; CT + Innovus P&R results for 1.5ns, 1.3ns). We see that the wirelength numbers are worse for CT results compared to the CMP result, but the timing numbers for CT are better than CMP.
- The following table shows the post-physical synthesis results of Ariane133-68-NG45 for different TCPs when the macro placement is generated using CMP.
......@@ -4212,6 +4213,7 @@ We have trained CT to generate a macro placement for the [MemPool Group design](
**November 25:**
<a id="November25"></a>
We have run CT to generate macro placement for Ariane133, BlackParrot and MemPool Group designs on GLOBALFOUNDRIES 12nm (GF12) enablement. The following tables present the normalized design metrics. Core area, standard cell area and macro area are normalized with respect to the core area. Total power is normalized w.r.t. the reported preCTS total power when CMP is used. Similarly, we normalize the wirelength and congestion based on the reported preCTS wirelength and congestion when CMP is used. The timing numbers are normalized w.r.t. the target clock period.
- The following table and screenshots provide details of Ariane133 GF12 implementation when CMP is used to generate the initial macro placement.
......@@ -4670,6 +4672,359 @@ We have run CT to generate macro placement for Ariane133, BlackParrot and MemPoo
<img width="300" src="./images/MemPool_Group_GF12_CT_Route.png" alg="MemPool_Group_GF12_CT_Route">
</p>
**November 27:**
<a id="Question3ext"></a>
We have extended the experiment of [Question 3](#Question3) to check the quality of our testcases. As mentioned earlier, we take the CT generated macro placement and then randomly swap the same size macros. While swapping the macros we update macro orientation based on the swapped macro orientation. The following sections provide the details of macro shuffling experiments for different testcases.
- **Ariane:**
The target clock period of the shuffling experiment for Ariane133-NG45-68% shown [here](#Question3) is 4ns, which is very relaxed (See [here](#September18) for clock period sweep results). So we ran the same macro shuffling experiment for a tighter target clock period 1.3ns. The following table shows the preCTS / postPlaceOpt and postRouteOpt metrics. We shuffled the macros using six different seeds where seed values are 111, 222, 333, 444, 555 and 666.
<table>
<thead>
<tr>
<th colspan="8"><p align="center">Ariane133-NG45-68%-1.3ns</p></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Metrics</td>
<td>CT</td>
<td>Shuffle-111</td>
<td>Shuffle-222</td>
<td>Shuffle-333</td>
<td>Shuffle-444</td>
<td>Shuffle-555</td>
<td>Shuffle-666</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Core_area (um^2)</td>
<td>1814274</td>
<td>1814274</td>
<td>1814274</td>
<td>1814274</td>
<td>1814274</td>
<td>1814274</td>
<td>1814274</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Macro_area (um^2)</td>
<td>1018356</td>
<td>1018356</td>
<td>1018356</td>
<td>1018356</td>
<td>1018356</td>
<td>1018356</td>
<td>1018356</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>preCTS_std_cell_area (um^2)</td>
<td>243264</td>
<td>246309</td>
<td>243426</td>
<td>246181</td>
<td>247134</td>
<td>243731</td>
<td>246412</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>postRouteOpt_std_cell_area (um^2)</td>
<td>244002</td>
<td>250080</td>
<td>246325</td>
<td>249506</td>
<td>249494</td>
<td>246242</td>
<td>247918</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>preCTS_total_power (mw)</td>
<td>789.871</td>
<td>802.369</td>
<td>796.562</td>
<td>803.034</td>
<td>801.677</td>
<td>794.323</td>
<td>802.673</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>postRouteOpt_total_power (mw)</td>
<td>828.747</td>
<td>845.726</td>
<td>836.735</td>
<td>844.61</td>
<td>843.227</td>
<td>837.434</td>
<td>838.833</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>preCTS_wirelength (um)</td>
<td>4727728</td>
<td>5515599</td>
<td>5547501</td>
<td>5489654</td>
<td>5508653</td>
<td>5448399</td>
<td>5549232</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>postRouteOpt_wirelength (um)</td>
<td>4893776</td>
<td>5690000</td>
<td>5712986</td>
<td>5667587</td>
<td>5687840</td>
<td>5628320</td>
<td>5724530</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>preCTS_WS (ns)</td>
<td>-0.091</td>
<td>-0.112</td>
<td>-0.109</td>
<td>-0.141</td>
<td>-0.144</td>
<td>-0.095</td>
<td>-0.151</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>postRouteOpt_WS (ns)</td>
<td>-0.079</td>
<td>-0.091</td>
<td>-0.099</td>
<td>-0.106</td>
<td>-0.157</td>
<td>-0.048</td>
<td>-0.108</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>preCTS_TNS (ns)</td>
<td>-110.373</td>
<td>-136.145</td>
<td>-136.781</td>
<td>-197.545</td>
<td>-196.557</td>
<td>-96.462</td>
<td>-210.187</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>postRouteOpt_TNS (ns)</td>
<td>-25.762</td>
<td>-66.855</td>
<td>-86.119</td>
<td>-81.177</td>
<td>-159.035</td>
<td>-16.386</td>
<td>-75.133</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>preCTS_Congestion (H)</td>
<td>0.03%</td>
<td>0.04%</td>
<td>0.05%</td>
<td>0.05%</td>
<td>0.04%</td>
<td>0.04%</td>
<td>0.05%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>preCTS_Congestion (V)</td>
<td>0.12%</td>
<td>0.12%</td>
<td>0.15%</td>
<td>0.12%</td>
<td>0.12%</td>
<td>0.10%</td>
<td>0.10%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Runtime (second)</td>
<td>3451</td>
<td>3786</td>
<td>3427</td>
<td>3591</td>
<td>3748</td>
<td>3851</td>
<td>3994</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
- **BlackParrot (Quad-Core):**
We have done similar macro shuffling experiment for BlackParrot (Quad-Core) design. The following table shows the preCTS / postPlaceOpt and postRouteOpt metrics. We shuffled the macros using six different seeds where seed values are 111, 222, 333, 444, 555 and 666.
<table>
<thead>
<tr>
<th colspan="8"><p align="center">BlackParrot (Quad-Core)-NG45-68%-1.3ns (bp_clk)</p></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Metrics</td>
<td>CT</td>
<td>Shuffle-111</td>
<td>Shuffle-222</td>
<td>Shuffle-333</td>
<td>Shuffle-444</td>
<td>Shuffle-555</td>
<td>Shuffle-666</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>core_area (um^2)</td>
<td>8449457</td>
<td>8449457</td>
<td>8449457</td>
<td>8449457</td>
<td>8449457</td>
<td>8449457</td>
<td>8449457</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>macro_area (um^2)</td>
<td>3917822</td>
<td>3917822</td>
<td>3917822</td>
<td>3917822</td>
<td>3917822</td>
<td>3917822</td>
<td>3917822</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>preCTS_std_cell_area (um^2)</td>
<td>1954954</td>
<td>1985365</td>
<td>1986378</td>
<td>1985226</td>
<td>1984435</td>
<td>1988719</td>
<td>1991871</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>postRouteOpt_std_cell_area (um^2)</td>
<td>1978731</td>
<td>2008143</td>
<td>2037502</td>
<td>2033273</td>
<td>2014517</td>
<td>2027724</td>
<td>2016049</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>preCTS_total_power (mw)</td>
<td>4329.795</td>
<td>4604.961</td>
<td>4619.481</td>
<td>4608.242</td>
<td>4591.569</td>
<td>4632.783</td>
<td>4620.598</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>postRouteOpt_total_power (mw)</td>
<td>4685.509</td>
<td>4959.629</td>
<td>5004.988</td>
<td>4998.899</td>
<td>4959.435</td>
<td>5005.635</td>
<td>4977.157</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>preCTS_wirelength (um)</td>
<td>39101445</td>
<td>51131110</td>
<td>51444279</td>
<td>52030185</td>
<td>52035717</td>
<td>53176682</td>
<td>51997133</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>postRouteOpt_wirelength (um)</td>
<td>40467467</td>
<td>53098209</td>
<td>53425737</td>
<td>54070974</td>
<td>54030437</td>
<td>55365255</td>
<td>54171082</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>preCTS_WS (ns)</td>
<td>-0.220</td>
<td>-0.228</td>
<td>-0.193</td>
<td>-0.205</td>
<td>-0.199</td>
<td>-0.217</td>
<td>-0.222</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>postRouteOpt_WS (ns)</td>
<td>-0.260</td>
<td>-0.179</td>
<td>-0.305</td>
<td>-0.342</td>
<td>-0.211</td>
<td>-0.289</td>
<td>-0.251</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>preCTS_TNS (ns)</td>
<td>-1385.900</td>
<td>-1105.900</td>
<td>-826.103</td>
<td>-912.903</td>
<td>-1116.400</td>
<td>-944.540</td>
<td>-1065.400</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>postRouteOpt_TNS (ns)</td>
<td>-3657.000</td>
<td>-835.927</td>
<td>-6542.400</td>
<td>-8738.100</td>
<td>-1816.000</td>
<td>-3548.600</td>
<td>-1322.200</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>preCTS_Congestion (H)</td>
<td>0.21%</td>
<td>0.52%</td>
<td>0.71%</td>
<td>0.64%</td>
<td>0.62%</td>
<td>0.53%</td>
<td>0.66%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>preCTS_Congestion (V)</td>
<td>0.29%</td>
<td>0.54%</td>
<td>0.44%</td>
<td>0.50%</td>
<td>0.45%</td>
<td>0.68%</td>
<td>0.57%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Runtime (second)</td>
<td>22367</td>
<td>26089</td>
<td>25940</td>
<td>25293</td>
<td>24745</td>
<td>32431</td>
<td>31591</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
- **MemPool Group:**
We have tried to do similar macro shuffling experiment for MemPool Group, but non of our run completed.
## **Pinned (to bottom) question list:**
**<span style="color:blue">[Question 1](#Question1).</span>** How does having an initial set of placement locations (from physical synthesis) affect the (relative) quality of the CT result?
......
Markdown is supported
0% or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment