Unverified Commit 79206158 by abk-tilos Committed by GitHub

Update README.md

parent f7a49c6e
...@@ -4678,6 +4678,14 @@ We have run CT to generate macro placement for Ariane133, BlackParrot and MemPoo ...@@ -4678,6 +4678,14 @@ 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"> <img width="300" src="./images/MemPool_Group_GF12_CT_Route.png" alg="MemPool_Group_GF12_CT_Route">
</p> </p>
**An Observation regarding "Pure Commercial Flow".**
<a id="PureCommercialFlow"></a>
The [Evaluation Flow document](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xDGFSYxIE0AKsGAI3ccLz1EX3bLHOvDtwl3983G5kYk/edit?usp=sharing) also sheds light on the relative
strength of a "Pure Commercial Flow", as follows. CT uses the placement information generated by physical synthesis (Genus iSpatial). Observe that if we go straight into Evaluation Flow 1 from physical synthesis (without running CT), this will produce a "pure commercial flow" (i.e., CMP) outcome without any use of
Circuit Training. From the data in [Evaluation Flow document](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xDGFSYxIE0AKsGAI3ccLz1EX3bLHOvDtwl3983G5kYk/edit?usp=sharing),
we see that with the "pure commercial flow", CMP macro placements produce similar timing and power numbers compared to CT macro placements. However, the postRouteOpt wirelength of CT macro placements is at least 18% larger than the postRouteOpt wirelength of CMP macro placements.
Please note that we report this data as part of our study of Circuit Training. It is not intended to "benchmark" any commercial EDA tool, and the data should not be interpreted as providing any sort of "benchmarking" comparison.
**November 27:** **November 27:**
<a id="Question3ext"></a> <a id="Question3ext"></a>
We have extended the experiment of [Question 3](#Question3) to assess the difficulty of our testcases. As mentioned [here](#Question3), we take the CT-generated macro placement and then randomly swap the same-size macros. We use the [shuffle_macro.tcl](https://github.com/TILOS-AI-Institute/MacroPlacement/blob/651a36626dd778018c5cf867b419e44f64fb103e/Flows/util/shuffle_macro.tcl#L29) script for this experiment. The following items provide details of the macro shuffling experiments for different testcases. We have extended the experiment of [Question 3](#Question3) to assess the difficulty of our testcases. As mentioned [here](#Question3), we take the CT-generated macro placement and then randomly swap the same-size macros. We use the [shuffle_macro.tcl](https://github.com/TILOS-AI-Institute/MacroPlacement/blob/651a36626dd778018c5cf867b419e44f64fb103e/Flows/util/shuffle_macro.tcl#L29) script for this experiment. The following items provide details of the macro shuffling experiments for different testcases.
......
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