ics
play

ICs Heechun Park, Bon Woong Ku, Kyungwook Chang, Da Eun Shim, and - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Nov 04, 2023 •235 likes •422 views

Pseudo-3D Approaches for Commercial-Grade RTL-to-GDS Tool Flow Targeting Monolithic 3D ICs Heechun Park, Bon Woong Ku, Kyungwook Chang, Da Eun Shim, and Sung Kyu Lim School of Electrical and Computer Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology

  1. Pseudo-3D Approaches for Commercial-Grade RTL-to-GDS Tool Flow Targeting Monolithic 3D ICs Heechun Park, Bon Woong Ku, Kyungwook Chang, Da Eun Shim, and Sung Kyu Lim School of Electrical and Computer Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology

  2. Monolithic 3D IC (M3D IC) 2 • Massive vertical interconnects – Nanoscale Monolithic inter-tier via (MIV) – Free from huge load from through-silicon-via (TSV) • Electronic design automation (EDA) flow is required – Full benefit from 3D structure 2D Product Monolithic 3D TSV-based 3D

  3. M3D IC Design Flow - Placement 3 • True-3D placer – Fundamental 3D solution – Extend 2D analytic placer to 3D • (x,y) → (x,y,z), z: tier assignment – NOT ready for commercial adoption • Not compatible to industrial RTL-to-GDS flow • Only reports HPWL – Low quality • Pseudo-3D placer True-3D Pseudo-3D (Force-3D) (Shrunk-2D) – Utilize 2D CAD engines WL (m) 1.495 1.212 -18.93% AES-128 WNS (ns) -0.077 -0.66 • Focus on seamless application to 3D design (3.4GHz) Pwr. (mW) 274.16 268.00 -2.24% – Fully compatible to industrial flow WL (m) 2.132 1.226 -42.50% LDPC • GDS-based results (PPA reports) WNS (ns) -0.195 -0.086 (1.2GHz) Pwr. (mW) 139.31 81.91 -41.20% – Commercial-grade quality

  4. Contributions 4 • Detailed discussion of state-of-the-art pseudo-3D design flows – Cascade- 2D [ICCAD’16] – Shrunk- 2D [ISLPED’14, TCAD’17] – Compact- 2D [ISPD’18, TCAD’20(early access)] • Thorough comparison of pseudo-3D design flows – Qualitative – Quantitative (power-performance-area (PPA)) • Limitation analysis and enhancements – Cascade-2D: Placement-aware MIV planning – Shrunk-2D & Compact-2D: Partitioning-first adoption

  5. State-of-the-art Pseudo-3D: Cascade-2D 5 • Partitioning-first – Tier partitioning (z) → 2D placement (x,y) Top – More design freedom Anchor cells Dummy wires • MIV = 2 anchor cells + dummy wire Bottom MIV planning ▲ • Simultaneous timing closure – Both tiers are in a same design space • 1:2 plane – Cut-and-slide for 3D IC Cascade-2D design flow ►

  6. State-of-the-art Pseudo-3D: Shrunk-2D 6 3D placement ► • Partitioning-last – 2D placement (x,y) → Tier partitioning (z) – Less design freedom • Utilize 2D engine with shrunk cells – ‘Projected’ 2D placement • Placement-aware tier partitioning – Bin-based FM min- cut [DAC’82] algorithm Shrunk-2D design flow ▲

  7. State-of-the-art Pseudo-3D: Compact-2D 7 • Partitioning-last – 2D placement (x,y) → Tier partitioning (z) • RC derating to mimic small footprint – Do NOT shrink cell → allowed in small tech. 3D placement ▲ • Ex. 7nm → 5nm Shrunk-2D is impossible ➔ 7nm Compact-2D is possible • Placement-aware tier partitioning – Bin-based FM min- cut [DAC’82] algorithm Compact-2D design flow ▲

  8. Comparison: Qualitative (1) 8 Cascade-2D Shrunk-2D Compact-2D Middle Middle Tier partitioning Beginning (after 2D placement) (after 2D placement) + Anchor cells + Shrunk std. cells RC factor Technology file fix + Dummy metals + Shrunk metals (easy) (easy) (hard) Expected 3D floorplan Treat macro blocks? Yes Partially yes Partially yes Timing closure Simultaneous Per-tier Per-tier Core util. 70% • Macro blocks Core util. 70% Core util. – Cascade-2D: Fully cared 70% – Shrunk-2D: Partial blockages Top Bottom 0% – Compact-2D: Partial blockages 35% 70% 0% Core util. 0% 70% 0% 0% Compact-2D Cascade-2D Shrunk-2D

  9. Comparison: Qualitative (2) 9 Cascade-2D Shrunk-2D Compact-2D Middle Middle Tier partitioning Beginning (after 2D placement) (after 2D placement) + Anchor cells + Shrunk std. cells RC factor Technology file fix + Dummy metals + Shrunk metals (easy) (easy) (hard) Treat macro blocks? Yes Partially yes Partially yes Timing closure Simultaneous Per-tier Per-tier • Timing closure Top Top – Cascade-2D: Simultaneously top.sdc Bottom Per-tier bottom.sdc • Less WNS Bottom – Shrunk-2D: Tier-by-tier Merge Simultaneous – Compact-2D: Tier-by-tier Load cap. changed Top Top Bottom Bottom Driving cell changed

  10. Comparison: Quantitative (1) 10 • PPA comparison: Cascade-2D vs. Shrunk-2D vs. Compact-2D – Gate-level designs (OpenCores benchmark suite) • Cascade-2D – Small #MIV → long WL (detour) – Better timing (less WNS) – Worse power (long WL) 2D Cascade-2D Shrunk-2D Compact-2D • Shrunk-2D & Compact-2D #MIV 0 429 39521 39772 – Large #MIV → short WL WL (m) 1.444 1.637 +13.37% 1.212 -16.09% 1.224 -15.24% AES-128 (3.4GHz) WNS (ns) -0.009 -0.020 -0.066 -0.069 – Worse timing (high WNS) Pwr. (mW) 274.21 292.92 +6.82% 268.00 -2.27% 266.58 -2.78% – Less power #MIV 0 5996 15390 16462 WL (m) 1.527 1.707 +11.81% 1.226 -19.69% 1.197 -21.61% LDPC (1.2GHz) WNS (ns) -0.044 -0.056 -0.086 -0.102 Pwr. (mW) 85.63 107.83 +25.92% 81.91 -4.35% 74.91 -12.52%

  11. Comparison: Quantitative (2) 11 • (Table cont’d) 2D Cascade-2D Shrunk-2D Compact-2D #MIV 0 264 33980 33658 WL (m) 2.257 2.571 +13.91% 2.145 -4.96% 2.120 -6.08% Nova (625MHz) WNS (ns) -0.060 -0.054 -0.193 -0.205 Pwr. (mW) 110.54 113.47 +2.66% 110.74 +0.18% 110.75 +0.19% #MIV 0 3199 52442 52672 WL (m) 1.935 3.141 +62.38% 1.853 -4.23% 1.843 -4.73% TATE (1.4GHz) WNS (ns) -0.012 -0.026 -0.098 -0.129 Pwr. (mW) 315.44 319.42 +1.26% 318.99 +1.13% 318.53 +0.98% #MIV 0 1010 21384 21270 WL (m) 0.989 1.253 +26.59% 0.909 -8.13% 0.900 -9.04% ECG (1.0GHz) WNS (ns) -0.037 -0.020 -0.04 -0.056 Pwr. (mW) 104.56 104.24 -0.30% 105.70 +1.09% 105.42 +0.83%

  12. Comparison: Quantitative (3) 12 • PPA comparison: Cascade-2D vs. Shrunk-2D vs. Compact-2D – Mixed-size design (RISC-V Rocketcore processor) • Same PPA trends 2D Cascade-2D Shrunk-2D Compact-2D Footprint ( 𝑛𝑛 2 ) 0.563 0.281 -50% 0.281 -50% 0.281 -50% Std. cell area ( 𝑛𝑛 2 ) 0.238 0.241 +1.00% 0.234 -1.90% 0.231 -3.10% #MIV 0 1313 46088 45624 WL (m) 2.896 3.517 +21.40% 2.542 -12.20% 2.592 -10.50% WNS -0.046 -0.033 -0.197 -0.320 Cell Pwr. (mW) 334.5 343.0 +2.50% 334.6 +0.04% 332.8 -0.50% Net Pwr. (mW) 115.2 142.6 +23.80% 107.0 -7.10% 106.0 -8.00% Leak Pwr. (mW) 47.8 49.1 +2.60% 45.7 -4.40% 44.3 -7.40% Tot. Pwr. (mW) 497.5 534.6 +7.50% 487.3 -2.00% 483.0 -2.90%

  13. Enhancement: Cascade-2D (1) 13 • Bad MIV planning → long 3D net wire detour • Sequential placement based → MIVs crowded at the boundary – Getting worse for high #MIV cases • Ex. AES-128, 3.4GHz FM, 1,976 MIVs LR, 429 MIVs FM_5K, 5,238 MIVs FM_10K, 10,252 MIVs

  14. Enhancement: Cascade-2D (2) 14 • Solution: Placement-aware MIV planning • Pre-place on 2D plane → Center-of-mass to MIV • MIVs are spread in the middle Orig Place-aware Orig Place-aware #MIV 5,238 10,252 – Less WL (less detours) → Less power Cell area ( 𝒏𝒏 𝟑 ) 0.127 0.123 -3.60% 0.133 0.126 -4.89% WL (m) 1.817 1.575 -13.29% 1.894 1.737 -8.29% Partition Info. 2D Netlist Tot. Pwr. (mW) 301 286.29 -4.89% 305.61 295.8 -3.21% Place & trialRoute 2D DEF 3D Net C.o.M. → MIV Project MIV locations FM_5K, 5,238 MIVs FM_10K, 10,252 MIVs MIV Locations

  15. Enhancement: Shrunk-2D, Compact-2D (1) 15 • Internal tier partitioning method (partitioning-last) → Less freedom to control the design • Adopt partitioning-first scheme • TP in the beginning → assign in the original stage 2D Netlist + Tech files 2D Netlist Tier Partitioning Tier Partitioning Technology Scaling Shrunk-2D P&R Compact-2D P&R Cell Blow-up Placement Contraction Tier assignment Tier assignment Legalization Legalization Shrunk-2D Compact-2D

  16. Enhancement: Shrunk-2D, Compact-2D (2) 16 • Local density skew → PPA degraded – AES-128 (cell-dominated): Tolerable – LDPC (wire-dominated): Severe AES-128 (3.4GHz) Orig. Partitioning-first Shrunk-2D #MIV 39,521 4,704 Empty AES-128 spaces WL (m) 1.212 1.278 +5.43% WNS (ns) -0.066 -0.072 Net Pwr. (mW) 62.05 63.27 +1.96% Cell Pwr. (mW) 181.21 181.92 +0.39% LDPC (1.2GHz) Orig. Partitioning-first Shrunk-2D #MIV 15,390 13,529 LDPC WL (m) 1.226 1.365 +11.36% WNS (ns) -0.086 -0.623 Net Pwr. (mW) 41.29 45.24 +9.58% Cell Pwr. (mW) 30.61 31.26 +2.12% Partitioning-last Partitioning-first

  17. Conclusion 17 • We provide detailed discussion of state-of-the-art pseudo-3D design flows – Cascade-2D, Shrunk-2D, Compact-2D • We provide thorough comparisons of pseudo-3D design flows, both qualitative and quantitative • We analyzed limitations on each flow and provide enhancements for better quality – Cascade-2D: Detour WL → Placement-aware MIV planning – Shrunk-2D & Compact-2D: Freedom → Partitioning-first adoption

  18. Thank you! Q&A: heechun@gatech.edu (Heechun Park)

Recommend

More recommend