Transcript Approach - Chess - Center for Hybrid and Embedded Software

A Design Flow for the Development,
Characterization, and Refinement
of System Level Architectural
Services
Douglas Densmore
Dissertation Talk and DES/CHESS Seminar
May 15th, 2007
Committee
Prof. Alberto Sangiovanni-Vincentelli (EECS) - Chair
Prof. Jan Rabaey (EECS)
Prof. Lee Schruben (IEOR)
Objective
• To demonstrate that architecture service
modeling in system level design (SLD) can
allow abstraction and modularity while
maintaining accuracy and efficiency.
Factor
Solutions
Heterogeneity Modularity
Complexity
Techniques
Outcomes
Event Based Architecture Accuracy
Service Modeling #1
Architecture Service #2 Efficiency
Characterization
Abstraction Architecture Service #3
Refinement Verification
Time to Market
2/60
Outline
1. Problem Statement
• Motivating Factors
• Design Trends and EDA Growth
• Software Solutions
• Programmable Platforms
• Naïve Approach
• My Improved Approach
2. Approach
3. Contribution
3/60
Motivating Factors
Factor 1: Heterogeneity
Problem Statement
Approach
Contribution
Various Communication Types
PCMCIA
USB
Various Component Types
(SRAM, Quick Capture Interface)
System Bus
Year
Existing and Predicted First Integration of SoC
Technologies with Standard CMOS Processes1
Intel's PXA270
System on a Chip (SoC): Block Diagram of the Intel PXA270
Mypal A730 PDA (digital camera and a VGA-TFT display)
Solution 1: Modularity
1.
Courtesy:
http://www.intel.com/design/embeddedpca
/applicationsprocessors/302302.htm
D. Edenfeld, et. al., 2003 Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors, IEEE Computer, January 2004.
4/60
Motivating Factors
Problem Statement
Approach
Contribution
Potential Design Complexity and Designer Productivity
10,000
100,000
1,000
(Top)
100
(Bottom)
Equivalent Added Complexity
Logic Tr./Chip
10,000
Tr./S.M
1,000
58%/Yr. compounded
Complexity growth rate
10
100
1
10
0.1
21%/Yr. compounded
Productivity growth rate
0.01
0.001
1
0.1
2009
2007
2005
2003
2001
1999
1997
1995
1993
1991
1989
1987
1985
1983
1981
0.01
Productivity
(K) Trans./Staff – Mo.
Logic Transistors per Chip
(M)
Factor 2: Complexity
Courtesy: 1999 International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors (ITRS)
Solution 2: Abstraction
5/60
Motivating Factors
Factor 3: Time to Market
Digital Consumer Devices Set-Top Equipment Automotive
18
16
16
Problem Statement
Approach
Contribution
37% of new digital
products were late to
market! (Ivo Bolsens,
CTO Xilinx)
14
11
Months
12
10.7
10
8
Year late effectively
ends chance of
revenue!
50%+ revenue
loss when nine
months late.
6
4
2
0
1991
2000
2005
Year
Gartner DataQuest. Market Trends: ASIC and FPGA, Worldwide, 1Q05 Update edition, 2002-2008.
Three months
late still loses
15%+ of
revenue.
Courtesy: http://www.ibm.com
Solution 3: Accuracy and Efficiency
Challenge: Remain modular and abstract
6/60
Problem Statement
Approach
Contribution
Methodology
Gap
80,000
Maximum Tolerable
Design Gap
~$78.7 Billion
70,000
nd
n Tre
g
i
s
De
Design Gap
60,000
$Millions
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
Today
0
2003
~22% Growth
for 2007
Embedded Software
(Left)
2004
2009
Embedded ICs
(Center)
Embedded Boards
(Right)
Gate Level
Tremendous Growth
Design Complexity (# Transistors)
Design Trends and EDA Growth
Ravi Krishnan. Future of Embedded Systems Technology. BCC Research, June 2005.
RTL
ESL
Gartner Dataquest projections of
EDA industry revenue
Gartner Dataquest projection
of ESL revenues
Richard Goering. ESL May Rescue EDA, Analysts Say. EE Times, June 2005.
7/60
Software Tools Solution
Problem Statement
Approach
Contribution
Meta model language
Application Space
Meta model
Application
Instance
Front
end
compiler
Platform Based Design1 is composed of three aspects:
DT
Year Productivity
Description of
1.
Top DownMeta
Application
DevelopmentProductivity
PlatformCost of
•Improvement
Metropolis
Modeling
Delta
(Gates/DesnComponent
improvement
Abstract
syntax trees
Mapping
2.
Platform
Mapping
4
(MMM) language and compiler
Year)
Affected
3.
Bottom
Up
Design
Space
Exploration
System
are the core components.
Electronic
2005 +60%
200K
SW
Level above
Platform
System
Level of concerns2
Development RTL including
Platform
Orthogolization
...
Back end3
endN
Back
end
Back
end
(HWBack
and SW)
1
2
•(ES-Level)
Backend tools provide various
both HW and
Design-SpaceVerification
• Functionality
and Architecture
operations
for manipulating
Export
Methodology
SW design.
• Behavior
and Performance
designs
and performing
analysis. Indices
• Design
Computation,
Communication,
and
Technology
Improvements
and Impact on Designer Productivity3
Platform Instance
Coordination.
Architectural Verification
Space
Simulator
Synthesis
Verification
tool
1.
2.
3.
4.
tool
tool
tool
A. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, Defining Platform-based Design, EE Design, March 5, 2002.
K. Keutzer, Jan Rabaey, et al, System Level Design: Orthogonalization of Concerns and PlatformBased Design, IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design, Vol. 19, No. 12, December 2000.
2004 International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors (ITRS).
F. Balarin, et al, Metropolis: an Integrated Electronic System Design Environment, IEEE Computer,
Vol. 36, No. 4, April, 2003.
8/60
Programmable Platforms
What devices should the tools target?
What?
A system for implementing an electronic
design. Distinguished by its ability to be
programmed regarding its functionality.
Standardization
At extremes:
Software Programmable – GPPs, DSPs
Bit Programmable – FPGAs, CPLDs
Memories,
Standard
Discretes– FPGA
FPGAs
‘67
Programmable Platforms
Why?
One set of models represent a
very large design space of
individual instantiations.
Field
ProgramMicroFabric
& Embedded
mability
‘87
‘97Computation
processors
Platform
Strengths:
‘57
‘77
Custom
Rapid Time-to-Market LSIs
ASICs
Versatile, Flexible (increase product lifespan)
Modeling
In-Field Upgradeability
focus of
Performance: 2-100X compared to GPPs
this work
Customization
Weakness:
Source Electronics Weekly, Jan 1991
Performance:
2-6x slower than ASIC
“digital wave”
will require programmable
Power:Next
13x compared
to ASICs
devices.1
Courtesy: K.Keuzter
1.
Problem Statement
Approach
Contribution
Elements
Tsugio Makimoto, Paradigm Shift in the Electronics Industry, UCB, March 2005.
9/60
Programmable Platform Focus
Classification
Description
Granularity
Abstraction level:
CLB, Functional Unit, ISA
Host Coupling
Coupling to host processor:
I/O, direct communication, same chip
Reconfiguration
Methodology
How device is programmed:
Static, dynamic, partial
Memory Organization
How computations access memory:
Large block, distributed
Design Levels
Design Elements
Problem Statement
Approach
Contribution
What do MY
system level
models need to
capture?
K. Bondalapati, V. Prasanna,
Reconfigurable Computing
Systems, USC
IBM’s CoreConnect Architecture
Communication
Xilinx
Virtex II
Switches, MUXES
Implementation XC2VP30
Storage
Processing
RAM Organization
CLB/ IP Block
uArch
Crossbar, Bus
Register File Size
Execution Unit Type
ISA
Address Size
Register Set
Custom Instructions
System Arch
Intercon. Network
Buffer Size
Number/Types of tasks
Xilinx Virtex II
ML310 Board
P. Schaumont, et al, A Quick Safari Through the Reconfigurable Jungle, DAC, June 2001.
MicroBlaze
PowerPC
10/60
Naïve Approach
Problem Statement
Approach
Contribution
1. Design Space Exploration
Simulation
Abstract
Modular
SLD Tools
Bridge the Gap!!
 Datasheets
 Expertise
Manual
“C” Model
Inflexible Automatic Tool Flow
2. Synthesis
Disconnected
Inaccurate!
Manual
RTL “Golden
Model”
Lengthy Feedback
Implementation
Platform
Implementation Gap!
Estimated
Performance
Data
Architecture Model
Inefficient
Miss Time to Market!
11/60
My Improved Approach
Technique 1: Modeling style
and characterization for
programmable platforms
Functional level blocks of
programmable components
Estimated
Real
Performance
Performance
Data
Data
Abstract
Modular
SLD
From characterization flow
Narrow the Gap
Actual
Programmable
Platform Description
Technique 2: Refinement Verification
Formal Checking
Manual
Methods
Informal
Abstract
Problem Statement
Approach
Contribution
Correct!!
Refined
New approach has
improved accuracy and
efficiency by relating
programmable devices
and their tool flow with
SLD (Metropolis).
Retains modularity and
abstraction.
12/60
Approach Statement
Functional Modeling
(Not discussed in this work)
Chapter 3 – Architecture
Services Characterization
6.
Program
actual device
directly
Narrow the Gap
MHS
5. Produce an actual
3. Augment model
Real
Performance
Data
Structure Extractor
with real
performance data
Abstract, Modular
programmable
platform
description
(i.e. MHS File)
4.
Simulation based,
Design Space
Exploration
2.
Assemble SLD,
transaction based
architecture from
services.
1.
...
Xilinx
Virtex
II
Select architecture
services from
Programmable
libraries
FLEET
...
Special Purpose
Chapter 2 – System Level
Architecture Services
4a.
General
Purpose
General
Based on DSE results,
modify architecture model if
needed
Yes? No?
Problem Statement
Approach
Contribution
Problem:
SLD of architecture service
models potentially is inaccurate
and inefficient.
My Approach:
A PBD approach to Architecture
Service Modeling which allows
modularity and abstraction.
By relating service models to:
•programmable platforms,
• platform characterization,
• and refinement verification,
they will retain accuracy and
efficiency.
4b.
Abstract
Perform refinement check
(event based, interface
Refined
based, compositional
component based)
Chapter 4 – System Level Service Refinement
13/60
Outline Revisited
1. Problem Statement
2. Approach
• My Improved Approach 
• Approach Statement 
• Architecture Service Descriptions
• Metropolis Overview
3. Contribution
• Programmable Architecture Service Modeling
• Programmable Platform Characterization
• Example of Techniques
Focus: Modularity
14/60
Architecture Service Taxonomy
Services are library elements, <F, C>
where F is a set of interface
functions (capabilities) and C is a set
of cost models.
Single Component, Single Interface
(SCSI) – One provided interface and
one simple cost model
Single Component,
Single Interface
Provided Interface
Multiple Component, Multiple Component,
Multiple Interface
Single Interface
Provided Interface
Component
Component
Cost
Service
CostA
(C1, C2)
Provided Interface
Xilinx Virtex II Pro GeneralComponent
Multiple Component, Multiple Interface
(MCMI) – Two or more provided interfaces,
Abstract
zero or more internal
interfaces, one or
more simple cost functions, and zero or
C
Add CF cost DCT
CPU CF
more complex
functions.
F
Problem Statement
Approach
Contribution
PurposeCostB (C2)
Service
Processor
C
FFT
Bus CF
Multiple Multi
Component,
Single
Interface
F
F
(MCSI) – One provided interface, one or
more internal interfaces, and one or more
complex cost functions.
Provided Interface
Component
Internal
Interface
Component
Internal
Interface
C
Component
Cost (C1, C2, C3)
Service
Services also classified as active or passive.
15/60
Service Based Arch. Styles
Problem Statement
Approach
Contribution
Assemble collections of services to provide larger sets of capabilities and
cost functions.
Branching Style – Allows for the usage
of all types of services
Ring Style – Allows for the usage of
Single Interface (SI) services only
MCSI
MCSI MCSI
SCSI
SCMI
SCMI
SCSI
SCSI
SCSI
SCSI
MCSI
MCSI
SCSI
SCSI
SCSI
MCSI
MCSI
MCSI
SCMI
MCMI
SCSI
SCSI
MCSI
MCSI
MCMI
SCSI
SCSI
MCSI
SCSI
SCSI
Architecture Style 1 - Branching
MCSI
SCSI
Both Styles – Allow for the
usage of active/passive
and single/multiple
component services.
Hierarchy – Each style can
be abstracted into
composite services.
Architecture Style 2 - Ring
Ovals – Passive Services
Squares – Active Services
16/60
Metropolis Objects
Problem Statement
Approach
Contribution
• Metropolis elements adhere to a “separation of concerns” ideology.
• Processes (Computation)
P1
Proc1
P2
Active Objects
Sequential Executing Thread
• Media (Communication)
I1
Media1
I2
Passive Objects
Implement Interface Services
• Quantity Managers (Coordination)
QM1
Schedule access to
resources and quantities
17/60
Metro. Netlists and Events
Problem Statement
Approach
Contribution
Metropolis Architectures are created via two netlists:
• Scheduled – generate events1 for services in the scheduled netlist.
• Scheduling – allow these events access to the services and annotate
events with quantities.
Scheduled Netlist
Proc1
Scheduling Netlist
Proc2
P1
P2
Global
Time
I1
Media1
I2
QM1
1.
E. Lee and A. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A Unified Framework for
Comparing Models of Computation, IEEE Trans. on Computer
Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, Vol. 17, N. 12,
pg. 1217-1229, December 1998
18/60
Services in Design Flow
Problem Statement
Approach
Contribution
Functional Modeling
Characterization
(Not discussed in this work)
Data
Input
Process Expanded
Chapter 3 – Architecture
6.
(Chapter 3)
Program
Services Characterization
2.
4.
Abstract, Modular
Select
architecture
services from
2. libraries
Assemble SLD,
1.
1.
...
Exploration
4.
FLEET
uBlaze
...
General
OPB
Purpose
Program
actual device
directly
Xilinx VirtexGeneral
II Libraries
Special Purpose
Chapter 2 – System Level
Architecture Services
Metropolis Media
Simulation based,
Design Space
BRAM
SynMaster
Xilinx
Virtex
II
Select architecture
services from
Programmable
libraries
n
io
ct
with real
performance data
programmable
platform
description
(i.e. MHS File)
programmable
platform
description
(i.e. MHS File)
a
tr
Structure Extractor
PLB
Ex
3. Augment model
transaction based
architecture from
services.
3.Produce an actual
e
ur
ct
ru
St
Mapping
Process
Structure Extractor
Real
Performance
Data
actual device
Assemble
SLD,
directly
transaction based
PowerPC Narrow the Gap
architecture from
MHS
an actual
5. Produce
services.
4a.
Based on DSE results,
modify architecture model if
needed
Yes? No?
4b.
Abstract
Perform refinement check
(event based, interface
Refined
based, compositional
component based)
Chapter 4 – System Level Service Refinement
19/60
Programmable Arch. Modeling
• Computation Services
Problem Statement
Approach
Contribution
Services are organized by
Leverage function orthogonal aspects of the system.
level granularity;
All services created here are XCMI
• Transaction Level
MicroBlaze
SynthSlave
1-to-1 model/IP SynthMaster
with more than two provided
• IP PPC405
Parameters
interfaces each.
•Computation
I/O InterfacesInterfaces correspondence
Read (addr, offset, cnt, size), Write(addr, offset, cnt, size),
Execute (operation, complexity)
• Communication Services
Processor
Local
Bus
(PLB)
On-Chip
Peripheral
Bus
(OPB)
• Other Services
OPB/PLB Bridge
Mapping
Process
BRAM
Communication Interfaces
addrTransfer(target, master)
addrReq(base, offset, transType, device)
addrAck(device)
dataTransfer(device, readSeq, writeSeq)
dataAck(device)
Task After
Before
Mapping
Mapping
Read (0x34,
(addr, offset,
8, 10, cnt,
4) size)
20/60
Sample Metropolis Service
private
private
private
private
private
public medium uBlaze
implements uBlazeISA,
GPPOperation,
OPBMaster{...}
_portMFSL
Problem Statement
Approach
Contribution
Parameters
int
int
int
int
int
C_FSL_LINKS;
C_FSL_DATA_SIZE;
C_USE_BARREL;
C_USE_DIV;
C_USE_HW_MUL;
_portSFSL
uBlaze
_portChar
_portOPB
_portSM
_portGT
Ports
port OPBTrans _portOPB;
//connection to characterizer
port cycleLookup _portChar;
//FSL ports
port FSLMasterInterface[] _portMFSL;
port FSLSlaveInterface[] _portSFSL;
//connection to StateMedia
port SchedReq _portSM;
//StateMedia to global time
port GTimeSMInterface _portGT;
Interface Function
Assumptions
Cycle Count
cpuRead(int bus)
Bus Dependent
1(LMB), 7(OPB) cycle
cpuWrite(int bus)
Bus Dependent
1(LMB), 2(OPB) cycle
fslRead(int size)
Transfer Size
(1 * size) cycles
fslWrite(int size)
Transfer Size
(1 * size) cycles
execute(int inst, int comp)
Valid INST Field
(1 * complexity) cycles
Each service
profiled manually
and given a set
of cost models
Non-Ideal
21/60
Programmable Arch. Modeling
• Coordination Services
PPC Sched
BRAM Sched
MicroBlaze
Sched
PLB Sched
Problem Statement
Approach
Contribution
OPB Sched
General Sched
Request (event e)
-Adds event to pending
queue of requested events
PostCond()
Resolve()
-Augment event with information
-Uses algorithm
an the
(annotation).
Thisto
is select
typically
event from
thethe
pending
queue
interaction
with
quantity
manager
GTime
22/60
Sample Metropolis QM
Problem Statement
Approach
Contribution
Interfaces
public eval void request(event e,
RequestClass rc) {
public update void resolve() {…}
public update void postcond() {…}
public eval boolean stable(){…}
public quantity SeqQM
implements QuantityManager
{…}
Ports
port StateMediumSched[] portTaskSM;
Quantity Manager
portTaskSM
public quantity PLBArb
implements
QuantityManager {…}
Request
Class
Interfaces
{
public
public
public
public
public
public
public
public
event getRequestEvent() {…}
int getserviceType() {…}
int getTaskId() {…}
int getComplexity() {…}
void setTaskId(int id) {…}
int getFlag() {…}
void setFlag(int flag) {…}
int getDeviceId() {…}
Each resolve() function is unique
23/60
Architecture Extensions for Preemption
Problem Statement
•Some Services are naturally preempted
Approach
–CPU context switch, Bus transactions
Contribution
•Notion of Atomic Transactions
–Prior to dispatching events to a quantity manager via the request()
method, decompose events in the scheduled netlist into nonpreemptable chunks.
–Maintain status with an FSM object (counter) and controller.
4. Update the FSM to track the state of
the transaction.
Process
(Task )
Service (Media)
Event
Transaction
(i.e. Read)
1. A transaction is
introduced into the
architecture model.
Initial State
FSM1
Trans0
FSM0
S2
S3
Decoder (Process)
A
1
B
2
C
3
Quantity Manager
FSM
1
2
A
Trans1
S1
S1
3
B
C
3. Dispatch the atomic transaction (AT)
2 . Decoder transforms to the quantity manager (individual
events which make up the AT ).
the transaction into
atomic transactions .
6. Use Stack data structure to store
transactions and FSMs
setMustDo()
setMustNotDo()
SM
5. Communication with preempted
processes through StateMedia
24/60
Architecture Extensions for Mapping
Problem Statement
Approach
Contribution
•Programmable platforms allow for both SW and HW
implementations of a function.
•Need to express which architecture components can provide
which services and with what affinity.
Operations
available
Ability to perform
operations
Export information
from service
Export information from
associated with public HashMap getCapabilityList()
service associated with
Task
Affinity
mapping process
mapping process
Mapping
Process
(Task)
HW DCT
(Service)
Execute
0/100
DCT
100/100
FFT
0/100
Dedicated HW
DCT
Only can perform DCT !
Potential Mapping Strategies
Greedy
Best Average
Task Specific
Mapping
Process
(Task)
uBlaze
(Service)
Task
Affinity
Execute
50/100
DCT
20/100
FFT
2/100
General Purpose
uProc
Can perform multiple operations
25/60
Programmable Arch. Modeling
•Compose scheduling and scheduled netlists
in top level netlist.
•Extract structure for programmable platform
tool flow.
Structure Extractor
1. Assemble Netlists
Process
• Type
• Parameters
• Etc
B. Examine port
connections to
determine topology.
MicroBlaze
OPB
Scheduled Netlist
MicroBlaze
Sched
OPB Sched
Scheduling Netlist
Connections
Topology
Mapping
4. Extractor
Script Tasks
A. Identify parameters for
service. For example MHZ,
cache settings, etc.
Problem Statement
Approach
Contribution
Top Level Netlist
5. Gather information and
parse into appropriate
tool format
File for Programmable
Platform Tool Flow
(MHS)
Public netlist XlinxCCArch
XilinxCCArchSched schedNetlist ;
XilinxCCArchScheduling schedulingNetlist
SchedToQuantity [] _stateMedia
C. Examine address
mapping for bus, I/O,
etc.
2. Provide Service Parameters 3. Simulate Model
Modular Modeling Style
D. Check port names,
instance names, etc for
instantiation.
Decide on final topology.
Accurate & Efficient
26/60
Characterization in Design Flow
Functional Modeling
(Not discussed in this work)
Chapter 3 – Architecture
6.
Services CharacterizationProcess Expanded Program
actual device
Problem Statement
Approach
Contribution
directly
Narrow the Gap
2. Create systems
MHS
5. Produce an actual
3. Augment model
2.
Real
Performance
Data
1.
1.
Assemble SLD,
transaction
based
Select
device
architecture from
or services.
family
System Creator
Real
Performance
Data
with real
performance data
Abstract, Modular
S2
S3
Data Extractor
Structure
S1 Extractor
... SN ...
Xilinx
Virtex
II
Select architecture
services from
Programmable
libraries
Chapter 2 – System Level
Architecture Services
FLEET
programmable
platform
description
(i.e. MHS File)
Characterizer Database
4.
Execution Time
for Processing
Simulation based,
Design Space
Exploration
General
Purpose
Transaction
Cycles
data from
3. Extract
systems
Special Purpose
4a.
Physical
Timing
General
Based on DSE results,
modify architecture model if
needed
4.
Categorize and
store data
Yes? No?
Work with Xilinx Research
Labs
1.
2.
Douglas Densmore, Adam Donlin, A.Sangiovanni-Vincentelli,
FPGA Architecture Characterization in
4b.
Perform
refinement
check
System Level Design, Submitted(event
to CODES 2005.
based, interface
based,
Abstract
Adam Donlin and Douglas Densmore,compositional
Method andRefined
Apparatus for Precharacterizing Systems for Use
component based)
in System Level Design of Integrated Circuits, Patent Pending.
Chapter 4 – System Level Service Refinement
27/60
Prog. Platform Characterization
Need to tie the model to actual implementation data!
Problem Statement
Approach
Contribution
1. Create template system
description.
Process from Structure
Extraction
2. Generate many
permutations of the
architecture using this
template and run them
through programmable
platform tool flow.
3. Extract the desired
performance information
from the tool reports for
database population.
28/60
Prog. Platform Characterization
Create database ONCE prior to
simulation and populate with
independent (modular)
information.
Problem Statement
Approach
Contribution
1. Data detailing
performance based on
physical implementation.
2. Data detailing the
composition of
communication transactions.
3. Data detailing the
processing elements
computation.
From Char Flow Shown
From Metro Model Design
From ISS for PPC
29/60
Characterized Data Organization
System 1
System N
4.2ns
4ns
3.8ns
3.2ns
Index
} Method
} Physical
Timing
ISS
? uProc1
?
Metro
FFT 20 Cycles
Filter 35 Cycles
}
Computation
Timing
Characterizer
?
Model ?
Transaction
? NULL
Timing
?
?
ISS uProc2
Problem Statement
Approach
Contribution
Each system interface function
characterized has an entry. These
indices can be a hashed if
appropriate.
Entries can share data or be
independent.
FFT 10 Cycles
Filter 30 Cycles
Read = ACK, Trans, Data
Write = ACK, Data, ACK
}
Entries can have all, partial, or no
information.
How is the data associated with each service interface function?
30/60
Prog. Platform Characterization
Problem Statement
Approach
P
B can’t
U
Addr.
MHZ aMHZ

Area

Contribution
Why
youAreajustMaxuse
static
estimation?
1
2
1
T
1611
119
16.17%
39.7%
•Design from rows 1, 3, and
• 2As 1resource
usage
increases
system
frequency
5 of the table.
1
L
1613
102
-14.07%
0.12%
generally
decreases.
3
0
T
1334
117
14.56%
-17.29%
•Three abstraction levels: 1,
•
Not
linear
nor
monotonic.
1
3
0
L
1337
95
-18.57%
0.22%
3, and 10 cycle transactions.
15%
change
grade for
the devices.
1• 3
1
T
1787is a
120speed26.04%
33.65%
1
2
1
10%+ Delta
2 140 1
2000
3000
(Area)
1500
2000
120
100
80
80
MHZ
1
•Metropolis JPEG version:
Resource
Usage
112,500 write
transactions
1
for2 3 MegaPixel,
24 bit color
140
depth, 95% compressed
120
image.
100
(Performance)
Table 3.3 Data
and
MHZ
4000
System
Address
Changes
Combo
Frequency
(Performance)
SliceCount
Count
Slice
(Area)
Periodic Changes
PowerPC
Added uBlaze
– 2s
Added
BRAM
-1s
2500
60
• 19% difference
between
40
Increasing
1000
intuition and characterization.
System
500
20
20
Created
Complexity
0
0
Two
0 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40
0 Top
database
43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64
Curves
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
Samples
Sample
once prior to
Area
Loose Addr MHZ
LooseMeasure
Addr SlicesOften Plateaus High Spikes
in
Adjacent
Decreasing
but
not
Tight Addr MHZ
Curves Overlap
Tight Slice
Addr Slices
Count Area
Frequency
simulation.
(Similar)
Samples
monotonic or linear
PLB Write Transfer Performance
Comparison
1000
Modular Characterization
60
40
Accurate & Efficient
31/60
Modeling & Char. Review
Branching Architecture Example
Task1
Task2
Task3
MCMI
Task4
DEDICATED HW
PPC
Problem Statement
Approach
Contribution
Scheduling Netlist
DedHW Sched
PPC Sched
MCMI
MCMI
Scheduled Netlist
Media (scheduled)
Quantity Manager
PLB
PLB Sched
BRAM
BRAM Sched
Global
Time
SCSI
Characterizer
Process
Quantity
Enabled Event
Disabled Event
32/60
Outline Revisited
1. Problem Statement
2. Approach
3. Contribution
• Architecture Refinement Verification
• Vertical Refinement
• Horizontal Refinement
• Surface Refinement
Focus: Abstraction
• Depth Refinement
• Design Flow Examples
• Summary and Conclusions
33/60
Arch. Refinement Verification
•
Architectures often involve hierarchy and multiple abstraction levels.
–
•
1.
2.
3.
Problem Statement
Approach
Contribution
Limited if it is not possible to check if elements in hierarchy or less abstract
components are implementations of their counterparts.
Asks “Can I substitute M1 for M2?”
Representing the internal structure of a component.
Recasting an architectural description in a new style.
Applying tools developed for one style to another style.
D. Garlan, Style-Based Refinement for Software Architectures, SIGSOFT 96, San Francisco, CA, pg. 72-75.
Refinement Technique
Description
Metropolis
Style/Pattern Based
Define template components. Prove they have a
desired relationship once. Build arch. from them.
Potential; TTL
YAPI
Event Based
Properties (behaviors) expressed as event lists.
Explicitly look for this event patterns.
Discussed
Interface Based
Create structure capturing all behavior of a
components interface. Compare two models.
Discussed
Compositional Component
Based
Create structures capturing local behavior. Compose
larger systems by synchronizing these smaller pieces.
Discussed
34/60
Refinement Verification in Design Flow
Process Expanded
Functional Modeling
(Not discussed in this work)
P1
M1
changes to
Chapter 3 Component
– Architecture1. Identify
be made (structural 6. Structural
Program
P3
Services
Characterization or component)
actual device
P3
Problem Statement
Approach
Contribution
directly
Abstract
A
Refinement
Question
P1
M1
C
P2
M2
P2
Yes?
No?
B
3. Augment model
M1
P31
5. Produce an actual
Structure Extractor
with real
performance data
Real
Performance
P3
Data
P1Gap
Narrow the
MHS
P2
(More
Functionality)
programmable
P2
platform
description
(i.e. MHS File)
M2
A. Inter-component
Abstract, Modular
4.
structural changes
Simulation based,
(compositional
Design Space P32
component based)
Exploration
MN
C
2.
P2
M2
M3
Refined
P4
1.
Assemble SLD,
B
transaction A
based
architecture from
C. Intra-component
services.
...
changes (Interface
Xilinx
based) Virtex II
Select architecture
services from
Programmable
libraries
P3
FLEET
...
P1
Special
Purpose
verification
2. Run
tools
1
Chapter
2 – System Level
Surface Refinement
Events
General
Purpose
M1
General
B. Structural
changes between
scheduled and
scheduling
components (event
Scheduling based)
Scheduled
Based
on DSE results,
modify architecture model if
needed
1
Architecture Services
4a.
• Interface Based
Vertical Refinement
• Control Flow Graph Horizontal
1
Yes?
No?
Depth Refinement
Refinement
• Focus on introducing new
• Compositional Component Based
• Event Based
4b.
behaviors (Reason 1)
Perform refinement
check
• Event
Based Properties • Labeled Transition Systems
• Focus on reasons 1, 2, and 3
Refined
• Focus on abstraction
&
synthesis (Reasons 2 & 3)
Chapter 4 – System Level Service Refinement
35/60
1. Douglas Densmore, Metropolis Architecture
Abstract
Refinement Styles and Methodology, University
of California, Berkeley, UCB/ERL M04/36, 14
September 2004.
(event based, interface
based, compositional
component based)
Vertical Refinement
Mapping
Process
Rtos Sched
Mapping
Process
Rtos
PPC405
Sequential
PLB
Cache
BRAM
Problem Statement
Approach
Contribution
Concurrent
Cache Sched
New
origins and
amounts
of events
scheduled
and
annotated
PPC Sched
PLB Sched
BRAM Sched
Scheduled Netlist
•Definition: A
manipulation to the
scheduled netlist
structure to
introduce/remove the
number or origin of
events as seen by the
scheduling netlist.
Scheduling Netlist
Original
Sequential
Concurrent 1
Concurrent 2
E1 (CPURead)
E1 (RTOSRead)
E1 (CPURead)
E1 (CPURead)
E2 (BusRead)
E2 (CPURead)
E2 (CacheRead)
E2 (CacheRead)
E3 (MemRead)
E3 (BusRead)
E3 (BusRead)
E4 (MemRead)
E4 (MemRead)
36/60
Horizontal Refinement
Mapping
Process
Mapping
Process
Rtos Sched
PPC405
Control
Thread
Arb
PLB
•Definition: A manipulation
of both the scheduled and
scheduling netlist which
changes the possible
ordering of events as seen
by the scheduling netlist.
PPC Sched
PPC405
Rtos
Problem Statement
Approach
Contribution
Cache Sched
Ordering
of event
requests
changed
Cache
BRAM
Scheduled Netlist
PPC Sched
PLB Sched
BRAM Sched
Scheduling Netlist
*Contains all possible orderings if abstract enough
Original*
Refined (interleaved)
E1 (BusRead) -> From CPU1
E1 (BusRead) -> From CPU1
E2 (BusRead) -> From CPU1
E3 (BusRead) -> From CPU2
E3 (BusRead) -> From CPU2
E2 (BusRead) -> From CPU1
E4 (BusRead) -> From CPU2
E4 (BusRead) -> From CPU2
37/60
Event Based Properties
E1 (CPUExe)
E2 (CPUExe)
E3 (CPUExe)
Problem Statement
Approach
Contribution
E4(CPURead)
Resource Utilization
Bad Resolve()
Good Resolve()
CPU
E1, E2, E3, E4
E4, E1, E2, E3
Bus
X, X, X, X, E4
X, E4
Mem
X, X, X, X, X, E4
X, X, E4
• Properties expressed as event
sequences as seen by the
scheduling netlist.
Bad Resolve()
Good Resolve()
CPU (0)
E1, E2
E1
E1, E2
E1
CPU (1)
E2, E3
E2
E2, E3
E2
Bus (1)
E1, EX
EX
E1, EX
EX
CPU (2)
E3
E3
E3
E3
Bus (2)
E1, E2
E2
E1, E2
E1
E1, E3
E3
E2, E3
E2
CPU(3)
Bus (3)
Latency
38/60
Macro and MicroProperties
Problem Statement
Approach
Contribution
MicroProperty - The combination of one or more attributes (or quantities) and an
event relation defined with these attributes.
MacroProperty – A property which implies a set of MicroProperties. Defined by
the property which ensures the other’s adherence. The satisfaction (i.e. the
property holds or is true) of the MacroProperty ensures all MicroProperties covered
by this MacroProperty are also satisfied.
Data Precision (DP)
Level 3
Sufficient Bits (SB)
2
Write Access (WA)
Data Consistency (DC)
Level 2
1
Read Access (RA)
1
No Overflow (NO)
1
Sufficient Space (SS)
0
Data Valid (DV)
0
Data Coherency (DCo)
Level 1
Snoop Complete (SC)
0
39/60
Event Petri Net
Problem Statement
Approach
Contribution
tE1
tE2
tE3
MemWrite
MemRead
CPURead
BusWrite
BusRead
CPUExecute
CPUWrite
Model EPN
tE3
tE4
tE6
tE5
pC2
pC6
pC1
pC5
pC3
tC2
pC4
Model Event Petri Net – One transition
set which represents events of interest,
tEN. Transitions also are used to
indicated interface functions.
tC3
4
3
tC1
start2
3
Link the two event petri nets
such
thatfor
select
tENs
Twotogether
Petri Nets
– One
the service
feed
connection
transitions,
model
and
one for the
events oftCN,
which produce the needed
interest.
tokens for the property EPN.
start3
RA
t12
SB
start1
t13
t5
NO
t4
t10
t7
t9
SS
WA
t6
t2
t1
2
t11
DV
SC
t3
t14
t8
Prop EPN
pDCo
pDP
Property Event Petri Net – Initial
marking vector is empty. One place per
Macroproperty, p<prop>. Created
such that in order to create a token in
each MacroProperty place, all
transitions must fire once and only
once.
pDC
40/60
Surface Refinement Def.
Required Services
Surface
P1
Provides Services
Surface
1
2
Component
P2
3
Unknown MoC
(DataFlow, KPN, Etc)
P3
Observable
TraceM – Trace in
Metropolis = a finite set
of function calls to
media via interfaces
Surface
4
Surface
Surface
Component
Example:
Interface Calls
on Ports
Problem Statement
Approach
Contribution
Surface
Internal Operation Interfaces
Not Visible
(Ports)
Restriction on the location
and information available to
define component behavior.
• Defined as in Hierarchical Verification1
–Model: An object which can generate a set of finite sequences of
behaviors, B
–Trace: a  B
–Given a model X and a model Y, X refines the model, denoted X < Y
if given a trace a of X then the projection a[ObsY] is a trace of Y.
–Two models are trace equivalent, X  Y if X < Y and Y < X.
• The answer to the refinement problem (X,Y) is YES if X refines
Y, otherwise NO
1. T.Henzinger, S.Qadeer, S.K. Rajamani, “You Assume, We Guarantee: Methodology and Case Studies”, 10th International Conference on
Computer Aided Verification (CAV), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1427, Springer-Verlag, 1998, p.440-451.
41/60
Control Flow Graph
•Defined much like*
•Tuple <Q, qo, X, Op, >
–Q – Control Locations
–qo – initial CL
–X – set of variables
–Op – function calls to
media, basic block start and
end
– - transition relation
Hypothetical Automaton for X variable
X=0
1
2
3
X= 1
X=2
Graph for Model
Control Location 1
Group Node Type: ProcessDeclNode
Initial Control Location
1
X=0
Control Location 2
Group Node Type: LoopNode
while loop
2
X<2
Control Location 3
Group Node Type:
ThisPortAccessNode
3
X >= 2
7
Port1.callRead()+
//sample code
Process example{
port Read port1;
port Write port2;
Void thread(){
int x = 0;
while (x < 2){
port1.callRead();
x++;}
port2.callWrite();
*”Temporal Safety
}}
Proofs for Systems Code”,
Henzinger et al.
Problem Statement
Approach
Contribution
Control Location 4
Group Node Type: None
Ending of basic block
Control Location 7
Group Node Type:
ThisPortAccessNode
Port2.callWrite()+
4
8
Control Location 8
Group Node Type: None
Ending of basic block
Port1.callRead()Control Location 5
Group Node Type: Collection
of Variable Nodes
Port2.callWrite()-
5
X++(+)
Control Location 6
Group Node Type: Variable
Node (collection) - End
6
9
Control Location 9
Group Node Type: None
Sink State
X++(-)
10
Control Location 10
Group Node Type: None
Bookend of LoopNode
42/60
Surface Refinement Domains
Component
(Switch
Fabric)
move.source.Adder
move.dest.Adder
move.source.Prod
move.dest.Prod
move.source.Adder
move.dest.Adder
move.source.Prod
move.dest.Prod
move.source.mem
move.dest.mem
Component
(Switch
Fabric)
Communication Ref Domain
move.dest.Prod
move.dest.Adder
<C, P, OP>
Communication Ref Domain
move.dest.Adder
move.dest.Prod move.dest.mem
OP
OP
move.source.Adder
move.dest.Adder
Problem Statement
Approach
Contribution
move.source.Prod
move.dest.Prod
OP
OP
OP
OP
move.source.Prod
move.dest.Adder
move.source.Adder
move.source.mem
OP
move.dest.mem
OP
Add (input1, input2)
prodLit()
Add (input1, input2)
prodLit()
get()
Computation Ref Domain 1
Computation Ref Domain 2
put()
Computation Ref Domain 1
Storage Ref Domain 1
Component
(Adder)
Component
(Producer)
Add (input1, input2)
prodLit()
Component
(Adder)
Component
(Producer)
Adder (input1, input2)
prodLit()
Component
(Memory)
get() put()
43/60
Surface Refinement Example
FIFO SchedulerAb
FIFO SchedulerRef
1
1
terminated()
terminated()
2
2
True
True
False
3
False
3
4
4
whatRound()
whatRound()
5
5
Type & !Done
!Type & !Done
Else
6
Type & !Done
8
False
10
putRound1_
Status
12
whatRound()
9
False
True
queryData()
10
11
putPolicy()
7
checked_all
terminated()
whatRound()
9
True
Else
6
7
checked_all
terminated()
8
Problem Statement
Approach
Contribution
putRound1_
Status
queryData()
11
Trace containment check for single threaded processes
putPolicy()
12
Trace
FIFO Scheduler Process Traces (*function calls abbr)
T1
Terminated()
T2
Terminated()
wRnd()*
T3
Terminated()
wRnd()*
wRnd()*
T4
Terminated()
wRnd()*
Tnated()*
T4 Cont
putPolicy()
PR1S()*
qData ()*
Bref = {T1, T3, T4}  Bab = {T1, T2, T3, T4}  Refinement!
1.
Douglas Densmore, Sanjay Rekhi, A. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, MicroArchitecture Development via
Successive Platform Refinement, Design Automation and Test Europe (DATE), Paris France, 2004.
44/60
Surface Refinement Flow
1
Metropolis Model (.mmm)
3
Reactive Module
of CFG (X)
Witness
Module
(W)
2
Visual
Representation
(for debugging)
CFG Backend
(automatic)
Kiss file of CFA 4
3a
Edit and Parallel
Composition
(manual)
Answer to X Y
SIS
state_assign script
FORTE
(automatic)
4a
Mode.exe file
X||W
3b
MOCHA
Answer
to X Y
CFA (Y) developed in
previous iteration
BLIF file
4b
Manual Edits to BLIF and
NEXLIF2EXE
4c
Problem Statement
Approach
Contribution
Three primary branches:
1. Visual representation for
debugging
2. CFG conversation to a
reactive module. Works with
the MOCHA tool flow. Requires
manual augmentation of a
witness module since Y has
private variables.
3. CFG conversation to a KISS
file. Works with the SIS and
Forte tool flows. Requires
manual edits to BLIF to EXLIF.
BLIF file developed in
previous iteration
45/60
Depth Refinement - LTS
Problem Statement
Approach
Contribution
• Depth Refinement – Want to
make inter-component
structural changes.
• Definition: A Labeled Transition
System (LTS) is a
tuple <Q, Q0, E, T, l>
where:
–Q is a set of states,
–Q0  Q is a set of initial states,
–E is a finite set of transition
labels or actions,
–T  Q x E x Q is a labeled
transition relation, and
–l : is an interpretation of each
state on system variables.
•But in LTS there is no notion of
input signals
empty
Service
write
Write
Write2
–When we compose LTS, a
transition can be triggered when
another LTS is in a given state.
not
empty
write2
read2
Read
Read2
full
Olga Kouchnarenko and Arnaud Lanoix. Refinement and Verification of Synchronized
Component-Based Systems. In FME 2003: Formal Methods, Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
volume 2805/2003, pages 341–358. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, 2003
46/60
Refinement Rule 1
Strict transition refinement
Problem Statement
Approach
Contribution
• If there is a transition in
the refined LTS from one
state to another, then
there must be the same
transition in the
abstract
• Note: The two
transitions must have
the same label!
47/60
Refinement Rule 2
Stuttering transition refinement
Problem Statement
Approach
Contribution
• If there is a new (tau)
transition in the
refinement LTS, then its
beginning state and
ending state must
correspond to the same
state in the abstract
48/60
Refinement Rule 3
Lack of τ-divergence
Problem Statement
Approach
Contribution
• There are no new
transitions in the
refinement that go
on forever
49/60
Refinement Rule 4
External non-determinism preservation
Problem Statement
Approach
Contribution
• If there is a transition in the abstract and the corresponding
refined state does not have any transition then
– there must be another refined state that corresponds to the
abstract
– it must take a transition to another refined state and in the
abstract must exist a state so that these two are glued
together.
50/60
Depth Ref. Design Flow
1.
Problem Statement
Approach
//Buffer Events (reads and writes)
Contribution
Transition System
//‘‘write1’’
event
is
enabled
when
the
LTSs
are
in
the
following
states
Create a .fts file
//Two state values
(write1) when
type SIGNAL = {consume, wait}
capturing
the LTS
((prod = produce) /\ (buf = empty)
Gluing /\ (con != consume)),
local con : SIGNAL
for
each
component
Relation
empty
(write3)
when
empty
((prod
produce) /\and
(buf = notempty) /\ (con !=write
consume)),
of
the= refined
//Can only be in one state
(read1) write2
when
Invariant
abstract
systems.
write read
write
read= consume)),
((prod != produce)
/\ (buf = Gluing
notempty)
/\ (con
(con
=
consume)
\/ (cond2= wait)
1.(read3)
Define
observable Relation
when
events,
OE not /\ (buf = full) /\ (con = consume)),
((prod
!= produce)
//Initial state
Abstract
empty
2. Transaction labels
//Producer
Eventsto O
correspond
E
2.
Refinement
Gluing
Initially (con
not= wait)
Relation
empty
write
read
make when
//Transistion to consume (‘‘get’’ event)
write read
Define
gluing
(prod = wait),
read2
Transition get :
Gluing
d1
stall
when
invariants in .inv Relation
enable (con = wait) ;
(prod = produce),
write
read
con :=
consume
full
((con =assign
consume)
<-->
(conR = consume))
file.
/\((con = wait) <--> ((conR = wait) \/ (conR = clean)))
//Consumer Events
read
3. Define
synchronization
//Transition
to wait (‘‘stallC’’
event)
get when
Transition stallC
between
LTS: in .sync file.
full
(con = wait),
Gluing
enable (con = consume) ;
stallC when
Relation
assign con := wait
(con = consume)
51/60
Example Design
3. Assemble
1.
Select an an
application
architecture
from library
and understand
its
services
or create your
behavior.
own services.
Extracta aMetropolis
structural
2.5.
4.Create
Map the
file from the
top which
level
functional
model
functionality
to the
netlist of
models
thisthe
behavior.
architecture.
architecture created.
File for Xilinx EDK
Tool Flow
On-Chip
Peripheral
Bus
(OPB)
MicroBlaze
IP Library BRAM
BRAM
Problem Statement Approach Contribution
JPEG Encoder Function Model (Block Level)
Preprocessing
DCT
Quantization
Mapping
Mapping
Process
Mapping
Process
Process
Huffman
Mapping
Process
SynthMaster
Structure
Extractor
Top Level Netlist
SynthSlave
52/60
Example Design Cont.
Problem Statement
Approach
Contribution
1.
Feed the
captured
2.
theexecution
permutations
tofor
the
3.
4.Feed
Capture
Provide
transaction
info
infofor
structural
file
to extract
the
Xilinx
tools
and
the
data.
software
communication
and
hardware
services.
services.
permutation generator.
File for Xilinx EDK
Tool Flow
Permutation Generator
Permutation 1
Permutation 2
Permutation N
Platform Characterization Tool (Xilinx EDK/ISE Tools)
Manual
Hardware Routines
int DCT (data){
DCT1 = 10 Cycles
Begin
calculate …
Manual DCT2 =5 Cycles
…
FFT Trans,
= 5 Cycles
Bit Read = Ack, Addr, Data,
Ack
} 32Automatic
Software Routines
ISS Info
Transaction
Info
Char
Data
Characterizer Database
53/60
Example Design Cont.
JPEG Encoder Function Model (Block Level)
Backend
Preprocessing Tool
DCT Process:
Quantization
Huffman
1. Abstract Syntax Tree (AST) retrieves
structure.
Mapping
Mapping
Mapping
Mapping
Process
Process
Process
Process
2. Control
Data Flow Graph - Surface
FORTE – Intel Tool
Reactive
ModelsSynthMaster
– UC Berkeley
MicroBlaze
On-Chip
3. Event
Traces – Refinement
New
Algorithm
Peripheral
SynthSlave
Properties.
Bus
Vertical
Surface
(OPB) Refinement
Horizontal Refinement
BRAM
BRAM
BRAM
Concurrent
Vertical
Refinement
ISS Info
Transaction
Info
Char
Data
Verification
Tool
Yes?
No?
Problem Statement
Approach
Contribution
1. Simulate the design and observe
the performance.
Execution time 100ms
Bus Cycles 4000
Ave Memory Occupancy 500KB
2. Refine design to meet performance
requirements.
3. Use Refinement Verification to check
validity of design changes.
• Vertical, or Horizontal
• Depth, Surface
• Refinement properties
4. Re-simulate to see if your goals are
met.
Execution time 200ms
Bus Cycles 1000
Ave Memory Occupancy
100KB
54/60
MJPEG Encoding
D
Q
H
Completely
Sequential
TM
Arch 1
P
DCT and
Quant
separated
D
Q
D
Q
D
Q
Functional Key:
H
TM
Arch 3
Arch 2
P
Y, Cr, and Cb
components
parallelized
PreProcessing (P)
DCT (D)
Quantization (Q)
Huffman Encoding (H)
Table Modifications (TM)
Collector (Col)
Arch 4
D
Q
D
Q
D
Q
H
P
D
Q
H
Huffman
operations
parallelized
D
Q
H
D
Q
H
Col
Mapping Guide:
Mapping Process
TM
TM
System
Est. Cycles
Char. Cycles
Real Cycles
Rankings
Arch 1
145282 (52%)
228356 (25%)
304585
4, 4, 4
Arch 2
103812 (33%)
145659 (6%)
154217
3, 3, 2
Arch 3
103935 (29%)
145414 (1.2%)
147036
2, 2, 3
Arch 4
103320 (28%)
144432 (<+1%)
143335
1, 1, 1
=
=
uBlaze
FSL
Microblaze Soft
Processor
(uBlaze)
Fast
Simplex Link
(FSL)
Architecture
Model
Functional Model
P
Problem Statement
Approach
Contribution
55/60
Other case studies
• H.264 Deblocking Filter
– 14 different mapping explored
– Execution time analysis for computation,
waiting, and communication operations.
– Average differences from Metropolis
simulation and actual implementation was
3.48%.
• SPI-5 Packet Processing
– 6 architecture models developed
– Optimal FIFO length determined
56/60
Summary and Conclusions
1. Heterogeneity
Modularity
Problem Statement
Approach
Contribution
– Functional block level Metropolis models of
programmable services.
•
Direct structural correspondence aids accuracy. Automatic
structure extraction creates efficiency.
– Independent characterization process of actual
hardware implementations.
•
Shown to be accurate. Independence creates efficiency.
2. Complexity
Abstraction
– Depth/Surface Refinement allows internal changes to
the model.
•
Trace based formalism accuracy. Automatic checking
efficiency.
– Vertical/Horizontal Refinement allow structural
changes to the model.
•
Event based formalism accuracy. Refinement property
encapsulation efficiency.
57/60
Thanks
• Questions?
• Thanks
– Metropolis Team: Yoshi Watanabe, Felice
Balarin, Roberto Passerone, Abhijit Davare,
Haibo Zeng, Qi Zhu, Guang Yang, Trevor
Meyerowitz, Alessandro Pinto
– Committee: Jan Rabaey, Alberto
Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, John Wawrzynek,
Lee Schruben
– Industrial: Adam Donlin (Xilinx), Sanjay
Rekhi (Cypress)
58/60