Logic Decomposition of

Asynchronous Circuits Using

STG Unfoldings

Victor Khomenko

School of Computing Science,

Newcastle University, UK

2

Asynchronous circuits The traditional synchronous (clocked) designs

lack flexibility to cope with contemporary

design technology challenges

Asynchronous circuits – no clocks: Low power consumption and EMI Tolerant of voltage, temperature and

manufacturing process variations Modularity – no problems with the clock skew

and related subtle issues

[ITRS’09]: 22% of designs will be driven by ‘handshake clocking’ in 2013, and 40% in 2020

Synthesis algorithms are complicated Computationally hard to synthesize efficient circuits

3

Motivation

• Logic decomposition is one of the most difficult tasks in logic synthesis

• The quality of the resulting circuit (in terms of area and latency) depends to a large extent on the way logic decomposition was performed

4

Speed-independency assumptions

• Gates are atomic (so no internal hazards)

• Gates’ delays are positive and unbounded (and perhaps variable)

• Wire delays are negligible (SI) or, alternatively, wire forks are isochronic (QDI)

Finstant

evaluator

delay

…

5

Speed-independent decomposition

G

…H1

Hk

……

delay

delay

delay

Finstant

evaluator

delay

…

6

VME Bus Controller

Device

VME BusController

lds

ldtack

d

Data Transceiver

Bus

dsrdtack

lds-d- ldtack- ldtack+

dsr- dtack+ d+

dtack- dsr+ lds+csc+

csc-

7

Complex-gate implementation

Deviced

Data TransceiverBus

dsr

dtacklds

ldtack

csc

May be not in the gate library and has to be decomposed

8

Naïve decomposition is hazardous

d

dsr

dtacklds

ldtack

csc

x

lds-d- ldtack- ldtack+

dsr- dtack+ d+

dtack- dsr+ lds+csc+

csc-

Unexpected!

Unexpected!

9

Decompose at the PN level!

d

dsr

dtacklds

ldtack

csc

dec

lds-d- ldtack- ldtack+

dsr- dtack+ d+

dtack- dsr+ lds+csc+

csc-

dec+

dec-

Insert a new signal dec whose implementation is [dec] = ldtack + cscMultiway acknowledgement

10

Latch utilisationd

dsr

dtacklds

ldtack

csc

d

dsr

dtacklds

ldtack

cscC

Only possible because there is no globally reachable state at which dsr=ldtack=0 and csc=1

11

State Graphs:

Relatively easy theory Many algorithms

Not visual State space explosion problem

State Graphs vs. Unfoldings

12

State Graphs vs. UnfoldingsUnfoldings:

Alleviate the state space explosion problem More visual than state graphs Proven efficient for model checking

Quite complicated theory Not sufficiently investigated Relatively few algorithms

13

Function-guided signal insertion

forever dofor all non-input signals x do

S[x] ← ∅for all G {latches, gates} do

S[x] ← S[x] decompositions(x,G)bestH[x] ← best SI candidate in S[x]

if for each x, bestH[x] is implementableLibrary matchingstop

if for each x, bestH[x]=UNDEFINEDfail

H ← the most complex bestHInsert a new signal z implementing H into the STG

Logic decomposition algorithm

[Cortadella et al, ’99]

14

Function-guided signal insertion

Problem: given a Boolean function F, insert a new signal dec (i.e. a set of new transitions labelled dec+ or dec-) with the implementation [dec]=F into the STG. Only unfolding prefix (rather than state graph) may be used.

15

Previous work: Transformations [PN’07]

Sequential pre-insertion Sequential post-insertion

Concurrent insertion

16

Previous work: main results [PN’07]• Validity criteria: safeness & bisimilarity

can be checked before the transformation is performed, i.e. on the original prefix (to avoid backtracking)

• Perform the insertion directly on the prefix avoid re-unfolding good for visualization (re-unfolding can

dramatically change the look of the prefix) Can transfer some information between

the iterations of the algorithm• The suite of transformations is good in

practice for resolution of encoding conflicts

17

Motivation for more transformations• The suite of transformations is not sufficient

for logic decomposition; intuitively: only linear (in the PN size) number of

sequential pre- and post-insertions (assuming that the pre- and postset sizes are bounded)

only quadratic (in the PN size) number of concurrent insertions

exponential number of ‘cuts’ in the PN where a Boolean expression can change its value

18

Example: imec-sbuf-ram-writedec+

dec-

dec

Implementation of prbar:(csc2 req) csc1 wsldin

imec-sbuf-ram-writereq

prechargeddone

wsldinwenin

prbarwenwsenackwsld

19

Generalised transition insertion [ICGT’10]

s1

s2

s3

d1

d2

• All previously listed good points hold for GTIs as well • Exponentially many GTIs can exist:

more likely that an appropriate transformation exists no longer practical to enumerate them all can enumerate only the ‘potentially useful’ (for logic

decomposition) GTIs

sources destinations

20

Compatible insertionsAn insertion I is compatible with F if whenever an

x can fire and trigger I, F’x=1, where

F’x = Fx=0 Fx=1

Intuitively, when x fires, the value of F must change, as I becomes enabled.

C

x I

F=v F=v

21

Compatible insertions

lds-

d-

ldtack-

ldtack+ dsr-dtack+d+

dtack-

dsr+ lds+ csc+

dsr+

csc+ csc-

F =ldtack csc

F=1

F=0

F=1

22

Find an optimal w.r.t. a heuristic cost function SAT assignment of the Boolean formula

MUTEX SA CUTOFF FUN

depending on the variables I1, ..., Ik corresponding to the compatible insertions, and conveying that:

no two insertions are non-commuting, or concurrent, or in auto-conflict, or one of them can trigger the other (MUTEX)

consistent assignment of signs is possible in the prefix (SA) and beyond cut-offs (CUTOFF)

F is a possible implementation of the newly inserted signal (FUN)

Reduction to (incremental) SAT

[ACSD’07]

23

Cost function

Parameterised by the user; takes into account:• the delay introduced by the insertion• the number of syntactic triggers of all non-

input signals• the number of inserted transitions of a signal• the number of signals which are not locked

with the newly inserted signal• …

24

Building FUN

Let C be a configuration enabling some x, F’x=1, and I be the set of compatible insertions such that:

C

x I

F=v F=v

Then the clause VII I is in FUN.

One can build a Boolean formula FUNGEN depending on C and compatible insertions whose SAT assignments satisfy this condition.

25

Building FUN (cont’d)Problem: it is infeasible to enumerate all configurations.

Idea 1: The same clause can be generated by many different configurations, and hence once one such configuration is found, the others can be excluded from the search.Idea 2: Clauses subsumed by already generated ones can be excluded from the search.

It is enough to add a clause VII I to FUNGEN

whenever a new clause VII I is computed.

26

Building FUN (example)

lds-

d-

ldtack-

ldtack+ dsr-dtack+d+

dtack-

dsr+ lds+ csc+

dsr+

csc+ csc-

F =ldtack csc

F=1

F=0

F=1

CC

27

Experimental results• Implemented in MPSAT (library matching not

implemented yet) and compared with PETRIFY• Assorted small benchmarks:

Similar failure rates and the quality of circuits – structural insertions seem sufficient

The tests reflect the quality of heuristics in choosing the decomposition in each step rather than the quality of the signal insertion routine

• Large benchmarks Tend to be non-decomposable by both tools Only one series (scalable pipelines) was useful

– can be solved by a single insertion, hence minimizes the impact of heuristics and reflects the quality of the signal insertion routine

– huge reachability graphs, so unfoldings win

28

Conclusions

• Unfolding-based decomposition algorithm alleviates state space explosion completes the design cycle based fully on

unfoldings (i.e. state graphs are never built)• All advantages of state-based decomposition

are retained: multiway acknowledgement latch utilisation highly optimised circuits

29

Thank you!Any questions?