Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published by운택 섭 Modified over 5 years ago
1
How Thin is the Ice? How Variability and Yield Drive Physical Design.
Sani R. Nassif IBM Austin Research Laboratory
2
Motivation Modern manufacturing facilities cost »$2B and demand rapid return on investment. Market windows for leading edge products are less than 12 months. These two factors put extreme pressure on design teams to produce working high-yield 1st Silicon. What are the factors that prevent rapid yield learning?
3
Yield… Circuits fail because of:
Catastrophic and random defects which cause structural changes in the net-list (shorts or opens). Parametric and systematic shifts in electrical behavior of devices and wires reducing operating margins and ultimately performance. Process-induced variability is increasing as we delve into EDSM (Ever Deeper Sub Micron?). Systematic (circuit/design limited) yield loss is rapidly becoming as important as defect-limited yield.
4
The Design For Manufacturability Tradition
Academics Manufacturing Practitioners Information Bottleneck Design EDA
5
Problems with DFM Inadequate information flow between design and manufacturing activities. Example from IBM: Chip description is 3” thick. Technology description (manual) is ½” thick. Limited facilities in design tools for the representation of the process. Complicated physical phenomena are abstracted into RULES which are then checked for compliance without a clear metric for improvement. Wisdom
6
Outline Variability Analysis of variability. Variability forecasts.
Sources. Impacts. Models. Analysis of variability. Variability forecasts.
7
Variability Sources Physical: Parametric and Catastrophic.
Changes in characteristics of devices and wires. Caused by the IC manufacturing process and wear-out. Time scale of 109 sec (years). Environmental: Parametric. Changes in VDD, Temperature, local coupling. Caused by the specifics of the design implementation. Time scale of 10-6 to 10-9 sec (clock tick).
8
Variability and PD Physical: Parametric: Catastrophic:
Traditionally handled with worst-case corner files. Within-chip variability co-generated with the process. (depends on detailed layout of the design!) Catastrophic: Strong function of detailed layout! Environmental (Parametric only): Wire/Image planning determines VDD variability. Floor-plan determines T variability. Detailed routing determines coupling variability.
9
Variability vs. Uncertainty
Variability: quantitative relationship to source (model) is known. Designer has option to null out impact. Uncertainty: magnitude determined by characterization. Can only be treated by worst-case analysis. Lack of modeling resources can transform variability to uncertainty. Example: nearest neighbor noise coupling. Wisdom
10
Sources of Uncertainty
Design uncertainty: Portions not yet defined. Changes in specification. Modeling uncertainty: Lack of detail in models. Pessimism/conservatism (rules!). Processing uncertainty: Manufacturing noise (e.g. LEFF). Changes as technology matures. Accuracy needed relatively late in the design cycle. Uncertainty Accurate process noise needed Design Design complete Model Process Time
11
Outline Variability Analysis of variability. Variability forecasts.
Sources. Impacts. Models. Analysis of variability. Variability forecasts.
12
Impact of Variability Timing in a synchronous digital circuit:
Single distributed clock. Logic bounded by clocked latches. Correctness: signals obey certain timing inequalities. Performance: clock period. Robustness: timing margin in the presence of variability. Launch Capture Path 1 LL LC Logic Path 2 LL LC Logic Clock A Clock B Clock
13
Variability and Timing
TA + T1 £ TB + TPeriod TA + T1 ³ TB TA + T2 £ TB + TPeriod Launch T1 Capture Path 1 LL LC Logic Performance T2 Path 2 LL LC TB + TPeriod delay Logic wire margin TA + T1 T1 device dominated TA Clock A Clock B TA TB Relative wire delay Clock
14
Timing Correctness TA + T2 £ TB + TPeriod Failure TA + T2 TB + TPeriod
Launch T1 Capture Path 1 Failure LL LC TA + T2 Logic delay TB + TPeriod T2 margin Path 2 LL LC T2 device+wire Logic TA wire Relative wire delay Increased variability ® reduced margin ® increased period ® reduced performance. Wisdom Clock A Clock B TA TB Clock
15
Outline Variability Analysis of variability. Variability forecasts.
Sources. Impacts. Models. Analysis of variability. Variability forecasts.
16
A Typical Scenario: Parametric
Fab E-Test data Statistical Modeling Process Limits Design Corners Design Simulation Performance Estimates Deterministic Modeling Operating Conditions Yield Estimate
18
A Typical Scenario: Catastrophic
Fab Defect data Design Critical Area Analysis Failure Estimates Yield Estimate
19
What is a Defect Anyway? Wire 1 Short Wire 2
20
Within-Die Variations?
Environmental components: VDD & Temperature variations are natural byproducts of power distribution analysis. Power analysis is going to be unavoidable in EDSM. Easy but BIG analysis problem.
21
Spatial Parametric Variability
Lot, wafer & die levels. Lot Level. Not of interest to designer. Wafer Level. Smooth variations across wafer. Locally (within die) linear position dependence. Chip Level. Layout dependent . Die 2 Die 1 wafer Parameter Position Die 1 Die 2
22
Layout-Dependent Variations
Poly line-width (LEFF) variation comes from: Mask variations Exposure variations Etch variations Wire-width variations have similar sources. Layout Mask Resist Poly Silicon
23
Modeling of LEFF Variations
EDSM processes will use optical pattern correction (OPC) to improve image quality at the poly-silicon level. Infrastructure required to perform OPC is the same as that required to predict 1st order interaction between layout and DL! Go for it… PD should get involved with the physics and SPICE types to make this a reality.
24
Modeling of Wire Variations
Horizontal variations are similar to those of LEFF Different processing steps no correlations with LEFF. . Vertical variations are caused by chemical-mechanical planarization (CMP) process. polishes faster C1 C2
25
Variations: Summary Traditional view: process parametric variations are imposed upon a design. Everything is random. Worst-Case corners constitute a complete description of the process. DSM view: process variations interact with the design causing within-die variations. Physical (line width, ILD, etc...). Environmental (temperature, supply). Comparable in magnitude to die-to-die variations. Variability comes from non-uniformity! Wisdom
26
Outline Variability. Analysis of variability Variability forecasts.
Critical Area Analysis. Statistical Analysis (Die to Die). Statistical Analysis (Within Die). Variability forecasts.
27
Critical Area Analysis
Now a staple for catastrophic yield analysis. Example of transformation from rule-based analysis to goodness-metric-based analysis. Active current research to improve performance and allow automated optimization. Defect Center
28
Some “DUH” Solutions… Wire Spreading Uniformity Decreases Critical Area AND Variability!
29
Outline Variability. Analysis of variability Variability forecasts.
Critical Area Analysis. Statistical Analysis (Die to Die). Statistical Analysis (Within Die). Variability forecasts.
30
Performance Estimation
Basic assumptions: Performance measured by simulation. Technology represented by model parameters. Parameters have statistical distributions. Nominal performance estimation: Simulator Design Description Operating Environment Model Parameters Performance Estimate
31
Statistical Performance Estimation
Model Inaccuracy Process Variations Vdd, T Noise Model Parameters Simulator Performance Distribution Design Description PD Operating Environment Model inaccuracy need not be correlated with, and cannot be distinguished from process variations. Wisdom
32
Classical Statistical Analysis
Given: A design specification. Target performance, z. Determine: The expected ns spread of z. Worst or extreme case analysis. The distribution of z. Yield estimation. How to change design to improve yield. Yield maximization.
33
Outline Variability. Analysis of variability Variability forecasts.
Critical Area Analysis. Statistical Analysis (Die to Die). Statistical Analysis (Within Die). Variability forecasts.
34
Analysis of Within-Chip Variability
After physical design (layout): Apply models for spatial variations. P(x,y) = W(w,x,y) + N(0,s2) w are the parameters of the spatial variation model. Example: wire capacitance as a function of inter-dielectric thickness variations due to Chemical-Mechanical Polishing density dependence. Perform worst case analysis with respect to w. Before physical design (or... model not available): Spatial dependence not available. P(x,y) = N(m,s2) Max/Minimize performance subject to maintaining statistics. Wisdom
35
Example Skew in an H-Tree clock distribution network. Skew B
36
Why Skew? TA + T1 £ TB + TPeriod TA + T1 ³ TB TA + T2 £ TB + Tperiod
Skew is TA - TB Launch T1 Capture Path 1 LL LC Logic T2 Path 2 LL LC Logic wire Clock Period Useful Work Skew Clock A Clock B TA TB T1 TA - TB Clock
37
Example: LEFF Variations
Impact of Poly-Silicon mask, lithography and etch at the chip level. Each buffer (total of 65) has a unique value of LEFF. Values of LEFF obey a normal distribution. max Skew(LEFF) s.t. mean(LEFF) = m and stdv(LEFF) = s B Skew
38
Results for LEFF Dark: short. Skew insensitive to top half of H-Tree.
Sensitivity increases closer to the leaves of the H-Tree. Non-statistical worst case is 23% more pessimistic. change LEFF to +3s or -3s depending on sensitivity. Better analysis got us 23% closer to the edge! Wisdom
39
Another View of LEFF Worst case for wafer- level variations.
LEFF modeled as a linear function of position. Much smaller skew. Chip
40
Results for Wire Variations
Each wire segment was one variable (63 total). Dark: wide. Skew most sensitive to wires at the root of the tree hierarchy. Non-statistical worst case is 18% more pessimistic.
41
Outline Variability. Analysis for variability Variability forecasts.
42
Caveats Digital/ASIC-centric view.
Many phenomena of interest to analog designers have yet to impact high performance digital design. Forecasting of technology-related parameter variability is inaccurate. Rely on NTRS and ITRS documents + insight from IBM technologies. Inspired by W. Maly. Sensitivity to variability is a strong function of circuit family and design style. Conclusions here limited to static CMOS buffer delays.
43
Canonical Circuit Needed to assess impact of variability over technology generations. Inverter/buffer followed by a wire. Length of wire determined to minimize delay. If the wire were longer, a buffer would be inserted. RB CB CW RW tB
44
The NTRS Technologies
45
Parameter Variations (Total)
% Leff W, H, T, r VDD, TOX, VT
46
Wire vs. Device Variability
Percentage of variability due to device variations. Uniform Shrink: Constant W/L, wire length a Leff Smart Shrink: Constant W/L, wire length=LMAX Device shrink: Constant W, wire length=LMAX
47
Conclusions Variability plays an important and increasingly dominant part in high performance design. Existing DA tools and models of technology are insufficient to handle DSM variability. Tools need to migrate from rule checking to “goodness metric” estimation and improvement. Research is needed in models and analysis. Better models of variations can lead to tightened margins. Current analysis methodologies are SPICE-based and severely limited in capacity. Yield and $ are tightly coupled. Mistakes are costly. Analysis for now… automatic optimization later. 21
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.