1. Handling Complexity in FEV Erik Seligman CS 510, Lecture 6, January 2009

2. Outline  Complexity Intro & Basics  Hierarchical Comparison  Cut Points  Case Splitting  Cheating

3. Outline  Complexity Intro & Basics  Hierarchical Comparison  Cut Points  Case Splitting  Cheating

4. Complexity: Intro & Basics

5. Complexity = Time or Memory Blowup  Two ways to see complexity Tool crash (hopefully won’t happen) Compare Points reported as ‘Abort’  What does this mean? Logic was too complex to analyze Maybe bad options selected

6. Tool Solutions  Some tool options can help resolve set compare effort high|ultra|complete –Causes LEC to work harder before giving up analyze datapath [-merge] | analyze multiplier –LEC looks for common datapath structures –Useful if lots of arithmetic operations –Specialized alg if you have a multiplier compare -single –Slow, but concentrates on each point standalone  analyze abort New feature to look at abort point & try to ID good tool options Sloooow though (can run overnight, or abort too!)

7. Tool Capacity Issues  Monitor LEC process for memory blowup May be root cause of abort or seg fault  Look for options for run on hi-mem server Memory blowup is known FV hazard If you were close, this may be just enough  Also try new “compare –parallel” Uses multiple machines on network May improve memory & runtime

8. Design Issues: Memories  Memories are complex Usually bbox a memory, verify standalone Conformal supplies special library –LEC is easy with ‘verplex memory primitives’ –Otherwise extremely hard  How are memories FEVed? Inherently transistor-based, not simple gates Need to define common structures for tool

9. Design Issues: Don’t Cares  Don’t-Care (DC) Space Remember, a DC is an RTL ambiguity –Synthesis has freedom to decide Large DC space makes verification hard –If DCs cause aborts, consider assigning all values  How to diagnose? Look for this compile message –F34: Convert X assignment(s) as don't care(s) –report messages -rule F34 –verbose for exact lines Experiment: set x conversion 0 –gold –Ambiguous (X) cases = 0  false negatives –But experiment useful to see if DCs did cause aborts

10. Outline  Complexity Intro & Basics  Hierarchical Comparison  Cut Points  Case Splitting  Cheating

11. Using Hierarchical Verification

12. Hierarchy Example Simple option: FEV full TOP design Best option if feasible

13. Hierarchy Example Hierarchical: 3 FEV comparisons TOP.Green, Top.Yellow TOP with Green and Yellow bboxed Are there problems with this approach?

14. Hierarchy Problem: Constraints Circuit topology  constraints for bboxes What constraints needed in this example?

15. Hierarchy Problem: Constraints Circuit topology  constraints for bboxes What constraints needed in this example? Green: add pin eq a b Yellow: add pin constraint 0 c TOP: add pin constraint 0 Yellow.d

16. Hierarchy In Conformal  write hier dofile –constraint Odd but convenient command IDs common hierarchies Writes new dofile, verifying all pieces Generates summary report at end  Tricky when debugging! Need to rerun on hierarchy with error

17. Generated dofile: excerpts set root module top add pin constraint 0 yellow.d -both set sys mode lec compare report hier_compare data … set root module green add pin eq a b –both …

18. Challenges of Hierarchical FEV  Synthesis tools can flatten hierarchy May make hierarchical FEV impossible May need to request backend preserve some hierarchy  Mismatching submodule interfaces Extra pins inserted in synthesis Pin name changes May need to use Conformal commands to ignore/map pins

19. Hierarchy Special Case: Cell Libraries  Should use pre-FEVed library No sense in repeatedly verifying basic flops, latches, ANDs, ORs, etc Be sure lib team is doing low-level FEV!  Check that this is the case Should have.v (or.lib) file defining each cell You should see simple behavioral RTL for cells, not full transistor-level logic always @(posedge clk) q<=d

20. Outline  Complexity Intro & Basics  Hierarchical Comparison  Cut Points  Case Splitting  Cheating

21. Cut Points in FEV

22. What is a cut point?  Verifying big logic cone may be hard Harder in low-frequency designs  Divide logic at points other than states? Hard– synthesis only requires state matching But often some internals correspond too In extreme cases, recode RTL to enable  Cut point = non-state to treat as key point Map & verify just like latches/flops Reduces logic cones being analyzed

23. Cut Point Example add cut point p1 –gold add cut point p2 –rev add ren rule r1 p1 p2 -gold

24. Cut Point Problems? Is p1 still a useful cut point?

25. Cut Point Problems? Is p1 still a useful cut point? Maybe…

26. Cut Point Problems? Is p1 still a useful cut point? Maybe… Don’t forget about constraint issues too

27. Outline  Complexity Intro & Basics  Hierarchical Comparison  Cut Points  Case Splitting  Cheating

28. Case Splitting

29. What is Case Splitting?  FV is analyzes all cases together Good tool engines may be smarter  What if small inputs activate/deactivate lots of logic? Example: mode bits  Constrain appropriate pins to 1 or 0 Then compare twice Or constrain bits, then 2^n compares

30. Case Splitting Example Suppose compare of f2 & f4 Aborts, and we want to case-split on f1/f3.

31. Compare Case #1 First assign const of 0 to flop.

32. Compare Case #2 Then assign const value of 1. After both cases pass, we are equivalent!

33. Case splitting in Conformal  Conformal terminology: “partition”  Convenient commands add partition key_point write partition dofile  Be careful! partition points  2^n iterations Poorly chosen points worse than useless!

34. Outline  Complexity Intro & Basics  Hierarchical Comparison  Cut Points  Case Splitting  Cheating

35. Last Resorts: Cheating

36. Simulation  Obvious, defeats point of formal!  But may be useful last resort If small handful of points defying FEV  Be sure you exhausted FEV options! All tool compare/analyze options? Did you try hierarchical verify? Did you try cut points & case splitting? Did you consider recoding RTL to increase cut points and/or hierarchy, or reduce don’t- care space?

37. Simulation compare in LEC  compare –random Runs simulation vectors Should only run on specific problem points  Not a good solution But better than nothing Probably will get more vectors than GLS –Fast simulation only on problem cone

38. References / Further Reading  http://www.cdnusers.org/community/enco unter/Resources/resources_design/equiv /Dtp_cdnliveemea2006_itayarom.pdf http://www.cdnusers.org/community/enco unter/Resources/resources_design/equiv /Dtp_cdnliveemea2006_itayarom.pdf  http://www.cdnusers.org/Portals/0/cdnlive /na2006/2.4.1/2.4.1_paper.pdf http://www.cdnusers.org/Portals/0/cdnlive /na2006/2.4.1/2.4.1_paper.pdf  http://www.venusmultimedia.net/Aborts.h tm http://www.venusmultimedia.net/Aborts.h tm