CSV881: Low-Power Design Gate-Level Power Optimization

CSV881: Low-Power Design Gate-Level Power Optimization
Vishwani D. Agrawal James J. Danaher Professor Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849 Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization

Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization
Components of Power Dynamic Signal transitions Logic activity Glitches Short-circuit (often neglected) Static Leakage Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization

Power of a Transition isc VDD Dynamic Power = CLVDD2/2 + Psc R Vo Vi CL R Ground Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization 2

Dynamic Power Each transition of a gate consumes CV 2/2. Methods of power saving: Minimize load capacitances Transistor sizing Library-based gate selection Reduce transitions Logic design Glitch reduction Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization

Glitch Power Reduction
Design a digital circuit for minimum transient energy consumption by eliminating hazards Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization 4

Theorem 1 For correct operation with minimum energy consumption, a Boolean gate must produce no more than one event per transition. Output logic state changes One transition is necessary Output logic state unchanged No transition is necessary Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization 5

Event Propagation Single lumped inertial delay modeled for each gate PI transitions assumed to occur without time skew Path P1 1 3 1 2 4 6 P2 1 2 3 Path P3 2 5 Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization

Inertial Delay of an Inverter
Vin dHL+dLH d = ──── 2 dHL dLH Vout time Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization

Multi-Input Gate A B Delay d < DPD DPD: Differential path delay C A B C DPD d d Hazard or glitch Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization

Balanced Path Delays A B DPD Delay d < DPD Delay buffer C A B C d No glitch Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization

Glitch Filtering by Inertia
Delay d > DPD C A B C DPD d > DPD Filtered glitch Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization

Theorem Given that events occur at the input of a gate, whose inertial delay is d, at times, t1 ≤ ≤ tn , the number of events at the gate output cannot exceed tn – t1 ──── d min ( n , ) tn - t1 time t t2 t tn Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization 6

Minimum Transient Design
Minimum transient energy condition for a Boolean gate: | ti – tj | < d Where ti and tj are arrival times of input events and d is the inertial delay of gate Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization 7

Balanced Delay Method All input events arrive simultaneously Overall circuit delay not increased Delay buffers may have to be inserted 1 1 1 1 1 No increase in critical path delay 3 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization 8

Hazard Filter Method Gate delay is made greater than maximum input path delay difference No delay buffers needed (least transient energy) Overall circuit delay may increase 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization 9

Designing a Glitch-Free Circuit
Maintain specified critical path delay. Glitch suppressed at all gates by Path delay balancing Glitch filtering by increasing inertial delay of gates or by inserting delay buffers when necessary. A linear program optimally combines all objectives. Path delay = d1 |d1 – d2| < D Delay D Path delay = d2 Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization

Problem Complexity Number of paths in a circuit can be exponential in circuit size. Considering all paths through enumeration is infeasible for large circuits. Example: c880 has 6.96M path constraints. Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization

Define Arrival Time Variables
di Gate delay. Define two timing window variables per gate output: ti Earliest time of signal transition at gate i. Ti Latest time of signal transition at gate i. Glitch suppression constraint: Ti – ti < di t1, T1 ti, Ti . di tn, Tn Reference: T. Raja, Master’s Thesis, Rutgers Univ., 2002. Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization

Linear Program Variables: gate and buffer delays, arrival time variables. Objective: minimize number of buffers. Subject to: overall circuit delay constraint for all input-output paths. Subject to: minimum transient energy condition for all multi-input gates. Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization 10

An Example: Full Adder add1b
Critical path delay = 6 Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization 11

Linear Program Gate variables: d d12 Buffer delay variables: d d29 Window variables: t t29 and T T29 Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization

Multiple-Input Gate Constraints
For Gate 7: T7 ≥ T5 + d7 t7 ≤ t5 + d7 d7 > T7 – t7 T7 ≥ T6 + d7 t7 ≤ t6 + d Glitch suppression Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization

Single-Input Gate Constraints
Buffer 19: T16 + d19 = T19 t16 + d19 = t19 Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization

Critical Path Delay Constraints
T11 ≤ maxdelay T12 ≤ maxdelay maxdelay is specified Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization

Objective Function Need to minimize the number of buffers. Because that leads to a nonlinear objective function, we use an approximate criterion: minimize ∑ (buffer delay) all buffers i.e., minimize d15 + d16 + ∙ ∙ ∙ + d29 This gives a near optimum result. Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization

AMPL Solution: maxdelay = 6
1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 Critical path delay = 6 Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization 11

AMPL Solution: maxdelay = 7
3 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 Critical path delay = 7 Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization 11

AMPL Solution: maxdelay ≥ 11
5 1 1 1 3 1 2 3 4 Critical path delay = 11 Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization 11

ALU4: Four-Bit ALU 74181 maxdelay Buffers inserted 7 5 10 2 12 1 15 Maximum Power Savings (zero-buffer design): Peak = 33%, Average = 21% Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization

ALU4: Original and Low-Power
Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization

Benchmark Circuits Circuit ALU4 C880 C6288 c7552 Max-delay (gates) 7 15 24 48 47 94 43 86 No. of Buffers 5 62 34 294 120 366 111 Normalized Power Average 0.80 0.79 0.68 0.40 0.36 0.44 0.42 Peak 0.68 0.67 0.54 0.52 0.36 0.34 0.32 Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization

C7552 Circuit: Spice Simulation
Power Saving: Average 58%, Peak 68% Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization

References R. Fourer, D. M. Gay and B. W. Kernighan, AMPL: A Modeling Language for Mathematical Programming, South San Francisco: The Scientific Press, 1993. M. Berkelaar and E. Jacobs, “Using Gate Sizing to Reduce Glitch Power,” Proc. ProRISC Workshop, Mierlo, The Netherlands, Nov. 1996, pp V. D. Agrawal, “Low Power Design by Hazard Filtering,” Proc. 10th Int’l Conf. VLSI Design, Jan. 1997, pp V. D. Agrawal, M. L. Bushnell, G. Parthasarathy and R. Ramadoss, “Digital Circuit Design for Minimum Transient Energy and Linear Programming Method,” Proc. 12th Int’l Conf. VLSI Design, Jan. 1999, pp T. Raja, V. D. Agrawal and M. L. Bushnell, “Minimum Dynamic Power CMOS Circuit Design by a Reduced Constraint Set Linear Program,” Proc. 16th Int’l Conf. VLSI Design, Jan. 2003, pp T. Raja, V. D. Agrawal, and M. L. Bushnell, “Transistor sizing of logicgates to maximize input delay variability,” J. Low Power Electron., vol.2, no. 1, pp. 121–128, Apr T. Raja, V. D. Agrawal, and M. L. Bushnell, “Variable Input Delay CMOS Logic for Low Power Design,” IEEE Trans. VLSI Design, vol. 17, mo. 10, pp October 2009. Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization

Exercise: Dynamic Power
An average gate VDD, V = 1 volt Output capacitance, C = 1pF Activity factor, α = 10% Clock frequency, f = 1GHz What is the dynamic power consumption of a 1 million gate VLSI chip? Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization

Answer Dynamic energy per transition = 0.5CV2 Dynamic power per gate = Energy per second = 0.5 CV2 α f = 0.5 ✕ 10 – 12 ✕ 12 ✕ 0.1 ✕ 109 = 0.5 ✕ 10 – 4 = 50μW Power for 1 million gate chip = 50W Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization

Components of Power Dynamic Signal transitions Logic activity Glitches Short-circuit Static Leakage Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization

Subthreshold Conduction
Vgs – Vth –Vds Ids = I0 exp( ───── ) × (1– exp ─── ) nVT VT Ids 1mA 100μA 10μA 1μA 100nA 10nA 1nA 100pA 10pA Subthreshold slope Saturation region Subthreshold region d g s Vth V Vgs Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization

Thermal Voltage, vT VT = kT/q = 26 mV, at room temperature. When Vds is several times greater than VT Vgs – Vth Ids = I0 exp( ───── ) nVT Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization

Leakage Current Leakage current equals Ids when Vgs = 0 Leakage current, Ids = I0 exp( – Vth/nVT) At cutoff, Vgs = Vth , and Ids = I0 Lowering leakage to 10-b ✕ I0 Vth = bnVT ln 10 = 1.5b × 26 ln 10 = 90b mV Example: To lower leakage to I0/1,000 Vth = 270 mV Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization

Threshold Voltage Vth = Vt0 + γ[(Φs+Vsb)½ – Φs½] Vt0 is threshold voltage when source is at body potential (0.4 V for 180nm process) Φs = 2VT ln(NA /ni ) is surface potential γ = (2qεsi NA)½tox /εox is body effect coefficient (0.4 to 1.0) NA is doping level = 8×1017 cm–3 ni = 1.45×1010 cm–3 Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization

Threshold Voltage, Vsb = 1.1V
Thermal voltage, VT = kT/q = 26 mV Φs = 0.93 V εox = 3.9×8.85×10-14 F/cm εsi = 11.7×8.85×10-14 F/cm tox = 40 Ao γ = 0.6 V½ Vth = Vt0 + γ[(Φs+Vsb)½- Φs½] = 0.68 V Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization

A Sample Calculation VDD = 1.2V, 100nm CMOS process Transistor width, W = 0.5μm OFF device (Vgs = Vth) leakage I0 = 20nA/μm, for low threshold transistor I0 = 3nA/μm, for high threshold transistor 100M transistor chip Power = (100×106/2)(0.5×20×10-9A)(1.2V) = 600mW for all low-threshold transistors Power = (100×106/2)(0.5×3×10-9A)(1.2V) = 90mW for all high-threshold transistors Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization

Dual-Threshold Chip Low-threshold only for 20% transistors on critical path. Leakage power = 600× ×0.8 = = 192 mW Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization

Dual-Threshold CMOS Circuit
Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization

Dual-Threshold Design
To maintain performance, all gates on critical paths are assigned low Vth . Most other gates are assigned high Vth . But, some gates on non-critical paths may also be assigned low Vth to prevent those paths from becoming critical. Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization

Integer Linear Programming (ILP) to Minimize Leakage Power
Use dual-threshold CMOS process First, assign all gates low Vth Use an ILP model to find the delay (Tc) of the critical path Use another ILP model to find the optimal Vth assignment as well as the reduced leakage power for all gates without increasing Tc Further reduction of leakage power possible by letting Tc increase Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization

ILP -Variables For each gate i define two variables. Ti : the longest time at which the output of gate i can produce an event after the occurrence of an input event at a primary input of the circuit. Xi : a variable specifying low or high Vth for gate i ; Xi is an integer [0, 1], 1  gate i is assigned low Vth , 0  gate i is assigned high Vth . Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization

ILP - objective function
Leakage power: minimize the sum of all gate leakage currents, given by ILi is the leakage current of gate i with low Vth IHi is the leakage current of gate i with high Vth Using SPICE simulation results, construct a leakage current look up table, which is indexed by the gate type and the input vector. Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization

ILP - Constraints Ti For each gate (1) output of gate j is fanin of gate i (2) Max delay constraints for primary outputs (PO) (3) Tmax is the maximum delay of the critical path Gate i Gate j Tj Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization

ILP Constraint Example
Assume all primary input (PI) signals on the left arrive at the same time. For gate 2, constraints are Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization

ILP – Constraints (cont.)
DHi is the delay of gate i with high Vth DLi is the delay of gate i with low Vth A second look-up table is constructed and specifies the delay for given gate types and fanout numbers. Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization

ILP – Finding Critical Delay
Tmax can be specified or be the delay of longest path (Tc). To find Tc , we first delete the above constraint and assign all gates low Vth Maximum Ti in the ILP solution is Tc. If we replace Tmax with Tc , the objective function then minimizes leakage power without sacrificing performance. Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization

Power-Delay Tradeoff Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization

Power-Delay Tradeoff If we gradually increase Tmax from Tc , leakage power is further reduced, because more gates can be assigned high Vth . But, the reduction trends to become slower. When Tmax = (130%) Tc , the reduction about levels off because almost all gates are assigned high Vth . Maximum leakage reduction can be 98%. Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization

Leakage & Dynamic Power Optimization 70nm CMOS c7552 Benchmark 90oC Leakage exceeds dynamic power Y. Lu and V. D. Agrawal, “CMOS Leakage and Glitch Minimization for Power-Performance Tradeoff,” Journal of Low Power Electronics (JOLPE), vol. 2, no. 3, pp , December 2006. Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization

Summary Leakage power is a significant fraction of the total power in nanometer CMOS devices. Leakage power increases with temperature; can be as much as dynamic power. Dual threshold design can reduce leakage. Reference: Y. Lu and V. D. Agrawal, “CMOS Leakage and Glitch Minimization for Power-Performance Tradeoff,” J. Low Power Electronics, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp , December 2006. Access other paper at Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization

Problem: Leakage Reduction
Following circuit is designed in 65nm CMOS technology using low threshold transistors. Each gate has a delay of 5ps and a leakage current of 10nA. Given that a gate with high threshold transistors has a delay of 12ps and leakage of 1nA, optimally design the circuit with dual-threshold gates to minimize the leakage current without increasing the critical path delay. What is the percentage reduction in leakage power? What will the leakage power reduction be if a 30% increase in the critical path delay is allowed? Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization

Solution 1: No Delay Increase
Three critical paths are from the first, second and third inputs to the last output, shown by a dashed line arrow. Each has five gates and a delay of 25ps. None of the five gates on the critical path (red arrow) can be assigned a high threshold. Also, the two inverters that are on four-gate long paths cannot be assigned high threshold because then the delay of those paths will become 27ps. The remaining three inverters and the NOR gate can be assigned high threshold. These gates are shaded blue in the circuit. The reduction in leakage power = 1 – (4×1+7×10)/(11×10) = 32.73% Critical path delay = 25ps 5ps 12ps 5ps 12ps 5ps 5ps 5ps 5ps 12ps 5ps 12ps Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization

Solution 2: 30% Delay Increase
Several solutions are possible. Notice that any 3-gate path can have 2 high threshold gates. Four and five gate paths can have only one high threshold gate. One solution is shown in the figure below where six high threshold gates are shown with shading and the critical path is shown by a dashed red line arrow. The reduction in leakage power = 1 – (6×1+5×10)/(11×10) = 49.09% Critical path delay = 29ps 5ps 12ps 5ps 12ps 5ps 12ps 12ps 5ps 12ps 5ps 12ps Copyright Agrawal, 2011 Lectures 10, 11, 12: Gate-level optimization

CSV881: Low-Power Design Gate-Level Power Optimization

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "CSV881: Low-Power Design Gate-Level Power Optimization"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

CSV881: Low-Power Design Gate-Level Power Optimization

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "CSV881: Low-Power Design Gate-Level Power Optimization"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback