Opportunities and challenges for better than worst-case design

ABSTRACT

The progressive trend of fabrication technologies towards the nanometer regime has created a number of new physical design challenges for computer architects. Design complexity, uncertainty in environmental and fabrication conditions, and single-event upsets all conspire to compromise system correctness and reliability. Recently, researchers have begun to advocate a new design strategy called Better Than Worst-Case design that couples a complex core component with a simple reliable checker mechanism. By delegating the responsibility for correctness and reliability of the design to the checker, it becomes possible to build provably correct designs that effectively address the challenges of deep submicron design. In this paper, we present the concepts of Better Than Worst-Case design and high light two exemplary designs: the DIVA checker and Razor logic. We show how this approach to system implementation relaxes design constraints on core components, which reduces the effects of physical design challenges and creates opportunities to optimize performance and power characteristics. We demonstrate the advantages of relaxed design constraints for the core components by applying typical-case optimization (TCO) techniques to an adder circuit. Finally, we discuss the challenges and opportunities posed to CAD tools in the context of Better Than Worst-Case design. In particular, we describe the additional support required for analyzing run-time characteristics of designs and the many opportunities which are created to incorporate typical-case optimizations into synthesis and verification.

REFERENCES

• 1: Overclockers.com website, overclockers forum. http://www.overclockers.com, 2004.
• 2: A. Agarwal, V. Zolotov, and D. Blaauw. Statistical clock skew analysis considering intra-die process variations. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, 23(8):1231--1242, Aug. 2004.
• 3: Todd Austin , David Blaauw , Trevor Mudge , Krisztián Flautner, Making Typical Silicon Matter with Razor, Computer, v.37 n.3, p.57-65, March 2004 [doi>10.1109/MC.2004.1274005]
• 4: Todd Austin , Eric Larson , Dan Ernst, SimpleScalar: An Infrastructure for Computer System Modeling, Computer, v.35 n.2, p.59-67, February 2002 [doi>10.1109/2.982917]
• 5: Todd M. Austin, DIVA: a reliable substrate for deep submicron microarchitecture design, Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM/IEEE international symposium on Microarchitecture, p.196-207, November 16-18, 1999, Haifa, Israel
• 6: Bob Bentley, Validating the Intel® Pentium® 4 Microprocessor, Proceedings of the 2001 International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (formerly: FTCS), p.493-500, July 01-04, 2001
• 7: B. Calder. Simpoint website. In http://www.cse.ucsd.edu/calder/simpoint/, 2003.
• 8: Saugata Chatterjee , Chris Weaver , Todd Austin, Efficient checker processor design, Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM/IEEE international symposium on Microarchitecture, p.87-97, December 2000, Monterey, California, United States [doi>10.1145/360128.360139]
• 9: B. Colwell. We may need a new box. IEEE Computer, 2004.
• 10: Dan Ernst , Nam Sung Kim , Shidhartha Das , Sanjay Pant , Rajeev Rao , Toan Pham , Conrad Ziesler , David Blaauw , Todd Austin , Krisztian Flautner , Trevor Mudge, Razor: A Low-Power Pipeline Based on Circuit-Level Timing Speculation, Proceedings of the 36th annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture, p.7, December 03-05, 2003
• 11: N. Herr and J. Barnes. Statistical circuit simulation modeling of CMOS VLSI. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems, 5(1):15--22, Jan. 1986.
• 12: G. Hinton, D. Sager, M. Upton, D. Boggs, D. Carmean, A. Kyker, and P. Roussel. The microarchitecture of the Pentium 4 processor. Intel Technology Journal, Feb. 2001.
• 13: Christopher Michael , Mohammed I. Ismail, Statistical Modeling for Computer-Aided Design of MOS VLSI Circuits, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, 1993
• 14: Maher Mneimneh , Fadi Aloul , Chris Weaver , Saugata Chatterjee , Karem Sakallah , Todd Austin, Scalable hybrid verification of complex microprocessors, Proceedings of the 38th conference on Design automation, p.41-46, June 2001, Las Vegas, Nevada, United States [doi>10.1145/378239.378265]
• 15: S. S. Mukherjee, C. T. Weaver, J. Emer, S. K. Reinhardt, and T. Austin. Measuring architectural vulnerability factors. IEEE MICRO, Dec. 2003.
• 16: Jan M. Rabaey, Digital integrated circuits: a design perspective, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1996
• 17: Chris Weaver , Todd M. Austin, A Fault Tolerant Approach to Microprocessor Design, Proceedings of the 2001 International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (formerly: FTCS), p.411-420, July 01-04, 2001
• 18: C. Weaver, F. Gebara, T. Austin, and R. Brown. Remora: A dynamic self-tuning processor. UM Technical Report CSE-TR-460-02, July 2002.