Seongmoo Heo and Krste Asanovi MIT Laboratory for Computer Science - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Seongmoo Heo and Krste Asanovi MIT Laboratory for Computer Science http://www.cag.lcs.mit.edu/scale

WVLSI 2001 April 19, 2001

Motivation

• Flip-flops are one of the most important components in

synchronous VLSI designs.

• Critical effect on cycle time
• Large fraction of total system power
• Previously published work has failed to consider the effect of

circuit loading on the relative ranking of flip-flop structures.

[Kawaguchi et al. ’98] [Ko and Balsara ’00] [Kong et al ’00] [Lang et al ’97] [Nikolic et al ’00] [Nogawa and Ohtomo ’98] [Stojanovic and Oklobdzija ’99] [Stollo et al ’00] [Yuan and Svensson ’91] [Zyuban and Kogge ’99] [H.P. et al ’96] [J.M. et al ’96]

• Fixed and usually overly large output load
• Large or non-specified input drive
• No output buffering

Observation

• 1. Different flip-flop designs have different inherent parasitics and
• utput drive strength.
• Different number and complexity of logic gates
• Different kinds of feedback

Observation

• 1. Different flip-flop designs have different inherent parasitics and
• utput drive strength.
• Different number and complexity of logic gates
• Different kinds of feedback

D Q D Q D Q

Observation

• 2. Output loads in a circuit vary significantly.

Flip-flop output load instances in a microprocessor datapath

(A custom-designed 32-bit MIPS CPU in 0.25µm process) 20 120 60 40

# of instances

80 100 7.2fF (4 min inv gate cap) 28.8fF (16 min inv gate cap) 115.2fF (64 min inv gate cap) 1.8fF (min inv gate cap)

Our Proposal

Load effects must be considered in flip-flop characterization to avoid sub-optimal selection.

• We will present energy and delay measurements for various flip-

flops across a range of output loading conditions(EE and absolute load size) and show that the relative rankings of structures vary.

• We will show that output buffering at high load can lead to the

better performance and energy consumption for some structures.

Related Work

• Traditional Buffer Sizing
• Logical Effort [Sutherland and Sproull]
• Logical Effort: drive strength of a circuit structure
• Electrical Effort: the ratio of output load to input load
• Delay = intrinsic parasitic delay + LE x EE

Overview

• Flip-Flop Designs
• Test Bench & Simulation Setup
• Delay and Energy Characterization
• Delay Analysis
• Energy-versus-Delay Analysis
• Summary

Flip-Flop Designs

Fully static and single-ended

[Nikolic et al ’00

Test Bench

• Sized clock buffer

to give equal rise/fall time

• Used a fixed, realistic input driver
• Varied output load from

4 min inv cap(7.2fF) to 64 min inv cap(115.2fF).

• 4 Load and Drive Configurations
• EE4-min: min input drive, 4 min inv load (7.2fF)
• EE16-min: min input drive, 16 min inv load (28.8fF)
• EE64-min: min input drive, 64 min inv load (115.2fF)
• EE4-big: 16x min input drive, 64 min inv load (115.2fF)

FF

4 min inv cap 16 min inv cap 64 min inv cap

Simulation Setup

• 0.25 m TSMC CMOS process, Vdd=2.5V, T=25°C
• Hspice Levenberg-Marquardt method was used for transistor size
• ptimization.
• Transistor widths optimized for each load and drive conf.

to give min delay or min energy for a given delay (transistor lengths were fixed at minimum.)

• Parasitic capacitances included in the circuit netlists.

Delay and Energy Characterization

• Minimum D-Q delay [Stojanovic et al. ’99] (.Measure command)
• Total energy = input energy + internal energy + clock energy

– output energy

• A single test waveform with ungated clock and data toggling every cycle
• For a full characterization of energy dissipation, more realistic

activity patterns should be considered [Heo, Krashinsky, Asanovic ARVLSI’01].

FF 4 min inv load 16 min inv load 64 min inv load

Speed Ranking Without Buffering

• Delay = const. intrinsic parasitic delay

+ output drive delay (= load size × driving capability)

• Driving Capability = f(# of stages, complexity)

0.5 1.0 1.5 3.0 3.5 PPCFF SAFF MSAFF HLFF SSAPL

(Transistors sized at each load point, but only for min delay)

Influence of Buffering on Performance

: unbuffered : one inverter : two inverters (Min. input drive was used.)

(Assuming no penalty for inverting output)

SSAPL HLFF MSAFF SAFF PPCFF

1.5 1 0.5

Delay (ns)

0 20 40 80

Load (min inv cap)

1.5 1 0.5 0 20 40 80

Speed Ranking With Buffering Allowed

• Less speed variation compared to original flip-flops

PPCFF SAFF MSAFF HLFF SSAPL 0.5 1.0 1.5 3.0 3.5

Energy-Delay Curve : EE4-min EE4-min: min. drive + 4 min inv load(7.2fF)

Delay(ns) E n e r g y ( f J )

Each point sized for min energy for a given delay

Energy-Delay Curve : EE4-min

E n e r g y ( f J ) Delay(ns)

PPCFF-unbuf EE4-min: min. drive + 4 min inv load(7.2fF)

Energy-Delay Curve : EE16-min EE16-min: min. drive + 16 min inv load(28.8fF)

Delay(ns) E n e r g y ( f J )

SSAPL-unbuf

E n e r g y ( f J ) Delay(ns)

SSAPL-buf EE16-min: min. drive + 16 min inv load(28.8fF) Energy-Delay Curve : EE16-min SSAPL-unbuf

E n e r g y ( f J ) Delay(ns)

HLFF-unbuf EE16-min: min. drive + 16 min inv load(28.8fF) Energy-Delay Curve : EE16-min

E n e r g y ( f J ) Delay(ns)

HLFF-buf EE16-min: min. drive + 16 min inv load(28.8fF) Energy-Delay Curve : EE16-min HLFF-unbuf

E n e r g y ( f J ) Delay(ns)

PPCFF-unbuf

EE16-min: min. drive + 16 min inv load(28.8fF) Energy-Delay Curve : EE16-min

EE64-min: min. drive + 64 min inv load(115.2fF)

E n e r g y ( f J ) Delay(ns)

MSAFF-unbuf Energy-Delay Curve : EE64-min

E n e r g y ( f J ) Delay(ns)

HLFF-unbuf HLFF-buf EE64-min: min. drive + 64 min inv load(115.2fF) Energy-Delay Curve : EE64-min

EE4-big: 16x min. drive + 64 min inv load(115.2fF)

E n e r g y ( f J ) Delay(ns)

Energy-Delay Curve : EE4-big

Energy-Delay Curve : EE4-min vs EE4-big

EE4-min MSAFF-unbuf SAFF-unbuf PPCFF-unbuf EE4-big

MSAFF-unbuf SAFF-unbuf PPCFF-unbuf PPCFF-unbuf MSAFF-unbuf SAFF-unbuf

Energy-Delay Curve : EE4-min vs EE4-big

EE4-min EE4-big

Summary

• Different flip-flops have different gains and parasitics.
• Real VLSI designs exhibit a variety of flip-flop output loads.
• The output load size affects the relative performance and energy

consumption of different flip-flop designs.

• Therefore, output load effects should be accounted for when

comparing flip-flops.

• 1. Electrical effort
• 2. Absolute output load size
• 3. Output buffering