MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061217021 · doi:10.1145/605440.605449

A search-based bump-and-refit approach to incremental routing for ECO applications in FPGAs

2002· article· en· W2061217021 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Design Automation of Electronic Systems · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRadiation Effects in Electronics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNetlistComputer scienceRouting (electronic design automation)Place and routeProcess (computing)Field-programmable gate arrayPhysical designContext (archaeology)PlacementMultipath routingParallel computingDistributed computingStatic routingEmbedded systemCircuit designRouting protocol

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Incremental physical CAD is encountered frequently in the so-called engineering change order (ECO) process in which design changes are made typically late in the design process in order to correct logical and/or technological problems in the circuit. Incremental routing is a significant part of an incremental physical design methodology. Typically after an ECO process, a small portion of the circuit netlist is changed, and in order to capitalize on the enormous resources and time already spent on routing the circuit it is desirable to reroute only the ECO-affected portion of the circuit, while minimizing any routing changes in the much larger unaffected part. Incremental rerouting also needs to be fast and to effectively use available routing resources. In this article, we develop a complete incremental routing methodology for FPGAs using a novel approach called bump and refit (B&R). The basic B&R idea (which was originally proposed in Dutt et al. [1999] in the much simpler context of extending some nets by a segment for the purpose of fault tolerance) in our algorithms is to rearrange some portions of some existing nets on other tracks within their current channels in order to find valid routings for the new/modified nets without requiring any extra routing resources and with little effect on the electrical properties of existing nets. Here we significantly extend the B&R concept to global and detailed incremental routing for FPGAs with complex switchboxes (SBox's) such as those in Lucent's ORCA and Xilinx's Virtex series. We introduce new concepts such as a B&R cost in global routing and the optimal subnet set to relocate for each bumped net (determined using an efficient dynamic programming formulation). We developed optimal and near-optimal algorithms (called Subsec_B&R and Subnet_B&R, respectively) to find incremental routing solutions using the B&R paradigm in complex FPGAs (e.g., Lucent's ORCA FPGA) with <i>i</i>-to-<i>j</i> SBox's, as well as an optimal version Fullnet_B&R for the VPR architecture from the University of Toronto using the simpler <i>i</i>-to-<i>i</i> SBox's. We compared our algorithms (simply called B&R when no distinction needs to be made between our versions) to two recent incremental routing techniques, Standard (Std) and Rip-up&Reroute (R&R), and to Lucent's A_PAR routing tool and the University of Toronto's VPR router used in complete rerouting modes. Experimental results for the ORCA show that B&R is 10 to 20 times faster than complete rerouting using A_PAR, and that B&R is also nearly 27% faster and yields new nets with nearly 10% smaller lengths compared to previous incremental routers. Furthermore, B&R routers do not change either the lengths or topologies of existing nets, a significant advantage in ECO applications, in contrast to R&R which increases the length of ripped-up nets by an average of 8.75 to 13.6%. Experimental results for the VPR architecture are dominated by the significantly larger (in many cases, orders of magnitude more) number of nets left unrouted by Std and R&R compared to B&R, which highlights the much greater efficacy of B&R-based incremental routing. However, B&R is significantly slower than the other two incremental routers, although on an absolute scale it is quite fast for two of four cases we simulated; in one case, it is about 25 times faster than VPR used in the full rerouting mode. The relative slowness of B&R for the VPR architecture arises from the fact that we used <i>i</i>-to-<i>i</i> SBox's which forces each net to be routed on the same track, thus causing significantly more bumpings and searches for rearranged solutions compared to <i>i</i>-to-<i>j</i> SBox's where a net can be routed on different interconnected tracks to minimize the amount of bumpings (as we did for the ORCA). Since modern FPGAs generally have the latter type of SBox's, B&R would be fast as well as very effective on them.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score0.962

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it