Can Recursive Bisection Alone Produce Routable Placements可以递归二分法单独产生的路由配售.ppt

Practical Iterated Fill Synthesis for CMP Uniformity Outline Chemical-Mechanical Polishing (CMP) Filling Problem in fixed-dissection regime LP and Monte-Carlo (MC) approaches Our contributions: MC approach with Min-Fill objective Iterated MC method Computational experience Summary and research directions CMP and Interlevel Dielectric Thickness Chemical -Mechanical Polishing (CMP) = wafer surface planarization Uneven features cause polishing pad to deform Objectives of Density Control Filling Problem Fixed-Dissection Regime Monitor only fixed set of w ? w windows “offset” = w/r (example shown: w = 4, r = 4) Partition n x n layout with nr/w ? nr/w fixed dissections Each w ? w window is partitioned into r2 tiles Layout Density Models Linear Programming Approach Min-Var Objective (Kahng et al.) Maximize: M Subject to: for any tile 0 ? p[T] ? slack[T] for any window ? T?W (p[T]+area[T]) ? U M ? ? T?W (p[T] + area[T]) p[T] = fill area of tile spatial density model Monte-Carlo Approach Fill layout randomly pick the tile for next filling geometry randomly higher priority of a tile ? higher probability to be filled lock tile if any containing window is overfilled LP vs. Monte-Carlo LP impractical runtime for large layouts r-dissection solution may be suboptimal for 2r dissections essential rounding error for small tiles Monte-Carlo very efficient: O((nr/w)log(nr/w)) time scalability: handle large values of r accuracy: reasonably high comparing with LP Monte-Carlo with Min-Fill Objective Delete excessive fill ! Iterated Monte-Carlo Approach Repeat forever run Min-Var Monte-Carlo with maximum window density U exit if no change in minimum window density run Min-Fill Monte-Carlo Algorithm with minimum window density M Computational Experience Testbed GDSII input hierarchical polygon database C++ under Solaris open-source code Computational Experience Iterated Monte-Carlo approach is more accurate than standard MC approach and faster