editor's blog
Subscribe Now

More Efficient Vectors

In the wake of the UCIS announcement at DAC (which we’ll cover separately later), I sat down with some of Mentor’s functional verification folks to get an update. Coverage was one of the items on their agenda as part of addressing metric-driven verification.

They talk in terms of changing the engineering mindset when it comes to evaluating verification tools. Right now engineers tend to think in terms of “cycles/second”: how fast can you blaze through these vectors? Mentor is trying to change that thought process to “coverage/cycle”: it’s ok to take longer per cycle (OK, actually, they didn’t explicitly say that – probably a bit dodgy territory from a marketing standpoint – and I don’t know whether they’re solution is any slower on a per-cycle basis – but I’m inferring here…) as long as you get coverage faster. In other words, maybe one tool can zip through a bazillion vectors in three hours, but it’s better to have a tool that only needs a half-bazillion vectors and completes in two hours (slower on a per-vector basis, but faster overall completion).

Part of this is handled by their InFact “intelligent testbench.” They try to solve two problems with it, as I see it. First, there are hard-to-reach states in any design; the tool builds a graph of the design for use in identifying trajectories. From that, they should be able to reach any reachable state with the fewest vectors possible. Which is fine when testing just that one state.

But the second thing they do is what would appear to be their own variation of the “traveling salesman” problem. How do you traverse the graph to get to all the nodes without repeating any path? (The canonical traveling salesman problem is about not repeating any node and ending back where you started.) The idea is to get full coverage with as few vectors as possible. This gets specifically to the “coverage/cycle” metric.

Which reinforces the old truth that simply having and rewarding metrics doesn’t necessarily help things. It’s too easy to have the wrong metrics – which will be attained and for which rewards will be paid – and not improve life. Because they’re the wrong metrics.

Perhaps MDV should be modified to UMDV: Useful-Metric-Driven Verification. Of course, then we’ll get to watch as companies battle over which metrics are useful. But that could make for entertaining viewing too…

Leave a Reply

featured blogs
Jan 24, 2020
Someone has created a song by taking Pi, assigning each number to a note, and adding harmonies. The result is strangely captivating....
Jan 24, 2020
[From the last episode: We looked at the different ways memory can be organized in different kinds of systems.] Let'€™s look at a scenario: you run a restaurant, but you'€™re short on funds to hire people. So you'€™re your own chief cook and bottle-washer. You do everyt...
Jan 23, 2020
Embedded design trends typically revolve around three main ideas: faster data rates, smaller form factors and cost-effective solutions. Those design trends drive the theme for the 2020 Embedded Tech Trends forum: The Business and Technology Forum for Critical and Intelligent ...
Jan 22, 2020
Master the design and verification of next gen transport: Part One – Overview Master the design and verification of next gen transport: Part Two – High-Level Synthesis Master the design and verification of next gen transport: Part Three – Functional Safety M...

Featured Video

Automotive Trends Driving New SoC Architectures -- Synopsys

Sponsored by Synopsys

Today’s automotive trends are driving new design requirements for automotive SoCs targeting ADAS, gateways, connected cars and infotainment. Find out why it is essential to use pre-designed, pre-verified, reusable automotive-optimized IP to meet such new requirements and accelerate design time.

Drive Your Next Design to Completion Today with DesignWare IP® for Automotive SoCs