Skip to content

mpl: hard macro partitioning #7198

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

joaomai
Copy link
Contributor

@joaomai joaomai commented Apr 22, 2025

This PR was motivated by issue #6717 and aims to move the responsibility of partitioning hard macros from PAR to MPL. This hopefully makes MPL results more stable and predictable by relying less on PAR results.

The new approach still leverages PAR to split standard cells in a pair of balanced clusters, but hard macros are now assigned to a cluster based on their connectivity to the standard cell clusters.
Connectivity here is the number of non-supply nets from a cluster that a hard macro is connected to.

@joaomai joaomai requested a review from AcKoucher April 22, 2025 18:30
@maliberty
Copy link
Member

Please add more description of this new approach.

Copy link
Contributor

@github-actions github-actions bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

clang-tidy made some suggestions

Signed-off-by: João Mai <[email protected]>
Copy link
Contributor

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍"

Copy link
Contributor

@AcKoucher AcKoucher left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

With this approach couldn't we end up putting all the macros in the same partition?
I think we need to respect the current level's max threshold or limit to half of the number of macros.

odb::dbInst* inst = iterm->getInst();
odb::dbMaster* master = inst->getMaster();

if (master->isPad() || master->isCover() || master->isEndCap()) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This should check for isIgnoredInst

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants