Floorplanning

• Inputs to the floorplanning problem:

– A set of blocks, fixed or flexible.
– Pin locations of fixed blocks.
– A netlist.
• Objectives: Minimize area, reduce wirelength for (critical) nets, max-
imize routability, determine shapes of flexible blocks

7 5 5
7 3
4

6 6 4
2
1 3 1 2

An optimal floorplan,
in terms of area A non−optimal floorplan

1
 Floorplan Design
x
Modules: y

Area: A=xy
g e Aspect ratio: r <= y/x <= s
d
Rotation:
f
Module connectivity
b
c a 2 b
a
3 1 3 6
c 5 d
5
2 f
e

2
 Floorplanning: Terminology
• Rectangular dissection: Subdivision of a given rectangle by a finite #
of horizontal and vertical line segments into a finite # of non-overlapping
rectangles.
• Slicing structure: a rectangular dissection that can be obtained by
repetitively subdividing rectangles horizontally or vertically.
• Slicing tree: A binary tree, where each internal node represents a vertical
cut line or horizontal cut line, and each leaf a basic rectangle.
• Skewed slicing tree: One in which no node and its right child are the
same.
V V
3 3 H H H H
1
1 5
4 4 5 2 1 H 3 2 1 V H

2 V V 6 7 V 3
2 6 7 6 7
6 7 4 5 4 5
Non−slicing floorplan Slicing floorplan A slicing tree (skewed) Another slicing tree
(non−skewed)

3
 Floorplan Design by Simulated Annealing

• Related work

– Wong & Liu, “A new algorithm for floorplan design,” DAC’86.

∗ Consider slicing floorplans.

– Wong & Liu, “Floorplan design for rectangular and L-shaped mod-
ules,” ICCAD’87.

∗ Also consider L-shaped modules.

– Wong, Leong, Liu, Simulated Annealing for VLSI Design, pp. 31–71,
Kluwer academic Publishers, 1988.
• Ingredients: solution space, neighborhood structure, cost function, an-
nealing schedule?

4
 Solution Representation
• An expression E = e1 e2 . . . e2n−1 , where ei ∈ {1, 2, . . . , n, H, V }, 1 ≤ i ≤
2n − 1, is a Polish expression of length 2n − 1 iff
1. every operand j, 1 ≤ j ≤ n, appears exactly once in E;
2. (the balloting property) for every subexpression Ei = e1 . . . ei, 1 ≤
i ≤ 2n − 1, #operands > #operators.
1 6 H 3 5 V 2 H V 7 4 H V

# of operands = 4 ....... = 7
# of operators = 2 ....... = 5
• Polish expression ←→ Postorder traversal.
• ijH: rectangle i on bottom of j; ijV : rectangle i on the left of j.
V

7 5 H H

4 V V
3 4
H
6 2 7 5
2 1 6
1 3 E = 16H2V75VH34HV
E = 16+2*75*+34+*
Postorder traversal of a tree!

5
 Solution Representation (cont’d)
V V

1 V V 4
3 H 4 1 H
1 4 2 3 2 3
2 E = 123H4VV E = 123HV4V
non−skewed! skewed!
H V

Non−skewed H V
cases

....... HH ........ ....... VV ........

• Question: How to eliminate ambiguous representation?

6
 Normalized Polish Expression

• A Polish expression E = e1 e2 . . . e2n−1 is called normalized iff E has no

consecutive operators of the same type (H or V ).
• Given a normalized Polish expression, we can construct a unique rect-
angular slicing structure.
V

7 5 H H
4 V V 3 4

6 H 2 7 5

2 1 6

1 3 E = 16H2V75VH34HV
A normalized Polish expression

7
 Neighborhood Structure

• Chain: HV HV H . . . or V HV HV . . .
1 6 H 3 5 V 2 H V 7 4 H V

chain

• Adjacent: 1 and 6 are adjacent operands; 2 and 7 are adjacent operands;

5 and V are adjacent operand and operator.
• 3 types of moves:
– M 1 (Operand Swap): Swap two adjacent operands.
– M 2 (Chain Invert): Complement some chain (V = H, H = V ).
– M 3 (Operator/Operand Swap): Swap two adjacent operand and
operator.

8
 Effects of Perturbation

3
4
2 2
3 3 4
4 4
1 2 1 2 M2 1 1
M1 M3 3
12V4H3V 12V3H4V 12H3H4V 12H34HV

• Question: The balloting property holds during the moves?

– M 1 and M 2 moves are OK.

– Check the M 3 moves! Reject “illegal” M 3 moves.

• Check M 3 moves: Assume that the M3 move swaps the operand ei

with the operator ei+1 , 1 ≤ i ≤ k − 1. Then, the swap will not violate the
balloting property iff 2Ni+1 < i.

– Nk : # of operators in the Polish expression E = e1 e2 . . . ek , 1 ≤ k ≤ 2n − 1.

9
 Cost Function
• Φ = A + λW .
– A: area of the smallest rectangle

– W : overall wiring length

– λ: user-specified parameter

3
4
2 2
3 3 4
4 4
1 2 1 2 M2 1 1
M1 M3 3

A: 12H34HV
P
• W = ij cij dij .

– cij : # of connections between blocks i and j.

– dij : center-to-center distance between basic rectangles i and j.

10
 Cost Evaluation: Shape Curves

• Shape curves correspond to different kinds of constraints where the

shaded areas are feasible regions.
y
feasible
wi wi region
hi
hi hi corner
wi points
x
y y = six y y = six y y = six y y = six y = ri x y = 1
r x
i

y = ri x
Bounding y = ri x y = s1 x
area
hi hi
i

wi
wi x wi hi
x x x

xi >= a, yi >= b xi >= a, yi >= b, xi yi >= A

xi >= a, yi >= b xi >= a, yi >= b or
or xi yi >= A
xi >= b, yi >= a xi >= b, yi >= a, xi yi >= A

(a) rigid, fixed (b) rigid, free (c) flexible, fixed (d) flexible, free
orientation orientation orientation orientation
11
 Area Computation
{ (5,5) (9,4) } 2 1 2
V

{ (2,5) (3,4) } H { (3,5) (6,,4) }

2 2 5 6
H
{ (6,2) (3,3) }

V V { (3,2) }
1 2
{ (2,3) (3,2) } { (2,2) } 5 6
3 1 3 4
3 4 { (1,2) (2,1) } { (2,2) }
{ (1,3) (3,1) } { (2,3) (3,2) }

u2 max{u1, u2} V
u1
v w v+w H H

V V
u2 1 2
u2 u1+u2 5 6
u1 u1 3 4
v w
max{v, w}

• Wiring cost?

12
 Incremental Computation of Cost Function

• Each move leads to only a minor modification of the Polish expression.

• At most two paths of the slicing tree need to be updated for each move.
V V

H H H H
V V
M1 V V
1 2 1 2
6
5 4 6
3
4 3 5

E = 12H34V56VHV E = 12H35V46VHV

13
Incremental Computation of Cost Function
(cont’d)
V H

H H H V
V V
M2 V H
1 2 1 2
5 6
5 6
3 4
3 4

E = 12H34V56VHV E = 12H34V56HVH
V V
H H 1 H
V V
M3 V V
1 2
5 6
5 6
3 4
H 4

2
E = 12H34V56VHV 3

E = 123H4V56VHV
14
 Annealing Schedule

• Initial solution: 12V 3V . . . nV .

1 2 3 n

• Ti = riT0 , i = 1, 2, 3, . . .; r = 0.85.
• At each temperature, try kn moves (k = 5–10).
• Terminate the annealing process if
– # of accepted moves < 5%,
– temperature is low enough, or
– run out of time.

15
Algorithm: Simulated Annealing Floorplanning(P, , r, k)
1 begin
2 E ← 12V 3V 4V . . . nV ; /* initial solution */
∆avg
3 Best ← E; T0 ← ln(P )
; M ← M T ← uphill ← 0; N = kn;
4 repeat
5 M T ← uphill ← reject ← 0;
6 repeat
7 SelectMove(M );
8 Case M of
9 M1 : Select two adjacent operands ei and ej ; N E ← Swap(E, ei , ej );
10 M2 : Select a nonzero length chain C; N E ← Complement(E, C);
11 M3 : done ← F ALSE;
12 while not (done) do
13 Select two adjacent operand ei and operator ei+1 ;
14 if (ei−1 6= ei+1 ) and (2Ni+1 < i) then done ← T RU E;
15 N E ← Swap(E, ei , ei+1 );
16 M T ← M T + 1; ∆cost ← cost(N E) − cost(E);
−∆cost
17 if (∆cost ≤ 0) or (Random < e T )
18 then
19 if (∆cost > 0) then uphill ← uphill + 1;
20 E ← N E;
21 if cost(E) < cost(best) then best ← E;
22 else reject ← reject + 1;
23 until (uphill > N ) or (M T > 2N );
24 T = rT ; /* reduce temperature */
25 until ( reject
MT
> 0.95) or (T < ) or OutOf T ime;
26 end
16
Floorplanning by Mathematical Programming
• Sutanthavibul, Shragowitz, and Rosen, “An analytical approach to floor-
plan design and optimization,” 27th DAC, 1990.
• Notation:

– wi, hi: width and height of module Mi.

– (xi, yi): coordinate of the lower left corner of module Mi.

– ai ≤ wi/hi ≤ bi: aspect ratio wi/hi of module Mi. (Note: We defined

aspect ratio as hi/wi before.)
• Goal: Find a mixed integer linear programming (ILP) formulation for
the floorplan design.

– Linear constraints? Objective function?

17
 wi
Area = hi * wi
hi Mi Aspect ratio = wi / hi

(xi, yi)
 Nonoverlap Constraints
• Two modules Mi and Mj are nonoverlap, if at least one of the following linear constraints
is satisfied (cases encoded by pij and qij ):
pij qij
Mi to the left of Mj : xi + w i ≤ xj 0 0
Mi below Mj : yi + h i ≤ y j 0 1
Mi to the right of Mj : xi − wj ≥ xj 1 0
Mi above Mj : yi − h j ≥ yj 1 1
• Let W, H be upper bounds on the floorplan width and height, respectively.
• Introduce two 0, 1 variables pij and qij to denote that one of the above inequalities is
enforced; e.g., pij = 0, qij = 1 ⇒ yi + hi ≤ yj is satisfied.
xi + w i ≤ xj + W (pij + qij )
yi + h i ≤ yj + H(1 + pij − qij )
xi − w j ≥ xj − W (1 − pij + qij )
yi − h j ≥ yj − H(2 − pij − qij )

wi wj wi
hj
hi

(xi, yi) (xj, yj) (xi, yi) (xj, yj)

xi + wi <= xj xi + wi > xj

18
 Cost Function & Constraints
• Minimize Area = xy, nonlinear! (x, y: width and height of the resulting
floorplan)
• How to fix?
– Fix the width W and minimize the height y!
• Four types of constraints:
1. no two modules overlap (∀i, j : 1 ≤ i < j ≤ n);
2. each module is enclosed within a rectangle of width W and height H
(xi + wi ≤ W, yi + hi ≤ H, 1 ≤ i ≤ n);
3. xi ≥ 0, yi ≥ 0, 1 ≤ i ≤ n;
4. pij , qij ∈ {0, 1}.
• wi, hi are known.

19
 Mixed ILP for Floorplanning
Mixed ILP for the floorplanning problem with rigid, fixed modules.

min y
subject to
xi + wi ≤ W, 1≤i≤n (1)
yi + hi ≤ y, 1≤i≤n (2)
xi + wi ≤ xj + W (pij + qij ), 1≤i<j≤n (3)
yi + hi ≤ yj + H(1 + pij − qij ), 1≤i<j≤n (4)
xi − wj ≥ xj − W (1 − pij + qij ), 1≤i<j≤n (5)
yi − hj ≥ yj − H(2 − pij − qij ), 1≤i<j≤n (6)
xi , yi ≥ 0, 1≤i≤n (7)
pij , qij ∈ {0, 1}, 1≤i<j≤n (8)

• Size of the mixed ILP: for n modules,

– # continuous variables: O(n); # integer variables: O(n2 ); # linear constraints:

O(n2 ).

– Unacceptably huge program for a large n! (How to cope with it?)

• Popular LP software: LINDO, lp solve, etc.
20
 Mixed ILP for Floorplanning (cont’d)
Mixed ILP for the floorplanning problem: rigid, freely oriented modules.

min y
subject to
xi + ri hi + (1 − ri )wi ≤ W, 1≤i≤n (9)
yi + ri wi + (1 − ri )hi ≤ y, 1≤i≤n (10)
xi + ri hi + (1 − ri )wi ≤ xj + M (pij + qij ), 1≤i<j≤n (11)
yi + ri wi − (1 − ri )hi ≤ yj + M (1 + pij − qij ), 1≤i<j≤n (12)
xi − rj hj + (1 − rj )wj ≥ xj − M (1 − pij + qij ), 1≤i<j≤n (13)
yi − rj wj − (1 − rj )hj ≥ yj − M (2 − pij − qij ), 1≤i<j≤n (14)
xi , yi ≥ 0, 1≤i≤n (15)
pij , qij ∈ {0, 1}, 1≤i<j≤n (16)

• For each module i with free orientation, associate a 0-1 variable ri :

– ri = 0: 0◦ rotation for module i.

– ri = 1: 90◦ rotation for module i.

• M = max{W, H}.

21
 Flexible Modules
• Assumptions: wi , hi are unknown; area lower bound: Ai .
wi
• Module size constraints: wi hi ≥ Ai ; ai ≤ hi
≤ bi .

√ √
q q
Ai Ai
• Hence, wmin = Ai ai , wmax = Ai bi , hmin = bi
, hmax = ai
.

• wi hi ≥ Ai nonlinear! How to fix?

– Can apply a first-order approximation of the equation: a line passing through
(wmin , hmax ) and (wmax , hmin ).
h i = ∆i w i + c i / ∗ y = mx + c ∗ /
hmax − hmin
∆i = / ∗ slope ∗ /
wmin − wmax
ci = hmax − ∆i wmin / ∗ c = y0 − mx0 ∗ /
– Substitute ∆i wi + ci for hi to form linear constraints (xi , yi , wi are unknown; ∆i , ∆j ,
ci , cj can be computed as above).

22
 h

Ai = wi * hi
h max
hi = i wi + ci

h min

w
wmin wmax
 Reducing the Size of the Mixed ILP
• Time complexity of a mixed ILP: exponential!
• Recall the large size of the mixed ILP: # variables, # constraints: O(n2 ).
– How to fix it?
• Key: Solve a partial problem at each step (successive augmentation)
• Questions:
– How to select next subgroup of modules? ⇒ linear ordering based on connectivity.
– How to minimize the # of required variables?

23
 Next group
of modules

Partial
floorplan

W
Reducing the Size of the Mixed ILP (cont’d)
• Size of each successive mixed ILP depends on (1) # of modules in the next group; (2)
“size” of the partially constructed floorplan.
• Keys to deal with (2)
– Minimize the problem size of the partial floorplan.
– Replace the already placed modules by a set of covering rectangles.
– # rectangles is usually much smaller than # placed modules.

Dead space

(a) (b)

C3 C4 R4 R5
C2 R3

Horizontal C1 R2
cut edges
R1

(c) (d)

24