Paper Report Presenter: Jyun- Yan Li Design Fault Directed Test Generation for Microprocessor Validation Deepak A. Mathaikutty, Sandeep K. Shukla FERMAT Lab, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg Sreekumar V. Kodakara, David Lilja The University of Minnesota, Minneapolis Ajit Dingankar Validation Tools, Intel Corporation, Folsom Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition, 2007. DATE '07
22
Embed
Presenter: Jyun-Yan Li Design Fault Directed Test Generation for Microprocessor Validation Deepak A. Mathaikutty, Sandeep K. Shukla FERMAT Lab, Virginia.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Paper Report
Presenter: Jyun-Yan Li
Design Fault Directed Test Generation for Microprocessor
Validation
Deepak A. Mathaikutty, Sandeep K. Shukla FERMAT Lab, Virginia Tech, BlacksburgSreekumar V. Kodakara, David Lilja The University of Minnesota, MinneapolisAjit Dingankar Validation Tools, Intel Corporation, Folsom
Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition, 2007. DATE '07
2
Functional validation of modern microprocessors is an important and complex problem. One of the problems in functional validation is the generation of test cases that has higher potential to find faults in the design.
We propose a model based test generation framework that generates tests for design fault classes inspired from software validation. There are two main contributions in this paper. Firstly, we propose a microprocessor modeling and test generation framework that generates test suites to satisfy modified condition decision coverage (MCDC), a structural coverage metric that detects most of the classified design faults as well as the remaining faults not covered by MCDC.
Abstract
3
Secondly, we show that there exists good correlation between types of design faults proposed by software validation and the errors/bugs reported in case studies on microprocessor validation. We demonstrate the framework by modeling and generating tests for the microarchitecture of VESPA, a 32-bit microprocessor. In the results section, we show that the tests generated using our framework's coverage directed approach detects the fault classes with 100% coverage, when compared to model-random test generation
Abstract (cont.)
4
Simulation is widely used to validate large system Depend on the quality of tests Coverage metric measures the quality
。Software validation Statement, branch and path coverage
。State machine representation State, transition and path coverage
。Functionality
Effectiveness of coverage directed test generation Type of faults
。Can occur Strength of the coverage metric
。Detect faults
What is the Problem
5
Related workcoverage
Micro architecture
coverage[12]
randomExtended fault
class[7]
Design Fault Directed Test Generation for Microprocessor ValidationThis
paper:
coverage of formal models
[5]
Graph-based[9]
MCDC[6]Generate
assembler test program directly
for PowerPC
For superscaler processor
Build graph model of
processor and generate test program to detect fault
9 fault classes related to boolean
expressions
Strategy of coverage metric
Functional coverage
6
Fault class Example
Expression Negation Fault (ENF)
Term Omission Fault (TOF)
Term Negation Fault (TNF)
Literal Omission Fault (LOF)
Literal Insertion Fault (LIF)
Literal Negation Fault (LNF)
Literal Reference Fault (LRF)
Disjunctive Operator Reference Fault (ORF[+])
Conjunctive Operator Reference Fault (ORF[-])
Fault classes [7]
Correct
7
Statement coverage Invoke executable statement
Branch coverage Execute both the true and false
Modified condition Decision Coverage (MCDC) Test each of condition within a decision Affect outcome of the decision independently m conditions, m+1 test cases
Coverage Metrics
The same
with T2
The same
with T1
8
Correlate the bug categories in [2, 13] and map into the fault class
Detect all the design fault except LIF None of the errors observed was classified as a LIF
Motivation
9
Modeling language as a metamodel Describe architectural and microarchitectural
Proposal method
Validate the Microcode
Validate the RTL implementation
Statement, branch, MCDC Generate golden
result
Simulation result
10
Processor is specified Register/memory-level description
。Registers, their relationship and memory schematic Instruction set capture
。Instruction behavior
Construct Function blocks, if-else block, statement sequence and
loop, register map and memory layout Ex:
Architecture modeling
Register map
Register/memory reference or
immediate value
jump-if-not-zero (JNZ) instruction
11
Construct Configure pipe stage, provide ports with memory and
registers, insert instruction registers and describe the control logic
Combined to complex stages by basic components as MUX, ALU, INC, etc
Ex:
Microarchitecture modeling
Instruction fetch stage
Instruction memory
Z
PC
Increment by 4
PC2
1
1
0 2 3
0
12
Constraint Satisfaction Problem (CPS) Build Program Flow Graph (PFG) Static Single-Assignment(SSA) analysis for multiple
The fault detection capability of MCDC is 7/9 classes coverage Literal omission fault (LOF) can be satisfied by MCDC
。Every literal will affect the output of decision。Ex:
Literal Reference Fault (LRF) coverage by LRF_list。A list of variables to tell CCG which variable can be
replaced for resulting in a fault。If LRF_list is not provided, the CCG replaces every
variabled。Lead to large set of test case。Recommend LRF_list with a variable and mark it
Design Fault coverage
20
How many test cases are generated
。Not describes in the paper Conditions in a decision
。330 unique decisions, 400 unique conditions。1~10 conditions in a decision
Fault in each fault class
Before Experiment
21
Environment VESPA 32-bit processor, 5-stage pipeline 50 decisions are chosen and replaced randomly for LRF The number of test cases are the same for each
coverage metrics
Experimental result
22
A metamodel-based modeling framework to capture structure and behavior Architecture – registers, ISA Micro-architecture – pipeline structure, control logic
TGF results in test case for covering design faults CSP formulation TCG
My comment Overview the test case generating flow for code