• Skip to main content
  • Skip to search
  • Skip to footer
Cadence Home
  • This search text may be transcribed, used, stored, or accessed by our third-party service providers per our Cookie Policy and Privacy Policy.

  1. Community Forums
  2. Digital Implementation
  3. Local congestion with 6.1*?

Stats

  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 4
  • Subscribers 90
  • Views 14039
  • Members are here 0
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Local congestion with 6.1*?

archive
archive over 18 years ago

Hi,

Anyone has seen bad local congestion with Encounter 6.1* after CTS? In my previous project, I had issue with this. In my current project which use a much larger process technology I am face with this issue again. I don't have this issue before with 5.*.

With the local congestion, optDesign is not able to size some of the cells, result in plenty of large negative slack.

Regards,
Eng Han


Originally posted in cdnusers.org by EngHan
  • Cancel
Parents
  • archive
    archive over 18 years ago

    Hi Bob,

    First to clarify my issue. I should say "high local placement utilization" and not "local congestion". There is no congestion even when with the high local utilizaiton. The local utilization is very high. By eyeball, it is almost (or it is) 100% for more than 10 rows and 30-50 std cell width (I cannot remember exactly, this is my impression).

    There is no issue before CTS (so physical synthesis part is okay). Also, I have not perform fix hold, so the problem occur only during CTS.

    I study the issue breifly. I think it is due to the tool size-up all the clock gates (CG)r. The design uses RC to insert cg even only when one FF is gated. So the design has 7000+ CG. Before CTS, most of the CG are 2x. After CTS, most of the CG are 12x and 16x. I believe this is causing local congestion.

    Now, before you think I have issue with my CTS specification file, I have tried many things. I have used mainly default setting, relaxed setting, and many in-between. I end up disable the high drive CG. It helps some, but not completely.

    Now again (:>) before you double my technology, I am using TSMC 0.18um lef, captable (with co-relation with QX), etc etc. This library cannot be that bad, correct?

    Back to my observation and feeling. I don't have this issue when I use 4.* and 5.* but for 2 consecutive projects I have this issue. I tend to think there is something in 6.* that make this happen. Of course I can be wrong; I hope to hear from the users of 6.* if they also face the same issue. Also, spread out the cells to ease local congestion is a basic function of the placer. Although all the cells have been placed, and CTS suppose to make minimum movement of the cells, I think something can be done here in an automated way.

    By the way, in a previous project I try to use cell/instance padding but it does not seem to be supported anymore by the new moduleplan placer. I am not 100% sure here...

    Regards,
    Eng Han


    Originally posted in cdnusers.org by EngHan
    • Cancel
    • Vote Up 0 Vote Down
    • Cancel
Reply
  • archive
    archive over 18 years ago

    Hi Bob,

    First to clarify my issue. I should say "high local placement utilization" and not "local congestion". There is no congestion even when with the high local utilizaiton. The local utilization is very high. By eyeball, it is almost (or it is) 100% for more than 10 rows and 30-50 std cell width (I cannot remember exactly, this is my impression).

    There is no issue before CTS (so physical synthesis part is okay). Also, I have not perform fix hold, so the problem occur only during CTS.

    I study the issue breifly. I think it is due to the tool size-up all the clock gates (CG)r. The design uses RC to insert cg even only when one FF is gated. So the design has 7000+ CG. Before CTS, most of the CG are 2x. After CTS, most of the CG are 12x and 16x. I believe this is causing local congestion.

    Now, before you think I have issue with my CTS specification file, I have tried many things. I have used mainly default setting, relaxed setting, and many in-between. I end up disable the high drive CG. It helps some, but not completely.

    Now again (:>) before you double my technology, I am using TSMC 0.18um lef, captable (with co-relation with QX), etc etc. This library cannot be that bad, correct?

    Back to my observation and feeling. I don't have this issue when I use 4.* and 5.* but for 2 consecutive projects I have this issue. I tend to think there is something in 6.* that make this happen. Of course I can be wrong; I hope to hear from the users of 6.* if they also face the same issue. Also, spread out the cells to ease local congestion is a basic function of the placer. Although all the cells have been placed, and CTS suppose to make minimum movement of the cells, I think something can be done here in an automated way.

    By the way, in a previous project I try to use cell/instance padding but it does not seem to be supported anymore by the new moduleplan placer. I am not 100% sure here...

    Regards,
    Eng Han


    Originally posted in cdnusers.org by EngHan
    • Cancel
    • Vote Up 0 Vote Down
    • Cancel
Children
No Data

Community Guidelines

The Cadence Design Communities support Cadence users and technologists interacting to exchange ideas, news, technical information, and best practices to solve problems and get the most from Cadence technology. The community is open to everyone, and to provide the most value, we require participants to follow our Community Guidelines that facilitate a quality exchange of ideas and information. By accessing, contributing, using or downloading any materials from the site, you agree to be bound by the full Community Guidelines.

© 2025 Cadence Design Systems, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy
  • Cookie Policy
  • US Trademarks
  • Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information