technical university tallinn estonia 1 otsustusdiagrammide kasutamisest digitaalsüsteemide...

Technical University TallinnESTONIA 1

Otsustusdiagrammide kasutamisest digitaalsüsteemide diagnostikas

Raimund Ubar

TTÜ, Arvutitehnika instituut

Tartu Ülikool, 23. mai 2003


Ülevaade:• Digitaalsüsteemide diagnostika põhiülesanded• Otsustusdiagrammid: BDD ja SSBDD• Boole’i operatsioonid (SS)BDD-dega• SSBDD-de omadused• Kõrgtaseme otsustusdiagrammid (DD-d)

– register-edastuste tase– käsusüsteemi tase

• Mitmedimensionaalsed otsustusdiagrammid

Otsustusdiagrammide digitaalsüsteemide diagnostika


Introduction – Test Tools

Test

System

Fault table

System model

Test generation

Fault simulation

Test result

Fault diagnosis

Go/No go Located defect

Test experiment

Test tools


Introduction – Test Tasks

Fault Diagnosis and Test Generation as direct and reverse mathematical tasks:

dy = F(x1, ... , xn) F(x1 dx1 , ... , xn dxn)

dy = F(X, dX)

Direct task:

Test generation: dX, dy = 1 given, X = ?

Reverse task:

Fault diagnosis: X, dy given, dX = ?

Fault simulation: X, dy = 1 given, dxk = ?

Fault Simulation is a special case of fault diagnosis


Binary Decision Diagrams

• 1959 - Lee C.Y. - Description of BF by graph-like structures• 1967 - Ehrenfeucht A., Orlowska E - Fast evaluation of BE• 1971 - Schneider B.N. - Representing BF by graphs (Abstract) > AG• 1974 - Dipl. Thesis, TTU (Vaher/Ubar) - Fast evaluation of BE• 1975 - Breitbart Y, Reiter A. - Fast evaluation of BE (Compiler design)• 1976 - Ubar R. - Test generation > AG• 1976 - Kuzmin V.A. - Complexity evaluation of BF by BP• 1977 - Kuznetsov O.P. - Realization of BF by programmes• 1977 - Akers S.B. - Test generation, introduced the name BDD• 1981 - Thayse A. - BDDs in other fields: CAD, program optimization, AI• 1986 - Bryant R.E. - manipulation of BDDs• 1990 - Bryant R.A. - the first BDD package



x1

x2

y

x3

x4 x5

x6 x7

0

1

7654321 )( xxxxxxxy Simulation:

7654321 xxxxxxx0 1 1 0 1 0 0

1y

Boolean derivative:

15427613

xxxxxxx

y

1

0

Functional BDD



D

C

q c

q’

D

S

C

q

BDDs for flip-flops

R

0

')'(

SR

qcRqScq

c

q’

S

R q’

R

U

D Flip-Flop

RS Flip-Flop

JK Flip-Flop

S

J

q

R c

q’

S

R q’

C

KK

J

U - unknown value


Elementary BDDs

Elementary BDDs:

1

x1x2x3

y x1 x2 x3&

x2x3

y x1

x1

x2

x3

1x1x2x3

y x1 x2 x3

+x1x2x3

y

x1

x2

x3

y x2 x3

Adder

NOR

AND

OR


Building a SSBDD for a Circuit

1

&

&x1

x2

x3

x21

x22y

a

b

322211 xxxxbay

a by

a x1

x21

b x22

x3

ay x22

x3

y x22

x3

x1

x21

DD-library:

Superposition of DDs

Superposition of Boolean functions:

Given circuit:

Compare to

SSBDD

Structurally Synthesized BDDs:

b a


Boolean Operations with BDDs

AND-operation:

1

&

&x1

x2

x3

x21

x22

y

a

b

1

&

&x5

x6

x51

x52

c

d

x4

g

e

y = e g x3

x1

x21

x22

x6

x4

x51

x52

y

OR-operation:

x3

x1

x21

x22y

x6

x4

x51

x52

y = e g


Boolean Operations with BDDs

Boolean function: Inverted function:

Dual function: Inverted dual function:

y = x1x2 x3 y = x1x2 x3 = (x1 x2) x3

x1 x2

x3

y x1 x3

x2

y

x1 x3

x2

y*

y*= (x1 x2) x3 y * = x1x2 x3

x1 x2

x3

y *


BDD and DNF/KNF

Boolean function: y = x1x2 x3 (x4 x5x6)

x1 x2

x3

x5 x6

x4

1

y

x3x5x6 = 1

x1 x2

x3

x5 x6

x4

y

x1x4x5 = 1

0

Each 1-path represents a term in the DNF, each 0-path represents a term in the KNF


Transformation Rules for SSBDDs

Commutative law:

y = x1 x2= x2 x1x1

x2

y x2

x1

y

Idempotent law:

Exchange of nodes:

BOOLEAN ALGEBRASSBDD

Node passing:

x1

x1

y

x1

x2

y y = x1 x1 x2 = = x1 x2

x2

x1

=

=



Absorption law:


Node passing:

x1

x1

y y y = x1 x1x2 = x1

x2

x1

x1 x2

=

Distributive law:x1

x1

y

x3

=x2 x1y

x3

x2

x1

y = x1x2 x1x3= = x1(x2 x3)



Assotiative law:


Superposition:

x1

z

y

y = x1 (x2 x3) = = (x1 x2) x3

=x2

x3

z

x1y

x2

x3

z

x3

y

x1

x2

z=


Transformation Rules for BDDs

Change-over switching of nodes:

x1

x3

y x2 x1

x2

y x3

=

Joint use of subgraphs:

x1

x2

y x3

=x2

x1

x2

y x3

Removing subgraphs:

x1

x1

y x2

=x3

x1y x2

x3

=


Representing by SSBDD a Circuit

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

71

72

73

a

b

c

d

e

y

Macro

6 73

1

2

5

7271

y

0

1

y = cyey = cy ey = x6,e,yx73,e,y deybey

y = x6x73 ( x1 x2 x71) ( x5 x72)

Structurally synthesized BDDfor a subcircuit (macro)

To each node of the SSBDD a signal path in the circuit corresponds


SSBDDs vs. BDDs

Advantages of SSBDDs compared to the BDDs:• Complexity explosion is avoided

– The number of nodes is linear with the circuit size (determined by the number of paths in macros)

• Test-specific structural features can be represented– Each node represent a signal path in the circuit– Faults of the circuit are directly represented in SSBDDs– Circuit’s dynamic (hazards, risk, delays) can be investigated with SSBDDs

• Processing speed can be increased due to special properties of SSBDDs– Test generation (search space can be reduced)– Fault simulation (the speed of fault analysis can be increased)– Fault diagnosis (minimization of experiments easily controlled)

Disadvantage: SSBDDs cannot be minimized


SSBDDs vs. BDDs

Increasing the Speed of Test Generation with SSBDDs

N A

B

Theorem:

In SSBDD there exists always a path between the two successors A and B of N,either from A to B or from B to A

1

2 3

4

5

9

6 7 8

11

10

0

1

Breake search here

Task: Activate a path to 1

Property of SSBDD:

Result: Tracing is forced in nodes 1,9,10 Output 0 Another trials possible from 2,3,4 Not needed


SSBDDs vs. BDDs

Increasing the Speed of Fault Simulation with SSBDDs

Theorem:

If a path in SSBDD is activated by a test pattern to 0 (or 1), then no faults can be detected by this pattern at nodes left in the oposite direction 1 (or 0)

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

71

72

73

a

b

c

d

e

y

Macro

Example:

6 73

1

2

5

7271

y

1

The activated path is shown in boldThe output value is 1No need of fault simulation in nodes 6 and 1


SSBDDs vs. BDDs

Increasing the Speed of Fault Location with SSBDDs

Theorem:

If a path in SSBDD is activated to 0 (or 1),and an error isobserved on the output,then no faultsat nodes leftin oposite direction 1 (or 0)can be the causes of the error

Errordetected

Error signal traced

C

Circuit under guided probing:

...Where to continue pinpointing?

SSBDD for the component C:

1

2 3

4

5

6 8 1

7

The activated path is shown in boldThe output value is 0Faults can be detected only in nodes 1,6,7


SSBDDs vs. Gate-Level Models

Advantages of SSBDDs compared to the Gate-Level Models:• Complexity reduction

– Faults domain: each node represent all the faults of the corresponding signal path (fault collapsing)

– Time domain: each node represent the delay of the corresponding signal path

• Hierarchical approaches are easy– SSBDD for a subcircuit can be represented as a macro

– No special manipulation procedures for different macros are needed

– No model libraries for different tools are needed


Extentions of BDDs• 1980 - Multi-Terminal DDs for uncertainty in sequential circuits (1993)

– Automatika I Telemehanika, No5, 1980

• 1981 - Word-Level DDs for Data-Paths– Nachrichtentechnik-Elektronik 31 (1981, H.1)

• 1983 - DDs with multi-output internal nodes– Proceedings of TTU No. 550

• 1983 - Vector DDs for output behaviour of microprocessors– Fault-Tolerant Computing Symposium, Milano

Recent papers on high-level DDs:• R.Ubar. Test Synthesis with Alternative Graphs. J.of IEEE Design and Test of Computers. Spring, 1996, pp.48-

59• R.Ubar. Combining Functional and Structural Approaches in Test Generation for Digital Systems. J. of

Microelectronics and Reliability, Elsevier Science Ltd. Vol. 38, pp.317-329, 1998

• J.Raik, R.Ubar. Fast Test Pattern Generation for Sequential Circuits Using Decision Diagram

Representations. J. of Electronic Testing. Kluwer Acad. Publ. Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 213-226, 2000. • R.Ubar, A.Morawiec, J.Raik. Back-Tracing and Event-Driven Techniques in High-Level Simulation with DDs.

IEEE ISCAS’2000 Conf., Geneva, May 28-31, 2000, Vol. 1, pp. 208-211.


Generalization of MTBDDs for FSMs

1/0

3/0

5/0

6/1

4/1

2/1

x1 x1

x2 x2

x1

x1

Res

Res q’ x1

3.0

x2 4.1

5.0

6.1x1

1.0

*.0

q.y

1

1 1

2

3

4

5

6

*

3 42.1

5

6

8

9

10

12

11

13

7

1.02

0

0

0

1

1

1

State Transition Diagram:

New features:• representing vectors • multi-output internal nodes• multi-terminal BDDs


High-Level Decision Diagrams

R2M3

e+M1

a

*M2

b

R1

IN

c

d

y1 y2 y3 y4

y4

y3 y1 R1 + R2

IN + R2

R1* R2

IN* R2

y2

R2 0

1

2 0

1

0

1

0

1

0

R2

IN

R12

3

Superposition of High-Level DDs:

A single DD for a subcircuit

R2

R2 + M3

Instead of simulating all the components in the circuit, only a single path in the DD should be traced

M1

M2


Faults and High-Level Decision Diagrams

RTL-statement:

R2M3

e+M1

a

*M2

b

R1

IN

c

d

y1 y2 y3 y4

y4

y3 y1 R1 + R2

IN + R2

R1* R2

IN* R2

y2

R2 0

1

2 0

1

0

1

0

1

0

R2

IN

R12

3

Terminal nodes

RTL-statement faults: data storage, data transfer, data manipulation faults

Nonterminal nodes

RTL-statement faults: label, timing condition, logical condition, register decoding, operation decoding,control faults

K: (If T,C) RD F(RS1,RS2,…RSm), N



+ R3

R2

F R1

A

BC

Y

y2

A

y3

y1 s

y3

0 y2

2

A

2R’2y1

R’1

F(B,R’

3)

AR’1

0

0

Y,R 3 R2

0 0

1 12

2

0

3

R1

C1

2

0

C+R’

2

R’3 R’2

y1 R1 Function0 #0 Reset1 R’1 Hold2 F(B,R’3) Specialy2 R2 Function0 #0 Reset1 R’2 Hold2 A Load3 2R’2 Shifty3 Y,R3 Function0 #0 Reset1 R’3 Hold2 C+R’2 Adder

C FunctionAR’1 Multiplier

Register-Level Data Path:



y30

C R’2

C

y2

2222

A

2R’2

y1

R’1

R’3 B

F(B,R’3)

A

A

AR’1

0

0

0

R’2

Y,R3 R20 0

1 1

0

0

0

22

0

3

R1

C

R’1

R’1

1

0

0

1

02

01

0 1

1

C+R’2

R’3 R’2

R’1

Representing transparency functions in Decision Diagrams

+ R3

R2

F R1

A

BC

Y

y2

A

y3

y1 s


DD Synthesis from Behavioral Descriptions

BEGINMemory state: MProcessor state: PC, AC, AXInternal state: TMPInstruction format: IR = OP. A. F0. F1. F2.Execution process: EXEC:

BEGIN DECODE OP (

0: AC AC + MA1: M[A] AC, AC 02: M[A] M[A]+ 1,

IF M[A]= 0 THEN PC PC + 13: PC A......................................7: IF F0 THEN AC AC + 1

IF F1 THEN IF AC = 0 THEN PC PC + 1 IF F2 THEN (TMP AC, AC AX, AX TM’)

ENDEND

Procedural description of a microprocessor



Start

AC = AC + M [A] AC = AC + 1PC = A

M [A] = AC, AC = 0

M [A] = M [A] + 1

PC = PC + 1

1

2

3

4

6

5

AC = AX, AX = AC

7

PC = PC + 1

AC = AX, AX = AC

8

9

AC = AX, AX = AC

10

11

OP=0

OP=1

OP=2

OP=3...

OP=7

M[A]=0M[A]=1

F0=1

F0=0

F1=1F1=0

F2=0

F2=1

AC=0AC0

F2=1F2=0 F2=1

F2=0

Symbolic execution tree:



No Input assertions Output assertions1 OP = 0 AC = AC+ M A

2 OP = 1 M A = AC, AC = 03 OP = 2, M A + 1 = 0 M A = M A +1, PC = PC + 14 OP = 2, M A + 1 0 M A = M A + 15 OP = 3 PC = A6 OP = 7, FO=0, F1=0, F2=0 NO CHANGE7 OP = 7, FO=0, F1=0, F2=1 AC = AX, AX = AC8 OP = 7, FO=0, F1=1, AC=0, F2=1 AC = AX, AX = AC9 OP = 7, FO=0, F1=1, AC=0, F2=0 NO CHANGE

Generation of nonprocedural descriptions via symbolic execution

Terminal contexts



Input assertions Output assertions

OP = 0 AC = AC+ M A

OP = 1 M A = AC, AC = 0OP = 2,M A + 1 = 0

M A = M A +1,PC = PC + 1

OP = 2,M A + 1 0

M A = M A + 1

OP = 3 PC = AOP = 7,FO=0, F1=0, F2=0

NO CHANGE

OP = 7,FO=0, F1=0, F2=1

AC = AX, AX = AC

OP = 7, AC=0,FO=0, F1=1, F2=1

AC = AX, AX = AC

OP = 7, AC=0,FO=0, F1=1, F2=0

NO CHANGE

Decision Diagram for AC

OPAC AC+M [A]

#0

F0 F2

AC

AX

AC+1

0

1

2,3

7 0 0

1 1



ABC

M

ADR

MUX1

MUX2

CC

COND

Control Path

Data Path

/

FF

yx

qq

z

z1

z2

Digital system:A

01

0q

xA

B + C

A + 1

13 xC C + B

04 xA A + B+ C

B

04

1q

xA

B + C

B

C

14

2q

xA

1

0xB A + B

C

0 xC

xA1

xC3 0

3,4

02

q

1

01

0q 1

4xA

2

1

5xB

3

DD-model for a digital system:



Digital system:A

01

0q

xA

B + C

A + 1

13 xC C + B

04 xA A + B+ C

B

04

1q

xA

B + C

B

C

14

2q

xA

1

0xB A + B

C

0 xC

xA1

xC3 0

3,4

02

q

1

01

0q 1

4xA

2

1

5xB

3

Begin

A = B + C

xA

A = A + 1 B = B + C

xA

B = B C = C

xB

C = C

xC

A = A +B + C

xC

C = A + B A = C + B

END

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

s0

s1

s2

s3

s4

s5

DD-model for a digital system:


Test Generation for Processors

I1: MVI A,D A IN

I2: MOV R,A R A

I3: MOV M,R OUT R

I4: MOV M,A OUT A

I5: MOV R,M R IN

I6: MOV A,M A IN

I7: ADD R A A + R

I8: ORA R A A R

I9: ANA R A A R

I10: CMA A,D A A

High-Level DDs for a microprocessor (example):

Instruction set:

I R3

A

OUT4

I A2

R

IN5

R

1,3,4,6-10

I IN1,6

A

A2,3,4,5

A + R7

A R8

A R9

A10

DD-model of themicroprocessor:



High-Level DD-based structure of the microprocessor (example):

I R3

A

OUT4

I A2

R

IN5

R

1,3,4,6-10

I IN1,6

A

A2,3,4,5

A + R7

A R8

A R9

A10


OUT

R

A

IN

I



I R3

A

OUT4

I A2

R

IN5

R

1,3,4,6-10

I IN1,6

A

A2,3,4,5

A + R7

A R8

A R9

A10


Scanning test program for adder:

Instruction sequence T = I5 (R)I1 (A)I7 I4for all needed pairs of (A,R)

OUT I4

A I7

A

R

I1

IN(2)

IN(1)

R I5

Time:t t - 1 t - 2 t - 3

Observation Test Load



I R3

A

OUT4

I A2

R

IN5

R

1,3,4,6-10

I IN1,6

A

A2,3,4,5

A + R7

A R8

A R9

A10


Conformity test program for decoder:

Instruction sequence T = I5 I1 D I4

for all DI1 - I10 at given A,R,IN

Data generation:IN 110 A 101

Data

R 110 I1, I6 IN 110

I2, I3 I4, I5 A 101 I7 A + R 1011 I8 A R 111 I9 A R 00

Functions

I10 A 010

Data IN,A,R are generated so that the values of all functions were different


Vector Decision Diagrams

3,4

02

q

1

01

0q 1

4xA

2

15xB

3

A01

0q

xA

B + C

A + 113 xC C + B

04 xA A + B+ C

B04

1q

xA

B + C

B

C

14

2q

xA

10xB A + B

C

0 xC

xA1

xC3 0

M=A.B.C.q

Vector Decision Diagrams:

1

1

q

xA

0qA

i B’ + C’

#1

qB

i B’ + C’

#2

0qA

i A’ + 1

#4

2

1

xB

qC

i C’

#3

0qC

i A’ + B’

#5

3

1

xC

qA

i B’ + C’

#5

0qC

i A’ + B’

#5

4

1

xC

qC

i C’

#5

0

B

Ai A’ + B’+C’xA

0

q#5

B’

qB

i B’

#5

Concurrent simulation in space:

j – adressing variable


Two-Dimensional Decision Diagrams

I1 I3 t i1

i1

PC + 1

PC + 2

0 1 2

3

AB

AB

A1

A2

OUT = AB.DB (t)

t0, 2 i1

PC + 1

PC + 2

2 DB

AB

I22

t1, 3 i1

2AB

t4

i1 L

INP

4 DB

AB

A1

A2

2

3

i1

INP + 1

5 DB

AB

H

Instruction: SHLD I1.I2.I3= 0.4.2

(DB(t=3).DB(t=2)) L

((DB(t=3).DB(t=2)) + 1) H

I1 I2 I3

0 1 2 4 5 7

DDs for representingmicroprocessor output behaviour

i2 DB(t=2)

DB(t=3)

L

H

INP (H,L)

Concurrent simulation:

in space: i – adressing variable in time: t – adressing variable

i

t

space

time

technical university tallinn estonia 1 otsustusdiagrammide kasutamisest digitaalsüsteemide...

Documents