Part 7: The 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
Testbench Characteristics and Simulation Strategies
This blog is a continuation of a series of blogs that present the highlights from the 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study (for background on the study, click here).
In my previous blog (click here), I focused on the controversial topic of effort spent in verification. In this blog, I focus on some of the 2012 Wilson Research Group findings related to testbench characteristics and simulation strategies. Although I am shifting the focus away from verification effort, I believe that the data I present in this blog is related to my previous blog and really needs to be considered when calculating effort.
Time Spent in full-chip versus Subsystem-Level Simulation
Let’s begin by looking at Figure 1, which shows the percentage of time (on average) that a project spends in full-chip or SoC integration-level verification versus subsystem and IP block-level verification. The mean time performing full chip verification is represented by the dark green bar, while the mean time performing subsystem verification is represented by the light green bar. Keep in mind that this graph represents the industry average. Some projects spend more time in full-chip verification, while other projects spend less time.
Number of Tests Created to Verify the Design in Simulation
Next, let’s look at Figure 2, which shows the number of tests various projects create to verify their designs using simulation. The graph represents the findings from the 2007 Far West Research study (in gray), the 2010 Wilson Research Group study (in blue), and the 2012 Wilson Research Group study (in green). Note that the curves look remarkably similar over the past five years. The median number of tests created to verify the design is within the range of (>200 – 500) tests. It is interesting to see a sharp percentage increase in the number of participants who claimed that fewer tests (1 – 100) were created to verify a design in 2012. It’s hard to determine exactly why this was the case—perhaps it is due to the increased use of constrained random (which I will talk about shortly). Or perhaps there has been an increased use of legacy tests. The study was not design to go deeper into this issue and try to uncover the root cause. This is something I intend to informally study this next year through discussions with various industry thought leaders.
Figure 2. Number of tests created to verify a design in simulation
Percentage of Directed Tests versus Constrained-Random Tests
Now let’s compare the percentage of directed testing that is performed on a project to the percentage of constrained-random testing. Of course, in reality there is a wide range in the amount of directed and constrained-random testing that is actually performed on various projects. For example, some projects spend all of their time doing directed testing, while other projects combine techniques and spend part of their time doing directed testing—and the other part doing constrained-random. For our comparison, we will look at the industry average, as shown in Figure 3. The average percentage of tests that were directed is represented by the dark green bar, while the average percentage of tests that are constrained-random is represented by the light green bar.
Figure 3. Mean directed versus constrained-random testing performed on a project
Notice how the percentage mix of directed versus constrained-random testing has changed over the past two years.Today we see that, on average, a project performs more constrained-random simulation. In fact, between 2010 and 2012 there has been a 39 percent increase in the use of constrained-random simulation on a project. One driving force behind this increase has been the maturing and acceptance of both the SystemVerilog and UVM standards—since two standards facilitate an easier implementation of a constrained-random testbench. In addition, today we find that an entire ecosystem has emerged around both the SystemVerilog and UVM standards. This ecosystem consists of tools, verification IP, and industry expertise, such as consulting and training.
Nonetheless, even with the increased adoption of constrained-random simulation on a project, you will find that constrained-random simulation is generally only performed at the IP block or subsystem level. For the full SoC level simulation, directed testing and processor-driven verification are the prominent simulation-based techniques in use today.
Simulation Regression Time
Now let’s look at the time that various projects spend in a simulation regression. Figure 4 shows the trends in terms of simulation regression time by comparing the 2007 Far West Research study (in gray) with the 2010 Wilson Research Group study (in blue), and the 2012 Wilson Research Group study (in green). There really hasn’t been a significant change in the time spent in a simulation regression within the past three years. You will find that some teams spend days or even weeks in a regression. Yet today, the industry median is between 8 and 16 hours, and for many projects, there has been a decrease in regression time over the past few years. Of course, this is another example of where deeper analysis is required to truly understand what is going on. To begin with, these questions should probably be refined to better understand simulation times related to IP versus SoC integration-level regressions. We will likely do that in future studies—with the understanding that we will not be able to show trends (or at least not initially).
In my next blog (click here), I’ll focus on design and verification language trends, as identified by the 2012 Wilson Research Group study.
Posted July 29th, 2013, by Harry Foster
- Loading tweets...
- Loading tweets...
- Loading tweets...
- Mentor Enterprise Verification Platform Debuts
- New Verification Academy ABV Course
- DVCon 2014 Issue of Verification Horizons Now Available
- DVCon–The FREE Side
- More DVCon–More Mentor Tutorials!
- UVM 1.2: Open Public Review
- DVCon 2014: Standards on Display
- Just because FPGAs are programmable doesn’t mean verification is dead
- Managing Verification Coverage Information
- Epilogue: The 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
- April 2014 (1)
- March 2014 (2)
- February 2014 (5)
- January 2014 (1)
- November 2013 (2)
- October 2013 (3)
- September 2013 (2)
- August 2013 (4)
- July 2013 (6)
- Part 7: The 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
- Walking in the Desert or Drinking from a Fire Hose?
- Part 6: The 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
- A Short Class on SystemVerilog Classes
- Part 5: The 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
- Part 4: The 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
- June 2013 (2)
- May 2013 (4)
- April 2013 (2)
- March 2013 (2)
- February 2013 (5)
- January 2013 (1)
- December 2012 (1)
- November 2012 (1)
- October 2012 (4)
- September 2012 (1)
- August 2012 (1)
- July 2012 (6)
- June 2012 (1)
- May 2012 (3)
- March 2012 (1)
- February 2012 (6)
- January 2012 (2)
- December 2011 (2)
- November 2011 (2)
- October 2011 (3)
- September 2011 (1)
- July 2011 (3)
- June 2011 (6)
- Intelligent Testbench Automation Delivers 10X to 100X Faster Functional Verification
- Part 9: The 2010 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
- Verification Horizons DAC Issue Now Available Online
- Accellera & OSCI Unite
- The IEEE’s Most Popular EDA Standards
- UVM Register Kit Available for OVM 2.1.2
- May 2011 (2)
- April 2011 (7)
- User-2-User’s Functional Verification Track
- Part 7: The 2010 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
- Part 6: The 2010 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
- SystemC Day 2011 Videos Available Now
- Part 5: The 2010 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
- Part 4: The 2010 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
- Part 3: The 2010 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
- March 2011 (5)
- February 2011 (4)
- January 2011 (1)
- December 2010 (2)
- October 2010 (3)
- September 2010 (4)
- August 2010 (1)
- July 2010 (3)
- June 2010 (9)
- The reports of OVM’s death are greatly exaggerated (with apologies to Mark Twain)
- New Verification Academy Advanced OVM (&UVM) Module
- OVM/UVM @DAC: The Dog That Didn’t Bark
- DAC: Day 1; An Ode to an Old Friend
- UVM: Joint Statement Issued by Mentor, Cadence & Synopsys
- Static Verification
- OVM/UVM at DAC 2010
- DAC Panel: Bridging Pre-Silicon Verification and Post-Silicon Validation
- Accellera’s DAC Breakfast & Panel Discussion
- May 2010 (9)
- Easier UVM Testbench Construction – UVM Sequence Layering
- North American SystemC User Group (NASCUG) Meeting at DAC
- An Extension to UVM: The UVM Container
- UVM Register Package 2.0 Available for Download
- Accellera’s OVM: Omnimodus Verification Methodology
- High-Level Design Validation and Test (HLDVT) 2010
- New OVM Sequence Layering Package – For Easier Tests
- OVM 2.0 Register Package Released
- OVM Extensions for Testbench Reuse
- April 2010 (6)
- SystemC Day Videos from DVCon Available Now
- On Committees and Motivations
- The Final Signatures (the meeting during the meeting)
- UVM Adoption: Go Native-UVM or use OVM Compatibility Kit?
- UVM-EA (Early Adopter) Starter Kit Available for Download
- Accellera Adopts OVM 2.1.1 for its Universal Verification Methodology (UVM)
- March 2010 (4)
- February 2010 (5)
- January 2010 (5)
- December 2009 (15)
- A Cliffhanger ABV Seminar, Jan 19, Santa Clara, CA
- Truth in Labeling: VMM2.0
- IEEE Std. 1800™-2009 (SystemVerilog) Ready for Purchase & Download
- December Verification Horizons Issue Out
- Evolution is a tinkerer
- It Is Better to Give than It Is to Receive
- Zombie Alert! (Can the CEDA DTC “User Voice” Be Heard When They Won’t Let You Listen)
- DVCon is Just Around the Corner
- The “Standards Corner” Becomes a Blog
- I Am Honored to Honor
- IEEE Standards Association Awards Ceremony
- ABV and being from Missouri…
- Time hogs, blogs, and evolving underdogs…
- Full House – and this is no gamble!
- Welcome to the Verification Horizons Blog!
- September 2009 (2)
- July 2009 (1)
- May 2009 (1)