Synthesis & Logic Optimization · All levels

Leakage Recovery: Design Space

Design Space for Leakage Recovery.

Design space exploration

For Leakage Recovery, options trade QoR gain, risk, and schedule.

Option A — conservative

  • Conservative constraints: helps predictability

  • Risk: slower PPA gains

  • Validate with: first-silicon safety

Option B — balanced

  • Balanced QoR tuning: helps stable closure

  • Risk: requires discipline

  • Validate with: typical product mode

Option C — aggressive compile

  • Aggressive compile push: helps fast timing recovery

  • Risk: power/hold regressions

  • Validate with: late schedule

Option D — structural change

  • Structural RTL change: helps long-term fix

  • Risk: schedule impact

  • Validate with: recurring bottleneck

diagram
DESIGN SPACE — Leakage Recovery
QoR gain <-> regression risk <-> schedule pressure

Design pitfalls

  • Single-metric optimization

  • No rollback path

  • Weak run comparability

Tradeoff curve

diagram
BEFORE / AFTER QOR — Leakage Recovery

QoR score
  0 |                     --- target zone
 -1 |        ● regression
 -2 |             ● baseline
 -0.5|                  ● after fix
    +----------------------------------> iteration

Validate timing + area + power, not one number.

Synthesis deep dive

PPA closure is a constrained tradeoff problem, not a timing-only exercise.

Concept diagram

diagram
PPA TRIAD

timing target <-> power budget <-> area cap

Metric graph

diagram
PARETO PROGRESSION

early runs      o o
balanced point    o
over-tuned          o (risk)

Reports and artifacts

  • VT mix

  • leakage trend

  • dynamic power trend

  • PPA Pareto table

Mini case study

LVT-heavy fix recovered setup but violated leakage target; balanced VT strategy closed both.

Debug branches

  • Timing-only claims need power check

  • Validate hold on VT swaps

  • Use Pareto memo

Senior review question

Ask: what evidence proves this QoR move is real and stable?

Key takeaways

  • State exact run context (RTL, SDC, libs, switches) with every QoR claim.

  • Re-run timing, area, and power regressions after each synthesis ECO.

Common pitfalls

  • Comparing runs with mismatched constraints or library views.

  • Timing-only fixes that violate power or area budgets.

  • Skipping equivalence checks after structural changes.

Principal synthesis review addendum

Leakage recovery replaces fast cells with higher-VT alternatives while preserving margin on critical paths and corners.

Metric: leakage delta, WNS guardband consumed, swapped-cell count