Research on Parallel Reading and Drawing Techniques for Chemical Mechanical Polishing Simulation Data Based on Multi-Thread

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper, the proposed solution addresses the challenge of slow graphical display of CMP simulation data by utilizing multi-threading technology, including OpenMP and memory mapping, resulting in over 8 times improvement in reading efficiency and more than 10 times improvement in drawing efficiency compared to traditional methods, ultimately enhancing interaction smoothness with the CMP simulation tool. I recommend to accept after minor revision.

1. What were the key findings regarding the comparison of reading efficiency using different methods, including single-threaded Mmap and multi-threaded Mmap with optimized string conversion?

2.Can you elaborate on the efficiency improvements observed in drawing large-scale CMP simulation result files using multi-threading technology and downsampling?

3.How did the downsampling process affect drawing efficiency, and what downsampling levels were used for different file sizes?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We gratefully appreciate your valuable suggestions. Our responses to the comments are in the attachment, we will respond to your comments and suggestions point by point. The explanation part of the reply is in red, and the revised manuscript content is in blue. And revisions to the manuscript are marked up using the “Track Changes” function of MS Word version, such that any changes can be easily viewed.

If there are any problems, please let us know. Thank you again.

Best regards,

Yours sincerely.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have expected some chip layout and defect illustrations together with the performance evaluation of proposed reading and drawing techniques based on simulation data?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No comment

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We gratefully appreciate your valuable suggestions. Our responses to the comments are in the attachment, we will respond to your comments and suggestions point by point. The explanation part of the reply is in red, and the revised manuscript content is in blue. And revisions to the manuscript are marked up using the “Track Changes” function of MS Word version, such that any changes can be easily viewed.

If there are any problems, please let us know. Thank you again.

Best regards,

Yours sincerely.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors carried out a design and implementation of a graphical analyzing tool for CMP simulation which is capable to efficiently execute on very large simulation dataset. The overall design and its efficiency can be supported by data presented. However there are few questions to be addressed before publishing. 

1. The introduction part should have a small section referencing if similar methods (multi-thread parallelization, memory map, etc.) has already been used in CMP simulation analysis or other layout analysis applications. 

2. For the file segmentation method described between lines 178 and 186, could it be possible that between position 0 and average reading length, there are multiple incomplete grid data and hence multiple "\n"? 

3. In the resolution reduction design (line 276-278), as directedly quoted below:

"By analyzing grid data characteristics, it is observed that the difference in morphology information between a grid and its adjacent grids is minimal."

This part need some extended discussion and need to be clear at which scale of physical dimension (and how does it compare to the feature size of the targeting application) was the analysis carried out. 

4. Table 2 and Table 3 are tabular presentation of the same data in Fig. 8 and 9. It may be possible to move the tables to supplemental to reduce redundancy. Number of grid of each file could be stated in text. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We gratefully appreciate your valuable suggestions. Our responses to the comments are in the attachment, we will respond to your comments and suggestions point by point. The explanation part of the reply is in red, and the revised manuscript content is in blue. And revisions to the manuscript are marked up using the “Track Changes” function of MS Word version, such that any changes can be easily viewed.

If there are any problems, please let us know. Thank you again.

Best regards,

Yours sincerely.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents an innovative method for parallel reading and plotting of CMP (Chemical Mechanics of Polymer Materials) simulation data. The method uses a combination of OpenMP, Mmap, and double-buffering technologies to optimize string conversion and increase data storage performance during the read process. At the same time, it improves drawing efficiency using an adaptive downsampling algorithm that ensures accurate display while reducing the load on the system. The benefits of this method are evident not only in the initial analysis and drawing, where there is a significant reduction in time, but also in interactive operations in the CMP simulation tool. Thanks to the adaptive downsampling algorithm, effective display is achieved with minimal impact on accuracy. Testing and analysis of CMP simulation results of various scales confirm the success of this method. Overall, it thus represents a significant advance in the optimization of analysis and visualization.

The manuscript is interesting for readers, it shows the appropriateness of the methodology used. The pictures and graphs are clear and the text is well described. The equations are used correctly. References are sufficient. The only thing that makes the readability of the text difficult is the hyphenation at the end of the line.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We gratefully appreciate your valuable suggestions. We have modified the hyphen at the end of the line in the new version to make the article easier to read.

We appreciate for your warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

If there are any problems, please let us know. 

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Best regards,

Yours sincerely.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Size of the letters in Figure 9 is too small. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Figure 7. Comparison of local details of layout morphology graphics in the with a downsampling ratio of 9:1?

Table 2: Layout Gird Size?

Table 3: Four methods for reading time of files of different sizes? (Reading time of files of different sizes for the four proposed methods)

...

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We gratefully appreciate your valuable suggestions. Our responses to the comments are in the attachment, we will respond to your comments and suggestions point by point. And revisions to the manuscript are marked up using the “Track Changes” function of MS Word version, such that any changes can be easily viewed.

If there are any problems, please let us know. Thank you again.

Best regards,

Yours sincerely.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf