在线软错误检测机制的虚假错误研究

M. K. Reddy, B. Amrutur, R. Parekhji
{"title":"在线软错误检测机制的虚假错误研究","authors":"M. K. Reddy, B. Amrutur, R. Parekhji","doi":"10.1109/IOLTS.2008.29","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"With technology scaling, vulnerability to soft errors in random logic is increasing. There is a need for on-line error detection and protection for logic gates even at sea level. The error checker is the key element for an on-line detection mechanism. We compare three different checkers for error detection from the point of view of area, power and false error detection rates. We find that the double sampling checker (used in Razor), is the simplest and most area and power efficient, but suffers from very high false detection rates of 1.15 times the actual error rates. We also find that the alternate approaches of triple sampling and integrate and sample method (I&S) can be designed to have zero false detection rates, but at an increased area, power and implementation complexity. The triple sampling method has about 1.74 times the area and twice the power as compared to the Double Sampling method and also needs a complex clock generation scheme. The I&S method needs about 16% more power with 0.58 times the area as double sampling, but comes with more stringent implementation constraints as it requires detection of small voltage swings.","PeriodicalId":261786,"journal":{"name":"2008 14th IEEE International On-Line Testing Symposium","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"False Error Study of On-line Soft Error Detection Mechanisms\",\"authors\":\"M. K. Reddy, B. Amrutur, R. Parekhji\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/IOLTS.2008.29\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"With technology scaling, vulnerability to soft errors in random logic is increasing. There is a need for on-line error detection and protection for logic gates even at sea level. The error checker is the key element for an on-line detection mechanism. We compare three different checkers for error detection from the point of view of area, power and false error detection rates. We find that the double sampling checker (used in Razor), is the simplest and most area and power efficient, but suffers from very high false detection rates of 1.15 times the actual error rates. We also find that the alternate approaches of triple sampling and integrate and sample method (I&S) can be designed to have zero false detection rates, but at an increased area, power and implementation complexity. The triple sampling method has about 1.74 times the area and twice the power as compared to the Double Sampling method and also needs a complex clock generation scheme. The I&S method needs about 16% more power with 0.58 times the area as double sampling, but comes with more stringent implementation constraints as it requires detection of small voltage swings.\",\"PeriodicalId\":261786,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2008 14th IEEE International On-Line Testing Symposium\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2008-07-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2008 14th IEEE International On-Line Testing Symposium\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/IOLTS.2008.29\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2008 14th IEEE International On-Line Testing Symposium","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/IOLTS.2008.29","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

随着技术的扩展,随机逻辑中的软错误的脆弱性也在增加。即使在海平面上,也需要对逻辑门进行在线错误检测和保护。错误检查器是在线检测机制的关键部件。我们从面积、功率和误检率的角度比较了三种不同的检错器。我们发现双重采样检查器(在Razor中使用)是最简单的,也是最节省面积和功耗的,但它的误检率非常高,是实际错误率的1.15倍。我们还发现,三次采样和积分采样方法(I&S)的替代方法可以设计为零误检率,但在增加的面积,功率和实现复杂性。三次采样法的面积是双次采样法的1.74倍,功率是双次采样法的两倍,但需要复杂的时钟生成方案。I&S方法需要比双采样多16%的功率和0.58倍的面积,但由于需要检测小的电压波动,因此具有更严格的实施限制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
False Error Study of On-line Soft Error Detection Mechanisms
With technology scaling, vulnerability to soft errors in random logic is increasing. There is a need for on-line error detection and protection for logic gates even at sea level. The error checker is the key element for an on-line detection mechanism. We compare three different checkers for error detection from the point of view of area, power and false error detection rates. We find that the double sampling checker (used in Razor), is the simplest and most area and power efficient, but suffers from very high false detection rates of 1.15 times the actual error rates. We also find that the alternate approaches of triple sampling and integrate and sample method (I&S) can be designed to have zero false detection rates, but at an increased area, power and implementation complexity. The triple sampling method has about 1.74 times the area and twice the power as compared to the Double Sampling method and also needs a complex clock generation scheme. The I&S method needs about 16% more power with 0.58 times the area as double sampling, but comes with more stringent implementation constraints as it requires detection of small voltage swings.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信