Control flow checking or not? (for Soft Errors)

Abhishek Rhisheekesan, Reiley Jeyapaul, Aviral Shrivastava

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    Huge leaps in performance and power improvements of computing systems are driven by rapid technology scaling, but technology scaling has also rendered computing systems susceptible to soft errors. Among the soft error protection techniques, Control Flow Checking (CFC) based techniques have gained a reputation of being lightweight yet effective. The main idea behind CFCs is to check if the program is executing the instructions in the right order. In order to validate the protection claims of existing CFCs, we develop a systematic and quantitative method to evaluate the protection achieved by CFCs using the metric of vulnerability. Our quantitative analysis indicates that existing CFC techniques are not only ineffective in providing protection from soft faults, but incur additional performance and power overheads. Our results show that software-only CFC protection schemes increase system vulnerability by 18%-21% with 17%-38% performance overhead and hybrid CFC protection increases vulnerability by 5%. Although the vulnerability remains almost the same for hardware-only CFC protection, they incur overheads of design cost, area, and power due to the hardware modifications required for their implementations.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Article number11
    JournalACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems
    Volume18
    Issue number1
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Feb 1 2019

    Fingerprint

    Flow control
    Chlorofluorocarbons
    Hardware
    Chemical analysis
    Costs

    Keywords

    • Error correction code
    • Reliability
    • Soft error
    • Transient fault
    • Vulnerability

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Software
    • Hardware and Architecture

    Cite this

    Control flow checking or not? (for Soft Errors). / Rhisheekesan, Abhishek; Jeyapaul, Reiley; Shrivastava, Aviral.

    In: ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems, Vol. 18, No. 1, 11, 01.02.2019.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    @article{95fc4f3803264e929be35f2652284c1b,
    title = "Control flow checking or not? (for Soft Errors)",
    abstract = "Huge leaps in performance and power improvements of computing systems are driven by rapid technology scaling, but technology scaling has also rendered computing systems susceptible to soft errors. Among the soft error protection techniques, Control Flow Checking (CFC) based techniques have gained a reputation of being lightweight yet effective. The main idea behind CFCs is to check if the program is executing the instructions in the right order. In order to validate the protection claims of existing CFCs, we develop a systematic and quantitative method to evaluate the protection achieved by CFCs using the metric of vulnerability. Our quantitative analysis indicates that existing CFC techniques are not only ineffective in providing protection from soft faults, but incur additional performance and power overheads. Our results show that software-only CFC protection schemes increase system vulnerability by 18{\%}-21{\%} with 17{\%}-38{\%} performance overhead and hybrid CFC protection increases vulnerability by 5{\%}. Although the vulnerability remains almost the same for hardware-only CFC protection, they incur overheads of design cost, area, and power due to the hardware modifications required for their implementations.",
    keywords = "Error correction code, Reliability, Soft error, Transient fault, Vulnerability",
    author = "Abhishek Rhisheekesan and Reiley Jeyapaul and Aviral Shrivastava",
    year = "2019",
    month = "2",
    day = "1",
    doi = "10.1145/3301311",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "18",
    journal = "ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems",
    issn = "1539-9087",
    publisher = "Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)",
    number = "1",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Control flow checking or not? (for Soft Errors)

    AU - Rhisheekesan, Abhishek

    AU - Jeyapaul, Reiley

    AU - Shrivastava, Aviral

    PY - 2019/2/1

    Y1 - 2019/2/1

    N2 - Huge leaps in performance and power improvements of computing systems are driven by rapid technology scaling, but technology scaling has also rendered computing systems susceptible to soft errors. Among the soft error protection techniques, Control Flow Checking (CFC) based techniques have gained a reputation of being lightweight yet effective. The main idea behind CFCs is to check if the program is executing the instructions in the right order. In order to validate the protection claims of existing CFCs, we develop a systematic and quantitative method to evaluate the protection achieved by CFCs using the metric of vulnerability. Our quantitative analysis indicates that existing CFC techniques are not only ineffective in providing protection from soft faults, but incur additional performance and power overheads. Our results show that software-only CFC protection schemes increase system vulnerability by 18%-21% with 17%-38% performance overhead and hybrid CFC protection increases vulnerability by 5%. Although the vulnerability remains almost the same for hardware-only CFC protection, they incur overheads of design cost, area, and power due to the hardware modifications required for their implementations.

    AB - Huge leaps in performance and power improvements of computing systems are driven by rapid technology scaling, but technology scaling has also rendered computing systems susceptible to soft errors. Among the soft error protection techniques, Control Flow Checking (CFC) based techniques have gained a reputation of being lightweight yet effective. The main idea behind CFCs is to check if the program is executing the instructions in the right order. In order to validate the protection claims of existing CFCs, we develop a systematic and quantitative method to evaluate the protection achieved by CFCs using the metric of vulnerability. Our quantitative analysis indicates that existing CFC techniques are not only ineffective in providing protection from soft faults, but incur additional performance and power overheads. Our results show that software-only CFC protection schemes increase system vulnerability by 18%-21% with 17%-38% performance overhead and hybrid CFC protection increases vulnerability by 5%. Although the vulnerability remains almost the same for hardware-only CFC protection, they incur overheads of design cost, area, and power due to the hardware modifications required for their implementations.

    KW - Error correction code

    KW - Reliability

    KW - Soft error

    KW - Transient fault

    KW - Vulnerability

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062366650&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85062366650&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1145/3301311

    DO - 10.1145/3301311

    M3 - Article

    VL - 18

    JO - ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems

    JF - ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems

    SN - 1539-9087

    IS - 1

    M1 - 11

    ER -