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

AN - SCOPUS:85062366650

VL - 18

JO - ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems

JF - ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems

SN - 1539-9087

IS - 1

M1 - 11

ER -