Characterizing System-Level Masking Effects against Soft Errors

From early design phases to final release, the reliability of modern embedded systems against soft errors should be carefully considered. Several schemes have been proposed to protect embedded systems against soft errors, but they are neither always functional nor robust, even with expensive overhead in terms of hardware area, performance, and power consumption. Thus, system designers need to estimate reliability quantitatively to apply appropriate protection techniques for resource-constrained embedded systems. Vulnerability modeling based on lifetime analysis is one of the most efficient ways to quantify system reliability against soft errors. However, lifetime analysis can be inaccurate, mainly because it fails to comprehensively capture several system-level masking effects. This study analyzes and characterizes microarchitecture-level and software-level masking effects by developing an automated framework with exhaustive fault injections (i.e., soft errors) based on a cycle-accurate gem5 simulator. We injected faults into a register file because errors in the register file can easily be propagated to other components in a processor. We found that only 5% of injected faults can cause system failures on an average over benchmarks, mainly from the MiBench suite. Further analyses showed that 71% of soft errors are overwritten by write operations before being used, and the CPU does not use 20% of soft errors at all after fault injections. The remainder are also masked by several software-level masking effects, such as dynamically dead instructions, compare and logical instructions that do not change the result, and incorrect control flows that do not affect program outputs.

Automated summary

The reliability of modern embedded systems against soft errors should be carefully considered from early design phases, protection techniques need to be applied quantitatively, and vulnerability modeling based on lifetime analysis is a useful method. However, lifetime analysis can be inaccurate due to the failure to comprehensively capture system-level masking effects.