Comparative analysis of fault injection methods using enhanced on-chip debug infrastructures

A comparative analysis of fault injection methods via enhanced on-chip debug infrastructures J. M. Martins Ferreira [ jmf@fe.up.pt ] FEUP / DEEC Rua Dr. Roberto Frias 4200-465 Porto - PORTUGAL André Fidalgo, Gustavo R. Alves Manuel Gericota [ anf/gca/mgg @isep.ipp.pt ] ISEP / DEE Rua Ant. Bernardino Almeida, 431 4200-072 Porto - PORTUGAL SBCCI’08: Gramado, Brazil, 1-4 September 2008 These slides are available at http://www.slideshare.net/josemmf

Outline of the presentation ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Scope, focus, setup ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Motivation ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Our approach ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

NEXUS FI for the MPC565 Trace data: Program trace data output by the OCD Campaign data: scripts that describe the FI experiments Improved Fault Effects Classification 3 Data Trace Real Time Fault Insertion 3 Dynamic Register and Memory Access Fault Effects Classification 2 Program Trace Static Fault Insertion 1 Static Register and Memory Access Real Time Triggering 1 Watchpoints Internal Triggering 1 Breakpoints External Triggering 1 Run-Control Usability for FI Class NEXUS Debug Features

OCD infrastructure developed to support this work ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Fault injection: Workload applications ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Fault injection campaigns ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Predetermination to improve performance of FI campaigns ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Experimental scenarios B : Basic; E : Extended; OCD-FI : OCD for Fault Injection OF : Off-line; RT : Real-time; + : predetermination not required 4 57 Real Time NO MDI=2 MDO=8 OCD-FI+ 2 57 Real Time YES MDI=2 MDO=8 OCD-FI 18 6 Real Time NO MDI=8 MDO=8 ERT+ 9 6 Real Time YES MDI=8 MDO=8 ERT 44 22 Real Time NO MDI=2 MDO=8 BRT+ 35 22 Real Time YES MDI=2 MDO=8 BRT 18 6 Offline NO MDI=8 MDO=8 EOF+ 9 6 Offline YES MDI=8 MDO=8 EOF 44 22 Offline NO MDI=2 MDO=8 BOF+ 35 22 Offline YES MDI=2 MDO=8 BOF Insertion Set-Up Delays (Clk cycles) Fault injection method Predetermination of the faulty value Bandwidth Configur. & Scenario

Experimental results (%): B, E, OCD-FI (results) U ERR : Undetected errors (incorrect final result that goes undetected) D ERR : Detected errors (error detection signal activated) N ERR : No errors (application ended correctly) 70,1 1,1 28,8 70,2 29,8 1,2 1,9 96,9 2 98 58 13,9 28,1 80,9 19,1 OCD-FI+ 69,9 1,2 28,9 70,4 29,6 1,3 1,9 96,8 1,9 98,1 58 13,8 28,2 80,7 19,3 ERT+ 69,4 1,5 29,1 70,7 29,3 1,4 1,9 96,7 1,8 98,2 57,8 13,8 28,4 80,5 19,5 BRT+ 1 2 97 2 98 58,1 13,9 28 81 19 OCD-FI 1,1 2 96,9 2 98 58 13,9 28,1 80,8 19,2 ERT 1,2 2 96,8 1,9 98,1 57,9 13,8 28,3 80,6 19,4 BRT Not Possible 1 2 97 2 98 58,1 13,9 28 81 19 OFF N ERR U ERR D ERR N ERR U ERR N ERR U ERR D ERR N ERR U ERR N ERR U ERR D ERR N ERR U ERR SW-FT non-FT SW-FT non-FT SW-FT non-FT Configur . & Scenario XControl VSorter MAdder

Experimental results (%): Erroneous fault insertions ,[object Object],1,3 1,2 1,7 0,3 0,2 0,4 OCD-FI+ 2,4 2,1 3,7 1,5 0,8 2 ERT+ 3,2 2,8 4,8 2,1 1,2 3 BRT+ 0,2 0,2 0,1 0,2 OCD-FI 1,1 2,3 0,6 1,4 ERT Not Possible 2,2 4 Not Possible 0,9 3,1 BRT 0 0 OFF XControl VSorter MAdder XControl VSorter MAdder SW-FT non-FT Configur. & Scenario

Experimental results: Pros and cons of FI methods ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Experimental results (%): OCD-FI extensions for EDAC ,[object Object],D ERR : Percentage of errors detected that were corrected by EDAC 0,5 69,5 0 30 1 69,1 0 29,9 XControl 0,3 0,7 0 99 0,9 0,8 0 98,3 VSorter 0,8 59,5 0 39,7 1,6 58,8 0 39,6 MAdder INC Nerr Uerr Derr INC Nerr Uerr Derr Predetermination No Predetermination

Experimental results: Pros and cons of OCD-FI EDAC extensions ,[object Object],[object Object]

Experimental results (%): OCD-FI for RTREG ,[object Object],40 14 46 40 60 VSorter 16 22 62 11 89 MAdder Nerr Uerr Derr Nerr Uerr SW-FT non-FT

Experimental results: Pros and cons of OCD-FI RTREG extensions ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Performance (FI rate) ,[object Object],483k 491k OCD_FI+ 1150k 1250k ERT+ 400k 454k BRT+ 1150k EOF+ 400k Not possible BOF+ Halted Access Real Time Conf. & Scenario

Performance (overhead, dynamic) ,[object Object],25 108,3% 77484 x x +BOTH x 27 106,8% 76392 x +RTREG x 32 102,3% 73184 x +EDAC x 36 100,4% 71842 x x 36 106,4% 76127 ERT x 32 101,5% 72619 x BRT x 36 100,0% 71527 BRT x 32 76,9% 55018 x x 37 75,4% 53926 x [MHz] [%] [Eq Gates] Max f Overhead Area RTREG EDAC OCD-FI OCD CPU Core

Conclusions ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Comparative analysis of fault injection methods using enhanced on-chip debug infrastructures

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (9)

Similar to Comparative analysis of fault injection methods using enhanced on-chip debug infrastructures

Similar to Comparative analysis of fault injection methods using enhanced on-chip debug infrastructures (20)

More from Jose Manuel Martins Ferreira

More from Jose Manuel Martins Ferreira (7)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (15)

Comparative analysis of fault injection methods using enhanced on-chip debug infrastructures