首页> 外文期刊>ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems >Control Flow Checking or Not? (for Soft Errors)
【24h】

Control Flow Checking or Not? (for Soft Errors)

机译:控制流程检查与否? (对于软错误)

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

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.
机译:通过快速技术缩放驱动计算系统的性能和功率改进的巨大飞跃,但技术缩放也呈现了易受软错误的计算系统。在软误差保护技术中,基于控制流量检查(CFC)的技术已经获得了轻量级且有效的声誉。 CFC背后的主要思想是检查程序是否正在按正确的顺序执行指令。为了验证现有氟氯化合物的保护索赔,我们开发了一种系统和定量的方法,以评估CFC使用漏洞的指标实现的保护。我们的定量分析表明,现有的CFC技术不仅无效地提供免受软故障,而且产生额外的性能和电源开销。我们的结果表明,仅软件CFC保护计划将系统漏洞提高18%-21%,性能开销和混合CFC保护增加5%的漏洞。虽然漏洞对仅靠硬件的CFC保护仍然相同,但由于其实现所需的硬件修改,它们会产生设计成本,区域和电源的开销。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号