2008
DOI: 10.1147/rd.523.0275
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Soft-error resilience of the IBM POWER6 processor

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
37
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 97 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
1
37
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The design overhead evaluation of the proposed design is presented in Sect. 8. We conclude our work in Sect.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 80%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The design overhead evaluation of the proposed design is presented in Sect. 8. We conclude our work in Sect.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 80%
“…In order to handle these inevitable errors, we must integrate in our design fault-tolerant features so that processors can continue to correctly perform their specified tasks despite the occurrence of logic errors [5]. Such designs as the Intel Itanium [6,7], the IBM Power6 [8], the z10 [9], the Fujitsu SPARC64 [10], etc., already include transient fault detection and recovery mechanisms.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For instance, in an in-order RISC core the execution and memory stages are highly vulnerable to dynamic variations, and the memory class has a higher vulnerability in comparison to the logical/arithmetic class [8]. We note that complex high-performance cores such as IBM POWER6 also confirm that vulnerability is not uniform across the instructions set [19]. We extend the notion of ILV to a more coarse-grained task-level metric, TLV.…”
Section: Task-level Vulnerability (Tlv) and Openmp Tasksmentioning
confidence: 87%
“…These statistics can be derived from a properly validated, cycle-accurate architectural simulator as explained in [65]. As has been observed in prior work on POWER machines [69], the AD factor tends to dominate over MD by a large factor, especially if the focus is only on SDC. Therefore, for simplicity of analysis, in this chapter we only focus on AD, while effectively assuming that MD is invariant across the class of applications considered for a given (fixed) machine implementation.…”
Section: Resilience Modelingmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…For soft error rate (SER) modeling, we estimate the failure rate (measured in standard units of failures in time or FITs) using an approach adopted from industrial practice [44,69]. In such an evaluation methodology, machine-level derating (MD) and application-level derating (AD) are treated as decoupled factors.…”
Section: Resilience Modelingmentioning
confidence: 99%