Project 1: (Hardware implementation of Self-checking circuits

Report
Spring 2014
ECE 753
Hardware Implementation of
Self-checking circuits on FPGA
Project Team #1
Chandru Loganathan
Sakshi Gupta
Vignesh Chandrasekaran
1/28
8th May 2014
Structure of the Talk
1. Motivation and Introduction
2. Totally self-checking circuits and Reconfiguration logic
3. Less than or equal to checker
4. Non increasing sorting checker
5. Range checker
6. Residue checker
7. Future scope
2/28
Introduction
• In a Totally Self-checking Circuit (TSC), if there is a fault in the inputs and/or within
the TSC itself, the system no longer functions as desired.
• If any of the input is faulty, then the TSC brings the complete system to halt. Having a
reconfiguration logic can leverage that.
• Reconfiguration logic allows the system to function properly in presence of at most two
faults.
• Motivation of this project is to make the most of the available hardware without having
to compromise on the fault tolerance of the output.
3/28
Basic Definitions
• A circuit is said to be fault secure if in the presence of a fault, the output is either
always correct, or not a code word for valid input code words.
• A circuit is said to be self-testing if only valid inputs can be used to test it for faults.
• A circuit is said to be totally self-checking if it is both fault secure and self-testing.
4/28
Totally Self-checking Checker (TSC)
A TSC has 4 inputs and 2 outputs
Hence, 4 possible output combinations are possible (00, 11, 01, 10)
Inputs
5/28
TSC
0 1
0 1
1 0
0 1
Valid
Invalid
Output
code-words
Totally Self-checking Checker (TSC)
Two-rail checker
6/28
Totally Self-checking Checker (TSC)
Multi-bit TSC
x0[0]
y0[0]
x1[0]
x0[1]
y1[0]
x1[1]
y0[1]
*
y1[1]
*
x0[2]
*
*
*
* denotes a two-rail self-checker circuit
7/28
y0[2]
f
g
x1[2]
y1[2]
Reconfiguration Logic
When there is a fault in any one of the inputs or in the TSC itself, then the system halts.
In order, to prolong system halt we introduce Reconfiguration Logic.
If a non-code word (00 or 11) output is detected from the TSC, then the Reconfiguration
Logic Enable (logic high) signal is triggered.
Now, the reconfiguration logic identifies the faulty line and masks it.
New x0, y0, x1, y1 values are computed and fed into a multiplexer.
The multiplexer selects between the new values and old values of x0, y0, x1, y1 and outputs
the final values of x0, y0, x1, y1.
8/28
Reconfiguration Logic
Algorithm for Reconfiguration logic
9/28
10/28
denotes a 16-bit bus
new_y1[15:0]
new_x1[15:0]
Reconfig_enable
new_y0[15:0]
new_x0[15:0]
Multiplexer
y1[15:0]
x1[15:0]
y0[15:0]
x0[15:0]
16-bit TSC
y1[15:0]
x1[15:0]
y0[15:0]
x0[15:0]
y1[15:0]
x1[15:0]
y0[15:0]
x0[15:0]
TSC with Reconfiguration Logic
Block Diagram
Reconfiguration Logic
TSC with Reconfiguration Logic
Analytical comparison
Without reconfiguration logic
With reconfiguration logic
11/28
Implementation Analysis
12/28
Checker Circuit
Number of
Sliced LUTs
Number of LUT
flip flop pairs
used
Worst case
combinational
delay (ns)
TSC (1 bit)
2
2
4.494
TSC (16 bit)
49
49
12.555
Reconfiguration
logic (16 bit)
32
32
4.678
TSC with
reconfiguration
logic (16 bit)
64
64
18.713
Non-increasing sorting checker
• There are three types of errors encountered in sorting algorithm:
– Functional error: Operands are incorrectly ordered
– Data error: One or more bits of the operands are changed
– Hybrid error: Where both functional and data errors occur simultaneously
• LTOETC compares two consecutive non-negative numbers and checks if they are in
correct order.
13/28
LTOETC
• Suppose two non-negative numbers N1 and N2 are represented as x1,x2,…,xk and
y1,y2,…,yk.
• X1 = x2,…,xk and Y1 = y2,…,yk
• Valid input code space:
– x1y1 = 00 and X1 ≥ Y1
– x1y1 = 11 and X1 ≥ Y1
– x1y1 = 10 and X1 ≥ Y1
– x1y1 = 10 and X1 < Y1
Above code space denotes that N1 ≥ N2 and the output of LTOETC block must be a
valid codeword.
14/28
LTOETC
Block Diagram
Reference: D.L. Tao, “A Self-Testing Non-increasing Order Checker”, IEEE Transactions on Computers, Vol. 46, No. 7, pp. 817-820, July 1997.
15/28
LTOETC
Input code space
x1 y1`
(X1, Y1)
00
11
10
10
00
11
01
01
X1 ≥ Y1
X1 ≥ Y1
X1 ≥ Y1
X1 < Y1
X1 < Y1
X1 < Y1
X1 ≥ Y1
X1 < Y1
16/28
co1 co2 a11a12b11b12 c1c2c3c4 a21a22b21b22 a31a32b31b32 o1 o2
11
11
11
00
00
00
00
00
0110
0011
1100
1001
0011
0110
1001
1100
1000
0100
0001
0010
1010
0110
1100
1110
1100
1001
0011
0110
1110
1111
1101
1111
0110
1001
1100
0011
1101
0111
0111
1101
01
01
10
10
11
11
11
11
LTOETC
Properties
• LTOETC is code disjoint:
– Different inputs follow different output routes.
• LTOETC is self-testing:
– Each functional block receives all necessary test vectors. Hence, it is fully tested
during normal operation.
– Fault in each functional block will be excited which therefore generates a noncode-word at o1o2 of LTOETC
17/28
Non-increasing sorting checker
Block Diagram
• Implemented a design which detects only functional errors in ordered set of inputs.
• Considered 5 input numbers in order
Reference: D.L. Tao, “A Self-Testing Non-increasing Order Checker”, IEEE Transactions on Computers, Vol. 46, No. 7, pp. 817-820, July 1997.
18/28
Non-increasing sorting checker
Simulation
•
•
19/28
Inputs when in non-increasing order generate a valid code word
Functional error in sorting order generates non-code word, i.e., o1o2 = 11
Range Checker
Block Diagram
• The checker circuit detects whether the input lies within a specified range.
• Input out of bound generates a non-code word, i.e., o1o2 = 11
• Input within the range generates a valid code word
20/28
Range Checker
Simulation
• Input value for the first set of upper and lower range generates valid code word.
• Input value when out of range for the second case generates non-code word.
21/28
Implementation Analysis
22/28
Checker Circuit
Number of
Sliced LUTs
Number of LUT
flip flop pairs
used
Worst case
combinational
delay (ns)
Non-increasing
sorting checker
70
70
8.636
Range checker
34
34
6.958
Residue Checker
Based on the idea of computing the residue of a given function for a given modulo and
comparing it against the residue obtained by computing the same function broken
down by modulo arithmetic.
Property 1: <X+Y>m = < <X>m + <Y>m >m
Property 2: <X.Y>m = < <X>m * <Y>m >m
Consider a multiple-accumulate (MAC) unit of a processor which computes the following
function:
Z = A*B+C
23/28
Residue Checker
Block Diagram
<Z >m = <A*B+C>m
<Z’>m = <<<A>m*<B>m>m+<C>m>m
Reference: S.Wei and K.Shimizu, “Error Detection of Arithmetic Circuits Using a Residue Checker with Signed-Digit Number System”, IEEE
International Symposium on Defect and Fault Tolerance in VLSI Systems, pp. 72-77, Oct. 2001
24/28
Residue Checker
Modulo Checker
Modulo checkers can be implemented in several ways in hardware.
2n Modulo checker
• Bit select the lower n bits of the applied input.
• Hardware conservative.
• Lesser combinational delay.
General modulo checker
• Residue for any value of modulo.
• Demands more hardware compared to the earlier method.
• Relatively slower clock rate.
25/28
Residue Checker
Performance matrix
• Hardware utilization for each of the implementation is different.
• As the value of modulo increases, the hardware utilization increases.
• Hardware utilization is the measure of the number of LUTs utilized on the FPGA.
• Hardware complexity can be expressed as function of modulo.
• Timing.
26/28
Residue Checker
Hardware Complexity: 2n Modulo checker
HC(m) = 4.2814ln(m) + 5.275
27/28
Residue Checker
Hardware Complexity: General modulo checker
HC(m) = 27.319ln(m) + 186.95
28/28
Residue Checker
Mix of both designs
• Multiplex both and choose according to Modulo.
• This hybrid is ideally suited for various application.
29/28
Implementation details
• Design was implemented on Xilinx
Spartan 6 XUPV5LX110T FPGA
• Synthesis was done with Xilinx ISE
14.7
• Simulation was done using
ModelSim
• Debugging was done using
ChipScope Pro.
30/28
Future Scope
Reconfiguration logic
• Can be introduced in all hardware redundant circuits.
• Can be scaled to every design.
• Must be made fault secure
31/28
Questions?
32/28
Thank you
33/28

similar documents