Impact of Voltage Scaling on Soft Errors Susceptibility of Multicore Server CPUs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microprocessor power consumption and dependability are both crucial challenges that designers have to cope with due to shrinking feature sizes and increasing transistor counts in a single chip. These two challenges are mutually destructive: microprocessor reliability deteriorates at lower supply voltages that save power. An important dependability metric for microprocessors is their radiation-induced soft error rate (SER). This work goes beyond state-of-the-art by assessing the trade-offs between voltage scaling and soft error rate (SER) on a microprocessor system executing workloads on real hardware and a full software stack setup. We analyze data from accelerated neutron radiation testing for nominal and reduced microprocessor operating voltages. We perform our experiments on a 64-bit Armv8 multicore microprocessor built on 28 nm process technology. We show that the SER of SRAM arrays can increase up to 40.4% when the device operates at reduced supply voltage levels. To put our findings into context, we also estimate the radiation-induced Failures in Time (FIT) rate of various workloads for all the studied voltage levels. Our results show that the total and the Silent Data Corruptions (SDC) FIT of the microprocessor operating at voltage-scaled conditions can be 6.6 × and 16 × larger than at the nominal voltage, respectively. Moreover, changes in the microprocessor’s clock frequency do not have a noticeable impact on its soft error susceptibility. The findings of this work can aid computer architects in striking a balance between power and dependability, thus, designing more robust and efficient microprocessors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".