Is Asynchronous Logic More Robust Than Synchronous Logic?

With clock rates beyond 1 GHz, the model of a system wide synchronous clock is becoming difficult to maintain; therefore, asynchronous design styles are increasingly receiving attention. While the traditional synchronous design style is well-proven and backed up by a rich field experience, comparatively little is known about the properties of asynchronous circuits in practical application. In the face of increased transient fault rates, robustness is a crucial property, and from a conceptual view, the so-called ldquodelay-insensitiverdquo asynchronous design approaches promise to be more robust than synchronous ones, since their operation does not depend on tight timing margins, and data are two-rail coded. A practical assessment of asynchronous designs in fault-injection (FI) studies, however, can rarely be found, and there is a lack of adequate methods and tools in this particular domain. Therefore, the objective of this work is 1) to provide a common approach for efficient and accurate FI in synchronous and in asynchronous designs, and 2) to experimentally compare the robustness of both synchronous and asynchronous designs. To this end, a synchronous 16-bit processor as well as its asynchronous (delay insensitive) equivalent are subjected to signal flips and delay faults. The results of over 489 million experiments are summarized and discussed, and a detailed discussion on the specific properties of the chosen asynchronous design style is given.

[1]  G. Venkatesh,et al.  Issues in fault modelling and testing of micropipelines , 1992, Proceedings First Asian Test Symposium (ATS `92).

[2]  Janak H. Patel,et al.  Segment delay faults: a new fault model , 1996, Proceedings of 14th VLSI Test Symposium.

[3]  Volkmar Sieh,et al.  Combining software-implemented and simulation-based fault injection into a single fault injection method , 1995, Twenty-Fifth International Symposium on Fault-Tolerant Computing. Digest of Papers.

[4]  Svein-Olaf Hvasshovd,et al.  Evaluating the effectiveness of fault tolerance in replicated database management systems , 1999, Digest of Papers. Twenty-Ninth Annual International Symposium on Fault-Tolerant Computing (Cat. No.99CB36352).

[5]  Régis Leveugle,et al.  Asynchronous circuits sensitivity to fault injection , 2004, Proceedings. 10th IEEE International On-Line Testing Symposium.

[6]  Pedro J. Gil,et al.  On benchmarking the dependability of automotive engine control applications , 2004, International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks, 2004.

[7]  Erik Brunvand,et al.  Testing micropipelines , 1994, Proceedings of 1994 IEEE Symposium on Advanced Research in Asynchronous Circuits and Systems.

[8]  Rajit Manohar,et al.  Fault detection and isolation techniques for quasi delay-insensitive circuits , 2004, International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks, 2004.

[9]  Johan Karlsson,et al.  Evaluation of error detection schemes using fault injection by heavy-ion radiation , 1989, [1989] The Nineteenth International Symposium on Fault-Tolerant Computing. Digest of Papers.

[10]  Scott A. Brandt,et al.  NULL Convention Logic/sup TM/: a complete and consistent logic for asynchronous digital circuit synthesis , 1996, Proceedings of International Conference on Application Specific Systems, Architectures and Processors: ASAP '96.

[11]  Juan José Serrano,et al.  INERTE: integrated nexus-based real-time fault injection tool for embedded systems , 2003, 2003 International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks, 2003. Proceedings..

[12]  Andreas Steininger,et al.  Built-In Fault Injectors - The Logical Continuation of BIST? , 2003, WISES.

[13]  Stephen B. Furber,et al.  Built-in self-testing of micropipelines , 1997, Proceedings Third International Symposium on Advanced Research in Asynchronous Circuits and Systems.

[14]  Ross Smith,et al.  Asynchronous design using commercial HDL synthesis tools , 2000, Proceedings Sixth International Symposium on Advanced Research in Asynchronous Circuits and Systems (ASYNC 2000) (Cat. No. PR00586).

[15]  Johan Karlsson,et al.  Comparison of Physical and Software-Implemented Fault Injection Techniques , 2003, IEEE Trans. Computers.

[16]  Volkmar Sieh,et al.  VERIFY: evaluation of reliability using VHDL-models with embedded fault descriptions , 1997, Proceedings of IEEE 27th International Symposium on Fault Tolerant Computing.

[17]  E. Normand Single-event effects in avionics , 1996 .

[18]  Janak H. Patel,et al.  SIGMA: A simulator for segment delay faults , 1996, Proceedings of International Conference on Computer Aided Design.

[19]  Ivan E. Sutherland,et al.  Micropipelines , 1989, Commun. ACM.

[20]  Anthony J. McAuley Four State Asynchronous Architectures , 1992, IEEE Trans. Computers.

[21]  E. Normand Single event upset at ground level , 1996 .

[22]  Andreas Steininger,et al.  On finding an optimal combination of error detection mechanisms based on results of fault injection experiments , 1997, Proceedings of IEEE 27th International Symposium on Fault Tolerant Computing.

[23]  Régis Leveugle,et al.  Practical evaluation of fault countermeasures on asynchronous DES crypto processor , 2006, 12th IEEE International On-Line Testing Symposium (IOLTS'06).

[24]  Theodore M. Booth Demonstrating hazards in sequential relay circuits , 1963, SWCT.

[25]  Stephen H. Unger,et al.  Asynchronous sequential switching circuits , 1969 .

[26]  David L. Dill,et al.  Efficient self-timing with level-encoded 2-phase dual-rail (LEDR) , 1991 .

[27]  Arun K. Somani,et al.  Soft error sensitivity characterization for microprocessor dependability enhancement strategy , 2002, Proceedings International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks.