The present application is related to U.S. application Ser. No. 11/535,879, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,716,538, entitled “Memory with Cell Population Distribution Assisted Read Margining,” by Carlos J. Gonzalez and Daniel C. Guterman, filed Sep. 27, 2006, and incorporated herein in its entirety by this reference.
The present invention relates generally to reading the data content of non-volatile and other memory devices, and, more particularly, to using information on the distribution of program levels of a memory cell populations to more accurately read the content of degraded distributions.
As flash and other memory devices migrate to smaller geometries, the influence of a number of phenomena that negatively impact the robustness of data storage increases. Included in these factors are over-programming, read and program disturb, and data retention issues. These problems are often further aggravated as the number of states per cell is increased and as the operating window of stored threshold voltages shrinks. These factors are generally accounted for in the design phase of the memory devices through various tradeoffs that can be made within the design. These tradeoffs may increase or decrease the influence of one or the other of these factors, and/or tradeoff some of these factors against others, such as performance, endurance, reliability, and so on. In addition to tradeoffs within the memory design, there are a number of system-level mechanisms that may be incorporated to compensate for these phenomena, where needed, to achieve product-level specifications. These system mechanisms include ECC, wear-leveling, data refresh (or “Scrub”), and read margining (or “Heroic Recovery”), such as are discussed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,012,835, 6,151,246 and, especially, U.S. Pat. No. 5,657,332.
The above phenomena generally have the impact of affecting the distribution of cell voltage thresholds, either during programming, during subsequent memory operations, or over time, and they generally have a larger impact in multi-state memory storage relative to binary memory storage. The impact is typically to spread the voltage threshold levels of a given memory state within a population of cells, and, in some cases, to shift cell threshold levels such that they read in an erroneous state under normal read conditions, in which case the data bits for those cells become erroneous. As memories having smaller geometries become integrated into storage products, it is expected that the memory-level tradeoffs required to overcome the anticipated memory phenomena will make it difficult to achieve the required product-level specifications. Consequently, improvements to these devices will be required.
The present invention presents a memory device and methods of determining its data content. The memory cells of the device are evaluated at a first reference condition and a plurality of secondary reference conditions. Based on comparing the number of memory cells evaluated at the first reference condition and the second reference conditions, the memory device establishes a read condition for a data state based on the rate of change of number of memory cells evaluated at the plurality of reference conditions.
In some embodiments, the evaluations of the memory cells using a plurality of secondary read conditions is performed in response to determining that an evaluation using standard read conditions has an unacceptable level of error. Information on the distribution of programmed state populations of the memory cells is extracted based on the results of the evaluations using the standard read conditions and the plurality of secondary read conditions. Modified read conditions, which differ from the standard read conditions, are determined at which to evaluate the memory cells to determine their data content based on the information on the distribution of programmed state populations.
Additional aspects, advantages and features of the present invention are included in the following description of exemplary examples thereof. All patents, patent applications, articles, books, specifications, other publications, documents and items referenced herein are hereby incorporated herein by this reference in their entirety for all purposes. To the extent of any inconsistency or conflict in the definition or use of a term between any of the incorporated publications, documents or things and the text of the present document, the definition or use of the term in the present document shall prevail.
The invention may best be understood by reference to the following description taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings in which:
The present invention is related to reading the data content of memory systems. When data, whether stored in either binary or multi-state per memory cell form, is programmed into a memory, the population of individual cells programmed to a given state will form distributions around the desired values of the parameter corresponding to the respective storage states. For example, in the case of a flash memory, its threshold voltage characterizes a particular data state. If a data state corresponds to a threshold voltage of, say, 2 volts, the cells programmed to this state will not all end up at exactly 2.0 volts, but rather be spread out over a distribution mostly above the corresponding program verify level for that state. Although at the time of programming the distributions corresponding to the data states may be well defined and clearly separated, over time and operating history the distributions may spread. This degradation can lead to misreading of data as the read conditions that are used to distinguish one state from another may no longer correctly read the state of a cell whose threshold value has shifted too far.
As discussed in the Background section, as size of memory devices become ever smaller, use lower operating voltages, and store more states per memory cell, the influence of various phenomena that negatively impact the robustness of data storage increases. These factors include over-programming, read and program disturb, data pattern/history influences and data retention issues associated with a given memory technology. These factors are generally accounted for in the design phase of the flash and other memory devices, with a number of tradeoffs made within the design that may increase or decrease the influence of one or the other and/or that tradeoff some of these factors against others, such as performance, endurance, reliability, and so on. Beyond the tradeoffs inherent in a given memory design, there are a number of system-level mechanisms that may be designed-in to compensate for these phenomena where needed to achieve product-level specifications. These system mechanisms include error correction code (ECC), wear-leveling, data refresh (or “scrubbing”), and read margining (or “heroic recovery”).
Such previous methods, along with appropriate structures, are described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,657,332, which is fully incorporated herein and referenced in many locations, can be considered as base embodiments of circuitry and other memory device elements upon which the various aspects of the present invention can be incorporated. When reference to a specific memory array embodiment is needed, the exemplary embodiment of the memory can be taken as a NAND type flash memory such as that described in U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,570,315, 5,903,495, and 6,046,935.
The various phenomena affecting the distribution generally have the impact of affecting the distribution of cells either during programming, during subsequent memory operations, or over time, and they generally have a larger impact in multi-state memory storage relative to binary memory storage. The impact is typically to spread the threshold voltage (or other applicable state parameter) in a population of cells within a given state, and in some cases, to shift cells' threshold voltage such that they read in an erroneous state under normal read conditions, in which case the data bits for those cells are erroneous.
A typical situation is illustrated schematically in
To read the data content of this memory, the verify points can then be used as read compare points, although typically a read point is shifted somewhat in the less programmed (lower voltage) direction to provide some safety margin. For instance, in
With the integration of higher density memories into storage products, it is anticipated that the memory-level tradeoffs required to overcome the anticipated memory phenomena will make it more difficult still to achieve the required product-level specifications. One of the system-level mechanisms anticipated to provide a benefit to such products is the following type of read margining during read retries, referred to as “heroic recovery”, which is employed upon detection of an uncorrectable ECC error under nominal read conditions. Heroic recovery consists of re-reading data during retries under shifted read bias conditions or shifted compare points, essentially changing the discrimination points between states, in an attempt to recover cells that read in the erroneous state under normal conditions to their proper state. Heroic Recovery has a few drawbacks that need to be overcome in order to provide the best benefit to the product. Because the storage system relies on ECC to detect erroneous bits, and because there is no independent indication of which direction cells may have shifted (such as a count of cells expected in each state), there is no way for the system to know the actual direction that the cells in erroneous states have in fact shifted. The bias conditions generally follow a pre-determined sequence, designed based on the expected influence of the shifting phenomena, which may be toward either the more programmed or more erased states. The actual direction of the shift experienced by the cells may be counter to expectations due to the fact that there are numerous independent influences. In the absence of safeguards, it is possible that the biasing of the read conditions may cause a large enough number of cells to be read in erroneous states so as to overwhelm the ECC capabilities. Once overwhelmed, the ECC algorithm may either fail to detect an ECC error (misdetection), or to erroneously “correct” the set of data bits (miscorrection), in either case leading to erroneous data being passed as good data.
Various approaches can be used to improve the robustness of the heroic recovery mechanism. One of these is the use of reference or tracking cells, such as are described in U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,172,338, 6,222,762 and 6,538,922. Under this arrangement, a number of cells are programmed to known (i.e. reference) states. During read retries, these cells can be read to a fine granularity, and their distribution used to estimate the main cell population. In this way excessive shifts from nominal are detected, information from which is then used to guide the heroic recovery bias conditions. This method has the drawback of requiring additional cells, which adds cost to each flash memory die. Additionally, because in practice the tracking cell population is much smaller than the main population, their statistics may not reflect the population shifts with sufficient accuracy. Nevertheless, it should be noted that tracking cells can be utilized in conjunction with the present invention for the advantages they provide.
Another approach is to minimize the likelihood of failure. For example, the sequence of bias conditions and ECC correction capabilities utilized during each iteration of read retries can be designed such that it will minimize the likelihood of ECC misdetection or miscorrection. This method may lead to long retry sequences, however, since typically the system tries the safest combinations first, and attempts the more powerful combinations that carry the most risk only after exhausting the earlier, safer retries. This is often not a robust solution, and it is best used in conjunction with a safeguard.
According to one aspect of the present invention, the storage system uses knowledge of the main cell population itself as a safeguard to avoid heroic recovery retries from biasing reads in the wrong direction. In a basic embodiment, the implementation relies on the fact that the expected disturb mechanism to be overcome will more frequently shift cells toward the more erased states, and hence the heroic recovery bias will always be in the direction of the more erased states. Upon detecting uncorrectable ECC error during nominal read, the system will perform a number of reads under biased conditions in small bias increments in the direction of the erased states, and count the number of cells in each state at each step. The system will then compare the number of cells that change states and determine the gradient or rate of change with each step. If it is determined that the rate of cells shifting from one population to the next increases with each step, then the discrimination point will be understood to be penetrating a cell population (e.g. penetrating population A in
As an additional safeguard, the system could perform a number of reads under biased conditions in the direction of the programmed states, and if it is determined that the rate of cells shifting from one population to the next is decreasing, the system would not invoke heroic recovery. Heroic recovery would only be invoked when all cell count-based conditions indicate it to be appropriate. An extension of this idea is to use the rate of change of cell populations to guide or limit the amount of bias during Heroic Recovery.
These concepts can be illustrated by returning
As shown in
Let N0 be the number of states lying above VBr0, N1 be the number of states lying above VBr1, N2 be the number of states lying above VBr2, and N3 be the number of states lying above VBr3. (Again, the number of secondary read points can vary according to the embodiment.) Note that the data content need not actually be extracted in these reads (and, if there is too much error, this may not even be possible), but only that the number of states lying above the read point need be determined. As exemplified in
Calling the difference between N values Δ, this gives
(N1−N0)=Δ1,0,
with Δ2,1 and Δ3,2 similarly defined. Although the various Ns will pick up not just the cells in the B distribution but also any higher states, these higher states will not contribute to Δ1,0, since their contribution remains the same within each of the N values, and therefore will cancel out. Also, there is no need for an actual read of the data content or evaluation of ECC, since, at this point, the process is just trying to find the best (or sufficiently good) read point at which to perform this data extraction. In the example of
Although the discussion here is in the context of find a read point to extract the data content, it can also be used to improve various data refresh or scrub methods, such as those found in U.S. Pat. No. 5,657,332, whose functions are not primarily to provide data for some external (end user/use) application, but rather to provided internal housekeeping functions, confined within the memory device, itself.
The discussion of the process thus far has been described mainly in terms of varying a compare or reference voltage to which the state of the memory cell is compared, since this is perhaps the easiest context in which to describe the invention with respect to
Further, the present techniques are not limited to only flash memories. A number of memories exhibit the characteristics described with respect to
In a typical embodiment of a memory device having a controller portion and a memory portion, this process would in most cases be managed via the controller, in a firmware implementation. In other embodiments it can be executed on the memory itself, should that memory unit have sufficient capability, or it can be distributed between the controller and memory portions. In still other embodiments, such as within memory cards lacking a full controller (e.g. xD cards or MemoryStick), some or all parts of the process can be managed by the host. For any of these variations, the different portions of the process can be implemented in hardware, software, firmware, or a combination of these.
Should the read not be successful, for example returning an ECC uncorrectable error signal rather than the data, the process goes to the main aspects of the invention, beginning with step 207. In some embodiments, the process can jump directly from step 207 (eliminating test condition 203), where the preferred read conditions are determined as part of a standard sensing operation, or the invocation of the process beginning at step 207 may be due to other reasons than the determination at step 203, such as if a certain amount of time has elapsed since the last read or a large numbers of possibly disturbing operations have been previously executed. At step 207, the first of the secondary read conditions are established. These can differ from the normal read in a number of ways, which can be used individually or in combination. One of these is to shift the value of the read comparison parameter, such as the voltage, current, time, or other parameter value indicative of the state. (This is similar to what is shown in FIG. 6b of U.S. Pat. No. 5,657,332 for a current based comparison.) Another is to change the bias conditions on the cells being read. For the exemplary flash memory embodiment and other charge storing transistor embodiments, this is typically done by changing the control gate voltage applied to the cells (as in FIG. 6a of U.S. Pat. No. 5,657,332), although this can also be done using changes to the source/drain voltage levels, other gate levels in a NAND string, or other bias shifts instead of (or in addition to) altering the control gate level.
The secondary read is executed at step 209. In more basic implementations of Heroic Recovery, the data can be output at this point if the secondary read is successful. As noted above, this evaluation need not be a read in the full sense of extracting data, but only need count the number of cells that register above the compare point.
Some of the primary aspects of the present invention are found in steps 211, 213, and 215. At step 211, the change in the number of states read is determined at 211. This will compare, for example, the difference between the number of cells above a normal read parameter and the number of cells above a first secondary read parameter with the difference between the number of cells above the first secondary read parameter and the number of cells above a second secondary read parameter. As described above, this is done to determine characteristics of the distribution. For example, if only a few additional cells are picked up in going from the normal read to the first secondary read, but more additional cells are picked up in going from the first secondary read to a second secondary read, the read point or bias shift of the second secondary read has likely go too far and is penetrating into the distribution of the next data state.
At step 213 it is determined whether more secondary reads are to be executed. The number of secondary reads can either be a fixed value (for example, as a settable parameter) or can be determined based upon the results of the earlier reads. In the fixed value example, a parameter keeping track of the supplemental reads would be incremented at each iteration and step 213 would decide whether it has reached its limit. In embodiments using earlier evaluations, 213 could, for example, determine whether Δ has begun to increase. Even in embodiments that decide step 213 based on earlier reads, it may be useful to keep track of the number of iterations and set a maximum number of these. If more reads are to be executed, the flow loops back to step 207; if not, it goes to step 215.
In step 215, the read conditions at which the data will be extracted are determined. This may be one of the reads performed at step 209 or an additional read, in which case the additional read is executed at step 217. In either case, the data stored in the cells is sent out (205).
Therefore, the present examples are to be considered as illustrative and not restrictive, and the invention is not to be limited to the details given herein, but may be modified within the scope of the appended claims.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4139911 | Sciulli et al. | Feb 1979 | A |
4218764 | Furuta et al. | Aug 1980 | A |
4253059 | Bell et al. | Feb 1981 | A |
4460982 | Gee et al. | Jul 1984 | A |
4612630 | Rosier | Sep 1986 | A |
4694454 | Matsuura | Sep 1987 | A |
4703196 | Arakawa | Oct 1987 | A |
4703453 | Shinoda et al. | Oct 1987 | A |
4733394 | Giebel | Mar 1988 | A |
4763305 | Kuo | Aug 1988 | A |
4779272 | Kohda et al. | Oct 1988 | A |
4799195 | Iwahashi et al. | Jan 1989 | A |
4809231 | Shannon et al. | Feb 1989 | A |
4827450 | Kowalski | May 1989 | A |
4937787 | Kobatake | Jun 1990 | A |
4962322 | Chapman | Oct 1990 | A |
4964079 | Devin | Oct 1990 | A |
4975883 | Baker et al. | Dec 1990 | A |
4980859 | Guterman et al. | Dec 1990 | A |
5043940 | Harari | Aug 1991 | A |
5052002 | Tanagawa | Sep 1991 | A |
5065364 | Atwood et al. | Nov 1991 | A |
5070032 | Yuan et al. | Dec 1991 | A |
5095344 | Harari | Mar 1992 | A |
5119330 | Tanagawa | Jun 1992 | A |
5122985 | Santin | Jun 1992 | A |
5132928 | Hayashikoshi et al. | Jul 1992 | A |
5132935 | Ashmore, Jr. | Jul 1992 | A |
5151906 | Sawada | Sep 1992 | A |
5157629 | Sato et al. | Oct 1992 | A |
5172338 | Mehrotra et al. | Dec 1992 | A |
5172339 | Noguchi et al. | Dec 1992 | A |
5200922 | Rao | Apr 1993 | A |
5200959 | Gross et al. | Apr 1993 | A |
5239505 | Fazio et al. | Aug 1993 | A |
5262984 | Noguchi et al. | Nov 1993 | A |
5263032 | Porter et al. | Nov 1993 | A |
5270551 | Kamimura et al. | Dec 1993 | A |
5270979 | Harari et al. | Dec 1993 | A |
5278794 | Tanaka et al. | Jan 1994 | A |
5313421 | Guterman et al. | May 1994 | A |
5313427 | Schreck et al. | May 1994 | A |
5321655 | Iwahashi et al. | Jun 1994 | A |
5327383 | Merchant et al. | Jul 1994 | A |
5335198 | Van Buskirk et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
5341334 | Maruyama | Aug 1994 | A |
5343063 | Yuan et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
5347489 | Mechant et al. | Sep 1994 | A |
5365486 | Schreck | Nov 1994 | A |
5377147 | Merchant et al. | Dec 1994 | A |
5394359 | Kowalski | Feb 1995 | A |
5404485 | Ban | Apr 1995 | A |
5450363 | Christopherson et al. | Sep 1995 | A |
5465236 | Naruke | Nov 1995 | A |
5475693 | Christopherson et al. | Dec 1995 | A |
5504760 | Harari et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
5523972 | Rashid et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
5530705 | Malone, Sr. | Jun 1996 | A |
5532962 | Auclair et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
5570315 | Tanaka et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
5583812 | Harari | Dec 1996 | A |
5621682 | Tanzawa et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
5648934 | O'Toole | Jul 1997 | A |
5652720 | Aulas et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
5657332 | Auclair et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
5661053 | Yuan | Aug 1997 | A |
5675537 | Bill et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
5689465 | Sukegawa et al. | Nov 1997 | A |
5703506 | Shook et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5712815 | Bill et al. | Jan 1998 | A |
5715193 | Norman | Feb 1998 | A |
5717632 | Richart et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
5751639 | Ohsawa | May 1998 | A |
5761125 | Himeno | Jun 1998 | A |
5774397 | Endoh et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5798968 | Lee et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5835413 | Hurter et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5889698 | Miwa et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5890192 | Lee et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5905673 | Khan | May 1999 | A |
5909449 | So et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5930167 | Lee et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5937425 | Ban | Aug 1999 | A |
5963473 | Norman | Oct 1999 | A |
6046935 | Takeuchi et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6145051 | Estakhri et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6151246 | So et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6199139 | Katayama et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6215697 | Lu et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6222762 | Guterman et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6222768 | Hollmer et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6345001 | Mokhlesi | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6415352 | Asami et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6426893 | Conley et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6456528 | Chen | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6522580 | Chen et al. | Feb 2003 | B2 |
6560152 | Cernea | May 2003 | B1 |
6567307 | Estakhri | May 2003 | B1 |
6678785 | Lasser | Jan 2004 | B2 |
6728134 | Ooishi | Apr 2004 | B2 |
6760255 | Conley et al. | Jul 2004 | B2 |
6763424 | Conley | Jul 2004 | B2 |
6772274 | Estakhri | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6807101 | Ooishi et al. | Oct 2004 | B2 |
6839281 | Chen et al. | Jan 2005 | B2 |
6912160 | Yamada | Jun 2005 | B2 |
6925007 | Harari et al. | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6963505 | Cohen | Nov 2005 | B2 |
7012835 | Gonzalez et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7076598 | Wang | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7224607 | Gonzalez et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
7224611 | Yamamoto et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
7242618 | Shappir et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7254071 | Tu et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7257025 | Maayan et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7286412 | Chen | Oct 2007 | B1 |
7330376 | Chen et al. | Feb 2008 | B1 |
7450425 | Aritome | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7489549 | Mokhlesi | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7518919 | Gonzalez et al. | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7613043 | Cornwell et al. | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7630254 | Lutze | Dec 2009 | B2 |
7716538 | Gonzalez et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
20020048202 | Higuchi | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20030086293 | Gongwer et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030109093 | Harari et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20050073884 | Gonzalez et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20060039196 | Gorobets et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060062048 | Gonzalez et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060233023 | Lin et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20070211532 | Gonzalez et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20080158968 | Moogat et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080158969 | Moogat et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
97460009.0 | Feb 1997 | EP |
0791933 | Aug 1997 | EP |
2289779 | Nov 1995 | GB |
8-077785 | Mar 1996 | JP |
8-147988 | Jun 1996 | JP |
8-279295 | Oct 1996 | JP |
8-297987 | Nov 1996 | JP |
09-128165 | May 1997 | JP |
9-306182 | Nov 1997 | JP |
2000-187992 | Jul 2000 | JP |
WO 9012400 | Oct 1990 | WO |
WO 0108015 | Feb 2001 | WO |
WO 02058074 | Jul 2002 | WO |
WO2005036401 | Apr 2005 | WO |
WO2005041107 | May 2005 | WO |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20080077841 A1 | Mar 2008 | US |