Embodiments of the present invention may relate to the field of fault-tolerant computing and, more specifically, to the detection and mitigation of the effects of data errors.
Despite the presence of error-control coding (ECC) in computer systems, it is still possible for uncorrectable errors to occur. For example, in many systems a two-bit ECC (2×ecc) error may not be correctable. If data containing such errors is consumed by the processor, it may cause spurious computational results, or it may even cause the operating system (OS) to go down, e.g., by means of a machine check abort (MCA).
One way of dealing with such uncorrectable errors is, upon detection of such errors by the processor, to assert a global MCA. This has the effect of bringing down the system, however. As a result, the availability and reliability of the computer system are reduced.
One refinement of this process is to detect uncorrectable data errors and to mark the data containing such errors. This technique is known as “data poisoning.” As a result, if the processor detects that the data it is about to consume has been “poisoned,” it can invoke an MCA to avoid the consumption of the poisoned data. While this provides a more convenient technique by which a processor can detect the presence of such uncorrectable errors, it provides only an incremental improvement in availability and reliability, as it is still necessary to bring down the system.
Components/terminology used herein for one or more embodiments of the invention is described below:
In some embodiments, “computer” may refer to any apparatus that is capable of accepting a structured input, processing the structured input according to prescribed rules, and producing results of the processing as output. Examples of a computer may include: a computer; a general purpose computer; a supercomputer; a mainframe; a super mini-computer; a mini-computer; a workstation; a microcomputer; a server; an interactive television; a hybrid combination of a computer and an interactive television; and application-specific hardware to emulate a computer and/or software. A computer may have a single processor or multiple processors, which may operate in parallel and/or not in parallel. A computer may also refer to two or more computers connected together via a network for transmitting or receiving information between the computers. An example of such a computer may include a distributed computer system for processing information via computers linked by a network.
In some embodiments, a “machine-accessible medium” may refer to any storage device used for storing data accessible by a computer. Examples of a machine-accessible medium may include: a magnetic hard disk; a floppy disk; an optical disk, like a CD-ROM or a DVD; a magnetic tape; a memory chip; and a carrier wave used to carry machine-accessible electronic data, such as those used in transmitting and receiving e-mail or in accessing a network.
In some embodiments, “software” may refer to prescribed rules to operate a computer. Examples of software may include: code segments; instructions; computer programs; and programmed logic.
In some embodiments, a “computer system” may refer to a system having a computer, where the computer may comprise a computer-readable medium embodying software to operate the computer.
Preferred embodiments of the invention will now be described in connection with the associated drawings, in which:
As shown, system memory 100 may be coupled to processor 101 through a bus 107, and processor 101 may also be coupled to processor cache 102 through a bus 108. While shown directly coupled in
Also shown in
Furthermore, the system may include multiple error-control decoders 103, implemented in any of the ways previously described, and this may enable the system to check for errors in multiple locations. For example, one error-control decoder 103 may be adapted to check for outbound data errors from processor 101 to a memory unit (e.g., memory 104), while a second error-control decoder 103 may be adapted to check for inbound errors. In the case in which an error-control decoder 103 checks for outbound errors, there may be further capability, e.g., within the memory unit, to inform an operating system of the computer system of the presence of corrupted data, in a similar fashion to the process described below.
Error-control decoder 103 may be further adapted to mark data as being “bad,” i.e., poisoning the data, if it determines that the data contains one or more uncorrectable errors. Typically, error-control decoder 103 may poison a larger unit of data, for example, a cache line, that contains the erroneous data; however, the invention is not limited to this case. Error-control decoder 103 may, for example, operate on data in a memory unit, typically, processor cache 102, or data being transmitted over a bus 105, 107, or 108.
The computer system of
In a particular embodiment of the invention, a handshaking process may occur between the control logic 106 and an operating system running on processor 101, in which recovery-related information is passed to the operating system.
First, data units may be checked for errors 200; this may involve error-control decoder 103. It may then be determined if errors that are detected are correctable or uncorrectable 201. If they are correctable, they may be corrected 214 and may then be reported to the OS for logging 202 (as being correctable). In this case, no further action may be necessary with respect to that data unit.
On the other hand, if the error-control decoder 103 determines that there are uncorrectable errors 201, then the system may determine if the resulting uncorrectable errors are data poisoning (DP) events 203. In particular, a system may be designed so that DP events correspond to resident data units found in certain storage locations (e.g., cache 102, or memory 100 or 104) or during its transmission to or from these storage locations over a bus (e.g., bus 105, 107, or 108). Alternatively, the system may be designed to check for errors in data units in other portions of the system. In summary, the system designer may decide what uncorrectable errors are designated as being DP events and which, if any, are not (block 220).
If an uncorrectable error situation arises that is not a DP event, the corresponding data unit, including the erroneous data, may be consumed (i.e., by an application running on the computer system or by the operating system); the process may skip to block 206.
If an uncorrectable error situation corresponds to a DP event, then a DP flag associated with the corresponding data unit may be set 204. If the system has a policy for addressing DP events or errors 205, in which immediate notification (action) occurs, the process may continue to block 206. Otherwise, the error may only be reported for logging 202. Note that whether the system provides immediate notification is an option that may be determined by a system designer or by a system operator, for example, in block 220, depending upon the particular system.
In the case where the process has progressed to block 206, the process has entered the portion that may be performed by the OS. When reading in a data unit, the OS may determine if the DP flag has been set 206. If yes, then the data unit was poisoned and may be removed 207. System operation may then resume 211 without experiencing the results of consuming the erroneous data.
If the DP flag has not been set, however, whether or not the data errors can be mitigated may depend on where the erroneous data lies 208. If the data unit containing the erroneous data is in user space, the OS may still detect the presence of the error, terminate the application, and remove the data unit 210. In this case, system operation may resume 211, as above.
On the other hand, if the erroneous data is in OS space, the erroneous data may be consumed by the OS 209. As a result, whether or not the OS is able to recover may depend on in what location the error(s) occurred. If the OS can not recover, it may initiate a graceful shutdown, which may still provide some degree of error mitigation, as long as the effects of the error(s) are not permanent (e.g., where permanently-stored data has not been corrupted as a result of the error(s)).
In a further variation on the above method and computer system, it may be possible for either the operating system or the system designer to select whether or not to invoke a data poisoning method as described above. Implementing such a feature, for example, in block 220, may permit the system designer or operator to select an error-handling technique in accordance with system requirements. For example, there may be a software-visible control bit that permits the selection of either immediate notification of an uncorrectable error situation (i.e., invoking a policy of addressing data poisoning events; see
The invention has been described in detail with respect to preferred embodiments, and it will now be apparent from the foregoing to those skilled in the art that changes and modifications may be made without departing from the invention in its broader aspects. The invention, therefore, as defined in the appended claims, is intended to cover all such changes and modifications as fall within the true spirit of the invention.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5214652 | Sutton | May 1993 | A |
5249212 | Covey et al. | Sep 1993 | A |
5528750 | Lubart et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
5948107 | Ramanathan | Sep 1999 | A |
6014756 | Dottling et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6035436 | Wu et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6044479 | Dell | Mar 2000 | A |
6052819 | Barker et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6151689 | Garcia et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6233702 | Horst et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6349390 | Dell et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6405322 | Gaither et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6457154 | Chen et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6460154 | Duxbury | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6536000 | Jackson et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6560725 | Longwell et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6594785 | Gilbertson et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6647517 | Dickey et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6651193 | Dickey et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6662319 | Webb et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6751756 | Hartnett et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6757848 | Bartlett | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6823476 | Williams et al. | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6948094 | Schultz et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
7007210 | Fields et al. | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7089461 | Gilbert et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7222270 | Meaney et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
7308610 | Kuramkote et al. | Dec 2007 | B2 |
20020144193 | Hicks et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20030074601 | Schultz et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030159086 | Arndt | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20040019835 | Marisetty et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040139374 | Meaney et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040153842 | Dickey et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20050015672 | Yamada | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20060107125 | Hsu et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060156153 | Fossum et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20050138487 A1 | Jun 2005 | US |