Re: [STATUS 2.5] October 30, 2002

Ken Ryan
2002-11-01T21:21:04Z

Actually, it's much simpler: with hardware ECC (correction, not just
detection) the OS never needs to know what happened.

Let's say a single bit cell gets corrupted, e.g. changes state
because of an alpha particle. When that word is read, the ECC logic
corrects the error and presents the intended value to the bus (note it
doesn't matter if it's CPU, a DMA, or whatever). If the read was a scrub
operation, the same value is immediately written back to the same
location. This overwrites the bad value with a correct one, making the
error go away. Therefore if a later event corrupts another bit in that
word, it doesn't get beyond what the ECC can handle; whereas if the word
was never rewritten it may accumulate two, three, four etc. errors until
the ECC logic can't fix it anymore.

So the mere act of reading and rewriting makes errors go away so long as
it hasn't exceeded the capability of the ECC logic. This therefore
reduces the odds of an uncorrectable error to the chance of multiple bits
flipping within a short time, which is good enough for life-critical
systems on the Space Station.

As you mentioned, correctable errors can optionally be reported to the
OS. This is useful (to an extent) for predicting failures[1]; the same
correctable error showing up repeatedly in the same bit indicates a weak
cell.

Note Alan's point was if an unrelated write gets to the memory word
between the read and rewrite, that's very bad. I don't know the x86
architecture well enough to comment on whether 'lock' is adequate to
prevent DMA from sneaking in; that's one reason why we put the scrub
operation in the DRAM controller hardware (this was a custom hardware
design [not running Linux :-( ]).

ken

[1] Or as a thermometer. I had a Sun workstation which would spew ECC
corrections only over weekends; it took a few weeks of consternation to
realize it was because the building air conditioning was shut off then.

On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, Richard B. Johnson wrote:

> On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, Ken Ryan wrote:
>
> >
> > >Given that, "scrubbing" RAM seems to be somewhat useless on a
> > >running system. The next write to the affected area will fix the
> > >ECC bits, that't what is supposed to clear up the condition.
> >
> > If a region of RAM isn't written to it won't help, and may accumulate
> > additional errors. Kernel code, for instance, can then rot
> > away. Scrubbing guarantees that all locations in memory get rewritten
> > periodically, so correctable errors are removed.
> >
> > I first saw this when I was brought in to help on a design for a
> > spacecraft. Even rad-hard devices (these weren't) will flip a bit in a
> > matter of hours due to background radiation. Non-hardened memories can
> > get errors within minutes. Scrubbing assured the system would only notice
> > once every few years (when too many bits get flipped in a word during the
> > scrub interval).
> >
> > Ken Ryan
> >
>
> Hang with me a second. This gets complicated and is
> not anything that naive "scrubbing" can fix on a
> desktop machine.
>
> With a conventional ix86 machine, you have uncorrectable
> errors reported via NMI. Some specialized machines have
> correctable errors reported by maskable interrupt. For
> instance, the AMD SC520's SDRAM memory controller can
> set a bit upon a correctable error and this can be mapped
> to a maskable interrupt but you still have little information
> about what caused the interrupt. Upon either interrupt,
> the return address points to code to be continued. Nothing
> points to the address of the memory causing an error.
> Now, internal to the SDRAM controller, there are registers
> that can be used to identify the "bank" that caused the
> problem. It would require the kernel to completely understand
> the memory configuration in order to isolate this to an
> address. Further, to read the SDRAM controller, requires that
> refresh be turned OFF, etc. Not a good thing to do on a
> live system.
>
> But, in principle, one could read all the pages addressable
> from each of the segments, CS, SS, DS, ES, FS, GS, and try to
> do what? Make another error, causing a double-fault?
> I think not. That is the problem with handling ECC errors.
> That's also the reason why VAX/VMS would map out any RAM that
> caused such an error, by killing off the process and making
> all the RAM accessible to the process (without a page-fault),
> "owned" by a non-existent process called "Bad Pages". There
> wasn't really anything else you could do. If the RAM was
> owned by the kernel, you got a "Fatal machine-check" and
> that's all she wrote.
>
> Now, given this, if you read all the RAM in the machine at, say
> ten-second intervals, do you think you would fix anything? What
> would happen is the memory locations that got corrupt would be
> read and you would have a fatal ECC error. Most of these memory
> locations would have never even been accessed, and therefore
> the fatal error would have never happened if you didn't force
> the fatality by reading bad locations. If you turned OFF ECC
> when you read all the memory, you just made good ECC check-bits
> out of bad ones. The data is corrupt and will never be reported.
>
> So, ten seconds after you have some cosmic-ray upset, you guarantee
> that your machine will crash if you read everything every ten
> seconds. This will never be acceptable. You need to leave the
> machine alone and not try to "pick scabs". That's how you get
> the best reliability. Also, at some periodic intervals, you
> re-boot (restart) the whole machine, reinitializing everything
> including all the RAM.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> Dick Johnson
> Penguin : Linux version 2.4.18 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
> Bush : The Fourth Reich of America
>
>