Cross-layer system reliability assessment framework for hardware faults

System reliability estimation during early design phases facilitates informed decisions for the integration of effective protection mechanisms against different classes of hardware faults. When not all system abstraction layers (technology, circuit, microarchitecture, software) are factored in such an estimation model, the delivered reliability reports must be excessively pessimistic and thus lead to unacceptably expensive, over-designed systems. We propose a scalable, cross-layer methodology and supporting suite of tools for accurate but fast estimations of computing systems reliability. The backbone of the methodology is a component-based Bayesian model, which effectively calculates system reliability based on the masking probabilities of individual hardware and software components considering their complex interactions. Our detailed experimental evaluation for different technologies, microarchitectures, and benchmarks demonstrates that the proposed model delivers very accurate reliability estimations (FIT rates) compared to statistically significant but slow fault injection campaigns at the microarchitecture level.Peer ReviewedPostprint (author's final draft

Cross layer reliability estimation for digital systems

Forthcoming manufacturing technologies hold the promise to increase multifuctional computing systems performance and functionality thanks to a remarkable growth of the device integration density. Despite the benefits introduced by this technology improvements, reliability is becoming a key challenge for the semiconductor industry. With transistor size reaching the atomic dimensions, vulnerability to unavoidable fluctuations in the manufacturing process and environmental stress rise dramatically. Failing to meet a reliability requirement may add excessive re-design cost to recover and may have severe consequences on the success of a product. %Worst-case design with large margins to guarantee reliable operation has been employed for long time. However, it is reaching a limit that makes it economically unsustainable due to its performance, area, and power cost. One of the open challenges for future technologies is building ``dependable'' systems on top of unreliable components, which will degrade and even fail during normal lifetime of the chip. Conventional design techniques are highly inefficient. They expend significant amount of energy to tolerate the device unpredictability by adding safety margins to a circuit's operating voltage, clock frequency or charge stored per bit. Unfortunately, the additional cost introduced to compensate unreliability are rapidly becoming unacceptable in today's environment where power consumption is often the limiting factor for integrated circuit performance, and energy efficiency is a top concern. Attention should be payed to tailor techniques to improve the reliability of a system on the basis of its requirements, ending up with cost-effective solutions favoring the success of the product on the market. Cross-layer reliability is one of the most promising approaches to achieve this goal. Cross-layer reliability techniques take into account the interactions between the layers composing a complex system (i.e., technology, hardware and software layers) to implement efficient cross-layer fault mitigation mechanisms. Fault tolerance mechanism are carefully implemented at different layers starting from the technology up to the software layer to carefully optimize the system by exploiting the inner capability of each layer to mask lower level faults. For this purpose, cross-layer reliability design techniques need to be complemented with cross-layer reliability evaluation tools, able to precisely assess the reliability level of a selected design early in the design cycle. Accurate and early reliability estimates would enable the exploration of the system design space and the optimization of multiple constraints such as performance, power consumption, cost and reliability. This Ph.D. thesis is devoted to the development of new methodologies and tools to evaluate and optimize the reliability of complex digital systems during the early design stages. More specifically, techniques addressing hardware accelerators (i.e., FPGAs and GPUs), microprocessors and full systems are discussed. All developed methodologies are presented in conjunction with their application to real-world use cases belonging to different computational domains

Cross-layer reliability evaluation, moving from the hardware architecture to the system level: A CLERECO EU project overview

Advanced computing systems realized in forthcoming technologies hold the promise of a significant increase of computational capabilities. However, the same path that is leading technologies toward these remarkable achievements is also making electronic devices increasingly unreliable. Developing new methods to evaluate the reliability of these systems in an early design stage has the potential to save costs, produce optimized designs and have a positive impact on the product time-to-market. CLERECO European FP7 research project addresses early reliability evaluation with a cross-layer approach across different computing disciplines, across computing system layers and across computing market segments. The fundamental objective of the project is to investigate in depth a methodology to assess system reliability early in the design cycle of the future systems of the emerging computing continuum. This paper presents a general overview of the CLERECO project focusing on the main tools and models that are being developed that could be of interest for the research community and engineering practice

ENHANCEMENT OF MARKOV RANDOM FIELD MECHANISM TO ACHIEVE FAULT-TOLERANCE IN NANOSCALE CIRCUIT DESIGN

As the MOSFET dimensions scale down towards nanoscale level, the reliability of circuits based on these devices decreases. Hence, designing reliable systems using these nano-devices is becoming challenging. Therefore, a mechanism has to be devised that can make the nanoscale systems perform reliably using unreliable circuit components. The solution is fault-tolerant circuit design. Markov Random Field (MRF) is an effective approach that achieves fault-tolerance in integrated circuit design. The previous research on this technique suffers from limitations at the design, simulation and implementation levels. As improvements, the MRF fault-tolerance rules have been validated for a practical circuit example. The simulation framework is extended from thermal to a combination of thermal and random telegraph signal (RTS) noise sources to provide a more rigorous noise environment for the simulation of circuits build on nanoscale technologies. Moreover, an architecture-level improvement has been proposed in the design of previous MRF gates. The redesigned MRF is termed as Improved-MRF. The CMOS, MRF and Improved-MRF designs were simulated under application of highly noisy inputs. On the basis of simulations conducted for several test circuits, it is found that Improved-MRF circuits are 400 whereas MRF circuits are only 10 times more noise-tolerant than the CMOS alternatives. The number of transistors, on the other hand increased from a factor of 9 to 15 from MRF to Improved-MRF respectively (as compared to the CMOS). Therefore, in order to provide a trade-off between reliability and the area overhead required for obtaining a fault-tolerant circuit, a novel parameter called as ‘Reliable Area Index’ (RAI) is introduced in this research work. The value of RAI exceeds around 1.3 and 40 times for MRF and Improved-MRF respectively as compared to CMOS design which makes Improved- MRF to be still 30 times more efficient circuit design than MRF in terms of maintaining a suitable trade-off between reliability and area-consumption of the circuit

A survey on fault diagnosis in wireless sensor networks

Wireless sensor networks (WSNs) often consist of hundreds of sensor nodes that may be deployed in relatively harsh and complex environments. In views of hardware cost, sensor nodes always adopt relatively cheap chips, which makes these nodes become error-prone or faulty in the course of their operation. Natural factors and electromagnetic interference could also influence the performance of the WSNs. When sensor nodes become faulty, they may have died which means they cannot communicate with other members in the wireless network, they may be still alive but produce incorrect data, they may be unstable jumping between normal state and faulty state. To improve data quality, shorten response time, strengthen network security, and prolong network lifespan, many studies have focused on fault diagnosis. This survey paper classifies fault diagnosis methods in recent five years into three categories based on decision centers and key attributes of employed algorithms: centralized approaches, distributed approaches, and hybrid approaches. As all these studies have specific goals and limitations, this paper tries to compare them, lists their merits and limits, and propose potential research directions based on established methods and theories

Predictive Reliability and Fault Management in Exascale Systems: State of the Art and Perspectives

© ACM, 2020. This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here by permission of ACM for your personal use. Not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 53, No. 5, Article 95. Publication date: September 2020. https://doi.org/10.1145/3403956[EN] Performance and power constraints come together with Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor technology scaling in future Exascale systems. Technology scaling makes each individual transistor more prone to faults and, due to the exponential increase in the number of devices per chip, to higher system fault rates. Consequently, High-performance Computing (HPC) systems need to integrate prediction, detection, and recovery mechanisms to cope with faults efficiently. This article reviews fault detection, fault prediction, and recovery techniques in HPC systems, from electronics to system level. We analyze their strengths and limitations. Finally, we identify the promising paths to meet the reliability levels of Exascale systems.This work has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 (H2020) research and innovation program under the FET-HPC Grant Agreement No. 801137 (RECIPE). Jaume Abella was also partially supported by the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness of Spain under Contract No. TIN2015-65316-P and under Ramon y Cajal Postdoctoral Fellowship No. RYC-2013-14717, as well as by the HiPEAC Network of Excellence. Ramon Canal is partially supported by the Generalitat de Catalunya under Contract No. 2017SGR0962.Canal, R.; Hernández Luz, C.; Tornero-Gavilá, R.; Cilardo, A.; Massari, G.; Reghenzani, F.; Fornaciari, W.... (2020). Predictive Reliability and Fault Management in Exascale Systems: State of the Art and Perspectives. ACM Computing Surveys. 53(5):1-32. https://doi.org/10.1145/3403956S132535Abella, J., Hernandez, C., Quinones, E., Cazorla, F. J., Conmy, P. R., Azkarate-askasua, M., … Vardanega, T. (2015). WCET analysis methods: Pitfalls and challenges on their trustworthiness. 10th IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Embedded Systems (SIES). doi:10.1109/sies.2015.7185039E. Agullo L. Giraud A. Guermouche J. Roman and M. Zounon. 2013. Towards resilient parallel linear Krylov solvers: Recover-restart strategies. INRIA Research Report RR-8324. E. Agullo L. Giraud A. Guermouche J. Roman and M. Zounon. 2013. Towards resilient parallel linear Krylov solvers: Recover-restart strategies. INRIA Research Report RR-8324.Agullo, E., Giraud, L., Salas, P., & Zounon, M. (2016). Interpolation-Restart Strategies for Resilient Eigensolvers. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 38(5), C560-C583. doi:10.1137/15m1042115Al-Qawasmeh, A. M., Pasricha, S., Maciejewski, A. A., & Siegel, H. J. (2015). Power and Thermal-Aware Workload Allocation in Heterogeneous Data Centers. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 64(2), 477-491. doi:10.1109/tc.2013.116ARM. 2017. ARM Reliability Availability and Serviceability (RAS) Specification—ARMv8 for the ARMv8-A Architecture Profile. White paper. Retrieved from https://developer.arm.com/docs/ddi0587/latest. ARM. 2017. ARM Reliability Availability and Serviceability (RAS) Specification—ARMv8 for the ARMv8-A Architecture Profile. White paper. Retrieved from https://developer.arm.com/docs/ddi0587/latest.Avizienis, A., Laprie, J.-C., Randell, B., & Landwehr, C. (2004). Basic concepts and taxonomy of dependable and secure computing. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, 1(1), 11-33. doi:10.1109/tdsc.2004.2Bautista-Gomez, L., Zyulkyarov, F., Unsal, O., & McIntosh-Smith, S. (2016). Unprotected Computing: A Large-Scale Study of DRAM Raw Error Rate on a Supercomputer. SC16: International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis. doi:10.1109/sc.2016.54Berrocal, E., Bautista-Gomez, L., Di, S., Lan, Z., & Cappello, F. (2017). Toward General Software Level Silent Data Corruption Detection for Parallel Applications. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 28(12), 3642-3655. doi:10.1109/tpds.2017.2735971M.-A. Breuer and A. D. Friedman. 1976. Diagnosis 8 Reliable Design of Digital Systems. Springer. M.-A. Breuer and A. D. Friedman. 1976. Diagnosis 8 Reliable Design of Digital Systems. Springer.P. Bridges K. Ferreira M. Heroux and M. Hoemmen. 2012. Fault-tolerant linear solvers via selective reliability. ArXiv e-prints June 2012. arXiv:1206.1390 [math.NA]. P. Bridges K. Ferreira M. Heroux and M. Hoemmen. 2012. Fault-tolerant linear solvers via selective reliability. ArXiv e-prints June 2012. arXiv:1206.1390 [math.NA].F. Cappello A. Geist W. Gropp S. Kale B. Kramer and M. Snir. 2014. Toward exascale resilience: 2014 update. Supercomput. Front. Innovat. 1 1 (2014). http://superfri.org/superfri/article/view/14. F. Cappello A. Geist W. Gropp S. Kale B. Kramer and M. Snir. 2014. Toward exascale resilience: 2014 update. Supercomput. Front. Innovat. 1 1 (2014). http://superfri.org/superfri/article/view/14.F. J. Cazorla L. Kosmidis E. Mezzetti C. Hernandez J. Abella and T. Vardanega. 2019. Probabilistic worst-case timing analysis: Taxonomy and comprehensive survey. ACM Comput. Surv. 52 1 Article 14 (Feb. 2019) 35 pages. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3301283 F. J. Cazorla L. Kosmidis E. Mezzetti C. Hernandez J. Abella and T. Vardanega. 2019. Probabilistic worst-case timing analysis: Taxonomy and comprehensive survey. ACM Comput. Surv. 52 1 Article 14 (Feb. 2019) 35 pages. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3301283Chan, C. S., Pan, B., Gross, K., Vaidyanathan, K., & Rosing, T. Š. (2014). Correcting vibration-induced performance degradation in enterprise servers. ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, 41(3), 83-88. doi:10.1145/2567529.2567555Chantem, T., Hu, X. S., & Dick, R. P. (2011). Temperature-Aware Scheduling and Assignment for Hard Real-Time Applications on MPSoCs. IEEE Transactions on Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI) Systems, 19(10), 1884-1897. doi:10.1109/tvlsi.2010.2058873Chen, M. Y., Kiciman, E., Fratkin, E., Fox, A., & Brewer, E. (s. f.). Pinpoint: problem determination in large, dynamic Internet services. Proceedings International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks. doi:10.1109/dsn.2002.1029005Chen, Z. (2011). Algorithm-based recovery for iterative methods without checkpointing. Proceedings of the 20th international symposium on High performance distributed computing - HPDC ’11. doi:10.1145/1996130.1996142Chen, Z. (2013). Online-ABFT. Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGPLAN symposium on Principles and practice of parallel programming - PPoPP ’13. doi:10.1145/2442516.2442533Coskun, A. K., Rosing, T. S., Mihic, K., De Micheli, G., & Leblebici, Y. (2006). Analysis and Optimization of MPSoC Reliability. Journal of Low Power Electronics, 2(1), 56-69. doi:10.1166/jolpe.2006.007G. Da Costa A. Oleksiak W. Piatek J. Salom and L. Sisó. 2015. Minimization of costs and energy consumption in a data center by a workload-based capacity management. In Energy Efficient Data Centers S. Klingert M. Chinnici and M. Rey Porto (Eds.). Springer International Publishing Cham 102--119. G. Da Costa A. Oleksiak W. Piatek J. Salom and L. Sisó. 2015. Minimization of costs and energy consumption in a data center by a workload-based capacity management. In Energy Efficient Data Centers S. Klingert M. Chinnici and M. Rey Porto (Eds.). Springer International Publishing Cham 102--119.Cupertino, L., Da Costa, G., Oleksiak, A., Pia¸tek, W., Pierson, J.-M., Salom, J., … Zilio, T. (2015). Energy-efficient, thermal-aware modeling and simulation of data centers: The CoolEmAll approach and evaluation results. Ad Hoc Networks, 25, 535-553. doi:10.1016/j.adhoc.2014.11.002Dally, W. J. (1991). Express cubes: improving the performance of k-ary n-cube interconnection networks. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 40(9), 1016-1023. doi:10.1109/12.83652Dauwe, D., Pasricha, S., Maciejewski, A. A., & Siegel, H. J. (2018). Resilience-Aware Resource Management for Exascale Computing Systems. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Computing, 3(4), 332-345. doi:10.1109/tsusc.2018.2797890R. I. Davis and A. Burns. 2011. A survey of hard real-time scheduling for multiprocessor systems. ACM Comput. Surv. 43 4 Article 35 (Oct. 2011) 44 pages. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1978802.1978814 R. I. Davis and A. Burns. 2011. A survey of hard real-time scheduling for multiprocessor systems. ACM Comput. Surv. 43 4 Article 35 (Oct. 2011) 44 pages. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1978802.1978814Di, S., & Cappello, F. (2016). Adaptive Impact-Driven Detection of Silent Data Corruption for HPC Applications. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 27(10), 2809-2823. doi:10.1109/tpds.2016.2517639Di, S., Guo, H., Gupta, R., Pershey, E. R., Snir, M., & Cappello, F. (2019). Exploring Properties and Correlations of Fatal Events in a Large-Scale HPC System. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 30(2), 361-374. doi:10.1109/tpds.2018.2864184Di, S., Robert, Y., Vivien, F., & Cappello, F. (2017). Toward an Optimal Online Checkpoint Solution under a Two-Level HPC Checkpoint Model. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 28(1), 244-259. doi:10.1109/tpds.2016.2546248J. Dongarra T. Herault and Y. Robert. 2015. Fault Tolerance Techniques for High-Performance Computing. Springer. J. Dongarra T. Herault and Y. Robert. 2015. Fault Tolerance Techniques for High-Performance Computing. Springer.DOWNING, S., & SOCIE, D. (1982). Simple rainflow counting algorithms. International Journal of Fatigue, 4(1), 31-40. doi:10.1016/0142-1123(82)90018-4Eghbalkhah, B., Kamal, M., Afzali-Kusha, H., Afzali-Kusha, A., Ghaznavi-Ghoushchi, M. B., & Pedram, M. (2015). Workload and temperature dependent evaluation of BTI-induced lifetime degradation in digital circuits. Microelectronics Reliability, 55(8), 1152-1162. doi:10.1016/j.microrel.2015.06.004Gottscho, M., Shoaib, M., Govindan, S., Sharma, B., Wang, D., & Gupta, P. (2017). Measuring the Impact of Memory Errors on Application  Performance. IEEE Computer Architecture Letters, 16(1), 51-55. doi:10.1109/lca.2016.2599513Greenberg, A., Hamilton, J. R., Jain, N., Kandula, S., Kim, C., Lahiri, P., … Sengupta, S. (2011). VL2. Communications of the ACM, 54(3), 95-104. doi:10.1145/1897852.1897877Heroux, M. A., Bartlett, R. A., Howle, V. E., Hoekstra, R. J., Hu, J. J., Kolda, T. G., … Stanley, K. S. (2005). An overview of the Trilinos project. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, 31(3), 397-423. doi:10.1145/1089014.1089021Hoffmann, G. A., Trivedi, K. S., & Malek, M. (2007). A Best Practice Guide to Resource Forecasting for Computing Systems. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 56(4), 615-628. doi:10.1109/tr.2007.909764Hsiao, M. Y., Carter, W. C., Thomas, J. W., & Stringfellow, W. R. (1981). Reliability, Availability, and Serviceability of IBM Computer Systems: A Quarter Century of Progress. IBM Journal of Research and Development, 25(5), 453-468. doi:10.1147/rd.255.0453Hughes, G. F., Murray, J. F., Kreutz-Delgado, K., & Elkan, C. (2002). Improved disk-drive failure warnings. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 51(3), 350-357. doi:10.1109/tr.2002.802886S. Hukerikar and C. Engelmann. 2017. Resilience design patterns: A structured approach to resilience at extreme scale. Supercomput. Front. Innov. 4 3 (2017). DOI:https://doi.org/10.14529/jsfi170301 S. Hukerikar and C. Engelmann. 2017. Resilience design patterns: A structured approach to resilience at extreme scale. Supercomput. Front. Innov. 4 3 (2017). DOI:https://doi.org/10.14529/jsfi170301Hussain, H., Malik, S. U. R., Hameed, A., Khan, S. U., Bickler, G., Min-Allah, N., … Rayes, A. (2013). A survey on resource allocation in high performance distributed computing systems. Parallel Computing, 39(11), 709-736. doi:10.1016/j.parco.2013.09.009Intel Corporation. [n.d.]. Intel Xeon Processor E7 Family: Reliability Availability and Serviceability. White paper. https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/xeon/xeon-e7-family-ras-server-paper.html. Intel Corporation. [n.d.]. Intel Xeon Processor E7 Family: Reliability Availability and Serviceability. White paper. https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/xeon/xeon-e7-family-ras-server-paper.html.Jha, S., Formicola, V., Martino, C. D., Dalton, M., Kramer, W. T., Kalbarczyk, Z., & Iyer, R. K. (2018). Resiliency of HPC Interconnects: A Case Study of Interconnect Failures and Recovery in Blue Waters. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, 15(6), 915-930. doi:10.1109/tdsc.2017.2737537Kiciman, E., & Fox, A. (2005). Detecting Application-Level Failures in Component-Based Internet Services. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 16(5), 1027-1041. doi:10.1109/tnn.2005.853411Kim, T., Sun, Z., Cook, C., Zhao, H., Li, R., Wong, D., & Tan, S. X.-D. (2016). Invited - Cross-layer modeling and optimization for electromigration induced reliability. Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Design Automation Conference. doi:10.1145/2897937.2905010Kurowski, K., Oleksiak, A., Piątek, W., Piontek, T., Przybyszewski, A., & Węglarz, J. (2013). DCworms – A tool for simulation of energy efficiency in distributed computing infrastructures. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 39, 135-151. doi:10.1016/j.simpat.2013.08.007Langou, J., Chen, Z., Bosilca, G., & Dongarra, J. (2008). Recovery Patterns for Iterative Methods in a Parallel Unstable Environment. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 30(1), 102-116. doi:10.1137/040620394J. C. Laprie (Ed.). 1995. Dependability—Its Attributes Impairments and Means. Springer-Verlag Berlin. J. C. Laprie (Ed.). 1995. Dependability—Its Attributes Impairments and Means. Springer-Verlag Berlin.Laprie, J.-C. (s. f.). DEPENDABLE COMPUTING AND FAULT TOLERANCE : CONCEPTS AND TERMINOLOGY. Twenty-Fifth International Symposium on Fault-Tolerant Computing, 1995, ’ Highlights from Twenty-Five Years’. doi:10.1109/ftcsh.1995.532603Lasance, C. J. M. (2003). Thermally driven reliability issues in microelectronic systems: status-quo and challenges. Microelectronics Reliability, 43(12), 1969-1974. doi:10.1016/s0026-2714(03)00183-5Yinglung Liang, Yanyong Zhang, Sivasubramaniam, A., Jette, M., & Sahoo, R. (s. f.). BlueGene/L Failure Analysis and Prediction Models. International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN’06). doi:10.1109/dsn.2006.18Lin, T.-T. Y., & Siewiorek, D. P. (1990). Error log analysis: statistical modeling and heuristic trend analysis. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 39(4), 419-432. doi:10.1109/24.58720Losada, N., González, P., Martín, M. J., Bosilca, G., Bouteiller, A., & Teranishi, K. (2020). Fault tolerance of MPI applications in exascale systems: The ULFM solution. Future Generation Computer Systems, 106, 467-481. doi:10.1016/j.future.2020.01.026Lyons, R. E., & Vanderkulk, W. (1962). The Use of Triple-Modular Redundancy to Improve Computer Reliability. IBM Journal of Research and Development, 6(2), 200-209. doi:10.1147/rd.62.0200M. Médard and S. S. Lumetta. 2003. Network Reliability and Fault Tolerance. American Cancer Society. Retrieved from arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/0471219282.eot281. M. Médard and S. S. Lumetta. 2003. Network Reliability and Fault Tolerance. American Cancer Society. Retrieved from arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/0471219282.eot281.Moody, A., Bronevetsky, G., Mohror, K., & de Supinski, B. (2010). Detailed Modeling, Design, and Evaluation of a Scalable Multi-level Checkpointing System. doi:10.2172/984082Moor Insights 8 Strategy. 2017. AMD EPYC Brings New RAS Capability. White paper. Retrieved from https://www.amd.com/system/files/2017-06/AMD-EPYC-Brings-New-RAS-Capability.pdf. Moor Insights 8 Strategy. 2017. AMD EPYC Brings New RAS Capability. White paper. Retrieved from https://www.amd.com/system/files/2017-06/AMD-EPYC-Brings-New-RAS-Capability.pdf.Mulas, F., Atienza, D., Acquaviva, A., Carta, S., Benini, L., & De Micheli, G. (2009). Thermal Balancing Policy for Multiprocessor Stream Computing Platforms. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, 28(12), 1870-1882. doi:10.1109/tcad.2009.2032372Oleksiak, A., Kierzynka, M., Piatek, W., Agosta, G., Barenghi, A., Brandolese, C., … Janssen, U. (2017). M2DC – Modular Microserver DataCentre with heterogeneous hardware. Microprocessors and Microsystems, 52, 117-130. doi:10.1016/j.micpro.2017.05.019Oxley, M. A., Jonardi, E., Pasricha, S., Maciejewski, A. A., Siegel, H. J., Burns, P. J., & Koenig, G. A. (2018). Rate-based thermal, power, and co-location aware resource management for heterogeneous data centers. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, 112, 126-139. doi:10.1016/j.jpdc.2017.04.015K. O’brien I. Pietri R. Reddy A. Lastovetsky and R. Sakellariou. 2017. A survey of power and energy predictive models in HPC systems and applications. ACM Comput. Surv. 50 3 Article 37 (June 2017) 38 pages. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3078811 K. O’brien I. Pietri R. Reddy A. Lastovetsky and R. Sakellariou. 2017. A survey of power and energy predictive models in HPC systems and applications. ACM Comput. Surv. 50 3 Article 37 (June 2017) 38 pages. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3078811Park, S.-M., & Humphrey, M. (2011). Predictable High-Performance Computing Using Feedback Control and Admission Control. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 22(3), 396-411. doi:10.1109/tpds.2010.100Pfefferman, J. D., & Cernuschi-Frias, B. (2002). A nonparametric nonstationary procedure for failure prediction. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 51(4), 434-442. doi:10.1109/tr.2002.804733Rangan, K. K., Wei, G.-Y., & Brooks, D. (2009). Thread motion. ACM SIGARCH Computer Architecture News, 37(3), 302-313. doi:10.1145/1555815.1555793Paolo Rech. [n.d.]. Reliability Issues in Current and Future Supercomputers. Retrieved from http://energysfe.ufsc.br/slides/Paolo-Rech-260917.pdf. Paolo Rech. [n.d.]. Reliability Issues in Current and Future Supercomputers. Retrieved from http://energysfe.ufsc.br/slides/Paolo-Rech-260917.pdf.F. Reghenzani G. Massari and W. Fornaciari. 2019. The real-time Linux kernel: A survey on PREEMPT_RT. Comput. Surveys 52 1 Article 18 (Feb. 2019) 36 pages. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3297714 F. Reghenzani G. Massari and W. Fornaciari. 2019. The real-time Linux kernel: A survey on PREEMPT_RT. Comput. Surveys 52 1 Article 18 (Feb. 2019) 36 pages. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3297714F. Salfner M. Lenk and M. Malek. 2010. A survey of online failure prediction methods. ACM Comput. Surv. 42 3 Article 10 (March 2010) 42 pages. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1670679.1670680 F. Salfner M. Lenk and M. Malek. 2010. A survey of online failure prediction methods. ACM Comput. Surv. 42 3 Article 10 (March 2010) 42 pages. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1670679.1670680Salfner, F., Schieschke, M., & Malek, M. (2006). Predicting failures of computer systems: a case study for a telecommunication system. Proceedings 20th IEEE International Parallel & Distributed Processing Symposium. doi:10.1109/ipdps.2006.1639672Shi, L., Chen, H., Sun, J., & Li, K. (2012). vCUDA: GPU-Accelerated High-Performance Computing in Virtual Machines. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 61(6), 804-816. doi:10.1109/tc.2011.112D. P. Siewiorek and R. S. Swarz. 1998. Reliable Computer Systems 3rd ed. A. K. Peters Ltd. D. P. Siewiorek and R. S. Swarz. 1998. Reliable Computer Systems 3rd ed. A. K. Peters Ltd.Singh, S., & Chana, I. (2016). A Survey on Resource Scheduling in Cloud Computing: Issues and Challenges. Journal of Grid Computing, 14(2), 217-264. doi:10.1007/s10723-015-9359-2Slegel, T. J., Averill, R. M., Check, M. A., Giamei, B. C., Krumm, B. W., Krygowski, C. A., … Webb, C. F. (1999). IBM’s S/390 G5 microprocessor design. IEEE Micro, 19(2), 12-23. doi:10.1109/40.755464Sridhar, A., Sabry, M. M., & Atienza, D. (2014). A Semi-Analytical Thermal Modeling Framework for Liquid-Cooled ICs. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, 33(8), 1145-1158. doi:10.1109/tcad.2014.2323194Sridharan, V., DeBardeleben, N., Blanchard, S., Ferreira, K. B., Stearley, J., Shalf, J., & Gurumurthi, S. (2015). Memory Errors in Modern Systems. ACM SIGARCH Computer Architecture News, 43(1), 297-310. doi:10.1145/2786763.2694348Stathis, J. H. (2018). The physics of NBTI: What do we really know? 2018 IEEE International Reliability Physics Symposium (IRPS). doi:10.1109/irps.2018.8353539Stellner, G. (s. f.). CoCheck: checkpointing and process migration for MPI. Proceedings of International Conference on Parallel Processing. doi:10.1109/ipps.1996.508106Stone, J. E., Gohara, D., & Shi, G. (2010). OpenCL: A Parallel Programming Standard for Heterogeneous Computing Systems. Computing in Science & Engineering, 12(3), 66-73. doi:10.1109/mcse.2010.69Subasi, O., Di, S., Bautista-Gomez, L., Balaprakash, P., Unsal, O., Labarta, J., … Cappello, F. (2018). Exploring the capabilities of support vector machines in detecting silent data corruptions. Sustainable Computing: Informatics and Systems, 19, 277-290. doi:10.1016/j.suscom.2018.01.004Tang, D., & Iyer, R. K. (1993). Dependability measurement and modeling of a multicomputer system. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 42(1), 62-75. doi:10.1109/12.192214D. Turnbull and N. Alldrin. 2003. Failure Prediction in Hardware Systems. Tech. rep. University of California San Diego CA. Retrieved from http://www.cs.ucsd.edu/ dturnbul/Papers/ServerPrediction.pdf. D. Turnbull and N. Alldrin. 2003. Failure Prediction in Hardware Systems. Tech. rep. University of California San Diego CA. Retrieved from http://www.cs.ucsd.edu/ dturnbul/Papers/ServerPrediction.pdf.Vilalta, R., Apte, C. V., Hellerstein, J. L., Ma, S., & Weiss, S. M. (2002). Predictive algorithms in the management of computer systems. IBM Systems Journal, 41(3), 461-474. doi:10.1147/sj.413.0461Vinoski, S. (2007). Reliability with Erlang. IEEE Internet Com

Continuous glucose monitoring sensors: Past, present and future algorithmic challenges

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) sensors are portable devices that allow measuring and visualizing the glucose concentration in real time almost continuously for several days and are provided with hypo/hyperglycemic alerts and glucose trend information. CGM sensors have revolutionized Type 1 diabetes (T1D) management, improving glucose control when used adjunctively to self-monitoring blood glucose systems. Furthermore, CGM devices have stimulated the development of applications that were impossible to create without a continuous-time glucose signal, e.g., real-time predictive alerts of hypo/hyperglycemic episodes based on the prediction of future glucose concentration, automatic basal insulin attenuation methods for hypoglycemia prevention, and the artificial pancreas. However, CGM sensors’ lack of accuracy and reliability limited their usability in the clinical practice, calling upon the academic community for the development of suitable signal processing methods to improve CGM performance. The aim of this paper is to review the past and present algorithmic challenges of CGM sensors, to show how they have been tackled by our research group, and to identify the possible future ones