In this paper, we evaluate the error criticality of radiation-induced errors on modern High-Performance Computing (HPC) accelerators (Intel Xeon Phi and NVIDIA K40) through a dedicated set of metrics. We show that, as long as imprecise computing is concerned, the simple mismatch detection is not sufficient to evaluate and compare the radiation sensitivity of HPC devices and algorithms. Our analysis quantifies and qualifies radiation effects on applications’ output correlating the number of corrupted elements with their spatial locality. Also, we provide the mean relative error (dataset-wise) to evaluate radiation-induced error magnitude.
We apply the selected metrics to experimental results obtained in various radiation test campaigns for a total of more than 400 hours of beam time per device. The amount of data we gathered allows us to evaluate the error criticality of a representative set of algorithms from HPC suites. Additionally, based on the characteristics of the tested algorithms, we draw generic reliability conclusions for broader classes of codes. We show that arithmetic operations are less critical for the K40, while Xeon Phi is more reliable when executing particles interactions solved through Finite Difference Methods. Finally, iterative stencil operations seem the most reliable on both architectures.This work was supported by the STIC-AmSud/CAPES scientific cooperation program under the EnergySFE research
project grant 99999.007556/2015-02, EU H2020 Programme, and MCTI/RNP-Brazil under the HPC4E Project, grant agreement
n° 689772. Tested K40 boards were donated thanks to Steve Keckler, Timothy Tsai, and Siva Hari from NVIDIA.Postprint (author's final draft
