Lockstep Comparator Circuit Periodic Self-Diagnosis

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current lockstep systems face challenges in detecting faults within the comparison circuit without imposing significant software architecture limitations or violating idle-time duration constraints, which can lead to undetected faults and increased risk of system failures.

Innovation Solution

Implementing a method where at least two comparator circuits operate between compute engines to compare memory accesses and program counters, allowing for periodic non-intrusive diagnosis in three modes, enabling continuous operation and comprehensive fault detection without idle time constraints.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If a single comparator circuit is used to compare lockstep processing systems, then device complexity is reduced, but the system cannot perform self-diagnosis without halting computation

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvefault detection capabilityVSAvoidcomparator circuit configuration
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent combines the comparison function and self-diagnosis function into a single comparator circuit by time-multiplexing. The comparator alternates between comparing lockstep outputs during computation cycles and executing self-diagnosis during idle cycles, eliminating the need for separate diagnosis circuits while maintaining both functionalities.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #5Merging (Combining)

Solution Approach 2:

The comparator circuit operates periodically, switching between comparison mode and self-diagnosis mode based on system state. During active computation, it compares lockstep outputs; during idle periods, it executes self-diagnosis routines, enabling continuous monitoring without requiring additional hardware.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #19Periodic action

2Reliability

If the comparator circuit is halted for diagnosis, then fault detection is possible, but computation must be suspended violating idle-time constraints

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecomparator fault detectionVSAvoidsystem availability
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs self-diagnosis periodically during naturally occurring idle cycles rather than halting computation. The comparator executes diagnosis routines during these idle periods when no computation is occurring anyway, so system availability is maintained while still enabling fault detection.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #19Periodic action

Solution Approach 2:

The comparator circuit performs self-diagnosis autonomously during idle cycles without external intervention or computation suspension. The diagnosis is integrated into the normal operation cycle, allowing the system to self-monitor without impacting productivity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

3Reliability

If multiple comparator circuits are used for redundancy, then fault detection coverage is improved, but device complexity and cost increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvefault detection coverageVSAvoidcomparator circuit quantity
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent merges multiple comparator functionalities into a single comparator circuit that time-multiplexes between comparison operations and self-diagnosis. This eliminates the need for separate dedicated diagnosis comparators while achieving equivalent or superior fault detection coverage.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #5Merging (Combining)

Solution Approach 2:

The comparator circuit is designed to perform multiple functions: comparing lockstep outputs during computation and executing self-diagnosis during idle cycles. This multi-functionality eliminates the need for separate specialized circuits, reducing overall device complexity while maintaining comprehensive fault detection.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

4Reliability

If computation is halted for self-diagnosis, then comprehensive fault detection is possible, but idle-time duration constraints are violated

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecomprehensive fault detectionVSAvoidcomputation idle time
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The self-diagnosis is executed periodically during naturally occurring idle cycles in the computation flow. By aligning diagnosis execution with these pre-existing idle periods, the system achieves comprehensive fault detection without adding extra idle time or violating duration constraints.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #19Periodic action

Solution Approach 2:

The system maintains continuous useful action by performing self-diagnosis during idle cycles rather than halting computation. The comparator remains active throughout, continuously either comparing outputs or executing diagnosis, ensuring no productive time is lost while still achieving comprehensive fault detection.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #20Continuity of useful action

Data Source

PatentEP3555748B1Periodic non-intrusive diagnosis of lockstep systems
Publication Date: 2020.05.13 QUALCOMM INC
  • EP3555748B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP3555748B1 patent drawingFigure 2A~2B
  • EP3555748B1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

Aspects disclosed herein relate to periodic non-intrusive diagnosis of lockstep systems. An exemplary method includes comparing execution of a program on a first processing system of the plurality of processing systems and execution of the program on a second processing system of the plurality of processing systems using a first comparator circuit, comparing the execution of the program on the first processing system and the execution of the program on the second processing system using a second comparator circuit, and running a diagnosis program on the second comparator circuit while the comparing using the first comparator circuit is ongoing.