Advertisement

Semi-formal Cycle-Accurate Temporal Execution Traces Reconstruction

  • Rehab MassoudEmail author
  • Jannis Stoppe
  • Daniel Große
  • Rolf Drechsler
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10419)

Abstract

Today’s Real-Time Systems’ (RTSs) increasing speed and complexity make debugging of timing related faults one of the most challenging engineering tasks. Debugging starts with capturing the fault symptoms, which requires continuous cycle-accurate execution traces. However, due to limitations of on-chip buffers’ area and output ports’ throughput, these cannot be obtained easily.

This paper introduces an approach that divides the tracing into two tasks, monitoring on-chip execution to retrieve accurate timing information and high level functional simulation to retrieve signal contents. A semi-formal cycle-accurate reconstruction method uses these two sources to retrieve a complete, cycle-accurate trace of a given signal. An experiment illustrates how this method allows the cycle-accurate reconstruction of on-chip traces of a Real-Time Autonomous-Guided-Vehicle software.

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Embedded Trace Macrocell block specification (2017). http://www.arm.com
  3. 3.
    Gaisler Research (2017). http://www.gaisler.com
  4. 4.
    System Navigator Probe (2017). http://www.mips.com
  5. 5.
    Abramovici, M., Bradley, P., Dwarakanath, K., Levin, P., Memmi, G., Miller, D.: A reconfigurable design-for-debug infrastructure for SoCs. In: DAC (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ahlschlager, C., Wilkins, D.: Using magellan to diagnose post-silicon bugs. In: Synopsys Verification Avenue Technical Bulletin, vol. 4, no. 3, p. 15 (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brummayer, R., Biere, A.: Boolector: an efficient SMT solver for bit-vectors and arrays. In: Kowalewski, S., Philippou, A. (eds.) TACAS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5505, pp. 174–177. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-00768-2_16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    De Paula, F.: Backspace: formal analysis for post-silicon debug traces. Ph.d. Thesis, University of British Colombia (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fredrikson, M., Christodorescu, M., Jha, S.: Dynamic behavior matching: a complexity analysis and new approximation algorithms. In: Bjørner, N., Sofronie-Stokkermans, V. (eds.) CADE 2011. LNCS, vol. 6803, pp. 252–267. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-22438-6_20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hu, B., Huang, K., Chen, G., Knoll, A.: Evaluation of run-time monitoring methods for real-time events streams. In: ASPDAC (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mitra, S., Seshia, S.A., Nicolici, N.: Post-silicon validation opportunities, challenges and recent advances. In: DAC (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nassar, A., Kurdahi, F.J., Elsharkasy, W.: NUVA: architectural support for runtime verication of parametric specications over multicores. In: CASES (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nguyen, M.D., Wedler, M., Stoffel, D., Kunz, W.: Formal hardware/software co-verification by interval property checking with abstraction. In: DAC, June 2011Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Park, S., Mitra, S.: IFRA: instruction footprint recording and analysis for post-silicon bug localization in processors. In: DAC (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reinbacher, T., Függer, M., Brauer, J.: Runtime verification of embedded real-time systems. Formal Meth. Syst. Des. 44(3), 203–239 (2014)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schmidt, B., Villarraga, C., Fehmel, T., Bormann, J., Wedler, M., Nguyen, M., Stoffel, D., Kunz, W.: A new formal verification approach for hardware-dependent embedded system software. IPSJ Trans. Syst. LSI Des. Methodol. 6, 135–145 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schuster, T., Meyer, R., Buchty, R., Fossati, L., Berekovic, M.: SoCRocket-a virtual platform for the European space agency SoC development. In: ReCoSoC (2014). http://www.github.com/socrocket
  18. 18.
    Shojaei, H., Davoodi, A.: Trace signal selection to enhance timing and logic visibility in post-silicon validation. In: ICCAD (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Souyris, J., Pavec, E.L., Himbert, G., Borios, G., Jégu, V., Heckmann, R.: Computing the worst case execution time of an avionics program by abstract interpretation. In: 5th International Workshop on Worst-Case Execution Time Analysis (WCET) (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vermeulen, B., Goossens, K.: Debugging Systems-on-Chip: Communication-centric and Abstraction-based Techniques. Embedded Systems. Springer, New York (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wilhelm, R., Engblom, J., Ermedahl, A., Holsti, N., Thesing, S., Whalley, D., Bernat, G., Ferdinand, C., Heckmann, R., Mitra, T., Mueller, F., Puaut, I., Puschner, P., Staschulat, J., Stenström, P.: The worst-case execution-time problem: overview of methods and survey of tools. ACM Trans. Embed. Comput. Syst. 7(3), 36 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yang, J., Touba, N.: Enhancing silicon debug via periodic monitoring. In: Proceedings of Symposium on Defect and Fault Tolerance (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rehab Massoud
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jannis Stoppe
    • 1
    • 2
  • Daniel Große
    • 1
    • 2
  • Rolf Drechsler
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Group of Computer ArchitectureUniversity of BremenBremenGermany
  2. 2.Cyber-Physical Systems, DFKI GmbHBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations