Live data from Hacker News

For a brief period, the Windows kernel tried to deal with gamma rays

blogs.msdn.microsoft.com

11–20 of 124 posts

Re: For a brief period, the Windows kernel tried to deal with gamma rays

#11
So ... here's what I'm thinking, as a complete layman with respect to how radiation affects memory devices. RAM is DRAM, i.e. dynamic RAM. It has to get automatically refreshed relatively frequently.

So, maybe (again, me being a layman) what happens is that usually gamma rays hit a DRAM cell, but haven't imparted enough energy to cause a flip. A millisecond later the cell gets refreshed erasing what little influence the gamma ray had. No harm done. A flip would only occur if enough particles hit the cell within the refresh time frame. That's of course possible, but more rare.

Contrast this with processor cache. On-die cache is most likely SRAM, Static RAM. It doesn't get refreshed. So the slight voltage errors caused by gamma rays can slowly build up over time.

Perhaps this normally isn't an issue, because even though the cache is SRAM and doesn't get refreshed automatically, it'll get "refreshed" by virtue of being cache. i.e. as long as the processor is busy the cache is constantly getting re-written with new cache lines.

But that won't hold true when the processor is asleep. The cache will be sitting idle, making itself susceptible to accumulated charges. Thus the likelihood of a gamma flip is greatly increased.

All of that crude logic aside there's one caveat:

> he workaround was removed once the problem was fixed in microcode or in a later processor stepping.

So ... either everything I said is a load of bollocks and actually this was a processor bug that some CPU engineer mistook as gamma flips, or maybe my theory is correct and they changed the CPU to occasionally wake up and "refresh" its cache automatically.

The mystery remains...

Re: For a brief period, the Windows kernel tried to deal with gamma rays

#12

So ... here's what I'm thinking, as a complete layman with respect to how radiation affects memory devices. RAM is DRAM, i.e. dynamic RAM. It has to get automatically refreshed relatively frequently. So, maybe (again, me being a layman) what happens is that usually gamma rays hit a DRAM cell, but haven't imparted enough energy to cause a flip. A millisecond later the cell gets refreshed erasing what little influence…

No, SRAM doesn't work that way. DRAM needs refreshing because it's made out of capacitors; if left alone, their charge will stay the same. Whereas SRAM is made of flip-flops; if the charge in an SRAM cell moves towards an intermediate state in between 0 and 1, it will naturally move back to 0 or 1 (whichever is closer) with no refreshing needed, by virtue of its structure.

Re: For a brief period, the Windows kernel tried to deal with gamma rays

#13

So ... here's what I'm thinking, as a complete layman with respect to how radiation affects memory devices. RAM is DRAM, i.e. dynamic RAM. It has to get automatically refreshed relatively frequently. So, maybe (again, me being a layman) what happens is that usually gamma rays hit a DRAM cell, but haven't imparted enough energy to cause a flip. A millisecond later the cell gets refreshed erasing what little influence…

> Contrast this with processor cache. On-die cache is most likely SRAM, Static RAM. It doesn't get refreshed. So the slight voltage errors caused by gamma rays can slowly build up over time.

Static RAM is basically a flip-flop. It's a bistable circuit that's actively held in a stable state. Single-event upsets work by, essentially, putting the energy into the circuit required to make it transition into the opposite state, i.e. basically the same way the SRAM cell is written to.

Re: For a brief period, the Windows kernel tried to deal with gamma rays

#18

I found this code as an intern at Microsoft, while the manufacturer is hidden in the post, I'll give you a clue - the company starts with "I" and ends with "ntel"

Unless you know what you are doing, you might want to delete that. Probably goes against the NDA you've signed, no?

Re: For a brief period, the Windows kernel tried to deal with gamma rays

#20

I found this code as an intern at Microsoft, while the manufacturer is hidden in the post, I'll give you a clue - the company starts with "I" and ends with "ntel"

Unless you know what you are doing, you might want to delete that. Probably goes against the NDA you've signed, no?

This was over a decade ago, I'm not too worried about it.
Post reply on HN