F. Nisa Bostanci

F. Nisa Bostanci, Haocong Luo, Ataberk Olgun et al.

A MICRO 2024 best paper runner-up publication (the Mess paper) with all three artifact badges awarded (including ``Reproducible'') proposes a new benchmark to evaluate real and simulated memory system performance. The publication contends that Ramulator 2.0 and DAMOV (ZSim+Ramulator) (along with other existing memory system simulators) ``poorly resemble the actual system performance'' and asserts that their simulator is better. In this paper, we show that the Mess paper has 1) demonstrable technical misconfigurations, 2) methodological errors in interpreting simulation statistics, and 3) an incomplete artifact that makes its key results irreproducible. We demonstrate that the Ramulator 2.0 simulation results reported in the Mess paper are incorrect due to multiple configuration errors instead of inherent simulation inaccuracy claimed by the Mess paper. We show that by correctly configuring Ramulator 2.0, Ramulator 2.0's simulated memory system performance actually resembles real system characteristics well, and thus a key claimed contribution of the Mess paper is factually incorrect. We also identify that the DAMOV simulation results in the Mess paper use wrong simulation statistics that are unrelated to the simulated DRAM performance. We show that DAMOV's simulated DRAM latency is not constant, in contrast to the Mess paper's claim. Moreover, the Mess paper's artifact repository lacks the necessary sources to fully reproduce all the Mess paper's results. We find that the experiment scripts use simulator executables and other resources that are neither described in the Mess paper nor found in the artifact repository. We strongly encourage the computer architecture community to consider our corrections to the Ramulator 2.0 and DAMOV results of the Mess paper to prevent the propagation of inaccurate and misleading results and to maintain the reliability of the scientific record.

Ataberk Olgun, F. Nisa Bostanci, Ismail Emir Yuksel et al.

State-of-the-art DRAM read disturbance mitigations rely on the read disturbance threshold (RDT) (e.g., the number of aggressor row activations needed to induce the first read disturbance bitflip) to securely and performance- and energy-efficiently prevent read disturbance bitflips. However, accurately and exhaustively characterizing the RDT of every DRAM row in a chip is time intensive. Rapidly determining RDT is important for enabling secure, performance- and energy-efficient systems. Our goal is to develop and evaluate a reliable and rapid read disturbance testing methodology. To that end, we develop DiscoRD building on the key results of an extensive experimental characterization study using 212 real DDR4 chips whereby we measure the RDT of hundreds of thousands of DRAM rows millions of times. We develop an empirical model for read disturbance bitflips and evaluate the probability of read-disturbance-induced uncorrectable errors when a read disturbance mechanism is configured using a single $RDT_{min}$ measurement. Using this model we demonstrate that 1) relying on a lightweight error-correcting code (ECC) alone yields relatively high uncorrectable error probability and 2) combining ECC, infrequent memory scrubbing, and configurable read disturbance mitigation mechanisms can greatly reduce the error probability. Building on our observations and analyses, we discuss the RDT of each individual row can be identified more precisely. Our results show that error tolerance, memory scrubbing, online profiling, and run-time configurable read disturbance mitigation techniques are important to enable secure and energy-efficient spatial-variation aware read disturbance mitigations. We hope that DiscoRD drives research that enables us to quantitatively navigate the performance/cost - reliability tradeoff space for read disturbance mitigation techniques.