skip to main content
research-article

Priority inversion with fungible resources

Published:22 February 2012Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Priority inversion occurs when the execution of a task is unnecessarily delayed by the dispatch of a lower priority task. This anomaly can result in failure if it causes the delay of hard real-time tasks. Priority inheritance protocols have been developed to limit priority inversions during competition over shared resources. Such methods are designed for individually identifiable resource units. Other approaches are indicated when shared resources contain interchangeable resource units. Current practices with resource deadlock, a scheduling anomaly that has many characteristics in common with priority inversion, provide insight into the control of priority inversion with these fungible resources.

References

  1. Chen, Y.S., Chang, L.P., Kuo, T.W., and Mok, A.K. 2009. An anomaly prevention approach to real-time task scheduling, Journal of Systems and Software, 82, 1 (Jan. 2009), 114--154. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Cheng, A. and Ras, J. 2007. The implementation of the priority ceiling protocol in Ada-2005, Ada Letters, 27, 1 (April 2007), 24--39. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Cornhill, D. and Sha, L. 1987. Priority inversion in Ada, Ada Letters, 7, 7 (Nov. Dec. 1987), 30--32. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Graham, R. L. 1976. Bounds on the performance of scheduling algorithms, Computer and Job-Shop Scheduling Theory, E.G. Coffman, ed., John Wiley and Sons, NY, 165--227.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Holt, R.C. 1972. Some deadlock properties of computer systems, ACM Computing Surveys, 4, 3 (Sept. 1972) 179--195. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Huang, J., Stankovic, A., Ramamritham, K., and Towsley, D. 1991. On using priority inheritance in real-time databases, 12th Real-Time Systems Symposium (Dec. 1991) 210--221.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Kim, K. H. 2003. Basic program structure for avoiding priority inversion, IEEE Proc. Of 6th International Symposium on Object-oriented Real- time Distributed Computing (ISORC03), Hakodate, Japan (May 2003) 26--34. DOI=http://dream.eng.uci.edu/TMO/pdf/isorc2003.pdf Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Kleinrock, L. and Opderbeck, H. 1977. Throughput in the ARPANET- protocols and measurement, IEEE Transactions on Communications, COM-25, 1 (Jan. 1977) 95--104.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Levine, G. 1988. The control of priority inversion in Ada, Ada Letters, 8, 6 (Nov. Dec. 1988) 53--56. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Levine, G. N. 2003. Defining deadlock, Operating Systems Review, 37, 1 (Jan. 2003) pp. 54--64. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Levine, G. N. (2009) Defining defects, errors, and service degradations, ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 24, 2 (March 2009) 1--14. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Mueller, F. 1999. Priority inheritance and ceilings for distributed mutual exclusion, 20th IEEE Proceedings on Real-Time Systems Symposium, (1999) 340--349. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Naeser, G. 2005. Priority inversion in multi processor systems due to protected actions, Ada Letters, 25, 1 (March 2005) 43--47. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Reeves, G. E. 1997. What really happened on Mars? (Dec. 1997). DOI= http://research.microsoft.com/enus/um/people/mbj/mars_pathfinder/authoritative_account.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Röck, H., Auerbach, J., Kirsch,C., and Bacon, D. 2009. Avoiding unbounded priority inversion in barrier protocols using gang priority management. Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Java Technologies for Real-Time and Embedded Systems (2009) 70-79. DOI= http://www.cs.unisalzburg.at/~hroeck/papers/JTRES09-GPM.pdf Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Rosenkrantz, D.J., Stearns, R. E., and Lewis, P.M. 1978. System level concurrency control for distributed database systems, ACM Trans. on Database Systems, 3, 2 (June 1978) 178--198. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Sha, L., Rajkumar, R., and Lehoczky, J. P. 1990. Priority inheritance protocols: an approach to real-time synchronization, IEEE Transactions on Computers, 39, 9 (Sept. 1990) 1175--1185. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Welc, A., Hosking, A. L., and Jagannathan, S. 2006. Preemption-based avoidance of priority inversion for Java, Int. Journal of Computer Science & Applications, 8, 11 (2006) 40--50. DOI=www.adamwelc.org/papers/icpp04.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in

Full Access

  • Published in

    cover image ACM SIGAda Ada Letters
    ACM SIGAda Ada Letters  Volume 31, Issue 2
    August 2011
    62 pages
    ISSN:1094-3641
    DOI:10.1145/2148436
    Issue’s Table of Contents

    Copyright © 2012 Copyright is held by the owner/author(s)

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 22 February 2012

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader
About Cookies On This Site

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

Learn more

Got it!