skip to main content
research-article

Overload provisioning in mixed-criticality cyber-physical systems

Published:01 January 2013Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Cyber-physical systems are an emerging class of applications that require tightly coupled interaction between the computational and physical worlds. These systems are typically realized using sensor/actuator interfaces connected with processing backbones. Safety is a primary concern in cyber-physical systems since the actuators directly influence the physical world. However, unexpected or unusual conditions in the physical world can manifest themselves as increased workload demands being offered to the computational infrastructure of a cyber-physical system. Guaranteeing system safety under overload conditions is therefore a prime concern in developing and deploying cyber-physical systems. In this work, we study this problem in the context of a radar surveillance system, where tasks have different levels of criticality or influence on system safety. In the face of overloads, we observe that the desirable property in such systems is that the more critical tasks continue to meet their timing requirements. We capture this mixed-criticality overload requirement using a formal overload-tolerance metric called ductility. Using this overload-tolerance metric, we first develop our solution in the context of uniprocessor systems, where we show that Zero-Slack scheduling (ZS) algorithms can be used to improve the overload behavior in mixed-criticality cyber-physical systems compared to existing fixed-priority scheduling algorithms like Rate-Monotonic Scheduling (RMS) and Criticality-As-Priority-Assignment (CAPA). Leveraging these results, we then develop a criticality-aware task allocation algorithm called Compress-on-Overload Packing (COP) for dealing with multiprocessor cyber-physical systems. Evaluation results show that COP achieves up to five times better ductility than traditional load balancing bin-packing algorithms like Worst-Fit Decreasing (WFD). Finally, we apply ZS and COP to the radar surveillance system to demonstrate the resulting improvement in system overload behavior. Our implementation of the Zero-Slack scheduler is available as a part of the Linux/RK project, which provides resource kernel extensions for Linux.

References

  1. Anderson, J., Baruah, S., and Brandenburgh, B. 2009. Multicore operating-system support for mixed criticality. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Mixed Criticality: Roadmap to Evolving UAV Certification.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson, B. and Jonsson, J. 2002. Preemptive multiprocessor scheduling anomalies. In Proceedings of the International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium. 1-12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Baruah, S. and Haritsa, J. 1997. Scheduling for overload in real-time systems. IEEE Trans. Comput. 46, 9, 1034--1039. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Baruah, S., Li, H., and Stougie, L. 2010a. Mixed-Criticality scheduling: Improved resource-augmentation results. In Proceedings of the ISCA International Conference on Computers and their Applications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Baruah, S., Li, H., and Stougie, L. 2010b. Towards the design of certifiable mixed-criticality systems. In Proceedings of the IEEE Real-Time Technology and Applications Symposium (RTAS'10). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Baruah, S. and Vestal, S. 2008. Schedulability analysis of sporadic tasks with multiple criticality specifications. In Proceedings of the Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Brandenburg, B. B., Calandrino, J. M., and Anderson, J. H. 2008. On the scalability of real-time scheduling algorithms on multicore platforms: A case study. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Real-Time Systems Symposium. 157--169. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Brandt, S. A., Banachowski, S., Lin, C., and Bisson, T. 2003. Dynamic integrated scheduling of hard real-time, soft real-time and non-real-time processes. In Proceedings of the 24th IEEE International Real-Time Systems Symposium (RTSS'03). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Buttazzo, G., Lipari, G., and Abeni, L. 1998. Elastic task model for adaptive rate control. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Real-Time Systems Symposium (RTSS'98). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Cho, S., Lee, S.-K., Han, A., and Lin, K.-J. 2002. Efficient real-time scheduling algorithms for multiprocessor systems. IEICE Trans. Comm. E85-B, 12, 2859--2867.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Davis, R. and Wellings, A. 1995. Dual priority scheduling. In Proceedings of the 16th IEEE International Real-Time Systems Symposium (RTSS'95). 100--109. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Davis, R. I. 1993. Approximate slack stealing algorithms for fixed priority preemptive systems. Tech. rep. YCS217, Department of Computer Science, University of York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. De Niz, D., Lakshmanan, K., and Rajkumar, R. 2009. On the scheduling of mixed-criticality real-time task sets. In Proceedings of the International IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium (RTSS'09). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Gardner, M. and Liu, J. 1999. Performance algorithms for scheduling real-time systems with overrun and overlaod. In Proceedings of the 11th Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems (ECRTS'99).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Greco, S. 2005. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Homan, D. 2009. Designing future systems for airworthiness certification. http://www.cse.wustl.edu/-cdgill/CPSWEEK09_MCAR%20overview%20BoF%20CPS%20PA%20approved.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Johnson, D., Demers, A., Ullman, D., Garey, M., and Graham, R. 1974. Worst-Case performance bounds for simple one-dimensional packing algorithms. SIAM J. Comput. 3, 299--325.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Kolawole, M. O. 2002. Radar Systems, Peak Detection and Tracking. Newnes.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Lakshmanan, K., de Niz, D., Rajkumar, R., and Moreno, G. 2010. Resource allocation in distributed mixed-criticality cyber-physical systems. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS'10). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Lakshmanan, K., Rajkumar, R., and Lehoczky, J. 2009. Partitioned fixed-priority preemptive scheduling for multi-core processors. In Proceedings of the 21st Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems (ECRTS'09). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Lauzac, S., Melhem, R., and Mosse, D. 1998. Comparison of global and partitioning schemes for scheduling rate monotonic tasks on a multiprocessor. In Proceedings of the 10th Euromicro Workshop on Real-Time Systems. 188--195.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Liu, C. L. and Layland, J. W. 1973. Scheduling algorithms for multiprogramming in a hard-real-time environment. J. ACM 20, 1, 46--61. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Lopez, J. M., Diaz, J. L., and Garcia, D. F. 2001. Minimum and maximum utilization bounds for multiprocessor rm scheduling. In Proceedings of the 13th Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems (ECRTS'01). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Mejia-Alvarez, P., Melhem, R., and Mosse, D. 2000. An incremental approach to scheduling during overloads in real-time systems. In Proceedings of the 21st IEEE International Real-Time Systems Symposium (RTSS'00). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Mollison, M., Erickson, J., Anderson, J., Baruah, S., and Scoredos, J. 2010. Mixed-Criticality real-time scheduling for multicore systems. In Proceedings of the 7th IEEE International Conference on Embedded Systems and Software (ICESS'10). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Oikawa, S. and Rajkumar, R. 1998. Linux/rk: A portable resource kernel in linux. In Proceedings of the 19th IEEE International Real-Time Systems Symposium (RTSS'98).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Rajkumar, R., Juvva, K., Molano, A., and Oikawa, S. 2001. Resource kernels: A resource-centric approach to real-time and multimedia systems. http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/rtmach/public/papers/mmcn98.ps. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Rajkumar, R., Lee, C., Lehoczky, J., and Siewiorek, D. 1997. A resource allocation model for qos management. In Proceedings of the 18th IEEE International Real-Time Systems Symposium (RTSS'97). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Sha, L., Lehoczky, J. P., and Rajkumar, R. 1987. Task scheduling in distributed real-time systems. In Proceedings of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Sha, L., Rajkumar, R., and Lehoczky, J. 1990. Priority inheritance protocols: An approach to real-time synchronization. IEEE Trans. Comput. 39, 9, 1175--1185. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Shih, C.-S., Ganti, P., and Sha, L. 2004. Schedulability and fairness for computation tasks in surveillance radar systems. In Proceedings of the 10th Real-Time and Embedded Computing Systems and Applications Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Thuel, S. and Lehoczky, J. 1992. An optimal algorithm for scheduling soft-aperiodic tasks in fixed-priority preemptive systems. In Proceedings of the International IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium (RTSS'92). 110--123.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Thuel, S. and Lehoczky, J. 1994. Algorithms for scheduling hard aperiodic tasks in fixed-priority systems using slack stealing. In Proceedings of the International IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium (RTSS'94). 22--33.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Vestal, S. 2007. Preemptive scheduling of multi-criticality systems with varying degrees of execution time assurance. In Proceedings of the International IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium (RTSS'07). 239--243. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Zanakis, S. H., Solomon, A., Wishart, N., and Dublish, S. 1998. Multi-Attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods. Euro. J. Oper. Res. 107, 507--529.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Overload provisioning in mixed-criticality cyber-physical systems

              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

              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!