skip to main content
research-article
Open Access

Response-Time Analysis for Task Chains with Complex Precedence and Blocking Relations

Authors Info & Claims
Published:27 September 2017Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

For the development of complex software systems, we often resort to component-based approaches that separate the different concerns, enhance verifiability and reusability, and for which microkernel-based implementations are a good fit to enforce these concepts. Composing such a system of several interacting software components will, however, lead to complex precedence and blocking relations, which must be taken into account when performing latency analysis. When modelling these systems by classical task graphs, some of these effects are obfuscated and tend to render such an analysis either overly pessimistic or even optimistic.

We therefore firstly present a novel task (meta-)model that is more expressive and accurate w.r.t. these (functional) precedence and mutual blocking relations. Secondly, we apply the busy-window approach and formulate a modular response-time analysis on task-chain level suitable but not restricted to static-priority scheduled systems. We show that the conjunction of both concepts allows the calculation of reasonably tight latency bounds for scenarios not adequately covered by related work.

References

  1. 2000-2015. MAST: Modeling and Analysis Suite for Real-Time. (2000-2015). Retrieved 2017-04-04 from http://mast.unican.es/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 2001-2017. QNX Neutrino RTOS. (2001-2017). http://www.qnx.com/products/neutrino-rtos/neutrino-rtos.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. 2009-2011. MARTE UML: Modeling and Analysis of Real-Time Embedded Systems. (2009-2011). Retrieved 2017-04-04 from http://www.omg.org/spec/MARTE/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. 2010-2017. pyCPA website and source code. (2010-2017). Retrieved 2017-04-04 from https://bitbucket.org/pycpa.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. 2015. MAST 1.5.0: Description of the MAST Model. (2015). Retrieved 2017-04-04 from http://mast.unican.es/mast_description.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Alessandro Biondi, Björn B. Brandenburg, and Alexander Wieder. 2016. A Blocking Bound for Nested FIFO Spin Locks. In Real-Time Systems Symposium (RTSS). IEEE, 291--302.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Kevin Elphinstone and Gernot Heiser. 2013. From L3 to seL4 -- What Have We Learnt in 20 Years of L4 Microkernels? In ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles. Farmington, PA, USA, 133--150. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Norman Feske. 2017. Genode OS Framework Foundations 17.05. Technical Report.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Rafik Henia, Laurent Rioux, Nicolas Sordon, Gérald-Emmanuel Garcia, and Marco Panunzio. 2015. Integrating Formal Timing Analysis in the Real-Time Software Development Process. In Workshop on Challenges in Performance Methods for Software Development (WOSP’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 35--40. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Steffen Kollmann, Victor Pollex, and Frank Slomka. 2011. Reducing Response Times by Competition Based Dependencies. In Methoden und Beschreibungssprachen zur Modellierung und Verifikation von Schaltungen und Systemen (MBMV), Oldenburg, Germany, February 21-23, 2011. 91--100.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. P. S. Kurtin, J. P. H. M. Hausmans, and M. J. G. Bekooij. 2016. Combining Offsets with Precedence Constraints to Improve Temporal Analysis of Cyclic Real-Time Streaming Applications. In Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium (RTAS). 1--12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Jochen Liedtke. 1993. Improving IPC by kernel design. ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review 27, 5 (Dec. 1993), 175--188. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Jukka Mäki-Turja and Mikael Nolin. 2008. Efficient implementation of tight response-times for tasks with offsets. Real-Time Systems 40, 1 (2008), 77--116. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Mircea Negrean and Rolf Ernst. 2012. Response-Time Analysis for Non-Preemptive Scheduling in Multi-Core Systems with Shared Resources. In Symposium on Industrial Embedded Systems (SIES). Karlsruhe, Germany.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Gabriel Parmer. 2010. The Case for Thread Migration: Predictable IPC in a Customizable and Reliable OS. In Intern. Workshop on Operating Systems Platforms for Embedded Real-Time Applications (OSPERT). Brussels, Belgium.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Simon Perathoner, Tobias Rein, Lothar Thiele, Kai Lampka, and Jonas Rox. 2010. Modeling Structured Event Streams in System Level Performance Analysis. In ACM SIGPLAN/SIGBED Conference on Languages, Compilers and Tools for Embedded Systems (LCTES). ACM, Sweden, 37--46. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Rolf Ernst Rafik Henia. 2006. Improved Offset-Analysis Using Multiple Timing-References. In Design, Automation and Test in Europe (DATE). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Jonas Rox and Rolf Ernst. 2010. Exploiting Inter-Event Stream Correlations Between Output Event Streams of non-Preemptively Scheduled Tasks. In Design, Automation and Test in Europe (DATE). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Johannes Schlatow and Rolf Ernst. 2016. Response-Time Analysis for Task Chains in Communicating Threads. In Real-Time Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium (RTAS). Vienna, Austria.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Simon Schliecker and Rolf Ernst. 2009. A Recursive Approach to End-To-End Path Latency Computation in Heterogeneous Multiprocessor Systems. In Intern. Conf. on Hardware Software Codesign and System Synthesis (CODES-ISSS). ACM, Grenoble, France. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Simon Schliecker, Jonas Rox, Matthias Ivers, and Rolf Ernst. 2008. Providing Accurate Event Models for the Analysis of Heterogeneous Multiprocessor Systems. In 6th Intern. Conf. on Hardware Software Codesign and System Synthesis (CODES-ISSS). Atlanta, GA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. L. Sha, R. Rajkumar, and J. P. Lehoczky. 1990. Priority Inheritance Protocols: An Approach to Real-Time Synchronization. IEEE Trans. Comput. 39, 9 (Sept. 1990), 1175--1185. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Udo Steinberg, Alexander Böttcher, and Bernhard Kauer. 2010. Timeslice Donation in Component-Based Systems. In Intern. Workshop on Operating Systems Platforms for Embedded Real-Time Applications (OSPERT). Brussels, Belgium.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Martin Stigge. 2014. Real-time workload models: Expressiveness vs. analysis efficiency. Ph.D. Dissertation. Uppsala University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Sebastian Tobuschat, Rolf Ernst, Arne Hamann, and Dirk Ziegenbein. 2016. System-level Timing Feasibility Test for Cyber-physical Automotive Systems. In Symposium on Industrial Embedded Systems (SIES).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Response-Time Analysis for Task Chains with Complex Precedence and Blocking Relations

      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!