skip to main content
research-article

A Dual-Mode Strategy for Performance-Maximisation and Resource-Efficient CPS Design

Published:08 October 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The emerging scenarios of cyber-physical systems (CPS), such as autonomous vehicles, require implementing complex functionality with limited resources, as well as high performances. This paper considers a common setup in which multiple control and non-control tasks share one processor, and proposes a dual-mode strategy. The control task switches between two sampling periods when rejecting (coping with) a disturbance. We create an optimisation framework looking for the switching sampling periods and time instants that maximise the control performance (indexed by settling time) and resource efficiency (indexed by the number of tasks that are schedulable on the processor). The latter objective is enabled with schedulability analysis tailored for the dual-mode model. Experimental results show that (i) given a set of tasks, the proposed strategy improves the control performances whilst retaining schedulability; and (ii) given requirements on the control performances, the proposed strategy is able to schedule more tasks.

References

  1. Karl-Erik Årzén. 1999. A simple event-based PID controller. In Proc. 14th IFAC World Congress, Vol. 18. 423--428Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Karl-Erik Årzén, Bo Bernhardsson, Johan Eker, Anton Cervin, Klas Nilsson, Patrik Persson, and Lui Sha. 1999. Integrated control and scheduling. Department of Automatic Control, Lund Institute of Technology, Sweden, Tech. Rep. ISRN LUTFD2/TFRT--7586--SE (1999).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Karl-Erik Årzén, Anton Cervin, Johan Eker, and Lui Sha. 2000. An introduction to control and scheduling co-design. In Proceedings of the 39th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, 2000., Vol. 5. IEEE, 4865--4870.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Giuseppe Ascia, Vincenzo Catania, and Maurizio Palesi. 2006. A multi-objective genetic approach to mapping problem on network-on-chip. J. UCS 12, 4 (2006), 370--394.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Karl J Åström and Björn Wittenmark. 2013. Computer-controlled Systems: Theory and Design. Courier Corporation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Sanjoy Baruah. 2016. Schedulability analysis of mixed-criticality systems with multiple frequency specifications. In 2016 International Conference on Embedded Software (EMSOFT). IEEE, 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. S. K. Baruah and A. Burns. 2006. Sustainable schedulability analysis. In Proc. of IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium (RTSS). 159--168.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Enrico Bini and Giuseppe Buttazzo. 2014. The optimal sampling pattern for linear control systems. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 59, 1 (2014), 78--90.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Enrico Bini and Giorgio C. Buttazzo. 2005. Measuring the performance of schedulability tests. Real-Time Systems 30, 1--2 (2005), 129--154.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. A. Burns and A. J. Wellings. 2016. Analysable Real-Time Systems Programmed in Ada. ISBN: 9781530265503.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. R. Castane, P. Marti, M. Velasco, A. Cervin, and D. Henriksson. 2006. Resource management for control tasks based on the transient dynamics of closed-loop systems. In 18th Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems (ECRTS).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Anton Cervin, Johan Eker, Bo Bernhardsson, and Karl-Erik Årzén. 2002. Feedback-feedforward scheduling of control tasks. Real-Time Systems 23, 1--2 (2002), 25--53.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Anton Cervin, Manel Velasco, Pau Martí, and Antonio Camacho. 2011. Optimal online sampling period assignment: Theory and experiments. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology 19, 4 (2011), 902--910.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Wanli Chang and Samarjit Chakraborty. 2016. Resource-aware automotive control systems design: A cyber-physical systems approach. Foundations and Trends in Electronic Design Automation 10, 4 (2016), 249--369.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Richard C. Dorf and Robert H. Bishop. 2011. Modern Control Systems. Pearson.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Paul Emberson and Iain Bate. 2008. Extending a task allocation algorithm for graceful degradation of real-time distributed embedded systems. In 2008 Real-Time Systems Symposium. IEEE, 270--279.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Paul Emberson and Iain Bate. 2010. Stressing search with scenarios for flexible solutions to real-time task allocation problems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 36, 5 (2010), 704--718.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Luca Greco, Daniele Fontanelli, and Antonio Bicchi. 2011. Design and stability analysis for anytime control via stochastic scheduling. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 56, 3 (2011), 571--585.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Moncef Hamdaoui and Parameswaran Ramanathan. 1995. A dynamic priority assignment technique for streams with (m, k)-firm deadlines. IEEE Transactions on Computers 44, 12 (1995), 1443--1451.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Hai Lin and Panos Antsaklis. 2009. Stability and stabilizability of switched linear systems: A survey of recent results. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 54, 2 (2009), 308--322.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Paris Mesidis and Leandro Soares Indrusiak. 2011. Genetic mapping of hard real-time applications onto NoC-based MPSoCs - a first approach. In 6th International Workshop on Reconfigurable Communication-Centric Systems-on-Chip (ReCoSoC). IEEE, 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Charles L. Phillips and H. Troy Nagle. 2007. Digital Control System Analysis and Design. Prentice Hall Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Adrian Racu and Leandro Soares Indrusiak. 2012. Using genetic algorithms to map hard real-time on NoC-based systems. In 7th International Workshop on Reconfigurable and Communication-Centric Systems-on-Chip (ReCoSoC). IEEE, 1--8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. P. Ramanathan. 1997. Graceful degradation in real-time control applications using (m, k)-firm guarantee. Proceedings of IEEE 27th International Symposium on Fault Tolerant Computing (1997), 132--141.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Danbing Seto, John P. Lehoczky, Lui Sha, and Kang G. Shin. 1996. On task schedulability in real-time control systems. In 17th IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium, 1996. IEEE, 13--21.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Takao Yokota, Mitsuo Gen, and Yin-Xiu Li. 1996. Genetic algorithm for non-linear mixed integer programming problems and its applications. Computers 8 Industrial Engineering 30, 4 (1996), 905--917.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Shuai Zhao. 2018. A FIFO Spin-based Resource Control Framework for Symmetric Multiprocessing. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. A Dual-Mode Strategy for Performance-Maximisation and Resource-Efficient CPS Design

      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

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format
      About Cookies On This Site

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

      Learn more

      Got it!