skip to main content
research-article

Response Time Analysis for Tasks with Fixed Preemption Points under Global Scheduling

Authors Info & Claims
Published:11 October 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

As an effective method for detecting the schedulability of real-time tasks on multiprocessor platforms, Response time analysis (RTA) has been deeply researched in recent decades. Most of the existing RTA methods are designed for tasks that can be preempted at any time. However, in some real-time systems, a task may have some fixed preemption points (FPPs) that divide its execution into a series of non-preemptive regions (NPRs). In such environments, the task can only be preempted at its FPPs, which makes existing RTA methods for arbitrary preemption tasks not applicable. In this article, we study the schedulability analysis on tasks with FPPs under both global fixed-priority (G-FP) scheduling and global earliest deadline first (G-EDF) scheduling. First, based on the idea of limiting the time interval between two consecutive executions of an NPR, a novel RTA method for tasks with FPPs under G-FP scheduling is proposed. Second, we propose an effective RTA method for tasks with FPPs under G-EDF scheduling. Finally, extensive simulations are conducted and the results validate the effectiveness of the proposed methods.

References

  1. Björn Andersson and Jan Jonsson. 2000. Some insights on fixed-priority preemptive non-partitioned multiprocessor scheduling. In Proceedings of the Real-Time Systems Symposium. IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Sanjoy Baruah. 2007. Techniques for multiprocessor global schedulability analysis. In Proceedings of the Real-Time Systems Symposium. IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 119--128.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Sanjoy Baruah and Nathan Fisher. 2005. The partitioned multiprocessor scheduling of sporadic task systems. In Proceedings of the Real-Time Systems Symposium. IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 321--329.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Marko Bertogna. 2008. Real-Time Scheduling Analysis for Multiprocessor Platforms. Ph.D. Dissertation. Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa, Italy.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Marko Bertogna and Sanjoy Baruah. 2011. Tests for global EDF schedulability analysis. Journal of Systems Architecture 57, 5 (2011), 487--497.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Marko Bertogna and Michele Cirinei. 2007. Response-time analysis for globally scheduled symmetric multiprocessor platforms. In Proceedings of the Real-Time Systems Symposium. IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 149--160.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Marko Bertogna, Michele Cirinei, and Giuseppe Lipari. 2005. Improved schedulability analysis of EDF on multiprocessor platforms. In Proceedings of the Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems. IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 209--218.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Marko Bertogna, Michele Cirinei, and Giuseppe Lipari. 2009. Schedulability analysis of global scheduling algorithms on multiprocessor platforms. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems 20, 4 (2009), 553--566.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Alessandro Biondi and Youcheng Sun. 2018. On the ineffectiveness of 1/m-based interference bounds in the analysis of global EDF and FIFO scheduling. Real-Time Systems 54, 3 (2018), 515--536.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Vincenzo Bonifaci and Alberto Marchetti-Spaccamela. 2012. Feasibility analysis of sporadic real-time multiprocessor task systems. Algorithmica 63, 4 (2012), 763--780.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Reinder J. Bril, Johan J. Lukkien, and Wim F. J. Verhaegh. 2009. Worst-case response time analysis of real-time tasks under fixed-priority scheduling with deferred preemption. Real-Time Systems 42, 1--3 (2009), 63--119.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Alan Burns and Andy J. Wellings. 2001. Real-Time Systems and Programming Languages. 3rd ed. Pearson Education.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Bipasa Chattopadhyay and Sanjoy Baruah. 2014. Limited-preemption scheduling on multiprocessors. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Real-Time Networks and Systems. ACM, New York, NY, 225.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Robert I. Davis and Alan Burns. 2011. Improved priority assignment for global fixed priority pre-emptive scheduling in multiprocessor real-time systems. Real-Time Systems 47, 1 (2011), 1--40.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Robert I. Davis and Alan Burns. 2011. A survey of hard real-time scheduling for multiprocessor systems. ACM Computing Surveys 43, 4 (2011), 35.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Gilles Geeraerts, Joël Goossens, and Markus Lindström. 2013. Multiprocessor schedulability of arbitrary-deadline sporadic tasks: Complexity and antichain algorithm. Real-Time Systems 49, 2 (2013), 171--218.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Nan Guan, Meiling Han, Chuancai Gu, Qingxu Deng, and Wang Yi. 2015. Bounding carry-in interference to improve fixed-priority global multiprocessor scheduling analysis. In Proceedings of the Conference on Embedded and Real-Time Computing Systems and Applications. IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 11--20.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Nan Guan, Martin Stigge, Wang Yi, and Ge Yu. 2009. New response time bounds for fixed priority multiprocessor scheduling. In Proceedings of the Real-Time Systems Symposium. IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 387--397.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Mathai Joseph and Paritosh Pandya. 1986. Finding response times in a real-time system. Computer Journal 29, 5 (1986), 390--395.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Lars Lundberg. 1998. Multiprocessor scheduling of age constraint processes. In Proceedings of the Conference on Real-Time Computing Systems and Applications. IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 42--47.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Mitra Nasri and Bjorn B. Brandenburg. 2018. An exact and sustainable analysis of non-preemptive scheduling. In Proceedings of the Real-Time Systems Symposium. IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 12--23.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Harini Ramaprasad and Frank Mueller. 2008. Bounding worst-case response time for tasks with non-preemptive regions. In Proceedings of the Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium. IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 58--67.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Youcheng Sun and Marco Di Natale. 2018. Assessing the pessimism of current multicore global fixed-priority schedulability analysis. In Proceedings of the Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing. ACM, New York, NY, 575--583.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Youcheng Sun and Giuseppe Lipari. 2015. Response time analysis with limited carry-in for global earliest deadline first scheduling. In Proceedings of the Real-Time Systems Symposium. IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 130--140.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Youcheng Sun, Giuseppe Lipari, Nan Guan, and Wang Yi. 2014. Improving the response time analysis of global fixed-priority multiprocessor scheduling. In Proceedings of the Conference on Embedded and Real-Time Computing Systems and Applications. IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 1--9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Abhilash Thekkilakattil, Sunandan Baruah, Radu Dobrin, and Sasikumar Punnekkat. 2014. The global limited preemptive earliest deadline first feasibility of sporadic real-time tasks. In Proceedings of the Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems. IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 301--310.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Abhilash Thekkilakattil, Robert I. Davis, Radu Dobrin, Sasikumar Punnekkat, and Marko Bertogna. 2015. Multiprocessor fixed priority scheduling with limited preemptions. In Proceedings of the Conference on Real Time and Networks Systems. ACM, New York, NY, 13--22.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Abhilash Thekkilakattil, Kaiqian Zhu, Yonggao Nie, Radu Dobrin, and Sasikumar Punnekkat. 2016. An empirical investigation of eager and lazy preemption approaches in global limited preemptive scheduling. In Proceedings of the Ada-Europe International Conference on Reliable Software Technologies. 163--178.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Gang Yao, Giorgio Buttazzo, and Marko Bertogna. 2011. Feasibility analysis under fixed priority scheduling with limited preemptions. Real-Time Systems 47, 3 (2011), 198--223.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Quan Zhou, Guohui Li, and Jianjun Li. 2017. Improved carry-in workload estimation for global multiprocessor scheduling. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems 28, 9 (2017), 2527--2538.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Quan Zhou, Guohui Li, Jianjun Li, and Chenggang Deng. 2018. Execution-efficient response time analysis on global multiprocessor platforms. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems 29, 12 (2018), 2785--2797.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Response Time Analysis for Tasks with Fixed Preemption Points under Global Scheduling

      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!