skip to main content
research-article

Generalized Weakly Hard Schedulability Analysis for Real-Time Periodic Tasks

Published:07 December 2020Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The weakly hard real-time model is an abstraction for applications, including control systems, that can tolerate occasional deadline misses, but can also be compromised if a sufficiently high number of late terminations occur in a given time window. The weakly hard model allows us to constrain the maximum number of acceptable missed deadlines in any set of consecutive task executions. A big challenge for weakly hard systems is to provide a schedulability analysis that applies to a general task model, while avoiding excessive pessimism. In this work, we develop a general weakly hard analysis based on a Mixed Integer Linear Programming (MILP) formulation. The analysis applies to constrained-deadline periodic real-time systems scheduled with fixed priority and no knowledge of the task activation offsets, while allowing for activation jitter. Our analysis considers two common policies for handling missed deadlines, i.e., (i) letting the job continue until completion or (ii) killing its execution immediately. For this policy, ours is the first and only m-k analysis currently available. Experiments conducted on randomly generated task sets show the applicability and accuracy of the proposed technique as well as the improvements with respect to competing techniques.

References

  1. Leonie Ahrendts, Sophie Quinton, Thomas Boroske, and Rolf Ernst. 2018. Verifying weakly-hard real-time properties of traffic streams in switched networks. In 30th Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems (ECRTS).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Leonie Ahrendts, Sophie Quinton, and Rolf Ernst. 2017. Finite ready queues as a mean for overload reduction in weakly-hard real-time systems. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Real-Time Networks and Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 88--97. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3139258.3139259Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Amir Aminifar, Petru Eles, Zebo Peng, and Anton Cervin. 2013. Control-quality driven design of cyber-physical systems with robustness guarantees. In Proceedings of the Conference on Design, Automation and Test in Europe. EDA Consortium, 1093--1098.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Amir Aminifar, Soheil Samii, Petru Eles, Zebo Peng, and Anton Cervin. 2012. Designing high-quality embedded control systems with guaranteed stability. In Proceedings of the 33rd IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium (RTSS). 283--292.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. 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. 4865--4870.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Sanjoy Baruah and Alan Burns. 2006. Sustainable scheduling analysis. In Proceedings of the 27th IEEE International Real-Time Systems Symposium (RTSS). 159--168.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Guillem Bernat, Alan Burns, and Albert Liamosi. 2001. Weakly hard real-time systems. IEEE Transactions on Computers 50, 4 (2001), 308--321.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. 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
  9. Reinder J. Bril, Johan J. Lukkien, and Rudolf H. Mak. 2013. Best-case response times and jitter analysis of real-time tasks with arbitrary deadlines. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Real-Time Networks and Systems. ACM, 193--202.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Tobias Bund and Frank Slomka. 2014. Controller platform co-design of networked control systems based on density functions. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM SIGBED International Workshop on Design, Modeling, and Evaluation of Cyber-Physical Systems. ACM, 11--14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Tobias Bund and Frank Slomka. 2015. Worst-case performance validation of safety-critical control systems with dropped samples. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Real Time and Networks Systems. 319--326.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Giorgio Buttazzo. 2011. Hard Real-time Computing Systems: Predictable Scheduling Algorithms and Applications. Vol. 24. Springer Science 8 Business Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Anton Cervin. 2005. Analysis of overrun strategies in periodic control tasks. In Proceedings of the 16th IFAC World Congress (Prague, Czech Republic). Citeseer, 137.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Goran Frehse, Arne Hamann, Sophie Quinton, and Matthias Woehrle. 2014. Formal analysis of timing effects on closed-loop properties of control software. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium (RTSS). 53--62.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. W. Geelen, Duarte Antunes, J. P. M. Voeten, Ramon R. H. Schiffelers, and W. P. M. H. Heemels. 2016. The impact of deadline misses on the control performance of high-end motion control systems. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics 63, 2 (2016), 1218--1229.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Dip Goswami, Reinhard Schneider, and Samarjit Chakraborty. 2011. Co-design of cyber-physical systems via controllers with flexible delay constraints. In Proceedings of the 16th Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference. IEEE Press, 225--230.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Zain AH Hammadeh, Sophie Quinton, and Rolf Ernst. 2014. Extending typical worst-case analysis using response-time dependencies to bound deadline misses. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Embedded Software. ACM, 10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Chao Huang, Wenchao Li, and Qi Zhu. 2019. Formal verification of weakly-hard systems. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM International Conference on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control. ACM, 197--207.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Mathai Joseph and Paritosh Pandya. 1986. Finding response times in a real-time system. Comput. J. 29, 5 (1986), 390--395.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Pranaw Kumar and Lothar Thiele. 2012. Quantifying the effect of rare timing events with settling-time and overshoot. In Proceedings of the 33rd IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium (RTSS). 149--160.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. John Lehoczky, Lui Sha, and Yuqin Ding. 1989. The rate monotonic scheduling algorithm: Exact characterization and average case behavior. In Proceedings of the IEEE Real Time Systems Symposium, 1989. IEEE, 166--171.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. John P. Lehoczky. 1990. Fixed priority scheduling of periodic task sets with arbitrary deadlines. In RTSS, Vol. 90. 201--209.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Joseph Y.- T. Leung and Jennifer Whitehead. 1982. On the complexity of fixed-priority scheduling of periodic, real-time tasks. Performance Evaluation 2, 4 (1982), 237--250.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Chung Laung Liu and James W. Layland. 1973. Scheduling algorithms for multiprogramming in a hard-real-time environment. Journal of the ACM (JACM) 20, 1 (1973), 46--61.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. M. M. Hamdaoui and P. Ramanathan. 1995. A dynamic priority assignment technique for streams with (m, k)-firm deadlines. In IEEE Transactions on Computers.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Luigi Palopoli, Luca Abeni, Giorgio Buttazzo, Fabio Conticelli, and Marco Di Natale. 2000. Real-time control system analysis: An integrated approach. In Proceedings of the 21st IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium. IEEE, 131--140.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Paolo Pazzaglia, Alessandro Biondi, and Marco Di Natale. 2019. Simple and general methods for fixed-priority schedulability in optimization problems. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Design, Automation 8 Test in Europe (DATE 2019).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Paolo Pazzaglia, Claudio Mandrioli, Martina Maggio, and Anton Cervin. 2019. DMAC: Deadline-miss aware control. In Proceedings of the 31th Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems (ECRTS 2019). Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Paolo Pazzaglia, Luigi Pannocchi, Alessandro Biondi, and Marco Di Natale. 2018. Beyond the weakly hard model: Measuring the performance cost of deadline misses. In Proceedings of the 30th Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems (ECRTS 2018). Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Sophie Quinton, Matthias Hanke, and Rolf Ernst. 2012. Formal analysis of sporadic overload in real-time systems. In Proceedings of the Conference on Design, Automation and Test in Europe. EDA Consortium, 515--520.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Parameswaran Ramanathan. 1999. Overload management in real-time control applications using (m, k)-firm guarantee. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems 10, 6 (1999), 549--559.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Ola Redell and Martin Sanfridson. 2002. Exact best-case response time analysis of fixed priority scheduled tasks. In Proceedings of the 14th Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems, 2002. IEEE, 165--172.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Lui Sha, Tarek Abdelzaher, Karl-Erik Årzén, Anton Cervin, Theodore Baker, Alan Burns, Giorgio Buttazzo, Marco Caccamo, John Lehoczky, and Aloysius K. Mok. 2004. Real time scheduling theory: A historical perspective. Real-time Systems 28, 2--3 (2004), 101--155.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Mahmoud Shirazi, Mehdi Kargahi, and Lothar Thiele. 2017. Resilient scheduling of energy-variable weakly-hard real-time systems. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Real-Time Networks and Systems. ACM, New York,, 297--306. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3139258.3139282Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Damoon Soudbakhsh, Linh T. X. Phan, Anuradha M. Annaswamy, and Oleg Sokolsky. 2016. Co-design of arbitrated network control systems with overrun strategies. IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Damoon Soudbakhsh, Linh T. X. Phan, Oleg Sokolsky, Insup Lee, and Anuradha Annaswamy. 2013. Co-design of control and platform with dropped signals. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems (ICCPS’13). 129--140.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Youcheng Sun and Marco Di Natale. 2017. Weakly hard schedulability analysis for fixed priority scheduling of periodic real-time tasks. ACM Trans. Embedded Comput. Syst. 16, 5 (2017), 171:1–171:19.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Wenbo Xu, Zain A. H. Hammadeh, Alexander Kroller, Rolf Ernst, and Sophie Quinton. 2015. Improved deadline miss models for real-time systems using typical worst-case analysis. In Proceedings of the 27th Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems (ECRTS’15). IEEE, 247--256.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Yang Xu, Karl-Erik Årzén, Enrico Bini, and Anton Cervin. 2014. Response time driven design of control systems. IFAC Proceedings, 47, 3 (2014), 6098--6104.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Yang Xu, Karl-Erik Årzén, Anton Cervin, Enrico Bini, and Bogdan Tanasa. 2015. Exploiting job response-time information in the co-design of real-time control systems. In Proceedings of the IEEE 21st International Conference on Embedded and Real-Time Computing Systems and Applications (RTCSA’15). 247--256.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. H. Zeng and M. Di Natale. 2012. An efficient formulation of the real-time feasibility region for design optimization. IEEE Trans. Comput. 62, 4 (2012), 644--661.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Generalized Weakly Hard Schedulability Analysis for Real-Time Periodic Tasks

      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!