Advertisement

Discrete Event Dynamic Systems

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 377–407 | Cite as

On the Performance Evaluation of Multi-Guarded Marked Graphs with Single-Server Semantics

  • Jorge Júlvez
  • Jordi Cortadella
  • Michael Kishinevsky
Article
  • 92 Downloads

Abstract

In discrete event systems, a given task can start executing when all the required input data are available. The required input data for a given task may change along the evolution of the system. A way of modeling this changing requirement is through multi-guarded tasks. This paper studies the performance evaluation of the class of marked graphs extended with multi-guarded transitions (or tasks). Although the throughput of such systems can be computed through Markov chain analysis, two alternative methods are proposed to avoid the state explosion problem. The first one obtains throughput bounds in polynomial time through linear programming. The second one yields a small subsystem that estimates the throughput of the whole system.

Keywords

Early evaluation Throughput bounds Petri nets Marked graphs 

References

  1. Brglez F, Bryan D, Kozminski K (1989) Combinational profiles of sequential benchmark circuits. IEEE Int Symp Circuits Syst 3:1929–1934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bertsimas D, Chryssikou T (1999) Bounds and policies for dynamic routing in loss networks. Oper Res 47(3):379–394zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. Chiola G, Anglano C, Campos J, Colom JM, Silva M (1995) Operational analysis of timed Petri nets and application to the computation of performance bounds. In: Baccelli F, Jean-Marie A, Mitrani I (eds) Quantitative methods in parallel systems. Springer, New York, pp 161–174 (Also appears in Procs. PNPM93)Google Scholar
  4. Campos J, Silva M (1992) Structural techniques and performance bounds of stochastic Petri net models. In: Rozenberg G (ed) Advances in Petri nets. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 609. Springer, New York, pp 352–391Google Scholar
  5. Dasdan A, Gupta RK (1998) Faster maximum and minimum mean cycle algorithms for system performance analysis. IEEE Tran Comput-Aided Des 17(10):889–899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Demongodin I, Koussoulas NT (1998) Differential Petri nets: representing continuous systems in a discrete-event world. IEEE Trans Automat Contr 43(4):573–579zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. Júlvez J, Cortadella J, Kishinevsky M (2006) Performance analysis of concurrent systems with early evaluation. In: Proc. international conf. computer-aided design (ICCAD)Google Scholar
  8. Julvez J (2009) Basic qualitative properties of Petri nets with multi-guarded transitions. In: American control conference, 2009. ACC ’09., pp 5026–5031Google Scholar
  9. Karp R (1978) A characterization of the minimum cycle mean in a digraph. Discrete Math 23:309–311zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. Kumar S, Kumar PR (1994) Performance bounds for queueing networks and scheduling policies. IEEE Trans Automat Contr 39(8):1600–1611zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kobayashi H (1978) Modeling and analysis. An introduction to system performance evaluation methodology. Addison Wesley, ReadingzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Law AM (2007) Simulation modeling and analysis. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Little JDC (1961) A proof of the queueing formula L = λW. Oper Res 9:383–387zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. Liu Z (1998) Performance analysis of stochastic timed Petri nets using linear programming approach. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 24:1014–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lee TE, Park SH (2005) An extended event graph with negative places and tokens for time window constraints. IEEE Trans Autom Sci Eng 2(4):319–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Murty KG (1983) Linear programming. Wiley, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Murata T (1989 Petri nets: properties, analysis and applications. Proc IEEE 77(4):541–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Murata T, Yamaguchi H (1990) A Petri net with negative tokens and its application automated reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Midwest Symposium on Circuits and Systems, vol 2, pp 762–765Google Scholar
  19. Odrey NG, Mejia G (2005) An augmented Petri net approach for error recovery in manufacturing systems control. In: Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing. 14th International Conference on Flexible Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing, vol 21, pp 346–354Google Scholar
  20. Ramchandani C (1974) Analysis of asynchronous concurrent systems by timed Petri nets. Technical Report Project MAC Tech. Rep. 120, Massachusetts Inst. of Tech.Google Scholar
  21. Ramamoorthy CV, Ho GS (1980) Performance evaluation of asynchronous concurrent systems using Petri nets. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 6(5):440–449CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. Silva M (1993) Introducing Petri nets. In: Practice of Petri Nets in Manufacturing. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 1–62Google Scholar
  23. Wolff RW (1989) Stochastic modeling and the theory of queues. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffszbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Yao DD, Chaudry ML, Templeton JGC (1984) On bounds for bulk arrival queues. Eur J Oper Res 15(2):237–243zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jorge Júlvez
    • 1
  • Jordi Cortadella
    • 1
  • Michael Kishinevsky
    • 2
  1. 1.Universitat Politècnica de CatalunyaBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Intel CorporationHillsboroUSA

Personalised recommendations