Real-Time Systems

, Volume 42, Issue 1–3, pp 63–119 | Cite as

Worst-case response time analysis of real-time tasks under fixed-priority scheduling with deferred preemption

  • Reinder J. Bril
  • Johan J. Lukkien
  • Wim F. J. Verhaegh
Open Access
Article

Abstract

Fixed-priority scheduling with deferred preemption (FPDS) has been proposed in the literature as a viable alternative to fixed-priority pre-emptive scheduling (FPPS), that obviates the need for non-trivial resource access protocols and reduces the cost of arbitrary preemptions.

This paper shows that existing worst-case response time analysis of hard real-time tasks under FPDS, arbitrary phasing and relative deadlines at most equal to periods is pessimistic and/or optimistic. The same problem also arises for fixed-priority non-pre-emptive scheduling (FPNS), being a special case of FPDS. This paper provides a revised analysis, resolving the problems with the existing approaches. The analysis is based on known concepts of critical instant and busy period for FPPS. To accommodate for our scheduling model for FPDS, we need to slightly modify existing definitions of these concepts. The analysis assumes a continuous scheduling model, which is based on a partitioning of the timeline in a set of non-empty, right semi-open intervals. It is shown that the critical instant, longest busy period, and worst-case response time for a task are suprema rather than maxima for all tasks, except for the lowest priority task. Hence, that instant, period, and response time cannot be assumed for any task, except for the lowest priority task. Moreover, it is shown that the analysis is not uniform for all tasks, i.e. the analysis for the lowest priority task differs from the analysis of the other tasks. These anomalies for the lowest priority task are an immediate consequence of the fact that only the lowest priority task cannot be blocked. To build on earlier work, the worst-case response time analysis for FPDS is expressed in terms of known worst-case analysis results for FPPS. The paper includes pessimistic variants of the analysis, which are uniform for all tasks, illustrates the revised analysis for an advanced model for FPDS, where tasks are structured as flow graphs of subjobs rather than sequences, and shows that our analysis is sustainable.

Keywords

Level-i active period Level-i busy period Worst-case response time Worst-case occupied time Periodic tasks Fixed-priority scheduling Deferred preemption Real-time systems 

References

  1. Audsley NC, Burns A, Richardson MF, Wellings AJ (1991) Hard real-time scheduling: The deadline monotonic approach. In: Proc of the 8th IEEE workshop on real-time operating systems and software (RTOSS), May 1991, pp 133–137 Google Scholar
  2. Baeten JCM, Middelburg CA (2002) Process algebra with timing. Springer, Berlin MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Baruah S (2005) The limited-preemption uniprocessor scheduling of sporadic systems. In: Proc of the 17th Euromicro conference on real-time systems (ECRTS), July 2005, pp 137–144 Google Scholar
  4. Baruah S, Burns A (2006) Sustainable schedulability analysis. In: Proc of the 27th IEEE real-time systems symposium (RTSS), December 2006, pp 159–168 Google Scholar
  5. Baruah SK, Mok AK, Rosier LE (1990a) Preemptively scheduling hard-real-time sporadic tasks on one processor. In: Proc of the 11th IEEE real-time systems symposium (RTSS), December 1990, pp 182–190 Google Scholar
  6. Baruah SK, Rosier LE, Howell RR (1990b) Algorithms and complexity concerning the preemptive scheduling of periodic, real-time tasks on one processor. Real-Time Syst 2(4):301–324 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bril RJ (2004) Real-time scheduling for media processing using conditionally guaranteed budgets. PhD thesis, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven (TU/e), The Netherlands. http://alexandria.tue.nl/extra2/200412419.pdf
  8. Bril RJ (2006) Existing worst-case response time analysis of real-time tasks under fixed-priority scheduling with deferred preemption is too optimistic. Technical report CS 06-05, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven (TU/e), The Netherlands, February 2006 Google Scholar
  9. Bril RJ, Verhaegh WFJ, Lukkien JJ (2004) Exact worst-case response times of real-time tasks under fixed-priority scheduling with deferred preemption. In: Proc of the work-in-progress (WiP) session of the 16th Euromicro conference on real-time systems (ECRTS), Technical report from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Department of Computer Science and Engineering (TR-UNL-CSE-2004-0010), June 2004, pp 57–60 Google Scholar
  10. Bril RJ, Lukkien JJ, Davis RI, Burns A (2006) Message response time analysis for ideal controller area network (CAN) refuted. In: Proc of the 5th international workshop on real time networks (RTN), July 2006, pp 13–18 Google Scholar
  11. Bril RJ, Lukkien JJ, Verhaegh WFJ (2007) Worst-case response time analysis of real-time tasks under fixed-priority scheduling with deferred preemption revisited. In: Proc of the 19th Euromicro conference on real-time systems (ECRTS), July 2007, pp 269–279 Google Scholar
  12. Burns A (1994) Preemptive priority based scheduling: An appropriate engineering approach. In: Son S (ed) Advances in real-time systems. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, pp 225–248 Google Scholar
  13. Burns A (2001) Defining new non-preemptive dispatching and locking policies for Ada. In: Proc of the 6th Ada-Europe international conference, May 2001. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2043. Springer, Berlin, pp 328–336 Google Scholar
  14. Burns A, Wellings AJ (1997) Restricted tasking models. In: Proc of the 8th international real-time Ada workshop, pp 27–32 Google Scholar
  15. Burns A, Nicholson M, Tindell K, Zhang N (1993) Allocating and scheduling hard real-time tasks on a point-to-point distributed system. In: Proc of the 1st workshop on parallel and distributed real-time systems, April 1993, pp 11–20 Google Scholar
  16. Buttazzo GC (2005) Hard real-time computing systems—predictable scheduling algorithms and applications, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin MATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Davis RI, Burns A, Bril RJ, Lukkien JJ (2007) Controller area network (CAN) schedulability analysis: refuted, revisited and revised. Real-Time Syst 35(3):239–272 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. George L, Rivierre N, Spuri M (1996) Preemptive and non-preemptive real-time uni-processor scheduling. Technical report 2966, Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique (INRIA), France, September 1996 Google Scholar
  19. González Harbour M, Klein MH, Lehoczky JP (1991) Fixed-priority scheduling with varying execution priority. In: Proc of the 12th IEEE real-time systems symposium (RTSS), December 1991, pp 116–128 Google Scholar
  20. Gopalakrishnan R, Parulkar GM (1996) Bringing real-time scheduling theory and practice closer for multimedia computing. In: Proc of the ACM Sigmetrics conference on measurement & modeling of computer systems, May 1996, pp 1–12 Google Scholar
  21. Hermant J-F, Leboucher L, Rivierre N (1996) Real-time fixed and dynamic priority driven scheduling algorithms: theory and practice. Technical report 3081, Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique (INRIA), France, December 1996 Google Scholar
  22. Hooman J (1991) Specification and compositional verification of real-time systems. PhD thesis, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven (TU/e), The Netherlands Google Scholar
  23. Joseph M, Pandya P (1986) Finding response times in a real-time system. Comput J 29(5):390–395 CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. Klein MH, Ralya T, Pollak B, Obenza R, González Harbour M (1993) A practitioner’s handbook for real-time analysis: guide to rate monotonic analysis for real-time systems. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht Google Scholar
  25. Koymans R (1990) Specifying real-time properties with metric temporal logic. Real-Time Syst 2(4):255–299 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lee S, Lee C-G, Lee M, Min SL, Kim C-S (1998) Limited preemptible scheduling to embrace cache memory in real-time systems. In: Proc of the ACM Sigplan workshop on languages, compilers and tools for embedded systems (LCTES), June 1998. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1474. Springer, Berlin, pp 51–64 Google Scholar
  27. Lehoczky JP (1990) Fixed priority scheduling of periodic task sets with arbitrary deadlines. In: Proc of the 11th IEEE real-time systems symposium (RTSS), December 1990, pp 201–209 Google Scholar
  28. Liu JWS (2000) Real-time systems. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs Google Scholar
  29. Liu CL, Layland JW (1973) Scheduling algorithms for multiprogramming in a real-time environment. J ACM 20(1):46–61 MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  30. Mok AK-L (1983) Fundamental design problems of distributed systems for the hard-real-time environment. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. http://www.lcs.mit.edu/publications/pubs/pdf/MIT-LCS-TR-297.pdf
  31. Mok AK, Poon W-C (2005) Non-preemptive robustness under reduced system load. In: Proc of the 26th IEEE real-time systems symposium (RTSS), December 2005, pp 200–209 Google Scholar
  32. Regehr J (2002) Scheduling tasks with mixed preemption relations for robustness to timing faults. In: Proc of the 23rd IEEE real-time systems symposium (RTSS), December 2002, pp 315–326 Google Scholar
  33. Sha L, Rajkumar R, Lehoczky JP (1990) Priority inheritance protocols: an approach to real-time synchronisation. IEEE Trans Comput 39(9):1175–1185 CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  34. Simonson J, Patel JH (1995) Use of preferred preemption points in cache-based real-time systems. In: Proc of the IEEE international computer performance and dependability symposium (IPDS), April 1995, pp 316–325 Google Scholar
  35. Spuri M (1996) Analysis of deadline scheduled real-time systems. Technical report 2772, Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique (INRIA), France, January 1996 Google Scholar
  36. Tindell K, Burns A (1994) Guaranteeing message latencies on controller area network (CAN). In: Proc of the 1st international CAN conference, September 1994, pp 1–11 Google Scholar
  37. Tindell K, Hansson H, Wellings AJ (1994) Analysing real-time communications: Controller area network (CAN). In: Proc of the 15th IEEE real-time systems symposium (RTSS), December 1994, pp 259–263 Google Scholar
  38. Tindell K, Burns A, Wellings AJ (1995) Calculating controller area network (CAN) message response times. Control Eng Pract 3(8):1163–1169 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wang Y, Saksena M (1999) Scheduling fixed-priority tasks with preemption threshold. In: Proc of the 6th international conference on real-time computing systems and applications (RTCSA), December 1999, pp 328–335 Google Scholar
  40. Weisstein EW (2003) CRC Concise Encyclopedia of Mathematics. Chapman & Hall/CRC, London Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Reinder J. Bril
    • 1
  • Johan J. Lukkien
    • 1
  • Wim F. J. Verhaegh
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and Computer ScienceTechnische Universiteit Eindhoven (TU/e)EindhovenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Philips Research LaboratoriesEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations