Real-Time Systems

, Volume 50, Issue 3, pp 342–376 | Cite as

Compositional multiprocessor scheduling: the GMPR interface

  • Artem BurmyakovEmail author
  • Enrico Bini
  • Eduardo Tovar
Original Paper


Composition is a practice of key importance in software engineering. When real-time applications are composed, it is necessary that their timing properties (such as meeting the deadlines) are guaranteed. The composition is performed by establishing an interface between the application and the physical platform. Such an interface typically contains information about the amount of computing capacity needed by the application. For multiprocessor platforms, the interface should also present information about the degree of parallelism. Several interface proposals have recently been put forward in various research works. However, those interfaces are either too complex to be handled or too pessimistic. In this paper we propose the generalized multiprocessor periodic resource model (GMPR) that is strictly superior to the MPR model without requiring a too detailed description. We then derive a method to compute the interface from the application specification. This method has been implemented in Matlab routines that are publicly available.


Real-time scheduling Compositional scheduling Multiprocessors Real-time interfaces 



This work was partially supported by National Funds through FCT (Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology) and European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) through COMPETE (Operational Programme ‘Thematic Factors of Competitiveness’), within Project Ref. FCOMP-01-0124-FEDER-022701; by FCT and COMPETE (ERDF), within REHEAT and REGAIN Project, Ref. FCOMP-01-0124-FEDER-010045 and FCOMP-01-0124-FEDER-020447 respectively; by FCT and the EU ARTEMIS JU funding, within RECOMP project—ref. ARTEMIS/0202/2009, JU Grant Number 100202; and by FCT and European Social Fund (ESFE) through Portuguese Human Potential Operational Program (POPH), under Ph.D. Grant SFRH/BD/71368/2010. The research leading to these results was supported by the Marie Curie Intra European Fellowship within the 7th European Community Framework Programme and by the Linneaus Center LCCC.


  1. Almeida L, Pedreiras P, Fonseca JAG (2002) The FTT-CAN protocol: why and how. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 49(6):1189–1201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ausiello G, Crescenzi P, Kann V, Gambosi G, Marchetti-Spaccamela A, Protazi M (2008) Complexity and approximation: combinatorial optimization problems and their approximability properties. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  3. Baruah S, Bonifaci V, Marchetti-Spaccamela A, Stiller S (2010) Improved multiprocessor global schedulability analysis. Real Time Syst J 46:3–24CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Bertogna M, Cirinei M, Lipari G (2009) Schedulability analysis of global scheduling algorithms on multiprocessor platforms. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 20(4):553–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bini E, Bertogna M, Baruah S (2009) Virtual multiprocessor platforms: specification and use. In: Proceedings of the 30th IEEE real-time systems symposium, Washinghton, DC, USA, pp 437–446Google Scholar
  6. Burmyakov A, Bini E, Tovar E (2012) The generalized multiprocessor periodic resource interface model for hierarchical multiprocessor scheduling. In: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on real-time and network systems (RTNS), pp 131–139Google Scholar
  7. Chang Y, Davis R, Wellings A (2008) Schedulability analysis for a real-time multiprocessor system based on service contracts and resource partitioning. Technical report YCS 432. University of York.
  8. Deng Z, Liu JWS (1997) Scheduling real-time applications in open environment. In: Proceedings of the 18th IEEE real-time systems symposium, San Francisco, CA, USA, pp 308–319Google Scholar
  9. Easwaran A, Anand M, Lee I (2007) Compositional analysis framework using EDP resource models. In: Proceedings of the 28th IEEE international real-time systems symposium. IEEE Computer Society, Tucson, pp 129–138.
  10. Feng X, Mok AK (2002) A model of hierarchical real-time virtual resources. In: Proceedings of the 23rd IEEE real-time systems symposium, Austin, TX, USA, pp 26–35Google Scholar
  11. Fisher N, Dewan F (2009) Approximate bandwidth allocation for compositional real-time systems. In: Proceedings of the 21st Euromicro conference on real-time systems, Dublin, Ireland, pp 87–96Google Scholar
  12. Holman P, Anderson JH (2006) Group-based pfair scheduling. Real Time Syst 32(1–2):125–168CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Khalilzad NM, Behnam M, Nolte T (2012) Exact and approximate supply bound function for multiprocessor periodic resource model: unsynchronized servers. In: Proceedings of CRTS 2012Google Scholar
  14. Kuo TW, Li CH (1999) Fixed-priority-driven open environment for real-time applications. In: Proceedings of the 20th IEEE real-time systems symposium, Phoenix, AZ, USA, pp 256–267Google Scholar
  15. Kuo TW, Lin K, Wang Y (2000) An open real-time environment for parallel and distributed systems. In: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on distributed computing systems, Taipei, Taiwan, pp 206–213Google Scholar
  16. Leontyev H, Anderson JH (2008) A hierarchical multiprocessor bandwidth reservation scheme with timing guarantees. In: Proceedings of the 20th Euromicro conference on real-time systems, Czech Republic, Prague, pp 191–200Google Scholar
  17. Lipari G, Bini E (2003) Resource partitioning among real-time applications. In: Proceedings of the 15th Euromicro conference on real-time systems, Porto, Portugal, pp 151–158Google Scholar
  18. Lipari G, Bini E (2010) A framework for hierarchical scheduling on multiprocessors: from application requirements to run-time allocation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE real-time systems symposiumGoogle Scholar
  19. McGill R, Tukey JW, Larsen WA (1979) Variations of boxplots. Am Stat 32:12–16Google Scholar
  20. Mercer CW, Savage S, Tokuda H (1994) Processor capacity reserves: operating system support for multimedia applications. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on multimedia computing and systems, Boston, MA, USA, pp 90–99Google Scholar
  21. Moir M, Ramamurthy S (1999) Pfair scheduling of fixed and migrating periodic tasks on multiple resources. In: Proceedings of the 20th IEEE real-time systems symposium, Phoenix, AZ, USA, pp 294–303Google Scholar
  22. Parekh AK, Gallager RG (1993) A generalized processor sharing approach to flow control in integrated services networks: the single-node case. IEEE/ACM Trans Netw 1(3):344–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Shin I, Lee I (2003) Periodic resource model for compositional real-time guarantees. In: Proceedings of IEEE real-time systems symposium (RTSS), pp 2–13Google Scholar
  24. Shin I, Easwaran A, Lee I (2008) Hierarchical scheduling framework for virtual clustering of multiprocessors. In: Proceedings of the 20th Euromicro conference on real-time systems conference (ECRTS’08)Google Scholar
  25. Stoica I, Abdel-Wahab H, Jeffay K, Baruah SK, Gehrke JE, Plaxton CG (1996) A proportional share resource allocation algorithm for real-time, time-shared systems. In: Proceeding of the 17th IEEE real time system symposium, Washington, DC, USA, pp 288–299Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CISTER/INESC-TEC, ISEPPolytechnic Institute of PortoOportoPortugal
  2. 2.Department of Automatic ControlLund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations