Real-Time Systems

, Volume 53, Issue 2, pp 187–195 | Cite as

A misconception in blocking time analyses under multiprocessor synchronization protocols

  • Maolin Yang
  • Jian-Jia ChenEmail author
  • Wen-Hung Huang


In multiprocessor systems, synchronization protocols can result in non-trivial (remote) blocking, which can cause timing impacts in real-time systems. To analyze the schedulability or the worst-case response time, it is essential to calculate a safe upper bound on the maximum remote blocking time due to the synchronization protocols. The derivation of the upper bound is sometimes unsafe in the literature when the analyses improperly adopt a misconception that assumes the well-known critical instant theorem. In this paper, we show that the original analyses for the distributed priority ceiling protocol and the multiprocessor priority ceiling protocol are unsafe in the calculation of the blocking time due to this misconception. This results in repetition of unsafe timing analyses in the literature. This paper also provides a simple remedy for such a flaw.


Blocking time analyses Multiprocessor synchronization protocols Schedulability analyses 



This paper has been supported by DFG, as part of the Collaborative Research Center SFB876 (


  1. Brandenburg BB (2011) Scheduling and locking in multiprocessor real-time operating systems. PhD thesis, The University of North Carolina at Chapel HillGoogle Scholar
  2. Brandenburg BB (2013) Improved analysis and evaluation of real-time semaphore protocols for P-FP scheduling. In: Real-time and embedded technology and applications symposium (RTAS), pp 141–152Google Scholar
  3. Chen JJ, Brandenburg B (2016) A note on the period enforcer algorithm for self-suspending tasks. In: Accepted and to appear in Leibniz transactions on embedded systems (LITES). arXiv:1606.04386
  4. Chen JJ, Nelissen G, Huang WH, Yang M, Brandenburg B, Bletsas K, Liu C, Richard P, Ridouard F, Audsley N, Rajkumar R, de Niz D (2016) Many suspensions, many problems: a review of self-suspending tasks in real-time systems. Technical Report 854, Faculty of Informatik, TU DortmundGoogle Scholar
  5. Gai P, Lipari G, Natale MD (2001) Minimizing memory utilization of real-time task sets in single and multi-processor systems-on-a-chip. In: Real-time systems symposium (RTSS), pp 73–83Google Scholar
  6. Hsiu PC, Lee DN, Kuo TW (2011) Task synchronization and allocation for many-core and real-time systems. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on embedded software (EMSOFT), pp 79–88Google Scholar
  7. Huang WH, Chen JJ, Reineke J (2016) MIRROR: symmetric timing analysis for real-time tasks on multicore platforms with shared resources. In: Proceedings of the 53rd annual design automation conference, DAC 2016, Austin, TX, USA, June 5-9, 2016, pp 158:1–158:6Google Scholar
  8. Lakshmanan K, de Niz D, Rajkumar R (2009) Coordinated task scheduling, allocation and synchronization on multiprocessors. In: Real-time systems symposium (RTSS), pp 469–478Google Scholar
  9. Liu CL, Layland JW (1973) Scheduling algorithms for multiprogramming in a hard-real-time environment, vol 20. ACM, New York, pp 46–61zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Nemati F, Behnam M, Nolte T (2011) Independently-developed real-time systems on multi-cores with shared resources. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Euromicro conference on real-time systems (ECRTS), pp 251–261Google Scholar
  11. Rajkumar R (1990) Real-time synchronization protocols for shared memory multiprocessors. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on distributed computing systems (ICDCS), pp 116–123Google Scholar
  12. Rajkumar R (1991) Dealing with suspending periodic tasks. Technical Report, IBM T. J. Watson Research Center.
  13. Rajkumar R (1991) Synchronization in real-time systems: a priority inheritance approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MACrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Rajkumar R, Sha L, Lehoczky J (1988) Real-time synchronization protocols for multiprocessors. In: Proceedings of the 9th real-time systems symposium (RTSS), pp 259–269Google Scholar
  15. Sha L, Rajkumar R, Lehoczky J (1990) Priority inheritance protocols: an approach to real-time synchronization. IEEE Trans Comput 39(9):1175–1185MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Victor B, Kang G (1995) Semaphore queue priority assignment for real-time multiprocessor synchronization. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 21(10):834–844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Yang M, Lei H, Liao Y, Rabee F (2013) PK-OMLP: an OMLP based k-exclusion real-time locking protocol for multi- GPU sharing under partitioned scheduling. In: Internaltional conference on dependable, autonomic and secure computing (DASC), pp 207–214Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Electronic Science and Technology of ChinaChengduChina
  2. 2.Department of InformaticsTU Dortmund UniversityDortmundGermany

Personalised recommendations