Advertisement

Journal of Real-Time Image Processing

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 281–295 | Cite as

Performance evaluation of an automotive distributed architecture based on a high speed power line communication protocol using a transaction level modeling approach

  • Takieddine Majdoub
  • Sébastien Le Nours
  • Olivier Pasquier
  • Fabienne Nouvel
Special Issue

Abstract

With the increasing complexity of communication infrastructures in the automotive domain, approaches for modeling architectures at a high abstraction level have become mandatory to assist designers in the development process of such networked embedded systems. Simulation of architecture models, early in the design process, is also necessary to detect and fix errors and performance issues. In this context, transaction level modeling approaches, supported by languages like SystemC, represent promising solutions to allow performances of networked architectures to be assessed with a good compromise between accuracy and simulation speed. This article presents the application of a simulation-based approach for performance evaluation of a networked embedded system inspired by the automotive domain. The presented modeling approach is defined to efficiently capture the characteristics of architectures for real-time image processing applications. The originality of this paper concerns the considered case study which corresponds to the modeling of a video transmission system made of three electronic controller units and based on a specific power line communication protocol. Compared with traditional communication protocols used in the automotive domain, power line communication is considered here to improve integration of advanced real-time image processing applications. The created model incorporates the description of the different communication layers involved in the studied distributed architecture. Simulation of the model allows evaluating time properties of the architecture according to the various system parameters. Furthermore, the memory cost inferred is also evaluated. Architecture parameters can then be correctly tuned to fully meet the expected requirements.

keywords

System-level design and hardware/software co-design Performance analysis Embedded system for automotive 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work is carried out in the CIFAER project, initiated and supported by the ANR and the French Premium Cars Competitiveness iDforCAR.

References

  1. 1.
    Accellera System Initiative. http://www.accellera.org (2012)
  2. 2.
    AUTOSAR Partnership. http://www.autosar.org (2012)
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    CoFluent Design. http://www.cofluentdesign.com (2012)
  5. 5.
    HomePlug Powerline Alliance. http://www.homeplug.org (2012)
  6. 6.
    Mentor Graphics. http://www.mentor.com (2012)
  7. 7.
    Soclib: a modelisation and simulation platform for system on chip design. http://www.soclib.fr (2012)
  8. 8.
    Symtavision. http://www.symtavision.com (2012)
  9. 9.
    Arpinen, T, Salminen, E., Hämäläinen, T., Hännikäinen, M.: Performance evaluation of UML2-modeled embedded streaming applications with system-level simulation. EURASIP J. Embed. Syst. (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barreteau, A., Le Nours, S., Pasquier, O.: A state-based modeling approach for efficient performance evaluation of embedded system architectures at transaction level. J. Electr. Comput. Eng. (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Calvez, JP.: Embedded real-time systems: a specification and design methodology. Wiley, New York (1993) Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Densmore, D., Passerone, R., Vincentelli, S.: (2006) A platform-based taxonomy for ESL design. IEEE. Des. Test. Comput. 23(5):359–374Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dömer, R., Gerstlauer, A., Peng, J., Shin, D., Cai, L., Yu, H., Abdi, S., Gajski, D.: System-on-chip environment: a SpecC-based framework for heterogeneous MPSoC design. EURASIP J. Embed. Syst. (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ecker, W., Muller, W., Dömer, R.: Hardware-dependent software—principles and practice. Springer, Berlin (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Frank, E., Wilhem, R., Ernst, R., Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A., Di Natale, M.: Methods, tools and standards for the analysis, evaluation and design of modern automotive architectures. In: Design automation and test in Europe (DATE’08) (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gajski, D., Zhu, J., Dömer, R., Gerstlauer, A., Zhao, S.: SpecC: specification language and design methodology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2000)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ghenassia, F.: Transaction-level modeling with SystemC: TLM concepts and applications for embedded systems. Springer, Berlin (2005) Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gries, M.: Methods for evaluating and covering the design space during early design development. Integr. VLSI J. 38(2):131–183 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Harel, D., Politi, M.: Modeling reactive systems with statechart. McGraw-Hill, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kreku, J., Hoppari M.K.: Combining UML2 application and SystemC platform modelling for performance evaluation of real-time embedded systems. EURASIP J. Embed. Syst. (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lieverse, P., van Der Wolf, P., Vissers, K., Deprettere, E.F.: A methodology for architecture exploration of heterogeneous signal processing systems. J. VLSI Sign. Process. 29(3):197–207 (2001)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Majdoub, T., Le Nours, S., Pasquier, O., Nouvel, F.: Performance evaluation of an automotive distributed architecture based on HPAV communication protocol using a transaction level modeling approach. In: Design and architectures for signal and image processing (DASIP’11) (2011) Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Object Management Group (2011) A UML profile for MARTE, beta 1 specificationGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pimentel, A.D., Erbas, C., Polstra, S.: A systematic approach to exploring embedded system architectures at multiple abstraction levels. IEEE Trans. Comput. 55(2):99–111 (2006) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A.: Quo vadis, SLD? Reasoning about the trends and challenges of system level design. In: Proceedings of the IEEE (2007)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schirner, G., Dömer, R.: Quantitative analysis of the speed/accuracy trade-off in transaction level modeling. Trans. Embed. Comput. Syst. 8(1) (2008) Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schliecker, S., Rox, J., Negrean, M., Richter, K., Jersak, M., Ernst, R.: System level performance analysis for real-time automotive multicore and network architectures. IEEE Trans. Computer-aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst. 28(7) (2009)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Viehl, A., Sander, B., Bringmann, O., Rosenstiel, W.: Integrated requirement evaluation of non-functional system-on-chip properties. In: Forum of specification and design languages (FDL’08) (2008)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wild, T., Herkersdorf, A., Lee, GY.: TAPES-trace-based architecture performance evaluation with SystemC. Des. Autom. Embed. Syst. 10(2–3):157–179 (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Takieddine Majdoub
    • 1
  • Sébastien Le Nours
    • 1
  • Olivier Pasquier
    • 1
  • Fabienne Nouvel
    • 2
  1. 1.Lunam Université, Université de Nantes, UMR CNRS 6164Institut d’Electronique et de Télécommunications de Rennes (IETR), Polytech NantesNantes Cedex 3France
  2. 2.INSA Rennes, UMR CNRS 6164Institut d’Electronique et de Télécommunications de Rennes (IETR)RennesFrance

Personalised recommendations