Mixed Harmonic Runnable Scheduling for Automotive Software on Multi-Core Processors

  • Kyung-Jung Lee
  • Jae-Woo Kim
  • Hyuk-Jun Chang
  • Hyun-Sik Ahn


The performance of automotive electronic control units (ECUs) has improved following the development of multi-core processors. These processors facilitate fast computing performance without increasing clock speed. System developers partition automotive application runnables to have parallelizability and avoid interference between various software modules. To improve the performance of such systems, an efficient scheduler is necessary. In this regard, for multi-core ECUs, the automotive open system architecture (AUTOSAR) suggests partitioned static priority scheduling for parallelized software. In the AUTOSAR approach, clustering and partitioning of runnables for specific cores becomes difficult, but there is no exact criterion followed for partitioning the runnables. Consequently, cores are not balanced against loads, and under contingency conditions, there is a chance that tasks will miss deadlines. In this study, we address this problem by exploring a mixed harmonic runnable scheduling algorithm that includes partitioned scheduling. We tested this algorithm using high load conditions under contingency consequences, and we evaluated it using models of periodic runnables, periodic interrupts, and event-triggered interrupts. The performance parameters considered in this paper are balancing performance and the deadline missing rate. Our results indicate that the proposed algorithm can contribute toward improving the functional safety of vehicles.

Key Words

AUTOSAR Interrupt Multi-core Runnable Scheduling Load balancing 





electric control unit


original equipment manufacturer


operating system


worst-case execution time






mixed and least-loaded


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. AUTOSAR (2016). Automotive Open System Architecture. Google Scholar
  2. Baruah, S. (2007). Techniques for multiprocessor global schedulability analysis. Proc. IEEE Int. Real-Time Systems Symp. 22, 14, 119–128.Google Scholar
  3. Bertogna, M., Cirinei, M. and Lipari, G. (2009). Schedulability analysis of global scheduling algorithms on multiprocessor platforms. IEEE Trans. Parallel and Distributed Systems 20, 4, 553–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brandenburg, B. B. and Anderson, J. H. (2009). On the implementation of global real-time schedulers. Proc. IEEE Real-Time Systems Symp., 214–224.Google Scholar
  5. Broy, M. (2006). Challenges in automotive software engineering. Proc. 28th Int. Conf. Software Engineering, 33–42.Google Scholar
  6. Burchard, A., Liebeherr, J., Oh, Y. and Son, S. H. (1995). New strategies for assigning real-time tasks to multiprocessor systems. IEEE Trans. Computers 44, 12, 1429–1442.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis, R. I. and Burns, A. (2011). A survey of hard real-time scheduling for multiprocessor systems. ACM Computing Surveys 43, 4, 35.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Di Natale, M. and Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A. L. (2010). Moving from federated to integrated architectures in automotive: The role of standards, methods and tools. Proc. IEEE 98, 4, 603–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fan, M. and Quan, G. (2014). Harmonic-aware multi-core scheduling for fixed-priority real-time systems. IEEE Trans. Parallel and Distributed Systems 25, 6, 1476–1488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fuhrman, T., Wang, S., Jersak, M. and Richter, K. (2015). On designing software architectures for next-generation multi-core ECUs. SAE Int. J. Passenger Cars-Electronic and Electrical Systems 8, 1, 115–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heinecke, H., Schnelle, K. P., Fennel, H., Bortolazzi, J., Lundh, L., Leflour, J., Maté, J., Nishikawa, K. and Scharnhorst, T. (2004). Automotive Open System Architecture — An industry-wide initiative to manage the complexity of emerging automotive E/E-architectures. SAE Paper No. 2004-21-0042.Google Scholar
  12. Kum, D., Park, G. M., Lee, S. and Jung, W. (2008). AUTOSAR migration from existing automotive software. Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Control, Automation and Systems, 558–562.Google Scholar
  13. Lakshmanan, K. S. (2011). Scheduling and Synchronization for Multi-core Real-time Systems. Ph. D. Dissertation. Carnegie Mellon University. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.Google Scholar
  14. Lauzac, S., Melhem, R. and Mossé, D. (2003). An improved rate-monotonic admission control and its applications. IEEE Trans. Computers 52, 3, 337–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Leteinturier, P., Brewerton, S. and Scheibert, K. (2008). Multicore benefits & challenges for automotive applications. SAE Paper No. 2008-01-0989.Google Scholar
  16. Mishra, G. and Gurumurthy, K. S. (2015). A mixed approach scheduling algorithm for multicore automotive ECUs at contingency conditions. Int. J. Computer Applications 117, 17, 35–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Monot, A., Navet, N., Bavoux, B. and Simonot-Lion, F. (2012). Multisource software on multicore automotive ECUs — Combining runnable sequencing with task scheduling. IEEE Trans. Industrial Electronics 59, 10, 3934–3942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Navet, N., Monot, A., Bavoux, B. and Simonot-Lion, F. (2010). Multi-source and multicore automotive ECUs-OS protection mechanisms and scheduling. Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Industrial Electronics, 3734–3741.Google Scholar
  19. Obermaisser, R., El Salloum, C., Huber, B. and Kopetz, H. (2009). From a federated to an integrated automotive architecture. IEEE Trans. Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems 28, 7, 956–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Park, I., Chung, J., Youn, J., Lee, W. and Sunwoo, M. (2016). Resource-aware integration of AUTOSAR-compliant ECUs with an empirical wcet prediction model. Int. J. Automotive Technology 17, 4, 717–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ploss, R., Mueller, A. and Leteinturier, P. (2008). Solving automotive challenges with Electronics. Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. VLSI Technology, Systems and Applications, VLSI-TS, 1–2.Google Scholar
  22. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A. and Di Natale, M. (2007). Embedded system design for automotive applications. IEEE Computer 40, 10, 42–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schliecker, S., Rox, J., Negrean, M., Richter, K., Jersak, M. and Ernst, R. (2009a). System level performance analysis for real-time automotive multicore and network architectures. IEEE Trans. Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems 28, 7, 979–992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schliecker, S., Negrean, M. and Ernst, R. (2009b). Response time analysis on multicore ECUs with shared resources. IEEE Trans. Industrial Informatics 5, 4, 402–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Yoon, H. and Ryu, M. (2015). Guaranteeing end-to-end deadlines for AUTOSAR-based automotive software. Int. J. Automotive Technology 16, 4, 635–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zhou, B., Qiao, J. and Lin, S. (2009). Research on synthesis parameter real-time scheduling algorithm on multi-core architecture. Proc. IEEE Conf. Chinese Control and Decision, 5116–5120.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Korean Society of Automotive Engineers and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kyung-Jung Lee
    • 1
  • Jae-Woo Kim
    • 2
  • Hyuk-Jun Chang
    • 3
  • Hyun-Sik Ahn
    • 3
  1. 1.Technical Research InstituteHyundai MobisGyeonggiKorea
  2. 2.Department of Electronics EngineeringKookmin UniversitySeoulKorea
  3. 3.Department of Secured-Smart Electric VehicleKookmin UniversitySeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations