Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Execution trace analysis for a precise understanding of latency violations

  • Special Section Paper
  • Published:
Software and Systems Modeling Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite the amount of proposed works for the verification of embedded systems, understanding the root cause of violations of requirements in simulation or execution traces is still an open issue, especially when dealing with temporal properties such as latencies. Is the violation due to an unfavorable real-time scheduling, to contentions on buses, to the characteristics of functional algorithms or hardware components? The paper introduces the Precise Latency ANalysis approach (PLAN), a new trace analysis technique whose objective is to classify execution transactions according to their impact on latency. To do so, we rely first on a model transformation that builds up a dependency graph from an allocation model, thus including hardware and software aspects of a system model. Then, from this graph and an execution trace, our analysis can highlight how software or hardware elements contributed to the latency violation. The paper first formalizes the problem before applying our approach to simulation traces of SysML models. A case study defined in the AQUAS European project illustrates the relevance of our approach. Last, a performance evaluation gives computation times for several models and requirements.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. computed from its specified complexity and hardware characteristics (bus throughput, CPU frequency, etc.).

  2. By exactly, we mean that there is no other transaction between.

  3. Reminder: definitions rely on notations provided in convention p. 11.

  4. The help integrated in TTool, section Diplodocus, then Mapping, then PLAN, gives a step-by-step process to generate a dependency graph and perform a transaction classification.

  5. Both uses cases are described in the public deliverable D5.3, see https://aquas-project.eu/documents/.

References

  1. Aboussoror, El Arbi., Ober, Ileana., Ober, Iulian.: Significantly increasing the usability of model analysis tools through visual feedback. In International SDL Forum, pages 107–123. Springer, (2013)

  2. Aggregated quality assurance for systems (aquas). https://aquas-project.eu, 2013. Accessed: 2019-09-24

  3. Alhirabi, N., Rana, O., Perera, C.: Security and privacy requirements for the internet of things: a survey. ACM Trans. Internet of Things 2(1), 1–37 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Apvrille, L., Li, L. W.: Harmonizing safety, security and performance requirements in embedded systems. In Design, Automation and Test in Europe (DATE’2019), Florence, Italy, (2019)

  5. Apvrille, L., Roudier, Y.: SysML-Sec: A SysML environment for the design and development of secure embedded systems, pp. 8–11. APCOSEC, Asia-Pacific Council on Systems Engineering (2013)

  6. Barbehenn, M.: A note on the complexity of dijkstra’s algorithm for graphs with weighted vertices. IEEE Trans. Computers 47(2), 263 (1998)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Baumeister, J., Finkbeiner, B., Schirmer, S., Schwenger, M., Torens, C.: Rtlola cleared for take-off: monitoring autonomous aircraft. In International Conference on Computer Aided Verification, pages 28–39. Springer, (2020)

  8. Blein, Y.: ParTraP: A Language for the Specification and Runtime Verification of Parametric Properties. PhD thesis, Université Grenoble Alpes, (2019)

  9. Brandenburg, J., Stabernack, B.: Simulation-based hw/sw co-exploration of the concurrent execution of hevc intra encoding algorithms for heterogeneous multi-core architectures. J. Syst. Arch. 77, 26–42 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Buchmann, R., Pétrot, F., Greiner, A.: Fast cycle accurate simulator to simulate event-driven behavior. In International Conference on Electrical, Electronic and Computer Engineering, 2004. ICEEC’04., pages 35–38. IEEE, (2004)

  11. Chen, X., Hsieh, H., Felice B., and Yosinori W.: Automatic trace analysis for logic of constraints. In Proceedings of the 40th annual Design Automation Conference, pages 460–465, (2003)

  12. Chen, X., Hsieh, H., Balarin, F., Watanabe, Y.: Logic of constraints: a quantitative performance and functional constraint formalism. IEEE Trans. Computer-Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst. 23(8), 1243–1255 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chen, X., Hsieh, H., Balarin, F.: Verification approach of metropolis design framework for embedded systems. Int. J. Parallel Program. 34(1), 3–27 (2006)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Coen-Porisini, A., Denaro, G., Ghezzi, C., Pezzé, M.: Using symbolic execution for verifying safety-critical systems. In Proceedings of the 8th European software engineering conference held jointly with 9th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, pages 142–151, (2001)

  15. Convent, L., Hungerecker, S., Leucker, M., Scheffel, T., Schmitz, M., Thoma, D.: Tessla: temporal stream-based specification language. In Brazilian Symposium on Formal Methods, pages 144–162. Springer, (2018)

  16. Currie, D., Feng, X., Fujita, M., Hu, Alan J. K., Mark, R.S.: Embedded software verification using symbolic execution and uninterpreted functions. Int. J. Parallel Program. 34(1), 61–91 (2006)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. d’Angelo, B., Sankaranarayanan, S., Sánchez, C.: Will Robinson, Bernd Finkbeiner, Henny B Sipma, Sandeep Mehrotra, and Zohar Manna. Lola: runtime monitoring of synchronous systems. In 12th International Symposium on Temporal Representation and Reasoning (TIME’05), pages 166–174. IEEE, (2005)

  18. Dawes, J H.: Towards automated performance analysis of programs by runtime verification. PhD thesis, Manchester U., (2021)

  19. DeAntoni, J., Mallet, F., Thomas, F., Reydet, G., Babau, J-P., Mraidha, C., Gauthier, L., Rioux, L., Sordon, N.: Rt-simex: retro-analysis of execution traces. In Proceedings of the eighteenth ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, pages 377–378, (2010)

  20. DeAntoni, J., Mallet, F.: Timesquare: Treat your models with logical time. In International Conference on Modelling Techniques and Tools for Computer Performance Evaluation, pages 34–41. Springer, (2012)

  21. Deantoni, J.: Towards formal system modeling: making explicit and formal the concurrent and timed operational semantics to better understand heterogeneous models. PhD thesis, Université Côte d’Azur, CNRS, I3S, France, (2019)

  22. Enrici, A., Li, L., Apvrille, L., Blouin, D.: A tutorial on ttool. DIPLODOCUS: an open-source toolkit for the design of data-flow embedded systems, (2018)

  23. Falcone, Y., Havelund, K., Reger, G.: A tutorial on runtime verification. Eng Dependable Softw Syst 25, 141–175 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Falcone, Y., Krstić, S., Reger, G., Traytel, D.: A taxonomy for classifying runtime verification tools. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 23(2), 255–284 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Fisher, M., Mascardi, V., Rozier, K.Y., Schlingloff, B.-H., Winikoff, M., Yorke-Smith, N.: Towards a framework for certification of reliable autonomous systems. Autonomous Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 35(1), 1–65 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Fujdiak, R., Mlynek, P., Blazek, P., Barabas, M., Mrnustik, P.: Seeking the relation between performance and security in modern systems: Metrics and measures. In 2018 41st International Conference on Telecommunications and Signal Processing (TSP), pages 1–5. IEEE, (2018)

  27. Gordon, DM., Kemper, P.: On clustering simulation traces. In Proceedings Eighth International Workshop on Performability Modelling of Computer and Communication Systems (PMCCS-8: Edinburgh, p. 2007. Scotland, UK (2007)

  28. Gruber, T., Schmittner, C., Matschnig, M., Fischer, B.: Co-engineering-in-the-loop. In International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security, pages 151–163. Springer, (2018)

  29. Hedde, D., Pétrot, F.: A non intrusive simulation-based trace system to analyse multiprocessor systems-on-chip software. In 2011 22nd IEEE International Symposium on Rapid System Prototyping, pages 106–112. IEEE, (2011)

  30. Hojaji, F., Mayerhofer, T., Zamani, B., Hamou-Lhadj, A., Bousse, E.: Model execution tracing: a systematic mapping study. Softw. Syst. Model. 18(6), 3461–3485 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Iegorov, O., Leroy, V., Termier, A., Méhaut, J-F., Santana, M.: Data mining approach to temporal debugging of embedded streaming applications. In 2015 International Conference on Embedded Software (EMSOFT), pages 167–176. IEEE, (2015)

  32. Kangas, T., Kukkala, P., Orsila, H., Salminen, E., Hännikäinen, M., Hämäläinen, T D., Riihimäki, J., Kuusilinna, K.: Uml-based multiprocessor soc design framework. ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems (TECS), 5(2):281–320, (2006)

  33. Kemper, P., Tepper, C.: Automated analysis of simulation traces-separating progress from repetitive behavior. In Fourth International Conference on the Quantitative Evaluation of Systems (QEST 2007), pages 101–110. IEEE, (2007)

  34. Kemper, P., Tepper, C.: Trace based analysis of process interaction models. In Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference, 2005., pages 10–pp. IEEE, (2005)

  35. Kemper, V., Tepper, C.: Trace analysis-gain insight through modelchecking and cycle reduction. Technical report, SFB 559, (2006)

  36. Kienhuis, B., Deprettere, E F., Van der Wolf, P., Vissers, K.: A methodology to design programmable embedded systems. In International Workshop on Embedded Computer Systems, pages 18–37. Springer, (2001)

  37. Kienhuis, B., Deprettere, F., van der Wolf, P., Vissers, K.: The y-chart approach. In Embedded processor design challenges, page 18. Springer, (2002)

  38. King, J.C.: Symbolic execution and program testing. Commun. ACM 19(7), 385–394 (1976)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. Knorreck, D., Apvrille, L., Pacalet, R.: Fast simulation techniques for design space exploration. In International Conference on Objects, Components, Models and Patterns, pages 308–327. Springer, (2009)

  40. Kuck, D. J., Kuhn, R. H., Padua, D. A., Leasure, B., Wolfe, M.: Dependence graphs and compiler optimizations. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL ’81, page 207-218, New York, NY, USA, 1981. Association for Computing Machinery

  41. Malan, R., Bredemeyer, D.: Defining non-functional requirements, (2001)

  42. Marwedel, P.: Evaluation and validation. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2021)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. Matović, A.: Case studies on modeling security implications on safety. Independent thesis Advanced level (degree of Master (One Year)), Malardalen University, School of Innovation, Design and Engineering., (2019)

  44. Pagano, G., Dosimont, D., Huard, G., Marangozova-Martin, V., Vincent, J-M.: Trace management and analysis for embedded systems. In 2013 IEEE 7th International Symposium on Embedded Multicore Socs, pages 119–122. IEEE, (2013)

  45. Pagano, G., Marangozova-Martin, V.: Soc-trace infrastructure. (2012)

  46. Perez, I., Dedden, F., Goodloe, A.: Copilot 3. Technical report, Technical Report NASA/TM-2020-220587, National Aeronautics and Space ..., (2020)

  47. Pomante, L., Muttillo, V., Krena, B., Vojnar, T., Veljkovic, F., Magnin, P., Matschnig, M., Fischer, B., Martinez, J., Gruber, T.: The AQUAS ECSEL project aggregated quality assurance for systems: co-engineering inside and across the product life cycle. Microprocess. Microsyst. 69, 54–67 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Retro-ingénerie de traces d’analyse de simulation et d’exécution de systèmes temps-réel – rt-simex. https://anr.fr/Projet-ANR-08-SEGI-0015, 2013. Accessed: 2019-09-24

  49. Rozier, K Y.: From simulation to runtime verification and back: Connecting single-run verification techniques. In 2019 Spring Simulation Conference (SpringSim), pages 1–10. IEEE, (2019)

  50. Tepper, G., Kemper, P.: Traviando-debugging simulation traces with message sequence charts. In Third International Conference on the Quantitative Evaluation of Systems-(QEST’06), pages 135–136. IEEE, (2006)

  51. TTool, 2013

  52. Yue, D., Joloboff, V., Mallet, F.: Trap: trace runtime analysis of properties. Front. Computer Sci. 14(3), 143201 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Zheng, B., Deng, P., Anguluri, R., Zhu, Q., Pasqualetti, F.: Cross-layer codesign for secure cyber-physical systems. IEEE Trans. Computer-Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst. 35(5), 699–711 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Zoor, M., Apvrille, L., Pacalet, R.: Execution trace analysis for a precise understanding of latency violations. In 2021 ACM/IEEE 24th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS), pages 123–133. IEEE, (2021)

Download references

Acknowledgements

The AQUAS project was funded by ECSEL JU under Grant agreement no. 737475.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. LTCI, Télécom Paris, Institut Polytechnique de Paris, Sophia-Antipolis, Biot, France

    Maysam Zoor, Ludovic Apvrille, Renaud Pacalet & Sophie Coudert

Authors
  1. Maysam Zoor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ludovic Apvrille
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Renaud Pacalet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sophie Coudert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ludovic Apvrille.

Additional information

Communicated by Shiva Nejati and Daniel Varro.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zoor, M., Apvrille, L., Pacalet, R. et al. Execution trace analysis for a precise understanding of latency violations. Softw Syst Model 22, 1519–1541 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-022-01076-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-022-01076-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation