Journal of Scheduling

, Volume 19, Issue 5, pp 601–607 | Cite as

An analysis of the non-preemptive mixed-criticality match-up scheduling problem

  • Zdeněk HanzálekEmail author
  • Tomáš Tunys
  • Přemysl Šůcha


Many applications have a mixed-criticality nature. They contain tasks with a different criticality, meaning that a task with a lower criticality can be skipped if a task with a higher criticality needs more time to be executed. This paper deals with a mixed-criticality scheduling problem where each task has a criticality given by a positive integer number. The exact processing time of the task is not known. Instead, we use different upper bounds of the processing time for different criticality levels of the schedule. A schedule with different criticality levels is generated off-line, but its on-line execution switches among the criticality levels depending on the actual values of the processing times. The advantage is that after the transient prolongation of a higher criticality task, the system is able to match up with the schedule on a lower criticality level. While using this model, we achieve significant schedule efficiency (assuming that the prolongation of the higher criticality task rarely occurs), and at the same time, we are able to grant a sufficient amount of time to higher criticality tasks (in such cases, some of the lower criticality tasks may be skipped). This paper shows a motivation for the non-preemptive mixed-criticality match-up scheduling problem arising from the area of the communication protocols. Using a polynomial reduction from the 3-partition problem, we prove the problem to be \(\mathcal {NP}\)-hard in the strong sense even when the release dates and deadlines are dropped and only two criticality levels are considered.


Uncertain processing times Scheduling Complexity Robustness Mixed-criticality ILP Match-up Packing 


  1. Aktürk, M. S., Atamtürk, A., & Gürel, S. (2010). Parallel machine match-up scheduling with manufacturing cost considerations. Journal of Scheduling, 13(1), 95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barhorst, J., Belote, T., Binns, P., Hoffman, J., Paunicka, J., Sarathy, P., Stanfill, J., Stuart, D., & Urzi, R. (2009). A research agenda for mixed-criticality systems. In 15th IEEE real-time and embedded technology and applications symposium.Google Scholar
  3. Baruah, S., Bonifaci, V., D’Angelo, G., Li, H., Marchetti-Spaccamela, A., Megow, N., et al. (2012). Scheduling real-time mixed-criticality jobs. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 61(8), 1140–1152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baruah, S., & Fohler, G. (2011). Certification-cognizant time-triggered scheduling of mixed-criticality systems. In: Real-time systems symposium 2011 (pp. 3–12). IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  5. Baruah, S., Li, H., & Stougie, L. (2010). Towards the design of certifiable mixed-criticality systems. Real-time and embedded technology and applications symposium, RTAS (pp. 13–22). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  6. Ben-Tal, A., El Ghaoui, L., & Nemirovski, A. (2009). Robust optimization. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bertsimas, D., Brown, D., & Caramanis, C. (2011). Theory and applications of robust optimization. SIAM Review, 53(3), 464–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Błazewicz, J., Ecker, K., Schmidt, G., & Wȩglarz, J. (2001). Scheduling computer and manufacturing processes (2nd ed.). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Briand, C., La, H., & Erschler, J. (2007). A robust approach for the single machine scheduling problem. Journal of Scheduling, 10(3), 209–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burns, A., & Davis, R. (2013). Mixed criticality systems—a review. Department of Computer Science, University of York.
  11. Fung, S. (2014). Online scheduling with preemption or non-completion penalties. Journal of Scheduling, 17(2), 173–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hanzalek, Z., & Pacha, T. (1998). Use of the fieldbus systems in academic setting. In: Proceedings on real-time systems education III (pp. 93–97).Google Scholar
  13. Lemke, M., Konstantellos, A., Riemenschneider, R., Steinhoegl, W., Tsarchopaulos, P., & Cotta, J. (2012). Workshop on mixed criticality systems, Brussels.Google Scholar
  14. Lenstra, J. K., Rinnooy Kan, A. H. G., & Brucker, P. (1977). Complexity of machine scheduling problems. Annals of Discrete Mathematics, 1, 343–362.Google Scholar
  15. Nelson, A., Goossens, K., & Akesson, B. Dataflow formalisation of real-time streaming applications on a composable and predictable multi-processor SOC. Journal of Systems Architecture (in press).Google Scholar
  16. Shabtay, D., Gaspar, N., & Kaspi, M. (2013). A survey on offline scheduling with rejection. Journal of Scheduling, 16(1), 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Shabtay, D., & Steiner, G. (2007). A survey of scheduling with controllable processing times. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 155(13), 1643–1666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Slotnick, S. A. (2011). Order acceptance and scheduling: A taxonomy and review. European Journal of Operational Research, 212(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sojka, M., Pisa, P., Faggioli, D., Cucinotta, T., Checconi, F., Hanzalek, Z., et al. (2011). Modular software architecture for flexible reservation mechanisms on heterogeneous resources. Journal of Systems Architecture, 57(4), 366–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Soyster, A. L. (1973). Technical note on convex programming with set-inclusive constraints and applications to inexact linear programming. Operations Research, 21(5), 1154–1157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Theis, J., & Fohler, G. (2013). Mixed criticality scheduling in time-triggered legacy systems. In: 1st workshop on mixed criticality systems, IEEE real-time systems symposium.Google Scholar
  22. Theis, J., Fohler, G., & Baruah, S. (2013). Schedule table generation for time-triggered mixed criticality systems. In: 1st workshop on mixed criticality systems, IEEE real-time systems symposium.Google Scholar
  23. Thevenin, S., Zufferey, N., & Widmer, M. (2014). Metaheuristics for a scheduling problem with rejection and tardiness penalties. Journal of Scheduling, 18, 89–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Vestal, S. (2007). Preemptive scheduling of multi-criticality systems with varying degrees of execution time assurance. In: Real-time systems symposium, RTSS (pp. 239–243).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zdeněk Hanzálek
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Tomáš Tunys
    • 1
  • Přemysl Šůcha
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Control Engineering, Faculty of Electrical EngineeringCzech Technical University in PraguePragueCzech Republic
  2. 2.Czech Institute of Informatics, Robotics and Cybernetics, Czech Technical University in PraguePragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations