Real-Time Systems

, Volume 51, Issue 3, pp 247–273 | Cite as

The limited-preemptive feasibility of real-time tasks on uniprocessors

  • Abhilash Thekkilakattil
  • Radu Dobrin
  • Sasikumar Punnekkat
Article

Abstract

The preemptive scheduling paradigm is known to strictly dominate the non-preemptive scheduling paradigm with respect to feasibility. On the other hand, preemptively scheduling real-time tasks on uniprocessors, unlike non-preemptive scheduling, may lead to unschedulability due to, e.g., preemption related overheads. The limited-preemptive scheduling paradigm, which is a generalization of preemptive and non-preemptive paradigms, has, however, the potential to reduce the preemption related overheads while enabling high processor utilization. In this paper, we focus on the characterization of the effects of increasing the computational resources on the limited-preemptive feasibility of real-time tasks in order to quantify the sub-optimality of limited-preemptive scheduling. Specifically, we first derive the required processor speed-up bound that guarantees limited-preemptive feasibility of any uniprocessor feasible taskset. Secondly, we demonstrate the applicability of the results in the context of controlling preemption related overheads while minimizing the required processor speed-up. In particular, we identify the preemptive behavior that minimizes preemption-related overheads, as well as derive the optimal processor speed associated with it. Finally, we examine the consequences of having more processors on limited-preemptive feasibility and derive the bound on the number of processors that guarantees a specified limited-preemptive behavior for any uniprocessor feasible real-time taskset. This paper essentially bridges the preemptive and non-preemptive real-time scheduling paradigms by providing significant theoretical results building on the limited-preemptive scheduling paradigm, as well as provides analytical inputs to developers in order to perform various trade-offs, e.g., code refactoring, to control the preemptive behavior of real-time tasks.

Keywords

Real-time scheduling Limited preemption feasibility  Resource augmentation Sensitivity analysis 

References

  1. Abdelzaher T, Andersson B, Jonsson J (2002) The aperiodic multiprocessor utilization bound for liquid tasks. In: The real-time and embedded technology and applications symposiumGoogle Scholar
  2. Altmeyer S, Davis RI, Maiza C (2012) Improved cache related pre-emption delay aware response time analysis for fixed priority pre-emptive systems. Real Time Syst 48:499–526MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amdahl GM (1967) Validity of the single processor approach to achieving large scale computing capabilities. In: American Federation of Information Processing Societies spring joint computer conferenceGoogle Scholar
  4. Audsley N, Burns A, Richardson MF, Wellings AJ (1991) Hard real-time scheduling: the deadline-monotonic approach. In: The IEEE workshop on real-time operating systems and softwareGoogle Scholar
  5. Baruah S (2005) The limited-preemption uniprocessor scheduling of sporadic task systems. In: The Euromicro conference on real-time systemsGoogle Scholar
  6. Baruah SK, Rosier LE, Howell RR (1990b) Algorithms and complexity concerning the preemptive scheduling of periodic, real-time tasks on one processor. Real Time Syst 2(4):301–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baruah S, Burns A (2006) Sustainable scheduling analysis. In: The real-time systems symposiumGoogle Scholar
  8. Baruah S, Burns A (2008) Quantifying the sub-optimality of uniprocessor fixed-priority scheduling. In: The international conference on real-time and network systemsGoogle Scholar
  9. Baruah S, Mok A, Rosier L (1990a) Preemptively scheduling hard-real-time sporadic tasks on one processor. In: The real-time systems symposiumGoogle Scholar
  10. Bertogna M, Baruah S (2010) Limited preemption EDF scheduling of sporadic task systems. IEEE Trans Ind Inform 6:579–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bertogna M, Buttazzo G, Marinoni M, Yao G, Esposito F, Caccamo M (2010) Preemption points placement for sporadic task sets. In: The Euromicro conference on real-time systemsGoogle Scholar
  12. Bini E, Buttazzo GC (2005) Measuring the performance of schedulability tests. Real Time Syst 30:129–154MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bui BD, Caccamo M, Sha L, Martinez J (2008) Impact of cache partitioning on multi-tasking real time embedded systems. In: The international conference on embedded and real-time computing systems and applicationsGoogle Scholar
  14. Busquets-Mataix JV, Serrano JJ, Ors R, Gil P, Wellings A (1996) Adding instruction cache effect to schedulability analysis of preemptive real-time systems. In: The IEEE real-time technology and applications symposiumGoogle Scholar
  15. Buttazzo G, Abeni L (2002) Adaptive workload management through elastic scheduling. Real Time Syst 23:7–24MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Buttazzo G, Bertogna M, Yao G (2012) Limited preemptive scheduling for real-time systems: a survey. IEEE Trans Ind Inform 9:3–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Buttle D (2012) Real-time in the prime-time. Keynote speech given at the Euromicro conference on real-time systems. http://ecrts.eit.uni-kl.de/fileadmin/user_media/ecrts12/ECRTS12-Keynote-Buttle.pdf
  18. Davis RI, Rothvoss T, Baruah SK, Burns A (2009b) Quantifying the sub-optimality of uniprocessor fixed priority pre-emptive scheduling for sporadic tasksets with arbitrary deadlines. In: The international conference on real-time and network systemsGoogle Scholar
  19. Davis R, Rothvoss T, Baruah S, Burns A (2009a) Exact quantification of the sub-optimality of uniprocessor fixed priority pre-emptive scheduling. Real Time Syst 43:211–258MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Davis R, George L, Courbin P (2010) Quantifying the sub-optimality of uniprocessor fixed priority non-pre-emptive scheduling. In: The international conference on real-time and network systemsGoogle Scholar
  21. Dertouzos ML (1974) Control robotics: the procedural control of physical processes. In: IFIP congressGoogle Scholar
  22. George L, Muhlethaler P, Rivierre N (1995) Optimality and non-preemptive real-time scheduling revisited. Research report, INRIAGoogle Scholar
  23. George L, Rivierre N, Spuri M (1996) Preemptive and non-preemptive real-time uniprocessor scheduling. Research report, INRIAGoogle Scholar
  24. Jeffay K, Stanat DF, Martel CU (1991) On non-preemptive scheduling of periodic and sporadic tasks. In: The real-time systems symposiumGoogle Scholar
  25. Ju L, Chakraborty S, Roychoudhury A (2007) Accounting for cache-related preemption delay in dynamic priority schedulability analysis. In: IEEE design automation and test in EuropeGoogle Scholar
  26. Kalyanasundaram B, Pruhs K (2000) Speed is as powerful as clairvoyance. JACM 47:617–643MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lam TW, To KK (1999) Trade-offs between speed and processor in hard-deadline scheduling. In: The ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete algorithmsGoogle Scholar
  28. Lee CG, Hahn J, Seo JM, Min SL, Ha R, Hong S, Park CY, Lee M, Kim CS (1998) Analysis of cache-related preemption delay in fixed-priority preemptive scheduling. IEEE Trans Comput 47:700–713MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Leontyev H, Anderson J (2008) A hierarchical multiprocessor bandwidth reservation scheme with timing guarantees. In: The Euromicro conference on real-time systemsGoogle Scholar
  30. Liu CL, Layland JW (1973) Scheduling algorithms for multiprogramming in a hard-real-time environment. JACM 20:46–61MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marinoni M, Buttazzo G (2007) Elastic DVS management in processors with discrete voltage/frequency modes. IEEE Trans Ind Inform 3:51–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McKee SA (2004) Reflections on the memory wall. In: Proceedings of the conference on computing frontiersGoogle Scholar
  33. Peng B, Fisher N, Bertogna M (2014) Explicit preemption placement for real-timeconditional code. In: The Euromicro conference on real-time systemsGoogle Scholar
  34. Pillai P, Shin KG (2001) Real-time dynamic voltage scaling for low-power embedded operating systems. In: The ACM symposium on operating systems principlesGoogle Scholar
  35. Saha S, Ravindran B (2012) An experimental evaluation of real-time dvfs scheduling algorithms. In: Proceedings of the annual international systems and storage conferenceGoogle Scholar
  36. Short M (2010) The case for non-preemptive, deadline-driven scheduling in real-time embedded systems. In: Proceedings of the world congress on engineering, engineering and computer science. Lecture NotesGoogle Scholar
  37. Staschulat J, Schliecker S, Ernst R (2005) Scheduling analysis of real-time systems with precise modeling of cache related preemption delay. In: The Euromicro conference on real-time systemsGoogle Scholar
  38. Tan Y, Mooney V (2007) Timing analysis for preemptive multitasking real-time systems with caches. ACM Trans Embed Comput Syst 6:7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thekkilakattil A, Baruah S, Dobrin R, Punnekkat S (2014) The global limited preemptive earliest deadline first feasibility of sporadic real-time tasks. In: The Euromicro conference on real-time systemsGoogle Scholar
  40. Thekkilakattil A, Dobrin R, Punnekkat S (2013) Quantifying the sub-optimality of non-preemptive real-time scheduling. In: The Euromicro conference on real-time systemsGoogle Scholar
  41. Thiele L (2014) Model-based design of real-time systems. Keynote speech given at the Euromicro conference on real-time systems. http://ecrts.eit.uni-kl.de/fileadmin/files_ecrts14/documents/ECRTS14_Keynote_LotharThiele.pdf
  42. Ward B, Thekkilakattil A, Anderson J (2014) Optimizing preemption-overhead accounting in multiprocessor real-time systems. In: The international conference on real-time networks and systemsGoogle Scholar
  43. Yao G, Buttazzo G, Bertogna M (2010) Comparitive evaluation of limited preemptive methods. In: The international conference on emerging technologies and factory automationGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abhilash Thekkilakattil
    • 1
  • Radu Dobrin
    • 1
  • Sasikumar Punnekkat
    • 1
  1. 1.Mälardalen Real-Time Research CenterMälardalen UniversityVästeråsSweden

Personalised recommendations