Advertisement

The Algebra of Multi-tasking

  • Colin J. Fidge
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1816)

Abstract

Modelling multi-tasking behaviour is an important phase of real-time system design. It is shown how task scheduling principles can be captured in a CCS-based process algebra via extensions for both asymmetric interleaving, to model intraprocessor scheduling decisions, and for asynchronous communication, to model interprocessor precedence constraints. Examples are given of task preemption, blocking on shared resources, and multi-task transactions.

Keywords

Precedence Constraint Schedule Operator Asynchronous Communication Partial Order Reduction Agent Expression 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    L. Aceto and D. Murphy. Timing and causality in process algebra. Acta Informatica, 33:317–350, 1996.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    N. Audsley, A. Burns, M. Richardson, K. Tindell, and A. Wellings. Applying new scheduling theory to static priority pre-emptive scheduling. Software Engineering Journal, 8(5):284–292, September 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    H. Ben-Abdallah, J.-Y. Choi, D. Clarke, Y. S. Kim, I. Lee, and H.-L. Xie. A process algebraic approach to the schedulability analysis of real-time systems. Real-Time Systems, 15:189–219, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Bornot, J. Sifakis, and S. Tripakis. Modeling urgency in timed systems. In W.-P. de Roever, H. Langmaack, and A. Pnueli, editors, Compositionality: The Significant Difference, volume 1536 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 103–129. Springer-Verlag, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    L. Breveglieri, S. Crespi-Reghizzi, and A. Cherubini. Modeling operating systems schedulers with multi-stack-queue grammars. In G. Ciobanu and G. Păun, editors, Fundamentals of Computation Theory (FCT’99), volume 1684 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 161–172. Springer-Verlag, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    G. C. Buttazzo. Hard Real-Time Computing Systems: Predictable Scheduling Algorithms and Applications. Kluwer, 1997.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. C. Corbett. Timing analysis of Ada tasking programs. IEEE Transaction on Software Engineering, 22(7):461–483, July 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. S. Dong, N. Fulton, L. Zucconi, and J. Colton. Formalising process scheduling requirements for an aircraft operational flight program. In Proc. IEEE International Conference on Formal Engineering Methods (ICFEM’97), pages 161–169. IEEE Press, November 1997.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. D. G. Falardeau. Schedulability analysis in rate monotonic based systems with application to the CF-188. Master’s thesis, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Royal Military College of Canada, May 1994.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    C. J. Fidge and J. J. Žic. An expressive real-time CCS. In Proc. Second Australasian Conference on Parallel and Real-Time Systems (PART’95), pages 365–372, Fremantle, September 1995.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    P.-A. Hsiung, F. Wang, and Y.-S. Kuo. Scheduling system verification. In W. R. Cleaveland, editor, Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS’99), volume 1579 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 19–33. Springer-Verlag, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. M. Jackson. Experiences in embedded scheduling. In M.-C. Gaudel and J. Woodcock, editors, FME’96: Industrial Benefit and Advances in Formal Methods, volume 1051 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 445–464. Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Jacky. Analyzing a real-time program in Z. In Proc. Z User’s Meeting (ZUM’98), 1998.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Z. Liu, M. Joseph, and T. Janowski. Verification of schedulability for real-time programs. Formal Aspects of Computing, 7(5):510–532, 1995.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. Milner. Communication and Concurrency. Prentice-Hall, 1989.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Minea. Partial order reduction for model checking of timed automata. In J. C. M. Baeten and S. Mauw, editors, CONCUR’99: Concurrency Theory, volume 1664 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 431–446. Springer-Verlag, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    R. van Glabbeek and P. Rittgen. Scheduling algebra. In A. M. Haeberer, editor, Algebraic Methodology and Software Technology (AMAST’98), volume 1548 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 278–292. Springer-Verlag, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    R. J. van Glabbeek. The meaning of negative premises in transition system specifications II. In F. Meyer auf der Heide and B. Monien, editors, Automata, Languages and Programming, 23rd International Colloquium, volume 1099 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 502–513. Springer-Verlag, 1996. Extended abstract.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Z. Yuhua and Z. Chaochen. A formal proof of the deadline driven scheduler. In H. Langmaack, W.-P. de Roever, and J. Vytopil, editors, Formal Techniques in Real Time and Fault Tolerant Systems, volume 863 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 756–775. Springer-Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Colin J. Fidge
    • 1
  1. 1.Software Verification Research CentreThe University of QueenslandAustralia

Personalised recommendations