International Conference on Formal Modeling and Analysis of Timed Systems

FORMATS 2015: Formal Modeling and Analysis of Timed Systems pp 108-123 | Cite as

On the Scalability of Constraint Solving for Static/Off-Line Real-Time Scheduling

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9268)


Recent papers have reported on successful application of constraint solving techniques to off-line real-time scheduling problems, with realistic size and complexity. Success allegedly came for two reasons: major recent advances in solvers efficiency and use of optimized, problem-specific constraint representations. Our current objective is to assess further the range of applicability and the scalability of such constraint solving techniques based on a more general and agnostic evaluation campaign. For this, we have considered a large number of synthetic scheduling problems and a few real-life ones, and attempted to solve them using 3 state-of-the-art solvers, namely CPLEX, Yices2, and MiniZinc/G12. Our findings were that, for all problems considered, constraint solving does scale to a certain limit, then diverges rapidly. This limit greatly depends on the specificity of the scheduling problem type. All experimental data (synthetic task systems, SMT/ILP models) are provided so as to allow experimental reproducibility.


Real-time scheduling Satisfiability modulo theories  Constraint solving Repeatable 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bahn, J.H., Yang, J., Bagherzadeh, N.: Parallel fft algorithms on network-on-chips. In: Proceedings ITNG 2008, April 2008Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baptiste, P., Le Pape, C., Nuijten, W.: Constraint-based scheduling: applying constraint programming to scheduling problems, vol. 39. Springer Science & Business Media (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bini, E., Buttazzo, G.: Measuring the performance of schedulability tests. Real Time Systems 30, 129–154 (2005)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carle, T., Potop-Butucaru, D.: Predicate-aware, makespan-preserving software pipelining of scheduling tables. TACO 11(1), 12 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carle, T., Potop-Butucaru, D., Sorel, Y., Lesens, D.: From dataflow specification to multiprocessor partitioned time-triggered real-time implementation. Research Report RR-8109 (2012).
  6. 6.
    Coffman Jr., A.P.E., Graham, R.L.: Optimal scheduling for two-processor systems. Acta informatica 1(3), 200–213 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Craciunas, S., Oliver, R.S.: SMT-based task- and network-level static schedule generation for time-triggered networked systems. In: Proceedings RTNS 2014. pp. 45:45–45:54. ACM, New York (2014).
  8. 8.
    Garey, M., Johnson, D.: Complexity results for multiprocessor scheduling under resource constraints. SIAM Journal of Computing 4(4), 397–411 (1975)CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gu, Z., He, X., Yuan, M.: Optimization of static task and bus access schedules for time-triggered distributed embedded systems with model-checking. In: 44th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference, DAC 2007, pp. 294–299, June 2007Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hang, C., Manolios, P., Papavasileiou, V.: Synthesizing cyber-physical architectural models with real-time constraints. In: Gopalakrishnan, G., Qadeer, S. (eds.) CAV 2011. LNCS, vol. 6806, pp. 441–456. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Leyton-Brown, K., Hoos, H.H., Hutter, F., Xu, L.: Understanding the empirical hardness of np-complete problems. Commun. ACM 57(5), 98–107 (2014). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Megel, T., Sirdey, R., David, V.: Minimizing task preemptions and migrations in multiprocessor optimal real-time schedules. In: 2010 IEEE 31st Real-Time Systems Symposium (RTSS), pp. 37–46, November 2010Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nowatzki, T., Sartin-Tarm, M., Carli, L.D., Sankaralingam, K., Estan, C., Robatmili, B.: A general constraint-centric scheduling framework for spatial architectures. SIGPLAN Not. 48(6), 495–506 (2013)., (Proceedings PLDI 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tendulkar, P., Poplavko, P., Maler, O.: Symmetry breaking for multi-criteria mapping and scheduling on multicores. In: Braberman, V., Fribourg, L. (eds.) FORMATS 2013. LNCS, vol. 8053, pp. 228–242. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Topcuoglu, H., Hariri, S., Wu, M.Y.: Performance-effective and low-complexity task scheduling for heterogeneous computing. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems 13(3), 260–274 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.INRIARocquencourtFrance
  2. 2.CNESParisFrance
  3. 3.Brown UniversityProvidenceUSA
  4. 4.CNRS/UNSSophia-AntipolisFrance
  5. 5.INRIASophia-Antipolis MéditerranéeFrance

Personalised recommendations