A Distributed Formal Model for the Analysis and Verification of Arbitration Protocols on MPSoCs Architecture

  • Imen Ben Hafaiedh
  • Maroua Ben SlimaneEmail author
  • Riadh Robbana
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10048)


In digital system design, control access protocols are used to allocate shared resources. Whenever a resource, such as a bus is shared, an arbiter is required to assign the access to the resource at a particular time. In SoC (System on Chip) architectures, the design, analysis and implementation of such arbiter, are becoming increasingly important due to their significant impact on the performance and efficiency of such systems. In this paper, we provide a high-level abstract and formal model of MPSoCs architecture. The proposed model provides a way to easily implement, analyze and compare different arbitration protocols. It also allows to study relevant properties such as fairness, mutual exclusion and deadlock freedom at a high level of abstraction. The studied protocols as well as the MPSoC architecture have been modeled in a distributed manner which makes the generation of a distributed implementation more relevant.


Mutual Exclusion Priority Rule Dynamic Priority Equal Priority Deadlock Freedom 
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.


  1. 1.
    John, L.K., Liu, Y.: Performance model for a prioritized multiple-bus multiprocessor system. IEEE Trans. Comput. 45(5), 580–588 (1996)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yang, Q., Raja, R.: Design and analysis of multiple-bus arbiters with different priority schemes. In: Parallel Architectures (Postconference PARBASE-1990), pp. 276–295 (1990)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    El-Guibaly, F.: Design and analysis of arbitration protocols. IEEE Trans. Comput. 38, 161–171 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Doifode, N., Padole, D., Bajaj, P.R.: Design and performance analysis of efficient bus arbitration schemes for on-chip shared bus multi-processor SoC. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Netw. Secur. (IJCSNS) 8(9), 250–255 (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chu, P.P.: RTL Hardware Design Using VHDL: Coding for Efficiency, Portability, and Scalability. Wiley-IEEE Press, Hoboken (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fassino, J.-P., Stefani, J.-B., Lawall, J.L., Muller, G.: Think: a software framework for component-based operating system kernels. In: 16th IEEE Real Time Systems Symposium (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Basu, A., Bozga, M., Sifakis, J.: Modeling heterogeneous real-time components in BIP. In: SEFM. IEEE Computer Society, pp. 3–12 (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Graf, S., Quinton, S.: Contracts for BIP: hierarchical interaction models for compositional verification. In: Derrick, J., Vain, J. (eds.) FORTE 2007. LNCS, vol. 4574, pp. 1–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-73196-2_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bliudze, S., Sifakis, J.: The algebra of connectors - structuring interaction in BIP. IEEE Trans. Comput. 57(10), 1315–1330 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bozga, M., Jaber, M., Sifakis, J.: Source-to-source architecture transformation for performance optimization in BIP. In: Proceedings of SIES 2009, pp. 152–160 (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ben-Hafaiedh, I., Graf, S., Mazouz, N.: Distributed implementation of systems with multiparty interactions and priorities. In: Barthe, G., Pardo, A., Schneider, G. (eds.) SEFM 2011. LNCS, vol. 7041, pp. 38–57. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-24690-6_5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Basu, A., Bidinger, P., Bozga, M., Sifakis, J.: Distributed semantics and implementation for systems with interaction and priority. In: Suzuki, K., Higashino, T., Yasumoto, K., El-Fakih, K. (eds.) FORTE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5048, pp. 116–133. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-68855-6_8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chung, C.-M., Chiang, D.A., Yang, Q.: A comparative analysis of different arbitration protocols for multiprocessors. J. Comput. Sci. Technol. 11(3), 313–325 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chehaibar, G., Garavel, H., Mounier, L., Tawbi, N., Zulian, F.: Specification and verification of the powerscale\({}^{\text{ tm }}\) bus arbitration protocol: an industrial experiment with LOTOS. In: Gotzhein, R., Bredereke, J. (eds.) Formal Description Techniques IX: Theory, Application and Tools. IFIP AICT, pp. 435–450. Springer, Berlin (1996). doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-35079-0_28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ben-Hafaiedh, I., Susanne, G., Jaber, M.: Model-based design and distributed implementation of bus arbiter for multiprocessors. In: IEEE ICECS, pp. 65–68 (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bolognesi, T., Brinksma, E.: Introduction to the ISO specification language LOTOS. Comput. Netw. 14, 25–59 (1987)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bliudze, S., Sifakis, J.: Algebraic semantics of hierarchical connectors in the BIP framework. Technical report, Verimag, February 2007Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bonakdarpour, B., Bozga, M., Quilbeuf, J.: Model-based implementation of distributed systems with priorities. Des. Autom. Embed. Syst. 17(2), 251–276 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Astefanoaei, L., Rayana, S.-B., Bensalem, S., Bozga, M., Combaz, J.: Compositional verification for timed systems based on automatic invariant generation. Log. Methods Comput. Sci. (LMCS) 11 (2015)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bensalem, S., Bozga, M., Sifakis, J., Nguyen, T.-H.: Compositional verification for component-based systems and application. In: Cha, S.S., Choi, J.-Y., Kim, M., Lee, I., Viswanathan, M. (eds.) ATVA 2008. LNCS, vol. 5311, pp. 64–79. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-88387-6_7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Taub, D.: Arbitration and control acquisition in the proposed ieee 896 futurebus. IEEE Micro 4, 28–41 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bonakdarpour, B., Bozga, M., Jaber, M., Quilbeuf, J., Sifakis, J.: A framework for automated distributed implementation of component-based models. Distrib. Comput. 25, 383–409 (2012)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bliudze, S., Cimatti, A., Jaber, M., Mover, S., Roveri, M., Saab, W., Wang, Q.: Formal verification of infinite-state BIP models. In: Finkbeiner, B., Pu, G., Zhang, L. (eds.) ATVA 2015. LNCS, vol. 9364, pp. 326–343. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-24953-7_25 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shin, E.S., Mooney, V.J., Riley, G.F.: Round robin arbiter design and generation. In: International Symposium on System Synthesis (2002)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jou, J., Lee, Y.: An optimal round-robin arbiter design for NoC. J. Inf. Sci. Eng. 26(6), 2047–2058 (2010)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Abdellatif, T., Combaz, J., Sifakis, J.: Rigorous implementation of real-time systems - from theory to application. Math. Struct. Comput. Sci. 23, 882–914 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Murali, S., Benini, L., De Micheli, G.: An application-specific design methodology for on-chip crossbar generation. Comput.-Aided Des. Integr. Circ. Syst. 26(7), 1283–1296 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lahiri, K., Raghunathan, A., Lakshminarayana, G.: LOTTERYBUS: a new high performance communication architecture for system-on-chip designs. In: Design Automation Conference, pp. 15–20 (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Imen Ben Hafaiedh
    • 1
    • 2
  • Maroua Ben Slimane
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • Riadh Robbana
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.FST, Laboratoire LIP2Université de Tunis El ManarTunisTunisie
  2. 2.ISIUniversité de Tunis El ManarTunisTunisie
  3. 3.EPTUniversité de CarthageLa MarsaTunisie
  4. 4.INSATUniversité de CarthageTunisTunisie

Personalised recommendations