Advertisement

Formalizing Software Architectures for Embedded Systems

  • Pam Binns
  • Steve Vestal
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2211)

Abstract

This paper outlines an approach to embedded computer system development that is based on integrated use of multiple domainspecific languages; on increased use of mathematical analysis methods; and on increased integration between domain-specific specification and mathematical modeling and code generation. We first outline some general principles of this approach. We then present a bit more detail about the emerging SAE standard Avionics Architecture Description Language and our supporting MetaH toolset.We conclude with a summary of some research challenge problems, technical approaches, and preliminary results uncovered during our work.

Keywords

Periodic Task Hybrid Automaton Response Time Distribution Schedulability Analysis Aperiodic Task 
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.
    Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification, RTCA/DO-178B, RTCA, Inc., Washington D.C., December 1992.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Software System Safety Handbook, Joint Software System Safety Committee, December 1999, www.nswc.navy.mil/safety/handbook.pdfGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guidelines and Methods for Conducting the Safety Assessment Process on Civil Airborne Systems and Equipment, SAE/ARP 4761, December 1996.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    MetaH User’s Guide, Honeywell Laboratories, 3660 Technology Drive, Minneapolis, MN, http://www.htc.honeywell.com/metah.
  5. 5.
    Domain Modeling Environment, Honeywell Laboratories, 3660 Technology Drive, Minneapolis, MN, http://www.htc.honeywell.com/dome.
  6. 6.
    Rajeev Alur, Thomas A. Henzinger, and Pei-Hsin Ho, “Automatic Symbolic Verification of Embedded Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 22, no. 3, March 1996, pp 181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Neil C. Audsley, Alan Burns, Robert I. Davis, Ken W. Tindell and Andy J. Wellings, “Fixed Priority Pre-emptive Scheduling: An Historical Perspective,” Journal of Real-Time Systems, 8, pp 173–198.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pam Binns, “Scheduling Slack in MetaH,” Real-Time Systems Symposium, workin-progress session, December 1996.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pam Binns, “Incremental Rate Monotonic Scheduling for Improved Control System Performance,” Real-Time Applications Symposium, 1997.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pam Binns, “A Robust High-Performance Time Partitioning Algorithm; The Approach Taken in DEOS,” to appear 20th Digital Avionics Systems Conference, November 2001Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pam Binns, Aperiodic Response Time Distributions in Queues with Deadline Guarantees for Periodic Tasks, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Statistics, University of Minnesota, October 2000.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pam Binns and Steve Vestal, “Message Passing in MetaH using Precedence-Constrained Multi-Criticality Preemptive Fixed Priority Scheduling,” Life Cycle Software Engineering Conference, Redstone Arsenal, AL, August 2000.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pam Binns, Steve Vestal, William Sanders, Jay Doyle and Dan Deavours, “MetaH/Möbius Integration Report,” prepared by Honeywell Laboratories and University of Illinois Coordinated Science Laboratory, prepared for U.S. Army AMCOM Software Engineering Directorate, April 2000.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    S. Campos, E. Clarke, W. Marrero, M. Minea and H. Hiraishi, “Computing Quantitative Characteristics of Finite-State Real-Time Systems,” Proceedings IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium, December 1994.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shent-Tzong Cheng and Ashok K. Agrawala, “Allocation and Scheduling of Real-Time Periodic Tasks with Relative Timing Constraints,” University of Maryland Department of Computer Science Technical Report, 1993.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    José Javier Gutiérrez García and Michael González Harbour, “Optimized Priority Assignment for Tasks and Messages in Distributed Hard Real-Time Systems,” Third Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Real-Time Systems, April 1995.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bruce Lewis, “Software Portability Gains Realized with MetaH, an Avionics Architecture Description Language,” 18th Digital Avionics Systems Conference, St. Louis, MO, October 24–29, 1999.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Holger Hermanns, Ulrich Herzog and Vassilis Mertsiotakis, “Stochastic Process Algebras as a Tool for Performance and Dependability Modeling,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Computer Performance and Dependability Symposium (IPDS’95), April 24–26, 1995, Erlangen, Germany.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Aperiodic Responsiveness in Hard Real-Time Environments,” Proceedings IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium, 1987, pp 261–270.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    J. P. Lehoczky and S. Ramos-Thuel, “An Optimal Algorithm for Scheduling Aperiodic Tasks in Fixed-Priority Preemptive Systems,” Proceedings IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium, December 1992.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    W. H. Sanders, W. D. Obal, M. A. Quershi and F. K. Widjanarko, “The UltraSAN Modeling Environment,” Performance Evaluation Journal, vol. 25 no. 1, 1995.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Frederick T. Sheldon, Krishna M. Kavi and Farhad A. Kamangar, “Reliability Analysis of CSP Specifications: A New Method Using Petri Nets,” Proceedings of AIAA Computing In Aerospace, San Antonio, TX, March 28-30, 1995.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    B. Sprunt, L. Sha and J. P. Lehoczky, “Aperiodic Task Scheduling for Hard Real-Time Systems,” Journal of Real-Time Systems, 8, 1998, pp 27–60.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Steve Vestal, “Fixed Priority Sensitivity Analysis for Linear Compute Time Models,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, April 1994.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Steve Vestal, “Modeling and Verification of Real-Time Software Using Extended Linear Hybrid Automata,” NASA Langley Formal Methods Workshop, June 2000, shemesh.larc.nasa.gov/fm/Lfm2000/Proc/Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Steve Vestal, “MetaH Avionics Architecture Description Language Software and System Safety and Certification Study,” prepared by Honeywell Laboratories, prepared for U.S. Army AMCOM Software Engineering Directorate, March 2001.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ward Whitt, “Weak Convergence Theorems for Priority Queues: Preemptive Resume Discipline,” Journal of Applied Probability, Volume 8, pp. 74–94, 1971zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pam Binns
    • 1
  • Steve Vestal
    • 1
  1. 1.3660 Technology DriveHoneywell LaboratoriesMinneapolis

Personalised recommendations