Constrained Software Distribution for Automotive Systems

  • Robert HöttgerEmail author
  • Burkhard IgelEmail author
  • Olaf SpinczykEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1078)


A variety of algorithms and technologies exist to cope with design space exploration for software distribution in terms of real-time, embedded, multiprocessor, and mixed-critical systems. The automotive domain not only combines those domains but even introduces further constraints and requirements due to several design decisions, standards, or evolved methodologies. In addition, solutions are predominantly proprietary, often lack in perspicuity, and sophisticated approaches towards the comprehensive concern of constraints are rather rare.

This paper presents typical constraints along with distributing automotive applications across the processing units of vehicles, outlines three software distribution methodologies based on the constraint programming paradigm, and evaluates those in comparison to related design space exploration approaches. Benchmarks upon hypothetical and industrial models show that the constraint-based approaches outperform other forms in many cases regarding quality and effectiveness. Additionally, the presented approach benefits from a holistic consideration of constraints such as processing unit affinities, safety level aggregations, communication costs as well as processing unit utilization optimization among others whilst being applicable to heterogeneous, networked, hierarchical, embedded, multi and many core architectures.


AMALTHEA AUTOSAR APP4MC Embedded real-time systems Constraint programming 


  1. 1.
    AUTOSAR Consortium. Automotive Open System Architecture - Classic Platform 4.4.0 : Requirements on Timing Extensions (2019). Accessed 7 2019
  2. 2.
    Balsini, A., Melani, A., Buonocunto, P., Di Natale, M.: FMTV 2016 : where is the actual challenge? In: International Workshop on Analysis Tools and Methodologies for Embedded and Real-time Systems (WATERS) (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baruah, S.K., Burns, A., Davis, R.I.: Response-time analysis for mixed criticality systems. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 32nd Real-Time Systems Symposium, RTSS 2011, pp. 34–43. IEEE Computer Society (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Becker, M., Dasari, D., Nicolic, B., Åkesson, B., Nélis, V., Nolte, T.: Contention-free execution of automotive applications on a clustered many-core platform. In: 28th Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems, July 2016Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Biondi, A., Di Natale, M., Buttazzo, G.: Response-time analysis of engine control applications under fixed-priority scheduling. IEEE Trans. Comput. 67(5), 687–703 (2018)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Biondi, A., Pazzaglia, P., Balsini, A., Di Natale, M.: Logical execution time implementation and memory optimization issues in autosar applications for multicores. In: International Workshop on Analysis Tools and Methodologies for Embedded and Real-Time Systems (WATERS) (2017)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bonifaci, V., Brandenburg, B., D’Angelo, G., Marchetti-Spaccamela, A.: Multiprocessor real-time scheduling with hierarchical processor affinities. In: 28th Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems, ECRTS 2016, Toulouse, France, 5–8 July 2016, pp. 237–247 (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Choi, J., Kang, D., Ha, S.: A novel analytical technique for timing analysis of FMTV 2016 verification challenge benchmark. In: International Workshop on Analysis Tools and Methodologies for Embedded and Real-time Systems (WATERS) (2016)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cuadra, P., Krawczyk, L., Höttger, R., Heisig, P., Wolff, C.: Automated scheduling for tightly-coupled embedded multi-core systems using hybrid genetic algorithms. In: Damaševičius, R., Mikašytė, V. (eds.) ICIST 2017. CCIS, vol. 756, pp. 362–373. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  10. 10.
    Melo e Silva de Oliveira, R., Oliveira de Castro Ribeiro, M.S.F.: Comparing mixed & integer programming vs. constraint programming by solving job-shop scheduling problems. Indep. J. Manag. Prod. 6(1), 211–238 (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fonseca, C.M., Fleming, P.J.: Genetic algorithms for multiobjective optimization: formulation, discussion and generalization. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, pp. 416–423, July 1993Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Frey, P.: A timing model for real-time control-systems and its application on simulation and monitoring of AUTOSAR systems dissertation. Ph.D. Thesis, Ulm University (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Garey, M.R., Johnson, D.S.: Computers and Intractability; A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. W. H. Freeman & Co., New York (1990)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hamann, A., Dasari, D., Kramer, S., Pressler, M., Wurst, F.: Communication centric design in complex automotive embedded systems. In: 29th Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems (ECRTS 2017), volume 76 of Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), pp. 10–20 (2017)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hannig, F., Cardoso, J.M.P., Pionteck, T., Fey, D., Schröder-Preikschat, W., Teich, J. (eds.): ARCS 2016. LNCS, vol. 9637. Springer, Cham (2016). Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hilbrich, R., Behrisch, M.: Improving the efficiency of dislocality constraints for an automated software deployment in safety-critical systems. In: Combined Proceedings of the Workshops of the German Software Engineering Conference 2018 (SE 2018), Workshop on Software Engineering for Applied Embedded Real-Time Systems, SEERTS 2018, pp. 90–95., March 2018Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hooker, J.N.: A hybrid method for the planning and scheduling. Constraints J. 10(4), 385–401 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Höttger, R., Igel, B., Spinczyk, O.: On reducing busy waiting in AUTOSAR via task-release-delta-based runnable reordering. In: Proceedings of the 2017 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition, DATE 2017, pp. 1510–1515. IEEE, March 2017Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Höttger, R., Krawczyk, L., Igel, B.: Model-based automotive partitioning and mapping for embedded multicore systems. In: International Conference on Parallel, Distributed Systems and Software Engineering, volume 2 of ICPDSSE 2015, pp. 2643–2649 (2015)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jang, H.C., Jin, H.W.: MiAMI: multi-core aware processor affinity for TCP/IP over multiple network interfaces, pp. 73–82. In: Proceedings - Symposium on the High Performance Interconnects, Hot Interconnects (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kramer, S., Ziegenbein, D., Hamann, A.: Real world automotive benchmarks for free. In: 6th International Workshop an Analysis Tools and Methodologies for Embedded and Real-time Systems (WATERS) (2015)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Krawczyk, L., Wolff, C., Fruhner, D.: Automated distribution of software to multi-core hardware in model based embedded systems development. In: Dregvaite, G., Damasevicius, R. (eds.) ICIST 2015. CCIS, vol. 538, pp. 320–329. Springer, Cham (2015). Scholar
  23. 23.
    Limtanyakul, K.: Scheduling of tests on vehicle prototypes using constraint and integer programming. In: Kalcsics, J., Nickel, S. (eds.) Operations Research, pp. 421–426. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). Scholar
  24. 24.
    Martinez, J., Sa, I., Burgio, P., Bertogna, M.: End-To-end latency characterization of implicit and LET communication models. In: Workshop on Analysis Tools and Methodologies for Embedded and Real-time Systems (WATERS) (2017)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Papadopoulos, Y., Grante, C.: Evolving car designs using model-based automated safety analysis and optimisation techniques. J. Syst. Softw. 76(1), 77–89 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Perron, L.: Operations research and constraint programming at google. In: Lee, J. (ed.) CP 2011. LNCS, vol. 6876, p. 2. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). Scholar
  27. 27.
    Prud’homme, C., Fages, J.-G., Lorca, X.: Choco solver documentation. TASC, INRIA Rennes, LINA CNRS UMR 6241, COSLING S.A.S. (2016). Accessed November 2018
  28. 28.
    Rivas, J.M., Javier Gutiérrez, J., Medina, J.L., Harbour, M.G.: Comparison of memory access strategies in multi-core platforms using MAST. In: International Workshop on Analysis Tools and Methodologies for Embedded and Real-time Systems (WATERS) (2017)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sadykov, R., Wolsey, L.A.: Integer programming and constraint programming in solving a multimachine assignment scheduling problem with deadlines and release dates. INFORMS J. Comput. 18, 209–217 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Singh, A.K., Dziurzanski, P., Mendis, H.R., Indrusiak, L.S.: A survey and comparative study of hard and soft real-time dynamic resource allocation strategies for multi-/many-core systems. ACM Comput. Surv. 50(2), 24:1–24:40 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Stattelmann, S., Ottlik, S., Viehl, A., Bringmann, O., Rosenstiel, W.: Combining instruction set simulation and WCET analysis for embedded software performance estimation. In: 7th IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Embedded Systems (SIES), pp. 295–298 (2012)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Thiruvady, D.R., Moser, I., Aleti, A., Nazari, A.: Constraint programming and ant colony system for the component deployment problem. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Science, ICCS 2014, Cairns, Australia, 10–12 June 2014, pp. 1937–1947 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Xie, G., Chen, Y., Liu, Y., Wei, Y., Li, R., Li, K.: Resource consumption cost minimization of reliable parallel applications on heterogeneous embedded systems. IEEE Trans. Industr. Inf. 13(4), 1629–1640 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IDiAL InstituteDortmund University of Applied Sciences and ArtsDortmundGermany
  2. 2.Computer Science InstituteOsnabrück UniversityOsnabrückGermany

Personalised recommendations