Abstract
In the process of choosing a Data Flow (DF) programming model for describing an application, one must make a difficult trade off between expressiveness and analytical properties. At one extreme, a Dynamic Data-flow (DDF) model is expressive enough to mimic the behavior of a Turing machine [10], but lacks many useful analytical properties; for instance, for an arbitrary DDF graph it may be impossible to verify if it is free of deadlocks, or if it can execute for indefinite time on bounded buffer space [10]. On the other hand, Static Data flow (StDF) variants (such as Multi-Rate DF [57], Single-Rate DF [80], or Cyclo-Static DF [9]) allow for powerful analysis, such as the verification of deadlock-freedom, determination of maximum achievable throughput, and verification of latency and throughput constraints, but have limited expressivity: all actors must work with fixed data rates, i.e., all quantities of data sent/received per actor firing cannot be dependent on the values of the input data. Because of these limitations, StDF models tend to be reserved for application domains where task activation is data-driven, data rates regular, and real-time guarantees required.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Bibliography
K. Berkel et al. Vector processing as an enabler for software-defined radio in handheld devices. EURASIP Journal on Applied Signal Processing, 2005(16), 2005.
G. Bilsen et al. Cyclo-static dataflow. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 44(2):397–408, 1996.
J. Buck. Scheduling dynamic dataflow graphs with bounded memory using the token flow model. PhD thesis, Univ. of California, Berkeley, September 1993.
M. Geilen and S. Stuijk. Worst-case performance analysis of synchronous dataflow scenarios. In ACM CODES + ISSS, 2010.
S. Ha and E. Lee. Compile-time scheduling of dynamic constructs in dataflow program graphs. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 46(7):768–778, July 1997.
G. Kahn. The semantics of a simple language for parallel programming. In Proceedings IFIP Congress, pages 471–475, 1974.
E. Lee and D. Messerschmitt. Synchronous data flow. In Proceedings of the IEEE, 1987.
Y. Lin et al. Hierarchical coarse-grained stream compilation for software defined radio. In Proc. Int’l Conf. on Compilers, Architectures and Synthesis for Embedded Systems (CASES), October 2007.
O. Moreira, F. Valente, and M. Bekooij. Scheduling multiple independent hard-real-time jobs on a heterogeneous multiprocessor. In Proc. Embedded Software Conference (EMSOFT), October 2007.
R. Reiter. Scheduling parallel computations. Journal of the ACM, 15(4):590–599, October 1968.
S. Sriram and S. Bhattacharyya. Embedded Multiprocessors: Scheduling and Synchronization. Marcel Dekker Inc., 2000.
S. Stuijk, M. Geilen, and T. Basten. A predictable multi-processor design flow for streaming applications with dynamic behavior. In DSD, 2010.
B. Theelen et al. Scenario-aware data flow model for combined long-run average and worst-case performance analysis. Int’l Conf MEMOCODE, 2006.
M. Wiggers. Aperiodic Multiprocessor Scheduling. PhD thesis, University of Twente, June 2009.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Moreira, O., Corporaal, H. (2014). Mode-Controlled Data Flow. In: Scheduling Real-Time Streaming Applications onto an Embedded Multiprocessor. Embedded Systems, vol 24. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01246-9_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01246-9_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-01245-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-01246-9
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)