Closed Loop Controller for Multicore Real-Time Systems

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10793)

Abstract

In critical and hard real-time applications multicore processors are still not used very often. One of the reasons is the lack of timing predictability or the high Worst Case Execution Time (WCET) overestimation caused by the use of shared resources. Nevertheless, multicore processors can significantly increase system integration density also in critical and hard real-time applications.

We present a Closed Performance Control Loop that enables a stand-alone WCET estimation of a hard real-time application and execution on a multicore system concurrently to other applications. The advantage of our proposal is that it is transparent and non-intrusive to the critical application. Moreover, it is implemented as an external safety net and no additional software functionality on the multicore is required. The previously presented Fingerprinting approach to measure an application’s performance is used as sensor element, extended by a Pulse Width Modulated core thwarting technique and two different control algorithms are combined to a Closed Control Loop.

Keywords

Embedded multicore systems Critical systems Safety net Real-time systems 

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Certification Authorities Software Team (CAST): position paper CAST-32A: multi-core processors, November 2016Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Freitag, J., Uhrig, S.: Dynamic interference quantification for multicore processors. In: Proceedings of the 36th IEEE/AIAA Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC), pp. 1–6, September 2017Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nowotsch, J., Paulitsch, M.: Leveraging multi-core computing architectures in avionics. In: 2012 Ninth European Dependable Computing Conference, pp. 132–143, May 2012Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Agirre, I., Abella, J., Azkarate-Askasua, M., Cazorla, F.J.: On the tailoring of CAST-32A certification guidance to real COTS multicore architectures. In: Proceedings of 12th IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Embedded Systems (2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kritikakou, A., Rochange, C., Faugère, M., Pagetti, C., Roy, M., Girbal, S., Gracia Pérez, D.: Distributed run-time WCET controller for concurrent critical tasks in mixed-critical systems. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Real-Time Networks and Systems, RTNS 2014, New York, NY, USA, pp. 139:139–139:148. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nowotsch, J., Paulitsch, M., Buhler, D., Theiling, H., Wegener, S., Schmidt, M.: Multi-core interference-sensitive WCET analysis leveraging runtime resource capacity enforcement. In: ECRTS, pp. 109–118. IEEE Computer Society (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bak, S., Yao, G., Pellizzoni, R., Caccamo, M.: Memory-aware scheduling of multicore task sets for real-time systems. In: 2012 IEEE International Conference on Embedded and Real-Time Computing Systems and Applications, pp. 300–309, August 2012Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Agrawal, A., Fohler, G., Freitag, J., Nowotsch, J., Uhrig, S., Paulitsch, M.: Contention-aware dynamic memory bandwidth isolation with predictability in cots multicores: an avionics case study. In: 29th Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems (ECRTS), June 2017 (to appear)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Girbal, S., Jean, X., Rhun, J.L., Gracia Pérez, D., Gatti, M.: Deterministic platform software for hard real-time systems using multi-core COTS. In: 2015 IEEE/AIAA 34th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC), pp. 8D4-1–8D4-15, September 2015Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Duesterwald, E., Dwarkadas, S.: Characterizing and predicting program behavior and its variability. In: International Conference on Parallel Architectures and Compilation Techniques (PACT), pp. 220–231 (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maggio, M., Hoffmann, H., Santambrogio, M.D., Agarwal, A., Leva, A.: Power optimization in embedded systems via feedback control of resource allocation. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 21(1), 239–246 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sahoo, D.R., Swaminathan, S., Al-Omari, R., Salapaka, M.V., Manimaran, G., Somani, A.K.: Feedback control for real-time scheduling. In: Proceedings of the 2002 American Control Conference (IEEE Cat. No. CH37301), vol. 2, pp. 1254–1259, May 2002Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cucinotta, T., Checconi, F., Abeni, L., Palopoli, L.: Self-tuning schedulers for legacy real-time applications. In: Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Computer Systems, EuroSys 2010, New York, NY, USA, pp. 55–68. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fu, Y., Kottenstette, N., Lu, C., Koutsoukos, X.D.: Feedback thermal control of real-time systems on multicore processors. In: Proceedings of the Tenth ACM International Conference on Embedded Software, EMSOFT 2012, New York, NY, USA, pp. 113–122. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    NXP Semiconductors: e500mc Core Reference Manual (2013). Rev. 3Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Falk, H., Altmeyer, S., Hellinckx, P., Lisper, B., Puffitsch, W., Rochange, C., Schoeberl, M., Sørensen, R.B., Wägemann, P., Wegener, S.: TACLeBench: a benchmark collection to support worst-case execution time research. In: Schoeberl, M. (ed.) 16th International Workshop on Worst-Case Execution Time Analysis (WCET 2016). OpenAccess Series in Informatics (OASIcs), Dagstuhl, Germany, vol. 55, pp. 2:1–2:10. Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.AirbusMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations