Encyclopedia of Algorithms

2016 Edition
| Editors: Ming-Yang Kao

Rate-Monotonic Scheduling

Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2864-4_334

Years and Authors of Summarized Original Work

  • 1973; Liu, Layland

Problem Definition

Liu and Layland [11] introduced rate-monotonic scheduling in the context of the scheduling of recurrent real-time processes upon a computing platform comprising a single preemptive processor.

The Periodic Task Model

The periodic task abstraction models real-time processes that make repeated requests for computation. As defined by Liu and Layland [11], each periodic task τi is characterized by an ordered pair of positive real-valued parameters (Ci, Ti), where Ci is the worst-case execution requirement and Ti the period of the task. The requests for computation that are made by task τi (subsequently referred to as jobs that are generated by τi) satisfy the following assumptions:

  1. A1:

    τi’s first job arrives at system start time (assumed to equal time zero), and subsequent jobs arrive every Ti time units, i.e., one job arrives at time instant k × Ti for all integer k ≥ 0.

  2. A2:

    Each job needs to execute for...


Fixed-priority scheduling Rate-monotonic analysis Real-time systems Static-priority scheduling 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Audsley N, Burns A, Wellings A (1993) Deadline monotonic scheduling theory and application. Control Eng Pract 1:71–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baker TP (1991) Stack-based scheduling of real-time processes. Real-Time Syst Int J Time-Crit Comput 3:67–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bini E, Buttazzo G (2005) Measuring the performance of schedulability tests. Real-Time Syst 30:129–154MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bini E, Buttazzo GC, Buttazzo GM (2003) Rate monotonic scheduling: the hyperbolic bound. IEEE Trans Comput 52:933–942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eisenbrand F, Rothvoß T (2008) Static-priority real-time scheduling: response time computation is NP-hard. In: Proceedings of the IEEE real-time systems symposium, Barcelona, Nov 2008. IEEE Computer Society Press, pp 397–406Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gustafsson J, Betts A, Ermedahl A, Lisper B (2010) The Mälardalen WCET benchmarks – past, present and future. In: Proceedings of 10th international workshop on worst-case execution time analysis (WCET’2010), Brussels, July 2010, pp 137–147Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Klein M, Ralya T, Pollak B, Obenza R, Harbour MG (1993) A Practitioner’s handbook for real-time analysis: guide to rate monotonic analysis for real-time systems. Kluwer Academic, BostonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kuo T-W, Mok AK (1991) Load adjustment in adaptive real-time systems. In: Proceedings of the IEEE real-time systems symposium, San Antonio, Dec 1991. IEEE Computer Society Press, pp 160–171Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lehoczky J, Sha L, Ding Y (1989) The rate monotonic scheduling algorithm: exact characterization and average case behavior. In: Proceedings of the real-time systems symposium, Santa Monica, Dec 1989. IEEE Computer Society Press, pp 166–171Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leung J, Whitehead J (1982) On the complexity of fixed-priority scheduling of periodic, real-time tasks. Perform Eval 2:237–250MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liu C, Layland J (1973) Scheduling algorithms for multiprogramming in a hard real-time environment. J ACM 20:46–61MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rajkumar R (1991) Synchronization in real-time systems – a priority inheritance approach. Kluwer Academic, BostonMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science, Wayne State UniversityDetroitUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science, The University of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA