Current adaptive mixed criticality scheduling policies assume a high criticality mode in which all low criticality tasks are descheduled to ensure that high criticality tasks can meet timing constraints derived from certification approved methods. In this paper we present a new scheduling policy, Adaptive Mixed Criticality -Weakly Hard, which provides a guaranteed minimum quality of service for low criticality tasks in the event of a criticality mode change. We derive response time based schedulability tests for this model. Empirical evaluations are then used to assess the relative performance against previously published policies and their schedulability tests.

This paper investigates the relative effectiveness of fixed priority (FP)

Abstract-Fixed priority scheduling is used in many real-time systems; however, both preemptive and non-preemptive variants (FP-P and FP-NP) are known to be sub-optimal when compared to an optimal uniprocessor scheduling algorithm such as preemptive Earliest Deadline First (EDF-P). In this paper, we investigate the sub-optimality of fixed priority non-preemptive scheduling. Specifically, we derive the exact processor speed-up factor required to guarantee the feasibility under FP-NP (i.e. schedulablability assuming an optimal priority assignment) of any task set that is feasible under EDF-P. As a consequence of this work, we also derive a lower bound on the sub-optimality of non-preemptive EDF (EDF-NP), which since it matches a recently published upper bound gives the exact sub-optimality for EDF-NP.It is known that neither preemptive, nor non-preemptive fixed priority scheduling dominates the other, i.e., there are task sets that are feasible on a processor of unit speed under FP-P that are not feasible under FP-NP and vice-versa. Hence comparing these two algorithms, there are non-trivial speedup factors in both directions. We derive the exact speed-up factor required to guarantee the FP-NP feasibility of any FP-P feasible task set. Further, we derive upper and lower bounds on the speed-up factor required to guarantee FP-P feasibility of any FP-NP feasible task set. Empirical evidence suggests that the lower bound may be tight, and hence equate to the exact speed-up factor in this case.

Fixed priority scheduling is used in many real-time systems; however, both preemptive and non-preemptive variants (FP-P and FP-NP) are known to be sub-optimal when compared to an optimal uniprocessor scheduling algorithm such as preemptive earliest deadline first (EDF-P). In this paper, we investigate the suboptimality of fixed priority non-preemptive scheduling. Specifically, we derive the exact processor speed-up factor required to guarantee the feasibility under FP-NP (i.e.Preliminary publication: This paper extends initial research into speedup factors for preemptive versus non-preemptive uniprocessor scheduling published in RTSS 2015 (Davis et al. 2015c). The main extension is the proof of the exact speedup factor required to guarantee the FP-P feasibility of any FP-NP feasible constrained-deadline task set. Real-Time Syst (2018) 54:208-246 209 schedulability assuming an optimal priority assignment) of any task set that is feasible under EDF-P. As a consequence of this work, we also derive a lower bound on the sub-optimality of non-preemptive EDF (EDF-NP). As this lower bound matches a recently published upper bound for the same quantity, it closes the exact sub-optimality for EDF-NP. It is known that neither preemptive, nor non-preemptive fixed priority scheduling dominates the other, in other words, there are task sets that are feasible on a processor of unit speed under FP-P that are not feasible under FP-NP and viceversa. Hence comparing these two algorithms, there are non-trivial speedup factors in both directions. We derive the exact speed-up factor required to guarantee the FP-NP feasibility of any FP-P feasible task set. Further, we derive the exact speed-up factor required to guarantee FP-P feasibility of any constrained-deadline FP-NP feasible task set.