2019 Design, Automation &Amp; Test in Europe Conference &Amp; Exhibition (DATE) 2019
DOI: 10.23919/date.2019.8715111
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An Exact Schedulability Test for Non-Preemptive Self-Suspending Real-Time Tasks

Abstract: Exact schedulability analysis of limited-preemptive (or non-preemptive) real-time workloads with variable execution costs and release jitter is a notoriously difficult challenge due to the scheduling anomalies inherent in non-preemptive execution. Furthermore, the presence of self-suspending tasks is well-understood to add tremendous complications to an already difficult problem. By mapping the schedulability problem to the reachability problem in timed automata (TA), this paper provides the first exact schedu… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
(44 reference statements)
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Obtaining the WCET of each task in real-time is the basis for the schedulability analysis. Different approaches have been studied for scheduling tasks in real-time multicore systems: partitioned [54], [175], semi-partitioned [176]- [178] and global [179]- [181] scheduling. In the partitioned scheduling approach, tasks are assigned between available processors, and each task can only be executed on the processor where it was assigned.…”
Section: Schedulability Analysis Techniquesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Obtaining the WCET of each task in real-time is the basis for the schedulability analysis. Different approaches have been studied for scheduling tasks in real-time multicore systems: partitioned [54], [175], semi-partitioned [176]- [178] and global [179]- [181] scheduling. In the partitioned scheduling approach, tasks are assigned between available processors, and each task can only be executed on the processor where it was assigned.…”
Section: Schedulability Analysis Techniquesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The recent studies mainly focus on the schedulability analysis of other task models. They are self-suspended task model [36], restricted preemptive scheduling [37], DAG(Direct Acyclic Graph) task model [38] ,multi-core scheduling [39] and so on.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These studies differ in the underlying task models, the considered scheduling policies and the employed model-checking methods. The majority of works [49,13,43,12,10,50] use Timed Automata with UPPAAL as model-checker and some with Stopwatches. In contrast, the paper [23] uses of the symbolic model-checker nuSMV [11], while [31] uses an approach based on the transformation of time Petri nets into linear hybrid automaton and the verification of the transformed models with the HyTECH model-checker [25].…”
Section: Model-checking For Schedulabilitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Only [12] proposes different schedulers such as LLF and LLREF but this work is based on a deterministic task model and is quite similar to a simulator. More recently, [50] focuses on a non-preemptive policy with self-suspending tasks. Without surprise, papers that present experimental evaluations note scalability issues both in terms of the number of tasks and in relation to non-deterministic variables, i.e., variation in execution times, uncertainty about task starts, etc.…”
Section: Model-checking For Schedulabilitymentioning
confidence: 99%