Limited Preemptive Scheduling for Real-Time Systems. A Survey

Buttazzo, Giorgio; Bertogna, Marko; Yao, Gang

doi:10.1109/tii.2012.2188805

Cited by 168 publications

(96 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, existing comparisons between FPPS and FPTS, e.g. Buttazzo et al (2013), do not consider CRPD.…”

Section: Background and Motivationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These pre-emptions may incur highly fluctuating CRPDs, which are non-monotonic in the length of the NPR (Marinho et al 2012), and CRPDs are therefore hard to analyze. With fixedpriority scheduling, FPDS shows more schedulability improvements with its statically placed NPRs compared to task models with floating NPRs, even when pre-emption costs are ignored (Buttazzo et al 2013). …”

Section: Limited Pre-emptive Schedulingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although FPDS also outperforms FPTS from a theoretical perspective (Buttazzo et al 2013), applying FPDS in practice is still a challenge, because pre-emption points have to be explicitly added in the code. Bertogna et al (2011b) presented a model based on constant pre-emption costs in order to place pre-emption points in the tasks' code appropriately.…”

Section: Limited Pre-emptive Schedulingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Fixed priority scheduling with pre-emption thresholds and cache-related pre-emption delays: integrated analysis and evaluation

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Commercial off-the-shelf programmable platforms for real-time systems typically contain a cache to bridge the gap between the processor speed and main memory speed. Because cache-related pre-emption delays (CRPD) can have a significant influence on the computation times of tasks, CRPD have been integrated in the response time analysis for fixed-priority pre-emptive scheduling (FPPS). This paper presents CRPD aware response-time analysis of sporadic tasks with arbitrary deadlines for fixed-priority pre-emption threshold scheduling (FPTS), generalizing earlier work. The analysis is complemented by an optimal (pre-emption) threshold assignment algorithm, assuming the priorities of tasks are given. We further improve upon these results by presenting an algorithm that searches for a layout of tasks in memory that makes a task set schedulable. The paper includes an extensive comparative evaluation of the schedulability ratios of FPPS and FPTS, taking CRPD into account. The practical relevance of our work stems from FPTS support in AUTOSAR, a standardized development model for the automotive industry. Keywords Fixed-priority pre-emptive scheduling · Fixed-priority scheduling with pre-emption thresholds · Cache-related pre-emption delay · Response-time analysis B Reinder J. Bril

show abstract

“…Finally, existing comparisons between FPPS and FPTS, e.g. Buttazzo et al (2013), do not consider CRPD.…”

Section: Background and Motivationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Limited Pre-emptive Schedulingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Limited Pre-emptive Schedulingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Fixed priority scheduling with pre-emption thresholds and cache-related pre-emption delays: integrated analysis and evaluation

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The limited preemptive (LP) scheme [13] has been proposed as an effective scheduling scheme that reduces preemption-related overheads of FP, while constraining the amount of blocking of FNP The research leading to these results is funded by the EU project P-SOCRATES (FP7-ICT-2013-10) and the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation under contract TIN2015-65316-P. and thus improving schedulability. In LP, preemptions can only take place at certain points during the execution of a task, dividing its execution in non-preemptive regions (NPR).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Response-Time Analysis of DAG Tasks under Fixed Priority Scheduling with Limited Preemptions

Serrano

Melani

Bertogna

et al. 2016

Proceedings of the 2016 Design, Automation &Amp; Test in Europe Conference &Amp; Exhibition (DATE)

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Limited preemptive (LP) scheduling has been demonstrated to effectively improve the schedulability of fully preemptive (FP) and fully non-preemptive (FNP) paradigms. On one side, LP reduces the preemption related overheads of FP; on the other side, it restricts the blocking effects of FNP. However, LP has been applied to multi-core scenarios only when completely sequential task systems are considered. This paper extends the current state-of-the-art response time analysis for global fixed priority scheduling with fixed preemption points by deriving a new response time analysis for DAG-based task-sets.

show abstract

“…These are described in a survey by Buttazzo et al [21] and briefly discussed in Section II. In this paper, we assume a simple form of fixed priority scheduling with deferred preemption where each task has a single non-pre-emptive region at the end of its execution.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Global fixed priority scheduling with deferred pre-emption

Davis

Burns

Marinho

et al. 2013

2013 IEEE 19th International Conference on Embedded and Real-Time Computing Systems and Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-This paper introduces schedulability analysis for global fixed priority scheduling with deferred pre-emption (gFPDS) for homogeneous multiprocessor systems. gFPDS is a superset of global fixed priority pre-emptive scheduling (gFPPS) and global fixed priority non-pre-emptive scheduling (gFPNS). We show how schedulability can be improved via appropriate choice of priority assignment and final non-pre-emptive region lengths, and we provide algorithms which optimize schedulability in this way. An experimental evaluation shows that gFPDS significantly outperforms both gFPPS and gFPNS. I.INTRODUCTION A common misconception with regard to fixed priority scheduling of sporadic tasks is that fully pre-emptive scheduling is more effective in terms of schedulability than non-pre-emptive scheduling. The two are however incomparable; there are tasksets that are schedulable under fixed priority non-pre-emptive scheduling that are not schedulable under fixed priority pre-emptive scheduling and vice-versa. This is the case for uniprocessor scheduling [27] and also the case for global multiprocessor scheduling [30], which is the focus of this paper.While the blocking effect, due to long non-pre-emptive regions of low priority tasks degrades schedulability for single processor systems that have a wide range of task execution times and periods (as illustrated by Figure 7 in [27]), Guan et al. [30] showed that the same is not necessarily true for multiprocessor systems. With m processors rather than one, long non-pre-emptive regions can be accommodated without necessarily compromising the schedulability of higher priority tasks. However, this advantage only extends so far; with m processors then m long non-pre-emptive regions are enough to significantly compromise schedulability. In this context, limited non-preemptive execution has the advantage of reducing the number of pre-emptions, and potentially improving the worst-case response time of tasks, while also keeping blocking effects on higher priority tasks within tolerable limits.In the literature, the term fixed priority scheduling with deferred pre-emption has been used to refer to a variety of different techniques by which pre-emptions may be deferred for some interval of time after a higher priority task becomes ready. These are described in a survey by Buttazzo et al. [21] and briefly discussed in Section II. In this paper, we assume a simple form of fixed priority scheduling with deferred preemption where each task has a single non-pre-emptive region at the end of its execution. If this region is of the minimum possible length for all tasks, then we have fully pre-emptive scheduling, whereas if it constitutes all of the task's execution time then we have non-pre-emptive scheduling.In this paper, we introduce sufficient schedulability tests for global fixed priority scheduling with deferred pre-

show abstract

Limited Preemptive Scheduling for Real-Time Systems. A Survey

Cited by 168 publications

References 31 publications

Fixed priority scheduling with pre-emption thresholds and cache-related pre-emption delays: integrated analysis and evaluation

Fixed priority scheduling with pre-emption thresholds and cache-related pre-emption delays: integrated analysis and evaluation

Response-Time Analysis of DAG Tasks under Fixed Priority Scheduling with Limited Preemptions

Global fixed priority scheduling with deferred pre-emption

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About