Worst-Case Response Time Analysis of Real-Time Tasks under Fixed-Priority Scheduling with Deferred Preemption Revisited

Bril, Reinder J.; Lukkien, Johan J.; Verhaegh, Wim

doi:10.1109/ecrts.2007.38

Cited by 66 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…That is the purpose of this paper. A further technical report (Bril et al, 2006c) complements this paper, providing formal proofs of the worst-case response time of tasks under fixed priority scheduling with deferred pre-emption.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Controller Area Network (CAN) schedulability analysis: Refuted, revisited and revised

et al. 2007

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Controller Area Network (CAN) is used extensively in automotive applications, with in excess of 400 million CAN enabled microcontrollers manufactured each year. In 1994 schedulability analysis was developed for CAN, showing how worst-case response times of CAN messages could be calculated and hence guarantees provided that message response times would not exceed their deadlines. This seminal research has been cited in over 200 subsequent papers and transferred to industry in the form of commercial CAN schedulability analysis tools. These tools have been used by a large number of major automotive manufacturers in the design of in-vehicle networks for a wide range of cars, millions of which have been manufactured during the last decade. This paper shows that the original schedulability analysis given for CAN messages is flawed. It may provide guarantees for messages that will in fact miss their deadlines in the worst-case. This paper provides revised analysis resolving the problems with the original approach. Further, it highlights that the priority assignment policy, previously claimed to be optimal for CAN, is not in fact optimal and cites a method of obtaining an optimal priority ordering that is applicable to CAN. The paper discusses the possible impact on commercial CAN systems designed and developed using flawed schedulability analysis and makes recommendations for the revision of CAN schedulability analysis tools. R. I. Davis ( ) . A. Burns

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Controller Area Network (CAN) schedulability analysis: Refuted, revisited and revised

et al. 2007

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In general, all jobs in the busy-period at the task's priority level need to be checked to see which gives the largest response time. The analysis used by Davis and Bertogna [15] follows the approach introduced by Bril [10], [11].…”

Section: B Deferred Preemptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The number of jobs to check, G i , is obtained from the length of the priority level-i busy period, which can be obtained by solving (10), and using this value in (11).…”

Section: B Deferred Preemptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptive Mixed Criticality Scheduling with Deferred Preemption

Burns

Davis

2014

2014 IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Adaptive Mixed Criticality (AMC) scheduling has previously been shown to be the most effective fixed priority approach for scheduling mixed criticality systems, while the idea of final non-preemptive regions has been shown to improve the schedulability of systems with a single criticality level. In this paper, we combine AMC with the concept of non-preemptive regions by making the final part of each task's execution at each criticality level non-preemptive. We derive schedulability analysis for this approach, and provide an effective algorithm for choosing each task's priority and the durations of its non-preemptive regions. Evaluations illustrate the benefits of this approach in terms of increased schedulability.

show abstract

“…In order to increase schedulability, yet achieve lower analysis complexity, methods were proposed to "defer" preemptions to known points in time by splitting a job into several small sub-jobs and allowing preemptions only at the end of a sub-job [3,4,12]. Recent work by Bril et al demonstrates flaws in this method [2,1].…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%