Biasing effects in schedulability measures

The performance of a schedulabilty test is typically evaluated by generating a huge number of synthetic task sets and then computing the fraction of those that pass the test with respect to the total number of feasible ones. The resulting ratio, however, depends on the metrics used for evaluating the performance and on the method for generating random task parameters. In particular, an important factor that affects the overall result of the simulation is the probability density function of the random variables used to generate the task set parameters. In this paper we discuss and compare three different metrics that can be used for evaluating the performance of schedulability tests. Then, we investigate how the random generation procedure can bias the simulation results of some specific scheduling algorithm. Finally, we present an efficient method for generating task sets with uniform distribution in a given space, and show how some intuitive solutions typically used for task set generation can bias the simulation results.

[1]  Mathai Joseph,et al.  Finding Response Times in a Real-Time System , 1986, Comput. J..

[2]  Alan Burns,et al.  Applying new scheduling theory to static priority pre-emptive scheduling , 1993, Softw. Eng. J..

[3]  Enhanced utilization bounds for QoS management , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Computers.

[4]  Dong-Won Park,et al.  A generalized utilization bound test for fixed-priority real-time scheduling , 1995, Proceedings Second International Workshop on Real-Time Computing Systems and Applications.

[5]  Giorgio C. Buttazzo,et al.  The space of rate monotonic schedulability , 2002, 23rd IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium, 2002. RTSS 2002..

[6]  Rami G. Melhem,et al.  An Improved Rate-Monotonic Admission Control and Its Applications , 2003, IEEE Trans. Computers.

[7]  Chung Laung Liu,et al.  Scheduling Algorithms for Multiprogramming in a Hard-Real-Time Environment , 1989, JACM.

[8]  Tei-Wei Kuo,et al.  Utilization bound re-visited , 1999, Proceedings Sixth International Conference on Real-Time Computing Systems and Applications. RTCSA'99 (Cat. No.PR00306).

[9]  Giorgio Buttazzo.  Rate Monotonic vs. EDF: Judgment Day , 2003, EMSOFT.

[10]  Jay K. Strosnider,et al.  ENHANCED APERIODIC RESPONSIVENESS IN HARD REAL-TIME ENVIRONMENTS. , 1987, RTSS 1987.

[11]  Sang Hyuk Son,et al.  New Strategies for Assigning Real-Time Tasks to Multiprocessor Systems , 1995, IEEE Trans. Computers.

[12]  Ching-Chih Han,et al.  A better polynomial-time schedulability test for real-time fixed-priority scheduling algorithms , 1997, Proceedings Real-Time Systems Symposium.

[13]  Giorgio C. Buttazzo,et al.  Rate Monotonic Analysis: The Hyperbolic Bound , 2003, IEEE Trans. Computers.

[14]  Shigemi Aoyagi,et al.  A feasibility decision algorithm for rate monotonic scheduling of periodic real-time tasks , 1995, Proceedings Real-Time Technology and Applications Symposium.

[15]  Mikael Sjödin,et al.  Improved response-time analysis calculations , 1998, Proceedings 19th IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium (Cat. No.98CB36279).

[16]  John P. Lehoczky,et al.  The rate monotonic scheduling algorithm: exact characterization and average case behavior , 1989, [1989] Proceedings. Real-Time Systems Symposium.

[17]  Tei-Wei Kuo,et al.  Utilization bound revisited , 2003 .