Integrating mixed transmission and practical limitations with the worst-case response-time analysis for Controller Area Network

HighlightsWe extend the worst-case response-time analysis for Controller Area Network (CAN) to support realistic CAN controllers and protocols.The extended analysis supports various transmission patterns including mixed messages that are implemented by several higher-level protocols for CAN that are used in the automotive industry today.The extended analysis also considers practical limitations in the CAN controllers and device drivers such as abortable and non-abortable transmit buffers. The existing worst-case response-time analysis for Controller Area Network (CAN) calculates upper bounds on the response times of messages that are queued for transmission either periodically or sporadically. However, it does not support the analysis of mixed messages. These messages do not exhibit a periodic activation pattern and can be queued for transmission both periodically and sporadically. They are implemented by several higher-level protocols based on CAN that are used in the automotive industry. We extend the existing analysis to support worst-case response-time calculations for periodic and sporadic as well as mixed messages. Moreover, we integrate the effect of hardware and software limitations in the CAN controllers and device drivers such as abortable and non-abortable transmit buffers with the extended analysis. The extended analysis is applicable to any higher-level protocol for CAN that uses periodic, sporadic and mixed transmission modes.

[1]  Ian Broster,et al.  Flexibility in dependable real-time communication , 2003 .

[2]  Alan Burns,et al.  Real Time Scheduling Theory: A Historical Perspective , 2004, Real-Time Systems.

[3]  Jukka Mäki-Turja,et al.  Response time analysis for mixed messages in CAN supporting transmission abort requests , 2012, 7th IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Embedded Systems (SIES'12).

[4]  J. S. Freudenberg.  Controller Area Network (CAN) , 2008 .

[5]  Haibo Zeng,et al.  Understanding and Using the Controller Area Network Communication Protocol: Theory and Practice , 2012 .

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

[7]  Mikael Sjödin,et al.  Extending response-time analysis of mixed messages in CAN with controllers implementing non-abortable transmit buffers , 2012, Proceedings of 2012 IEEE 17th International Conference on Emerging Technologies & Factory Automation (ETFA 2012).

[8]  Alan Burns,et al.  Controller Area Network (CAN) schedulability analysis: Refuted, revisited and revised , 2007, Real-Time Systems.

[9]  Jukka Mäki-Turja,et al.  Extending schedulability analysis of Controller Area Network (CAN) for mixed (periodic/sporadic) messages , 2011, ETFA2011.

[10]  Haibo Zeng,et al.  Understanding and Using the Controller Area Network Communication Protocol , 2012 .

[11]  Reinder J. Bril,et al.  Integrating hardware limitations in CAN schedulability analysis , 2010, 2010 IEEE International Workshop on Factory Communication Systems Proceedings.

[12]  Marco Di Natale.  Evaluating message transmission times in Controller Area Networks without buffer preemption , 2006 .

[13]  Alexander Szakaly,et al.  Response time analysis with offsets for CAN , 2003 .

[14]  Robert I. Davis,et al.  Schedulability analysis of CAN with non-abortable transmission requests , 2011, ETFA2011.

[15]  Jukka Mäki-Turja,et al.  Achieving Industrial Strength Timing Predictions of Embedded System Behavior , 2008, ESA.

[16]  Alan Burns,et al.  Fixed priority pre-emptive scheduling: An historical perspective , 1995, Real-Time Systems.

[17]  Robert I. Davis,et al.  Controller Area Network (CAN): Response time analysis with offsets , 2012, 2012 9th IEEE International Workshop on Factory Communication Systems.

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

[19]  Nicolas Navet,et al.  NETCARBENCH: A BENCHMARK FOR TECHNIQUES AND TOOLS USED IN THE DESIGN OF AUTOMOTIVE COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS , 2007 .

[20]  Mikael Sjödin,et al.  Worst-case response-time analysis for mixed messages with offsets in Controller Area Network , 2012, Proceedings of 2012 IEEE 17th International Conference on Emerging Technologies & Factory Automation (ETFA 2012).

[21]  Robert I. Davis,et al.  Controller area network (CAN) schedulability analysis for messages with arbitrary deadlines in FIFO and work-conserving queues , 2012, 2012 9th IEEE International Workshop on Factory Communication Systems.

[22]  Jukka Mäki-Turja,et al.  Support for end-to-end response-time and delay analysis in the industrial tool suite: Issues, experiences and a case study , 2013, Comput. Sci. Inf. Syst..

[23]  I DavisRobert,et al.  Controller Area Network (CAN) schedulability analysis , 2007 .

[24]  Robert I. Davis,et al.  Schedulability analysis for Controller Area Network (CAN) with FIFO queues priority queues and gateways , 2012, Real-Time Systems.

[25]  Mikael Sjödin,et al.  Extending offset-based response-time analysis for mixed messages in Controller Area Network , 2013, 2013 IEEE 18th Conference on Emerging Technologies & Factory Automation (ETFA).

[26]  Marco Spuri,et al.  Priority inversion at the network adapter when scheduling messages with earliest deadline techniques , 1996, Proceedings of the Eighth Euromicro Workshop on Real-Time Systems.

[27]  Jukka Mäki-Turja,et al.  Response-time analysis of mixed messages in Controller Area Network with priority- and FIFO-queued nodes , 2012, 2012 9th IEEE International Workshop on Factory Communication Systems.

[28]  Andy J. Wellings,et al.  Analysing real-time communications: controller area network (CAN) , 1994, 1994 Proceedings Real-Time Systems Symposium.

[29]  Haibo Zeng,et al.  Practical issues with the timing analysis of the Controller Area Network , 2013, 2013 IEEE 18th Conference on Emerging Technologies & Factory Automation (ETFA).