A Priority-Based Budget Scheduler with Conservative Dataflow Model

Currently, the guaranteed throughput of a stream processing application, mapped on a multi-processor system, can be computed with a conservative dataflow model, if only time division multiplex (TDM) schedulers are applied. A TDM scheduler is a budget scheduler. Budget schedulers can be characterized by two parameters: budget and replenishment interval. This paper introduces a priority-based budget scheduler (PBS), which is a budget scheduler that additionally associates a priority with every task. PBS improves the guaranteed minimum throughput of a stream processing application compared to TDM, given the same amount of resources. We construct a conservative dataflow model for a task scheduled by PBS. This dataflow model generalizes previous work, because it is valid for a sequence of execution times instead of one execution time per task which results in an improved accuracy of the model. Given this dataflow model, we can compute the guaranteed minimum throughput of the task graph that implements the stream processing application. Experiments confirm that a significantly higher guaranteed minimum throughput of the task graph can be obtained with PBS instead of TDM schedulers and that a conservative bound on the guaranteed throughput of the task graph can be computed with a dataflow model. Furthermore, our bound on the guaranteed throughput of the task graph is accurate, if the buffer capacities in the task graph do not affect the guaranteed throughput.

[1]  Marco Bekooij,et al.  Performance guarantees by simulation of process , 2005, SCOPES '05.

[2]  Kees G. W. Goossens,et al.  C-HEAP: A Heterogeneous Multi-Processor Architecture Template and Scalable and Flexible Protocol for the Design of Embedded Signal Processing Systems , 2002, Des. Autom. Embed. Syst..

[3]  Rolf Ernst,et al.  Performance analysis for complex embedded applications , 2005, Int. J. Embed. Syst..

[4]  Gerard J. M. Smit,et al.  Computation of Buffer Capacities for Throughput Constrained and Data Dependent Inter-Task Communication , 2008, 2008 Design, Automation and Test in Europe.

[5]  Marco Bekooij,et al.  Performance Guarantees by Simulation of Process Networks. , 2005 .

[6]  Anujan Varma,et al.  Latency-rate servers: a general model for analysis of traffic scheduling algorithms , 1996, Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM '96. Conference on Computer Communications.

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

[8]  Shuvra S. Bhattacharyya,et al.  Embedded Multiprocessors: Scheduling and Synchronization , 2000 .

[9]  Gerard J. M. Smit,et al.  Modelling run-time arbitration by latency-rate servers in dataflow graphs , 2007, SCOPES '07.

[10]  Eckhard Grass,et al.  Globally Asynchronous, Locally Synchronous Circuits: Overview and Outlook , 2007, IEEE Design & Test of Computers.

[11]  Gerard J. M. Smit,et al.  Buffer Capacity Computation for Throughput Constrained Streaming Applications with Data-Dependent Inter-Task Communication , 2008, 2008 IEEE Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium.

[12]  Ali Dasdan,et al.  Experimental analysis of the fastest optimum cycle ratio and mean algorithms , 2004, TODE.

[13]  Yongxin Zhu,et al.  Tuning SoC platforms for multimedia processing: identifying limits and tradeoffs , 2004, CODES+ISSS.

[14]  Rene L. Cruz,et al.  A calculus for network delay, Part II: Network analysis , 1991, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[15]  Giorgio C. Buttazzo,et al.  Resource Reservation in Dynamic Real-Time Systems , 2004, Real-Time Systems.

[16]  Sander Stuijk,et al.  Throughput Analysis of Synchronous Data Flow Graphs , 2006, Sixth International Conference on Application of Concurrency to System Design (ACSD'06).

[17]  Stefan Savage,et al.  Processor capacity reserves: operating system support for multimedia applications , 1994, 1994 Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Multimedia Computing and Systems.

[18]  Michael L. Dertouzos,et al.  Control Robotics: The Procedural Control of Physical Processes , 1974, IFIP Congress.