Matrix-DBP for (m, k)-firm Real Time Guarantee

(m, k)-firm means at least m deadlines should be met among any k consecutive task invocations or message transmissions. Providing (m, k)-firm guarantee is becoming attractive as it proposes an alternative between hard real-time guarantee (case of m = k) and soft (or probabilistic) real-time guarantee with p = m/k (when m, k ¨ ‡) and allows more effective utilization of server resources (processor for task processing or bandwidth for message transmission). A dynamic priority assignment scheme called DBP (Distance Based Priority) has been proposed to handle the (m, k)-firm constraint. This paper shows that DBP combined with EDF (EDF for making choice among tasks/messages of the same priority assigned by DBP) cannot always provide good performance in a MIQSS (Multiple input queues single server) non-preemptive model. The reason is that DBP assignment is only based on the distance to failure state of each individual stream under its own (m, k)-firm constraint. It does not take into account neither the stream timing parameters (period, deadline, service time in server) nor its relationship with other streams sharing the same server. Taking into account these additional parameters, two necessary schedulability conditions are derived and an enhancement of DBP called matrix-DBP is proposed. The performance improvement has been shown by simulations.

[1]  G. Bernat,et al.  Hard deadlines and Dual Priority Scheduling , 1997 .

[2]  Anis Koubaa,et al.  Evaluation de performances d'Ethernet commuté pour des applications temps réel , 2002 .

[3]  John P. Lehoczky,et al.  Fixed priority scheduling of periodic task sets with arbitrary deadlines , 1990, [1990] Proceedings 11th Real-Time Systems Symposium.

[4]  Aaron Striegel,et al.  Best-effort scheduling of (m, k)-firm real-time streams in multihop networks , 2000, Comput. Commun..

[5]  Rene L. Cruz,et al.  A calculus for network delay, Part I: Network elements in isolation , 1991, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[6]  Parameswaran Ramanathan,et al.  Evaluating Dynamic Failure Probability for Streams with (m, k)-Firm Deadlines , 1997, IEEE Trans. Computers.

[7]  Parameswaran Ramanathan,et al.  A Dynamic Priority Assignement Technique for Streams with (m, k)-Firm Deadlines , 1995, IEEE Trans. Computers.

[8]  Parameswaran Ramanathan,et al.  Overload Management in Real-Time Control Applications Using (m, k)-Firm Guarantee , 1999, IEEE Trans. Parallel Distributed Syst..

[9]  Alan Burns,et al.  Weakly Hard Real-Time Systems , 2001, IEEE Trans. Computers.

[10]  Krithi Ramamritham,et al.  Where Do Time Constraints Come From? Where Do They Go? , 1996 .

[11]  Anis Koubaa,et al.  Switched Ethernet for real-time industrial communication: modelling and message buffering delay evaluation , 2002, 4th IEEE International Workshop on Factory Communication Systems.

[12]  Christian Poellabauer,et al.  Analysis of a window-constrained scheduler for real-time and best-effort packet streams , 2000, Proceedings 21st IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium.

[13]  Dennis Shasha,et al.  Skip-Over: algorithms and complexity for overloaded systems that allow skips , 1995, Proceedings 16th IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium.

[14]  P. Ramanathan,et al.  DBP-M: a technique for meeting end-to-end (m, k)-firm guarantee requirement in point-to-point networks , 1997, Proceedings of 22nd Annual Conference on Local Computer Networks.

[15]  Ye-Qiong Song,et al.  Reliability improvement of the dual-priority protocol under unreliable transmission , 1999 .

[16]  Gang Quan,et al.  Enhanced fixed-priority scheduling with (m,k)-firm guarantee , 2000, Proceedings 21st IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium.

[17]  Yeqiong Song,et al.  Worst-case deadline failure probability in real-time applications distributed over controller area network , 2000, J. Syst. Archit..