skip to main content
10.1145/3139258.3139285acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesrtnsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Constant bandwidth servers with constrained deadlines

Published:04 October 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

The Hard Constant Bandwidth Server (H-CBS) is a reservation-based scheduling algorithm often used to mix hard and soft real-time tasks on the same system. A number of variants of the H-CBS algorithm have been proposed in the last years, but all of them have been conceived for implicit server deadlines (i.e., equal to the server period). However, recent promising results on semi-partitioned scheduling together with the demand for new functionality claimed by the Linux community, urge the need for a reservation algorithm that is able to work with constrained deadlines. This paper presents three novel H-CBS algorithms that support constrained deadlines. The three algorithms are formally analyzed, and their performance are compared through an extensive set of simulations.

References

  1. L. Abeni, G. Lipari, and J. Lelli. 2014. Constant bandwidth server revisited. In Proceedings of the Embed With Linux 2014 Workshop (EWiLi 2014) (CEUR Workshop Proceedings), Vol. 1291. Lisboa, Portugal. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1291Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. L. Abeni, L. Palopoli, C. Scordino, and G. Lipari. 2009. Resource Reservations for General Purpose Applications. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics 5, 1 (Feb 2009), 12--21.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. S. K. Baruah, L. E. Rosier, and R. R. Howell. 1990. Algorithms and complexity concerning the preemptive scheduling of periodic, real-time tasks on one processor. Real-time systems 2, 4 (1990), 301--324. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. A. Biondi, A. Balsini, and M. Marinoni. 2015. Resource Reservation for Real-time Self-suspending Tasks: Theory and Practice. In Proc. of the 23rd International Conference on Real Time and Networks Systems (RTNS '15). ACM, 10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. A. Biondi, G. C. Buttazzo, and M. Bertogna. 2015. Supporting component-based development in partitioned multiprocessor real-time systems. In Proceedings of the 27th Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems (ECRTS 2015). Lund, Sweden. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. A. Biondi, G. C. Buttazzo, and M. Bertogna. 2016. Schedulability Analysis of Hierarchical Real-Time Systems under Shared Resources. IEEE Trans. Comput. 65, 5 (2016), 1593--1605. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. A. Biondi, A. Melani, and M. Bertogna. 2014. Hard Constant Bandwidth Server: Comprehensive Formulation and Critical Scenarios. In Proceedings of the 9th IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Embedded Systems (SIES 2014). Pisa, Italy.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. B. Brandenburg and M. Gul. 2016. Global Scheduling Not Required: Simple, Near-Optimal Multiprocessor Real-Time Scheduling with Semi-Partitioned Reservations. In Proceedings of the 37th IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium (RTSS 2016). Porto, Portugal.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. B. B. Brandenburg and J. H. Anderson. 2007. Integrating Hard/Soft Real-Time Tasks and Best-Effort Jobs on Multiprocessors. In 19th Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems (ECRTS'07). 61--70. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. A. Burns, R. Davis, P. Wang,, and F. Zhang. 2012. Partitioned EDF scheduling for multiprocessors using a C=D task splitting scheme. Real-Time Systems 48 (2012), 3--33. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. G. C. Buttazzo. 2011. Hard Real-Time Computing Systems: Predictable Scheduling Algorithms and Applications, Third Edition. Springer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. M. Caccamo, G. Buttazzo, and L. Sha. 2000. Capacity sharing for overrun control. In Proc. of the 21st IEEE conference on Real-time systems symposium. Orlando, Florida, USA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. D. Casini, A. Biondi, and G. Buttazzo. 2017. Semi-Partitioned Scheduling of Dynamic Real-Time Workload: A Practical Approach Based On Analysis-driven Load Balancing. In Proceedings of the 29th Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems (ECRTS 2017). Dubrovnik, Croatia.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. J.J. Chen, G. Nelissen, and W.H. Huang. 2016. A unifying response time analysis framework for dynamic self-suspending tasks. In 28th Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems (ECRTS). IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. J.J. Chen, G. Nelissen, W.-H. Huang, M. Yang, K. Bletsas B. Brandenburg, C. Liu, P. Richard, F. Ridouard, N. Audsley, R. Rajkumar, and D. de Niz. 2016. Many suspensions, many problems: A review of selfsuspending tasks in real-time systems. Technical Report. Faculty of Informatik, TU Dortmund.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. U. M. C. Devi and J. H. Anderson. 2005. Tardiness bounds under global EDF scheduling on a multiprocessor. In 26th IEEE International Real-Time Systems Symposium (RTSS'05). 12 pp.--341. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. P. Emberson, R. Stafford, and R. Davis. 2010. Techniques for the synthesis of multiprocessor tasksets. In Proc. of the 2nd International Workshop on Analysis Tools and Methodologies for Embedded and Real-time Systems (WATERS 2010). Brussels, Belgium.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. N. Fisher, T. P. Baker, and S. Baruah. 2006. Algorithms for Determining the Demand-Based Load of a Sporadic Task System. In 12th IEEE International Conference on Embedded and Real-Time Computing Systems and Applications (RTCSA'06). Sydney, Australia. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. J. Lelli, C. Scordino, L. Abeni, and D. Faggioli. 2016. Deadline Scheduling in the Linux kernel. Software: Practice and Experience 46, 6 (Jun 2016), 821--839. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. L. Marzario, G. Lipari, P. Balbastre, and A. Crespo. 2004. IRIS: A New Reclaiming Algorithm for Server-Based Real-Time Systems. In 10th IEEE Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium (RTAS 2004). Toronto, Canada. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. C. W. Mercer, S. Savage, and H. Tokuda. 1994. Processor capacity reserves for multimedia operating systems. In Proceedings of IEEE international conference on Multimedia Computing and System. Boston, Massachusetts, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. A. K. Mok, X. Feng, and D. Chen. 2001. Resource partition for real-time systems. In Proceedings Seventh IEEE Real-Time Technology and Applications Symposium (RTAS 2001). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. R. Rajkumar, K. Juvva, A. Molano, and S. Oikawa. 1998. Resource kernels: A resource-centric approach to real-time and multimedia systems. In SPIE/ACM Conference on Multimedia Computing and Networking. San Jose, CA, USA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. I. Shin and I. Lee. 2004. Compositional real-time scheduling framework. In Proceedings of the 25th IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium (RTSS 2004). Lisbon, Portugal. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. F. Zhang and A. Burns. 2009. Schedulability Analysis for Real-Time Systems with EDF Scheduling. IEEE Trans. Computers 58, 9 (2009), 1250--1258. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Constant bandwidth servers with constrained deadlines

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        RTNS '17: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Real-Time Networks and Systems
        October 2017
        318 pages
        ISBN:9781450352864
        DOI:10.1145/3139258

        Copyright © 2017 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 4 October 2017

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate119of255submissions,47%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader