No abstract

No abstract

Dependability is a vital system requirement, particularly in safety critical and mission critical real-time systems, due to the potentially catastrophic consequences of failures. In most critical applications different fault tolerance mechanisms using redundancy are employed to prevent possible failures. In the case of real-time systems the system designer must ensure that the task set is feasible even under faults, which we refer to as 'fault tolerance feasibility'. Due to cost considerations, often temporal redundancy has been prevalently used to meet this objective. In this paper we focus on guaranteeing fault-tolerance feasibility under error bursts on uni-processor systems by the usage of resource augmentation, specifically through processor speed-up. Firstly, we derive a processor demand bound based sufficient condition for a set of real-time tasks to be fault tolerance feasible under an assumption that no more than one error burst occurs during the hyper-period of the task set. Subsequently, we derive the necessary resource augmentation bounds (i.e., the processor speed-up), that guarantees the fault tolerance feasibility, if the sufficient test fails. Finally, we prove that, if the error burst length is no more than half the shortest relative deadline of the task set, the minimum processor speed-up required to guarantee fault tolerance feasibility is upper-bounded by 6.

Challenges associated with allowing preemptions and migrations are compounded in multicore systems, particularly under global scheduling policies, because of the potentially high overheads. For example, multiple levels of cache greatly increase preemption and migration related overheads as well as the difficulty involved in accurately accounting for them, leading to substantially inflated worst-case execution times (WCETs). Preemption and migration related overheads can be significantly reduced, both in number and in size, by using fixed preemption points in the tasks' code; thus dividing each task into a series of non-preemptive regions (NPRs). This leads to an additional consideration in the scheduling policy. When a high priority task is released and all of the processors are executing non-preemptive regions of lower priority tasks, then there is a choice to be made in terms of how to manage the next preemption. With an eager approach the first lower priority task to reach a preemption point is preempted even if it is not the lowest priority running task. Alternatively, with a lazy approach, preemption is delayed until the lowest priority currently running task reaches its next preemption point. In this paper, we show that under global fixed priority scheduling with eager preemptions each task suffers from at most a single priority inversion each time it resumes execution. Building on this observation, we derive a new response time based schedulability test for tasks with fixed preemption points. Experimental evaluations show that global fixed priority scheduling with eager preemptions is significantly more effective than with lazy preemption using link based scheduling in terms of task set schedulability

Abstract-Fixed priority scheduling is used in many real-time systems; however, both preemptive and non-preemptive variants (FP-P and FP-NP) are known to be sub-optimal when compared to an optimal uniprocessor scheduling algorithm such as preemptive Earliest Deadline First (EDF-P). In this paper, we investigate the sub-optimality of fixed priority non-preemptive scheduling. Specifically, we derive the exact processor speed-up factor required to guarantee the feasibility under FP-NP (i.e. schedulablability assuming an optimal priority assignment) of any task set that is feasible under EDF-P. As a consequence of this work, we also derive a lower bound on the sub-optimality of non-preemptive EDF (EDF-NP), which since it matches a recently published upper bound gives the exact sub-optimality for EDF-NP.It is known that neither preemptive, nor non-preemptive fixed priority scheduling dominates the other, i.e., there are task sets that are feasible on a processor of unit speed under FP-P that are not feasible under FP-NP and vice-versa. Hence comparing these two algorithms, there are non-trivial speedup factors in both directions. We derive the exact speed-up factor required to guarantee the FP-NP feasibility of any FP-P feasible task set. Further, we derive upper and lower bounds on the speed-up factor required to guarantee FP-P feasibility of any FP-NP feasible task set. Empirical evidence suggests that the lower bound may be tight, and hence equate to the exact speed-up factor in this case.