High-level frameworks for the specification and verification of scheduling problems

Abstract

Over the years, schedulability of Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) has mainly been performed by analytical methods. These techniques are known to be effective but limited to a few classes of scheduling policies. In a series of recent work, we have shown that schedulability analysis of CPS could be performed with a model-based approach and extensions of verification tools such as UPPAAL. One of our main contributions has been to show that such models are flexible enough to embed various types of scheduling policies, which goes beyond those in the scope of analytical tools.However, the specification of scheduling problems with model-based approaches requires a substantial modeling effort, and a deep understanding of the techniques employed in order to understand their results. In this paper we propose simplicity-driven high-level specification and verification frameworks for various scheduling problems. These frameworks consist of graphical and user-friendly languages for describing scheduling problems. The high-level specifications are then automatically translated to formal models, and results are trans- formed back into the comprehensible model view. To construct these frameworks we exploit a meta-modeling approach based on the tool generator Cinco.Additionally we propose in this paper two new techniques for scheduling analysis. The first performs runtime monitoring using the CUSUM algorithm to detect alarming change in the system. The second performs optimization using efficient statistical techniques. We illustrate our frameworks and techniques on two case studies.

Multifaceted Automated Analyses for Variability-Intensive Embedded Systems

“…Some system design frameworks [4], [41]- [48], model, assess and optimize quality attributes (NFB and NFOB), but do not capture nor manage all variability dimensions. Specific techniques attempt to efficiently handle either platform variability [49]- [51], application variability [52]- [55] or deployment variability [56], but they are limited to one dimension at a time and cannot reason on the whole problem.…”

Peer Review #1 of "Exact acceleration of complex real-time model checking based on overlapping cycle (v0.1)"

“…The problems and methods in these publications have promoted the concept of exact acceleration and inspired further research. Related studies on exact acceleration in real-time model checking include Hendriks & Larsen (2002) Gou et al (2014), Boudjadar et al (2016), and Chadli et al (2018). In the following four examples, the window of the acceleratable cycle is .…”

Exact acceleration of complex real-time model checking based on overlapping cycle

“…The problems and methods in these publications have promoted the concept of exact acceleration and inspired further research. Related studies on exact acceleration in real-time model checking include Hendriks & Larsen (2002), Yin, Song & Zhuang (2010), Yin, Zhuang & Wang (2011), Gou et al (2014), Boudjadar et al (2016), andChadli et al (2018). In the following four examples, the window of the acceleratable cycle is [a,b].…”

“…In the design and development stage, exact acceleration technology was used to greatly improve the capability of symbolic model checking in a processing scheduling system. For the scheduling problem of network physical systems, Chadli et al (2018) modeled advanced specifications and validation frameworks with the help of exact acceleration technology, automatically transforming high-level specifications into formal models. The above two research works mainly applied exact acceleration to model a system resource scheduling problem but did not improve the original exact acceleration theory.…”