Minimizing CAN response-time jitter by message manipulation

Nolte, Thomas; Hansson, Hans; Norström, Christer

doi:10.1109/rttas.2002.1137394

Cited by 42 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Tindell's seminal research heavily influenced the design of on-chip CAN peripherals such as Motorola msCAN (Motorola, 1998) and has lead to a large body of work into schedulability theory and error models for CAN (Punnekkat et al, 2000;Nolte et al, 2002Nolte et al, , 2003Broster et al, 2002Broster et al, , 2005Hansson et al, 2002;Broster and Burns, 2003), including at least two PhD theses (Broster, 2003;Nolte, 2006). Overall, this research into CAN scheduling has been cited in over 200 2 subsequent papers.…”

Section: Research and Real-time Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Controller Area Network (CAN) schedulability analysis: Refuted, revisited and revised

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Controller Area Network (CAN) is used extensively in automotive applications, with in excess of 400 million CAN enabled microcontrollers manufactured each year. In 1994 schedulability analysis was developed for CAN, showing how worst-case response times of CAN messages could be calculated and hence guarantees provided that message response times would not exceed their deadlines. This seminal research has been cited in over 200 subsequent papers and transferred to industry in the form of commercial CAN schedulability analysis tools. These tools have been used by a large number of major automotive manufacturers in the design of in-vehicle networks for a wide range of cars, millions of which have been manufactured during the last decade. This paper shows that the original schedulability analysis given for CAN messages is flawed. It may provide guarantees for messages that will in fact miss their deadlines in the worst-case. This paper provides revised analysis resolving the problems with the original approach. Further, it highlights that the priority assignment policy, previously claimed to be optimal for CAN, is not in fact optimal and cites a method of obtaining an optimal priority ordering that is applicable to CAN. The paper discusses the possible impact on commercial CAN systems designed and developed using flawed schedulability analysis and makes recommendations for the revision of CAN schedulability analysis tools. R. I. Davis ( ) . A. Burns

show abstract

Section: Research and Real-time Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Controller Area Network (CAN) schedulability analysis: Refuted, revisited and revised

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The seminal work of Tindell et al lead to a large body of research into scheduling theory for CAN (Rufino et al, 1998;Broster et al, 2002;Broster and Burns, 2003;Broster, 2003;Broster et al, 2005;Ferreira et al, 2004;Nolte et al, 2002;Nolte et al, 2003;Nolte, 2006), and was used as the basis for commercial CAN schedulability analysis tools (Casparsson et al, 1998). Davis et al (2007) found and corrected significant flaws in the schedulability analysis given by Tindell and Burns, (1994), , and Tindell et al, (1995).…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Schedulability analysis for Controller Area Network (CAN) with FIFO queues priority queues and gateways

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Controller Area Network (CAN) • Section 4.6 has been added, providing formal proofs that the schedulability tests given in Sections 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 are sufficient (Theorems 2 and 3) and selfsustainable (Theorems 4 and 5). This section also shows how more precise analysis can be achieved when the priorities of messages in a FIFO queue span those of messages in a priority queue or another FIFO queue, which is often the case in practice. Extended version• In Section 5.2, we have added a formal proof that transmission deadline monotonic priority ordering is optimal when all messages have the same maximum transmission time (Theorem 7).• In Section 7, we have extended the experimental evaluation to show how the performance degradation due to FIFO queues depends on the number of messages in each queue.• Sections 6.1 and 7.1 have been added, exploring the effects of implementing one or more FIFO queues in gateway nodes that are responsible for transferring messages from one network to another.

show abstract

“…However, in our previous work [6,7] we represent the number of stuff-bits as a distribution. By using a distribution of stuff-bits instead of the worst-case number of stuff-bits, we obtain a distribution of response-times allowing us to calculate less pessimistic (compared to traditional worst-case) response-times based on probability.…”

Section: New Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…From [7] we can extract 9 different distributions of stuff-bits depending on the number of bytes of data in the CAN message frame. We define …”

Section: New Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Probabilistic worst-case response-time analysis for the controller area network

Nolte

Hansson

Norström

The 9th IEEE Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium, 2003. Proceedings.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a novel approach for calculating a probabilistic worst-case response-time for messages in the Controller Area Network (CAN). CAN uses a bit-stuffing mechanism to exclude forbidden bit-patterns within a message frame. The added bits eliminate the forbidden patterns but cause an increase in frame length. How much the length is increased depends on the bit-pattern of the original message frame. Traditional response-time analysis methods assume that all frames have a worst-case number of stuff-bits. This introduces pessimism in the analysis. In this paper we introduce an analysis approach based on using probability distributions to model the number of stuff-bits. The new analysis additionally opens up for making trade-offs between reliability and timeliness, inthe sense that the analysis will provide a certain probability for missing deadlines, which in the reliability analysis can be treated as a probability of failure. We evaluate the performance of our method using a subset of the SAE 1 benchmark.

show abstract

Minimizing CAN response-time jitter by message manipulation

Abstract: Delay variations (jitter)

Cited by 42 publications

References 14 publications

Controller Area Network (CAN) schedulability analysis: Refuted, revisited and revised

Controller Area Network (CAN) schedulability analysis: Refuted, revisited and revised

Schedulability analysis for Controller Area Network (CAN) with FIFO queues priority queues and gateways

Probabilistic worst-case response-time analysis for the controller area network

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About