Segment-Fixed Priority Scheduling for Self-Suspending Real-Time Tasks

Kim, Junsung; Andersson, Björn; Niz, Dionisio de; Rajkumar, Ragunathan

doi:10.1109/rtss.2013.32

Cited by 27 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…-Incorrectly counting highest-priority self-suspension time to reduce the interference on the lower-priority tasks [KAdNR13]. -Incorrect segmented fixed-priority scheduling with period enforcement [KAdNR13,DTT09].…”

Section: Purpose and Organization Of This Papermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…-Incorrect segmented fixed-priority scheduling with period enforcement [KAdNR13,DTT09]. -Incorrect conversion of higher-priority self-suspending tasks into sporadic tasks with release jitter [NFRN15].…”

Section: Purpose and Organization Of This Papermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such task-level fixed-priority scheduling strategies for the self-suspension task models have been explored in [Raj91, KCP + 95, Min94, PH98, AB04a, AB04b, BA05, LR10, KAdNR13, LC14, HCZL15, HC15b, HC16, CNH16]. Moreover, in some results in the literature, e.g., [KAdNR13,DTT09], each computation segment in the segmented self-suspending task model has its own unique priority level. Such a scheduling policy is referred to as segmented fixed-priority scheduling.…”

Section: Assumptions and Terminologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The methods in [KAdNR13,DTT09] assign each computation segment a fixed-priority level and an offset. Unfortunately, in [KAdNR13,DTT09], the schedulability tests are not correct, and the mixed-integer linear programming formulation proposed in [KAdNR13] is unsafe for worst-case response time guarantees.…”

Section: Static Period Enforcementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unfortunately, in [KAdNR13,DTT09], the schedulability tests are not correct, and the mixed-integer linear programming formulation proposed in [KAdNR13] is unsafe for worst-case response time guarantees. A detailed discussion on this matter is provided in Section 5.5.…”

Section: Static Period Enforcementmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Many suspensions, many problems: a review of self-suspending tasks in real-time systems

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In general computing systems, a job (process/task) may suspend itself whilst it is waiting for some activity to complete, e.g., an accelerator to return data. In real-time systems, such self-suspension can cause substantial performance/schedulability degradation. This observation, first made in 1988, has led to the investigation of the impact of self-suspension on timing predictability, and many relevant results have been published since. Unfortunately, as it has recently come to light, a number of the existing results are flawed. To provide a correct platform on which future research can be built, this paper reviews the state of the art in the design and analysis of scheduling algorithms and schedulability tests for self-suspending tasks in real-time systems. We provide (1) a systematic description of how self-suspending tasks can be handled in both soft and hard real-time systems; (2) an explanation of the existing misconceptions and their potential remedies; (3) an assessment of the influence of such flawed analyses on partitioned multiprocessor fixed-priority scheduling when tasks synchronize access to shared resources; and (4) a discussion of the computational complexity of analyses for different self-suspension task models.

show abstract

Section: Purpose and Organization Of This Papermentioning

confidence: 99%