Orientering om en ny metode til skeduleringsanalyse og EU-projektet CRAFTERS

317 views

Published on

Oplægget blev holdt ved et seminar i InfinIT-interessegruppen Højniveausprog til indlejrede systemer den 12. marts 2014. Læs mere om interessegruppen her: http://infinit.dk/dk/interessegrupper/hoejniveau_sprog_til_indlejrede_systemer/hoejniveau_sprog_til_indlejrede_systemer.htm

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
317
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
98
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Orientering om en ny metode til skeduleringsanalyse og EU-projektet CRAFTERS

  1. 1. Schedulability analysis using Uppaal and Uppaal SMC in CRAFTERS Abdeldjalil Boudjadar, Alexandre David, Jin Hyun Kim, Kim G. Larsen, Marius Mikuˇcionis, Ulrik Nyman, Arne Skou InfinIT Talk 12th of March 2014
  2. 2. CRAFTERS project Title ConstRaint and Application driven Framework for Tailoring Embedded Real-time Systems. Period Jun 2012 - May 2015 Website www.crafters-project.org People Two Post Docs @AAU Partners 25
  3. 3. CRAFTERS project Goals As direct effects of the project results 30% reduction of the total cost of ownership, 50% shorter time-to-market, and 30% decrease of the number of development assets are expected.
  4. 4. AAU contributions Deliverables • Model transformations (UML -> Uppaal) • Real-time testing tool, Uppaal TRON Research • New research on schedulability analysis
  5. 5. Publications FACS 2013 Hierarchical Scheduling Framework Based on Compositional Analysis Using Uppaal (Published) ERTS2 2014 Schedulability and Energy Efficiency for Multi-core Hierarchical Scheduling Systems (Published) Submitted1 Statistical Model Checking for Improved Resource Utilization in Hierarchical Scheduling Systems Submitted2 Degree of Schedulability of Mixed-Criticality Real-time Systems with Probability-based Sporadic Tasks
  6. 6. A hierarchical scheduling system System Component1 Component2 task1 task2 task3 task4 task5 RM (100,37) EDF EDF (70,25) (250,40) (400,50) (140,7) (150,7) (300,30) Figure: Example of hierarchical scheduling system.
  7. 7. Schedulability analysis ?? Do you use hierarchical scheduling? ?? How do you perform schedulability analysis? Motivation Separation of concerns. ReComp.
  8. 8. Schedulability analysis sbfΓ(t) = t − (Π − Θ) Π · Θ + s (1) where s = max t − 2(Π − Θ) − Π t − (Π − Θ) Π , 0 . (2)
  9. 9. FACS 2013 System EDF Component1 Component2 task1 task2 task3 task4 EDF,.RM:.scheduling.policies..A,.A1,.A2:.analysis.processes. A A1 A2 task5 EDF RM Figure: Compositional analysis.
  10. 10. Submitted1 ∀t ∈ ]0; 2 · LCMW ] : dbfW (t) ≤ sbfΓ(t) (3)
  11. 11. FACS 2013 supplying_time[supid]'==0 && curTime <= sup[supid].prd - sup[supid].budget + supplying_time[supid] && curTime <= sup[supid].prd stop_supplying[supid]! replenishment[supid]! supplying_time[supid]'==1 && supplying_time[supid]<=sup[supid].budget curTime <=sup[supid].prd && supplying_time[supid]'==0 NotSupplying curTime ==sup[supid].prd curTime < sup[supid].prd -sup[supid].budget + supplying_time[supid] stop_supplying[supid]! supplying_time[supid]>=sup[supid].budget start_supplying[supid]! supplying_time[supid]<=sup[supid].budget supplying[supid]=1 Supplying supplying[supid]=1 supplying[supid]=0 Done supplying[supid]=0 curTime=0, supplying_time[supid]=0, supplying[supid]=0 Figure: Non-deterministic supplier template
  12. 12. FACS 2013 Listing 1: Data structure for timed action const cmd_set_t Target_tracking = { { INPUT , 3, 110, 122, 0}, { INPUT , 3, 164, 182, 0}, { INPUT , 3, 100, 122, 0}, { INPUT , 3, 146, 162, 0}, { COMPUTE , 0, 3600, 4000, 0}, { OUTPUT , 3, 200, 222, 0}, { OUTPUT , 3, 146, 162, 0}, FIN ,FIN ,FIN ,FIN ,FIN }; const cmd_set_t Target_sweetening = { { INPUT , 3, 110, 122, 0}, { COMPUTE , 0, 1800, 2000, 0}, FIN ,FIN ,FIN ,FIN ,FIN ,FIN ,FIN ,FIN ,FIN ,FIN };
  13. 13. ERTS2 2014: Vision Schedulability requirements Energy consumption Hierarchical system architecture L _ _ _ T2 S C1 C2 T1 T3 T4 UPPAAL Network of Parameterized Stopwatch Automata Schedulability analysis (model checking) Energy efficiency (Stochastic model checking) SMC Schedulable: yes / no Energy profile Concretetaskbehavior Concretetaskbehavior CPU1 CPU2 Figure: Overview of the analysis framework
  14. 14. ERTS2 2014: Vision Schedulability requirements Energy consumption Hierarchical system architecture L _ _ _ T2 S C1 C2 T1 T3 T4 UPPAAL Network of Parameterized Stopwatch Automata Schedulability analysis (model checking) Energy efficiency (Stochastic model checking) SMC Schedulable: yes / no Energy profile Concretetaskbehavior Concretetaskbehavior CPU1 CPU2 Figure: Overview of the analysis framework
  15. 15. ERTS2 2014: Case study Avionics Hard-Subsystem ( 25, insuf, EDF) Controls and Display (20, 15, FP ) Targeting (40, 23, FP) Navigation (30, 11, EDF) Weapon Ctrl. (10, 8, FP) HUD Display T9(50,6,50) MPD Display T10(50,8,50) MPD Button Resp. T11(200,1,200) Change Display T12 (200,1,200) Flight Data T1(50,8,50) Steering T2(80,6,80) Target Tracking T3(40,4,40) Target Sweetening T4(40,2,40) AUTO/CCIP Toggle T5(200,1,200) Weapon Release T8(10,1,5) Weapon Trajectory T6 (100,7,100) Reinitiate Trajectory T7(400,6,400) insuf : insufficient budget Figure: Architecture of the hierarchical scheduling system
  16. 16. ERTS2 2014: Cumulated energy consumption Energy Consumption Task 2 Execution Task 1 Execution time value 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 450 480 510 540 570 600 630 660 690 Simulations (1) Figure: Cumulated energy consumption for two individual tasks
  17. 17. ERTS2 2014: Energy profile Figure: Energy profile for two tasks, 1000 runs, 1000000 time units
  18. 18. Submitted1 Submitted1 Statistical Model Checking for Improved Resource Utilization in Hierarchical Scheduling Systems • Comparison with conventional method. • Discovered error in conventional tool CARTS. Confirmed by tool makers.
  19. 19. Comparison of schedulability analysis of CARTS and Uppaal models Comp Tasks P, WCET CARTS SMC EDF RM EDF RM S1 T1 500, 30 100, 32.5 100, 32.5 100, 33 100, 33 T2 500, 100 S2 T1 170, 30 100, 46.67 100, 47.5 100, 46 100, 48 T2 500, 100 S3 T1 250, 40 150, 42.5 150, 42.5 150, 45 150, 45 T2 750, 50 S4 T1 80000, 6890 50000, 15082 50000, 15082 50000, 15082 50000, 15082 T2 100000, 8192 T3 200000, 2644 10000, 1880 10000, 2155.6 10000, 1875 10000, 2155 T4 1000000, 5874
  20. 20. Task synchronization
  21. 21. Submitted2 Submitted2 Degree of Schedulability of Mixed-Criticality Real-time Systems with Probability-based Sporadic Tasks • Mixed criticality • Sporadic tasks • Simulation
  22. 22. Sporadic task and events
  23. 23. Event patterns
  24. 24. Missing deadlines Figure: Execution of a sporadic task
  25. 25. PoMD Definition (Percentage of Missed Deadlines) The PoMD of an entity X for a run π is given by: PoMDX (π) = (lim sup t→∞ Misst (X, π) Trigt (X, π) ) × 100
  26. 26. DoQoS Definition (Degradation of Quality of Service) The DoQoS of a task Ti over a finite set of runs Π is defined as: DoQoSTi (Π) = 0 if limt→∞ π∈Π Misst (Ti, π) = 0 limt→∞ π∈Π Overrunt (Ti ,π) π∈Π Misst (Ti ,π) Otherwise
  27. 27. Sched◦ Definition (The degree of schedulability ) We define the Sched◦ of an entity in terms of two factors Sched◦ P and Sched◦ D to be given by: Sched◦ P = ∞ if PoMD = 0 1 PoMD Otherwise Sched◦ D = ∞ if DoQoS = 0 1 DoQoS Otherwise
  28. 28. Sufficient budget Table: The degree of schedulability of tasks under periodic events Component ((40, 23), FPS) PoMD DoQoS Tp 3 (40, 4), 0 0 Ts 4(40, 2), 0 0
  29. 29. Case study Avionics Hard-Subsystem ( 25, insuf, EDF) Controls and Display (20, 15, FP ) Targeting (40, 23, FP) Navigation (30, 11, EDF) Weapon Ctrl. (10, 8, FP) HUD Display T9(50,6,50) MPD Display T10(50,8,50) MPD Button Resp. T11(200,1,200) Change Display T12 (200,1,200) Flight Data T1(50,8,50) Steering T2(80,6,80) Target Tracking T3(40,4,40) Target Sweetening T4(40,2,40) AUTO/CCIP Toggle T5(200,1,200) Weapon Release T8(10,1,5) Weapon Trajectory T6 (100,7,100) Reinitiate Trajectory T7(400,6,400) insuf : insufficient budget Figure: Architecture of the hierarchical scheduling system
  30. 30. Generic Avionics Components and Tasks Component Criticality Ti ei pi di Importance Navigation Hard Aircraft flight data(Tp 1 ) 8 50(55) critical critical Steering(Tp 2 ) 6 80 critical Targeting Hard Target tracking(Tp 3 ) 4 40 critical critical Target sweetening(Ts 4) 2 40 critical AUTO/CCIP toggle(Ts 5) 1 200 critical Weapon Hard Weapon trajectory(Tp 6 ) 7 100 critical Control non-critical Reinitiate trajectory(Ts 7) 6 400 essential Weapon release(Tp 8 ) 1 10 5 critical Soft HUD display(Tp 9 ) 6 55(52) essential Controls & MPD tactical display(Tp 10 ) 8 50(52) essential Displays MPD button response (Ts 11) 1 200 background Change display mode (Ts 12) 1 200 background
  31. 31. Schedulability degree of component Controls & Displays Task Sched◦ Budget=14 Budget=17 Budget=19 Budget=20 HUD Display(T9) DoQoS 0.004±0.003 0 0 0 PoMD 0.004±0.004 0 0 0 MPD Display(T10) DoQoS 3.068±0.151 0.343±0.052 0.003±0.003 0 PoMD 0.231±0.018 0.002±0.002 0.0005±0 0 MPD Button(T11) DoQoS 0 0 0 0 PoMD 0 0 0 0 Change Mode(T12) DoQoS 0 0 0 0 PoMD 0 0 0 0
  32. 32. ERTS2 2014: Vision Schedulability requirements Energy consumption Hierarchical system architecture L _ _ _ T2 S C1 C2 T1 T3 T4 UPPAAL Network of Parameterized Stopwatch Automata Schedulability analysis (model checking) Energy efficiency (Stochastic model checking) SMC Schedulable: yes / no Energy profile Concretetaskbehavior Concretetaskbehavior CPU1 CPU2 Figure: Overview of the analysis framework

×