7 views

Uploaded by melwynthomas

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- Platform LSF Version 7.5 Users Guide
- NR 220503 Operating System
- Otrs Admin Book
- CMS User's Manual(V6.0)
- 5- SOCRATES_2008_COST 2100 TD(08)616
- IJHPCA Final 445.Full
- Rpt Instruction Plan
- ty-bsc-computer-science 25-06-15
- RTOS uCOS II
- ijcnc050308
- Chapter 23 Algorithm Efficiency Liang 8th
- B34-R3
- What is an RTOS and Why Use One Embedded.com
- Posix4 Master
- SWIFT Presentation
- AC13
- Unit 1.1
- Notification
- comp syl
- HW4_OS

You are on page 1of 10

The Hyperbolic Bound

Enrico Bini, Giorgio C. Buttazzo, Member, IEEE, and Giuseppe M. Buttazzo

Abstract—In this paper, we propose a novel schedulability analysis for verifying the feasibility of large periodic task sets under the rate

monotonic algorithm when the exact test cannot be applied on line due to prohibitively long execution times. The proposed test has the

same complexity as the original Liu and Layland bound, but it is less pessimistic, thus allowing it to accept task sets that would be

rejected using the original approach. The performance of the proposed approach is evaluated with respect to the classical Liu and

Layland method and theoretical bounds are derived as a function of n (the number of tasks) and for the limit case of n tending to

infinity. The analysis is also extended to include aperiodic servers and blocking times due to concurrency control protocols. Extensive

simulations on synthetic tasks sets are presented to compare the effectiveness of the proposed test with respect to the Liu and Layland

method and the exact response time analysis.

1 INTRODUCTION

received much consideration in the real-time research

community due to the large number of control applications

the minor and major cycles, thus requiring complete

redesign of the scheduling table.

Such problems can be solved by using a priority-based

using cyclical activities. Since a few years ago, the most approach, according to which each task is assigned a

critical control applications were developed using an offline priority (which can be fixed or dynamic) and the schedule is

table-driven approach (time line scheduling), according to generated online based on the current priority value. In

which the time line is divided into slots of fixed length 1973, Liu and Layland [2] analyzed the properties of two

(minor cycle) and tasks are statically allocated in each slot basic priority assignment rules: the Rate Monotonic (RM)

based on their rates and execution requirements [1]. The algorithm (according to which priorities are inversely

schedule is then constructed up to the least common proportional to task periods) and the Earliest Deadline

multiple of all the periods (called the hyperperiod or the First (EDF) algorithm (according to which priorities are

major cycle) and stored in a table. At runtime, tasks are inversely proportional to absolute deadlines). Their major

dispatched according to the table and synchronized by a contribution was to derive two simple guarantee tests to

timer at the beginning of each minor cycle. On one hand, verify the schedulability of a periodic task set under both

time line scheduling is straightforward to implement and

algorithms.

does not introduce significant runtime overhead (since

Their results refer to the following task model. Each

scheduling decisions are taken offline). Moreover, tasks

periodic task i consists of an infinite sequence of jobs i;k

always execute in their preallocated slots, so the experi-

(k ¼ 1; 2; . . . ), where the first job i;1 is released at time

enced jitter is very small.

ri;1 ¼ i (the task phase) and the generic kth job i;k is

On the other hand, time line scheduling is fragile during

released at time ri;k ¼ i þ ðk ÿ 1Þ Ti , where Ti is the task

overload situations since a task exceeding its predicted period. Each job is characterized by a worst-case execu-

execution time could generate (if not aborted) a domino tion time Ci , a relative deadline Di , and an absolute

effect on the subsequent tasks, causing their execution to deadline di;k ¼ ri;k þ Di . The ratio Ui ¼ Ci =Ti is called the

exceed the minor cycle boundary (time line break). In utilization factor of task i and represents the fraction of

processor time used by that task. Finally, the value

addition, time line scheduling is not flexible enough for

handling dynamic situations. In fact, creation of a new task, X

n

Up ¼ Ui

or a little change in a task rate, might modify the values of i¼1

. E. Bini is with Scuola Superiore S. Anna, Piazza Martiri della Libertà, 33, the fraction of processor time used by the periodic task set.

56127 Pisa, Italy. E-mail: e.bini@sssup.it.

. G.C. Buttazzo is with the Università di Pavia, Via Ferrata 1, 27100-Pavia, Clearly, if Up > 1, no feasible schedule exists for the task set.

Italy. E-mail: buttazzo@unipv.it. The two schedulability conditions for RM and EDF are

. G.M. Buttazzo is with the Dipartimento di Matematica, Università di Pisa, derived for a set ÿ of n periodic tasks under the assumptions

Via Buonarroti 2, 56127-Pisa, Italy. E-mail: buttazzo@dm.unipi.it.

that all tasks start simultaneously at time t ¼ 0 (that is, i ¼ 0

Manuscript received 21 Mar. 2002; revised 25 July 2002; accepted 30 July for all i ¼ 1; . . . ; n), relative deadlines are equal to periods

2002.

For information on obtaining reprints of this article, please send e-mail to: (that is, di;k ¼ k Ti ), and tasks are independent (that is, they do

tc@computer.org, and reference IEEECS Log Number 116128. not have resource constraints, nor precedence relations).

0018-9340/03/$17.00 ß 2003 IEEE Published by the IEEE Computer Society

934 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMPUTERS, VOL. 52, NO. 7, JULY 2003

schedulable by the RM algorithm if

X

n

Ui n ð21=n ÿ 1Þ: ð1Þ

i¼1

schedulability condition as the LL-test. We recall that

n!1

schedulable if and only if

X

n

Ui 1: ð2Þ

i¼1

Since the work presented by Liu and Layland, a lot of Fig. 1. Comparison between the RTA and the LL test in terms of

work has been done on periodic tasks to improve the complexity.

schedulability bound of the RM algorithm or relax some

restrictive assumption on the task set. In [3], Lehoczky et al. task activation. In fact, each task would still have a fixed

performed a statistical study and showed that, for task sets priority level (assigned according to RM), but would be

with randomly generated parameters, the LL-test is able to activated upon the arrival of an external event.

guarantee schedulability up to a processor utilization of Consider, for example, a radar tracking application in an

about 88 percent. Exact schedulability tests for RM yielding environment where there are a number of moving targets,

to necessary and sufficient conditions have been indepen- having different but constant and known speed. In this case,

dently derived in [4], [3], [5]. Using the Response Time using an RM priority assignment, the priority of a task is

Analysis (RTA) proposed in [5], a periodic task set is fixed, but proportional to the target speed. In this scenario,

schedulable with the RM algorithm if and only if the worst- to optimize the available resources, a task is activated when

case response time of each task is less than or equal to its a new target enters the monitored environment and killed

deadline. The worst-case response time Ri of a task can be when the target goes out of the visual field. In such a

computed using the following iterative formula: system, an online acceptance test needs to be executed at

each task activation to guarantee that all active tasks will be

8 ð0Þ

scheduled within their given period. The failure of the

< Ri ¼ Ci

> & ’

X Rðkÿ1Þ ð3Þ acceptance test can be used to allocate additional computa-

ðkÞ i

>

: Ri ¼ Ci þ Cj ; tional resources (if available), to generate an alarm, if the

T j

j:D <D j i system is not able to handle the overload, or to take proper

recovery action.

where the worst-case response time of task i is given by the

ðkÞ ðkÞ ðkÿ1Þ If the number of active tasks is high, the exact schedul-

smallest value of Ri such that Ri ¼ Ri . It is worth

ability test provided by the response time analysis could

noting, however, that the complexity of the exact test is require too much time to be executed online, whereas the

pseudopolynomial, thus it is not suitable for use for online classical Liu and Layland test could fail on a feasible task set.

admission control in applications with large task sets. The graph reported in Fig. 1 shows the number of steps in the

The Rate Monotonic algorithm is probably the most used innermost loop of the RTA and LL tests as a function of the

priority assignment in real-time applications because it is number of tasks (for the RTA test, the maximum and the

very easy to implement on top of commercial kernels, average number of steps are reported because they are

which do not support explicit timing constraints on the task significantly different). In this simulation, the periods are

set. Indeed, an RM scheduler can be implemented just by uniformly distributed in the interval ½Tmin ; Tmax , where

assigning each task a fixed priority level inversely propor- Tmin ¼ 10 and Tmax ¼ 10; 000 units of time, and the WCET,

tional to its period. On the other hand, implementing a Ci , are uniformly distributed in ½0; Ti . For example, in an

dynamic scheme, like EDF, on top of a priority-based kernel application with 50 tasks, where each step takes 10 micro-

would require keeping track of all absolute deadlines and seconds to run, the RTA acceptance test would take 0:1

performing a dynamic mapping between absolute dead- seconds, whereas the LL-test would run in 500 microseconds.

lines and priorities. Such a mapping should be done every It is worth noting that, to accept a new task, when the current

time a new task receives a priority falling between two set has been already guaranteed, the LL-test can actually be

adjacent priority levels. Such an additional implementation performed in one step only, by summing the utilization of the

complexity and runtime overhead, due to dynamic priority incoming task to the total processor utilization previously

management, often prevents EDF being implemented on computed. Conversely, in the same situation, the complexity

top of commercial real-time kernels, even though it would of the RTA-test remains the same.

increase the total processor utilization. In the context described above, the acceptance test

Using a fixed priority scheme like RM, however, does not proposed in this paper, having the same O(n) complexity

prevent developing real-time applications with dynamic as the Liu and Layland test, can be efficiently executed

BINI ET AL.: RATE MONOTONIC ANALYSIS: THE HYPERBOLIC BOUND 935

online to accept more tasks in the system and increase the with particular characteristics. Finally, Section 7 states our

exploitation of computational resources. conclusions and future work.

In [6], Sjödin and Hansson proposed an improved

version of the RTA test which runs more efficiently in the

2 THE HYPERBOLIC BOUND

average case, but still has pseudopolynomial complexity in

the worst-case. In [7], Sha et al. extended the rate monotonic The schedulability test we propose in this paper is derived

analysis in the presence of resource constraints, where from the same worst-case scenario identified by Liu and

access to resources is performed using concurrency control Layland in [2] for a set on n periodic tasks. However,

protocols, such as the Priority Inheritance Protocol and the instead of minimizing the processor utilization with respect

Priority Ceiling Protocol. In [5], Audsley et al. generalized to task periods, we manipulate the feasibility condition in

the response time analysis, including resource constraints. order to find a tighter sufficient schedulability test as a

A method similar to the one described here has been function of the individual task utilizations. It is worth

independently developed by Oh and Son in [8] to verify the noting that the Liu and Layland proof has been shown to be

schedulability of periodic task sets in a multiprocessor incorrect by Devillers and Goossens in [11]; however, the

environment. The authors, however, do not compare the bug in the proof does not affect our result since the worst-

effectiveness of the method against other classical case scenario remains valid, as also shown by Liu in [9].

approaches and the analysis is not extended to deal with The following theorem provides a sufficient condition

resource constraints and aperiodic servers. The basic for testing the schedulability of a task set under the RM

guarantee test has also been described in [9] in the context algorithm.

of uniprocessor scheduling, but without any performance Theorem 1. Let ÿ ¼ f1 ; . . . ; n g be a set of n periodic tasks,

characterization and comparison. where each task i is characterized by a processor utilization

The present paper extends and integrates the results Ui . Then, ÿ is schedulable with the RM algorithm if

presented by the same authors in [10] and provides the

following contributions: Y

n

ðUi þ 1Þ 2: ð4Þ

. We present an efficient test for verifying the i¼1

Proof. Without loss of generality, we may assume that tasks

priorities in dynamic environments, when the

response time analysis cannot be applied online are ordered by increasing periods so that 1 is the task

due to prohibitively long execution times. The with the highest priority and n is the task with the

proposed test has the same complexity as the lowest priority. In [2], as well as in [11], it has been

original Liu and Layland bound, but it is less shown that the worst-case scenario for a set on n periodic

pessimistic, thus allowing it to accept task sets that tasks occurs when all the tasks start simultaneously (e.g.,

would be rejected using the original approach. at time t ¼ 0) and periods are such that

. We prove that the proposed test is tight, in the sense

8i ¼ 2; . . . ; n T1 < Ti < 2 T1 :

that it is the best possible bound that can be found

given the same information on the task set (i.e., the Moreover, the total utilization factor is minimized when

individual task utilization factors). computation times have the following relations:

. We analytically derive the asymptotic behavior of 8

the bound as the number of tasks tends to infinity. >

> C1 ¼ T2 ÿ T1

<

. The performance of the test in terms of the C2 ¼ T3 ÿ T2

ð5Þ

acceptance ratio is compared with respect to EDF, >

>

:

RTA, and the LL-test. Cnÿ1 ¼ Tn ÿ Tnÿ1

. The schedulability test is extended to consider more and the schedulability condition is given by:

realistic cases concerning task sets with shared

resources and aperiodic servers. X

n

Ci T1 : ð6Þ

The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2

i¼1

presents the hyperbolic feasibility bound for the

RM algorithm, explaining its relation with the classical Fig. 2 illustrates an example of such a worst-case scenario

Liu and Layland approach in the utilization space. Section 3 for a sample set of five periodic tasks. From (5), the

evaluates the theoretical improvement of the proposed test schedulability condition can also be written as

with respect to the Liu and Layland bound as a function of

Cn 2 T1 ÿ Tn ; ð7Þ

n (the number of tasks) and computes its asymptotic value

as n tends to infinity. Section 5 extends the schedulability which implies the schedulability of n and all the other

test to take aperiodic servers and resource constraints into tasks in the set. Starting from such a worst-case scenario,

account. Section 4 presents a number of simulation the least upper bound Ulub of the processor utilization

experiments performed on synthetic task sets aimed at factor can be found by minimizing the expression of Up

comparing the proposed approach with other classical ones with respect to periods. However, we show that the

as a function of the number of tasks. Section 6 presents two minimization process does not simplify the final result,

methods for improving the hyperbolic bound for task sets but only reduces its applicability. In fact, an equally

936 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMPUTERS, VOL. 52, NO. 7, JULY 2003

manipulating (5) and (7), as described below. Defining:

Tiþ1 Ci

Ri ¼ and Ui ¼ ;

Ti Ti

(5) can be written as follows:

8

>

> U1 ¼ R1 ÿ 1

<

U2 ¼ R2 ÿ 1

ð8Þ

>

>

:

Unÿ1 ¼ Rnÿ1 ÿ 1:

Fig. 3. Schedulability bounds for RM and EDF in the utilization space.

Now, we notice that:

which intersects each axis in Ulub ðnÞ ¼ n ð21=n ÿ 1Þ, whereas

Y

nÿ1

T2 T3 Tn Tn the EDF bound is represented by an n-dimensional plane

Ri ¼ ¼ :

i¼1

T1 T2 Tnÿ1 T1 which intersects each axis in 1. All points below the

RM surface represent periodic task sets that are feasible

If we divide both sides of the feasibility condition (7) by with both RM and EDF, whereas the region above the

Tn , we get: EDF surface identifies those task sets whose total utilization

2T1 is greater than one and, hence, are not feasible with any

Un ÿ 1: algorithm. Finally, the region located between the two

Tn

parallel planes of RM and EDF identifies those task sets

Hence, the feasibility condition for a task set which fully which are schedulable by EDF, but cannot be guaranteed to

utilizes the processor can be written as: be schedulable by RM using condition (1).

In the U-space, the RM bound expressed by (4) is

2

Un þ 1 Qnÿ1 : represented by an n-dimensional hyperbolic surface, tan-

i¼1 Ri gent to the RM plane, and having the same axis intersec-

Since Ri ¼ Ui þ 1 for all i ¼ 1; . . . ; n ÿ 1, we have tions as the EDF plane. For this reason, it will be referred to

as the hyperbolic bound, or H-bound for short. Fig. 3

Y

nÿ1

illustrates such bounds for n ¼ 2. Notice that the asymp-

ðUn þ 1Þ ðUi þ 1Þ 2

totes of the hyperbole are at Ui ¼ ÿ1. From the plots, we can

i¼1

clearly see that the feasibility region below the H-bound is

and, finally, larger than that below the LL-bound and the gain is given

Y

n by the dark gray area.

ðUi þ 1Þ 2; A quantitative evaluation of the gain (in terms of

i¼1 schedulability) achieved by the H-bound over the classical

which proves the theorem. u

t LL-bound as a function of the number of tasks is presented

in Section 3.

Notice that the Liu and Layland bounds expressed by (1) In this section, we show that the hyperbolic bound is

and (2) can easily be represented in the task utilization tight, meaning that it is the best possible bound that

space, denoted as the U-space from now on. In such a space, can be found using the individual task utilization

a point U ¼ fU1 ; U2 ; . . . ; Un g represents a periodic task set factors Ui as a task set knowledge. To show this

whose tasks have utilizations U1 , U2 , . . . , and Un , respec- property, we need to demonstrate that, for any set of

tively. Notice, however, that different task sets with utilization factors fU1 ; U2 ; . . . ; Un g which violates the

different period relations, but the same tasks’ utilizations, hyperbolic bound, it is possible to find a task set ÿ ¼

are mapped on the same point. fðT1 ; C1 Þ; ðT2 ; C2 Þ; . . . ; ðTn ; Cn Þg which is not schedulable.

In the U-space, the Liu and Layland bound for RM The intuitive proof of the tightness for a set of two

(LL bound) is represented by an n-dimensional plane periodic tasks is illustrated in Fig. 4.

BINI ET AL.: RATE MONOTONIC ANALYSIS: THE HYPERBOLIC BOUND 937

Y

nÿ1

ðUn þ 1Þ ðUi þ 1Þ > 2

i¼1

Tn

ðUn þ 1Þ >2

T1

Cn þ Tn > 2T1

Cn þ ðTn ÿ T1 Þ > T1

X

nÿ1

Cn þ Ci > T1

i¼1

Xn

Ci > T1 :

i¼1

Fig. 4. Tightness demonstration sketch (for n ¼ 2). Hence, the constructed task set is not schedulable in

the worst-case scenario (see (6) and Fig. 2). u

t

Given an arbitrary set of Ui (represented by the point in

the U-space) which does not satisfy condition (4), we can 3 COMPARATIVE EVALUATION

always find the task periods (which correspond to the linear In this section, we compute the gain (in terms of schedul-

constrains in Fig. 4) such that the resulting task set is not ability) achieved by the hyperbolic test over the classical Liu

and Layland test as a function of the number of tasks. This

schedulable (that is, the point in the U-space misses the

is done by computing the volume in the U-space of the

constraints). regions underlying the bounds and plotting their ratio as a

More formally, the tightness of the hyperbolic bound is

function of n.

proved by the following theorem. To evaluate the efficiency of the Liu and Layland test, we

Theorem 2. For every set fU1 ; U2 ; . . . ; Un g, 0 Ui 1, such will compute the measure of the region Ln ðAÞ defined as:

( )

that Xn

n

Ln ðAÞ ¼ x 2 IR : xi 0; xi A : ð10Þ

Y

n

i¼1

ðUi þ 1Þ > 2;

i¼1 In the following, jEj will denote the n-dimensional measure

there exists a task set ÿ ¼ f1 ; . . . ; n g whose tasks have of a subset E of IRn .

utilizations fU1 ; U2 ; . . . ; Un g which cannot be scheduled by the Lemma 1. For every integer n and for all A > 0, we have

RM algorithm. An

jLn ðAÞj ¼ : ð11Þ

Proof. To build the nonschedulable task set, we first choose n!

T1 arbitrarily and then calculate the other parameters as Proof. We will proceed by induction on n. For n ¼ 1,

Ln ðAÞ reduces to the interval ½0; A, hence, its measure

follows:

is clearly A.

Ci ¼ Ui Ti i ¼ 1; . . . ; n Now, assume that equality (11) is true for n ÿ 1 and

ð9Þ

Tiþ1 ¼ Ti þ Ci i ¼ 1; . . . ; n ÿ 1: for all A > 0. In particular, we have

jLnÿ1 ðA ÿ xn Þj ¼ :

have 2n ÿ 1 variables (T2 ; . . . ; Tn ; C1 ; . . . ; Cn ) and, in ðn ÿ 1Þ!

every equation, there is only one unknown, so the Therefore,

system has a unique solution. Following the same Z A Z

jLn ðAÞj ¼ dxn dx1 dxnÿ1

approach used in the proof of Theorem 1, we notice that: 0 Lnÿ1 ðAÿxn Þ

Z

Y

n ÿ1

A

ðA ÿ xn Þnÿ1

Tn ¼ dxn

ðUi þ 1Þ ¼ : 0 ðn ÿ 1Þ!

i¼1

T1

and, defining y ¼ ðA ÿ xn Þ, we can write:

Moreover, by adding the last n ÿ 1 equations in (9), we

Z A nÿ1

have: y An

jLn ðAÞj ¼ dy ¼

0 ðn ÿ 1Þ! n!

X

nÿ1

Tn ÿ T1 ¼ Ci : as required. u

t

i¼1

To evaluate the effectiveness of the hyperbolic test, we

Hence, from the hypothesis, we can write: will compute the measure of the region Hn ðAÞ defined as

938 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMPUTERS, VOL. 52, NO. 7, JULY 2003

( )

Y

n

Proposition 1. As n tends to infinity, the asymptotic behavior of

Hn ðAÞ ¼ x 2 IRn : xi 0; ð1 þ xi Þ A : ð12Þ

i¼1 n is

pffiffi

Lemma 2. For every integer n and for all A 1, we have n ¼ 2 þ Oðnÿ1 Þ:

" #

X

nÿ1

ðÿ ln AÞk Proof. By observing that

n

jHn ðAÞj ¼ ðÿ1Þ 1 ÿ A : ð13Þ

k¼0

k! p ffiffi ln 2 ln 2 ln2 2

n

2 ¼ exp ¼1þ þ þ Oðnÿ3 Þ;

n n 2n2

Proof. We will proceed by induction on n. For n ¼ 1, Hn ðAÞ

we can write:

reduces to the interval ½0; A ÿ 1, whose measure is

Ln n ð21=n ÿ 1Þ

clearly A ÿ 1. ÿp ffiffi n n

Now, assume equality (13) is true for n ÿ 1 and for all n n2ÿ1 lnn 2 ln 2

A 1. In particular, we have ¼ ¼ 1þ þ Oðnÿ2 Þ

n! n! 2n

A lnn 2 ln 2 ÿ2

Hnÿ1 ¼ exp n ln 1 þ þ Oðn Þ

1 þ xn n! 2n

"

k # lnn 2 ln 2

nÿ1 A X nÿ2

1 A ¼ exp þ Oðnÿ1 Þ

¼ ðÿ1Þ 1ÿ ÿ ln : n! 2

1 þ xn k¼0 k! 1 þ xn pffiffi lnn 2 ÿ

¼ 2 1 þ Oðnÿ1 Þ :

Therefore, n!

If we now define

jHn ðAÞj

Z Aÿ1 Z X

k

xj

¼ dxn dx1 dxnÿ1 Sk ðxÞ ¼

0 A

Hnÿ1 ð1þx n

Þ j¼0

j!

Z " k #

Aÿ1

A 1 X

nÿ2

A

¼ ðÿ1Þnÿ1 1ÿ ÿ ln dxn by Taylor expansion of ex , we obtain

0 1 þ xn k¼0 k! 1 þ xn

xkþ1 xkþ2

and, defining y ¼ ð1 þ xn Þ, we have: ex ¼ Sk ðxÞ þ þ e ;

ðk þ 1Þ! ðk þ 2Þ!

jHn ðAÞj where 2 ðx; 0Þ. Therefore,

Z A " #

nÿ1 AXnÿ2

1 A k Snÿ1 ðÿ ln 2Þ

¼ ðÿ1Þ 1ÿ ÿ ln dy

1 y k¼0 k! y ðÿ ln 2Þn ln 2

" #y¼A ¼ eÿ ln 2 ÿ 1 ÿ e

X

nÿ2

ðÿ1Þk A kþ1 n! nþ1

n

nÿ1

¼ ðÿ1Þ yþA ln 1 ln 2 ln 2

k¼0

ðk þ 1Þ! y ¼ ÿ ðÿ1Þ n

1ÿe

;

y¼1

" # 2 n! nþ1

X

nÿ2

ðÿ ln AÞ kþ1

¼ ðÿ1Þnÿ1 A ÿ 1 þ A where 2 ðÿ ln 2; 0Þ. Thus, we have:

k¼0

ðk þ 1Þ!

" # jHn ð2Þj ¼ ðÿ1Þn ½1 ÿ 2 Snÿ1 ðÿ ln 2Þ

n

X

nÿ1

ðÿ ln AÞk

¼ ðÿ1Þ 1 ÿ A lnn 2 ln 2

k¼0

k! ¼2 1 ÿ e

n! nþ1

as required. u

t lnn 2 ÿ

¼2 1 þ Oðnÿ1 Þ ;

To evaluate the gain of the hyperbolic test with respect to n!

which gives

the LL test, we have to compute the ratio

pffiffi

jHn ð2Þj n ¼ 2 þ Oðnÿ1 Þ; ð15Þ

n ¼ : ð14Þ

jLn ðn ð21=n ÿ 1ÞÞj as required. u

t

In fact:

lume in the U-space of the task sets found schedul-

able by the hyperbolic In this section, we present some simulation experiments we

ÿtest;

. According to (10), Ln n ð21=n ÿ 1Þ represents the performed on synthetic task sets to evaluate the tightness of

hypervolume in the U-space of the task sets found the H-bound (denoted by HB in the graphs), with respect to

schedulable by the LL test. the Liu and Layland bound (LL in the graphs) and the exact

test given by (3), resulting from the response time analysis

BINI ET AL.: RATE MONOTONIC ANALYSIS: THE HYPERBOLIC BOUND 939

Fig. 5. Feasibility ratios with respect to EDF as a function of n. Fig. 7. Hyperbolic test versus LL-test as a function of n.

conducted on randomly generated task sets having the In this section, we extend the hyperbolic approach to take

desired total utilization.

aperiodic servers and shared resources into account. First,

In our experiment, we generated 106 task sets uniformly

distributed in the region Ln ð1Þ of the U-space, as defined by we derive a schedulability condition for a Polling Server

(10). This is the region where task sets are schedulable by [12] scheduled by RM at the highest priority and then

EDF. For different values of n, we computed the number of generalize the analysis to a Deferrable Server. Finally, we

task sets guaranteed by the LL test, by the hyperbolic test, show how to take blocking times into account.

and by the exact test, respectively. Fig. 5 reports such ratios Theorem 3. Let ÿ ¼ f1 ; . . . ; n g be a set of n periodic tasks,

with respect to the total number of generated task sets (we where each task i is characterized by a processor utilization

recall that all task sets are generated to be feasible with

Ui , and let S be a Polling Server with utilization Us ¼ Cs =Ts

EDF). Fig. 6 compares the LL-test and the H-test with

respect to the exact RTA test. such that Ts minðT1 ; . . . ; Tn Þ (that is, S is assigned the

It is worth noting that, although all the ratios tend to zero highest priority). Then, ÿ is schedulable with the RM

as n tends to infinity, the schedulability gain achieved by algorithm in the presence of server S if

the H-test over the LL-test increases as n gets larger. This Y

n

2

can be clearly seen in Fig. 7, which reports the ratio of the ðUi þ 1Þ : ð16Þ

number of task sets guaranteed by the H-test and the i¼1

Us þ 1

number of task sets guaranteed by the LL-test,

pffiffi as a function

of n. We observe that the ratio tends to 2, as predicted by Proof. Without loss of generality, assume that tasks are

the asymptotic analysis presented in Section 3. ordered by increasing periods so that 1 is the task with

the highest priority and n is the task with the lowest

priority.

Lehoczky et al. proved in [12] that the worst-case

scenario for the task set occurs when all the tasks start

simultaneously (e.g., at time t ¼ 0) and

8

>

> Ts < Ti < 2Ts 8i ¼ 1; . . . ; n

>

> Cs ¼ T1 ÿ Ts

>

>

>

>

< C1 ¼ T2 ÿ T1

C2 ¼ T3 ÿ T2 ð17Þ

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Cnÿ1 ¼ Tn ÿ Tnÿ1 P

:

Cn ¼ Ts ÿ Cs ÿ nÿ1 i¼1 Ci ¼ 2 Ts ÿ Tn :

utilizes the processor and minimizes the total utilization

factor can be written as

Cn 2 Ts ÿ Tn

Fig. 6. Feasibility ratios with respect to RTA as a function of n. or (dividing both sides by Tn ) as

940 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMPUTERS, VOL. 52, NO. 7, JULY 2003

ðUn þ 1Þ 2 : ð18Þ

Tn

Similarly to what Kuo and Mok presented in [14] for

Following the same approach used for proving improving the Liu and Layland bound, in this section, we

Theorem 1, we define (for all i < n) extend the hyperbolic bound result, using the harmonic

chains concept.

Tiþ1 Let P ¼ fT1 ; T2 ; . . . ; Tn g be the set of periods of a set ÿ ¼

Ri ¼

Ti f1 ; 2 ; . . . ; n g of periodic tasks. A subset R P is said to be

and notice that a harmonic base of ÿ if there is a partition P of P into jRj

subsets such that:

T1

¼ Us þ 1

Ts 1. Each member of P is the smallest element in exactly

one member of the partition P;

Tn nY ÿ1 Y

nÿ1

¼ Ri ¼ ðUi þ 1Þ: 2. If x and y are two elements in the same member of

T1 i¼1 i¼1 the partition P, then either x divides y or y divides x.

Hence, (18) can be written as We call each subset in the partition P a harmonic chain.

Kuo and Mok also suggested a polynomial algorithm to

Tn Ts find the harmonic base given the task periods and they

ðUn þ 1Þ 2 ;

T1 T1 provided a new bound, better than the Liu and Layland

which leads to one, taking into account such period properties. Their

bound is given by:

Y

n

2

ðUi þ 1Þ ; X

n

i¼1

Us þ 1 Ui K ð21=K ÿ 1Þ; ð19Þ

i¼1

as required. u

t

where K n is the number of harmonic chains.

For a Deferrable Server, the analysis performed in [12] by

In [14], they also proved that all the tasks belonging to

Lehoczky et al. can also be expressed in the hyperbolic the same member S of partition P can be merged together

form. By following the same reasoning presented in [12], in P

into a new task k such that Uk ¼ i 2S Ui , “without changing

the presence of a high priority Deferrable Server, the the schedulability of the whole task set.” We refer to this

constraint on Cn can be written as: modified task set as ÿ .

Applying the hyperbolic bound to ÿ leads to the next

Cn K T1 ÿ Tn :

interesting theorem:

Us þ2

where K ¼ 2 Us þ1 . Hence, the feasibility condition becomes Theorem 4. Let ÿ ¼ f1 ; . . . ; n g be a set of n periodic tasks,

Y

n

Us þ 2 where each task i is characterized by a processor utilization

ðUi þ 1Þ : Ui . Let P be the partition in K subsets of the task indexes

i¼1

2 Us þ 1

obtained by grouping the tasks into harmonic chains. Then, ÿ

Analogous considerations can be done for the more precise is schedulable with the RM algorithm if

analysis presented in [13], but they are omitted due to space !

Y X

limitations. 1þ Ui 2: ð20Þ

In the presence of resource constraints, blocking times S2P i2S

due to mutual exclusion can be taken into account in the

hyperbolic test by increasing tasks’ execution times by a Proof. It directly follows from the equivalence, in terms of

suitable blocking factor. Hence, the n schedulability condi- schedulability, between ÿ and ÿ (proven by Theorems 1

and 2 in [14]) and Theorem 1. u

t

tions derived by Sha et al. in [7] can be expressed as follows:

Y

iÿ1 As can be guessed, condition (20) is a relaxation of (4)

Ci þ Bi

8i ¼ 1; . . . ; n ðUk þ 1Þ þ 1 2: because we use the additional information on the harmonic

k¼1

Ti

properties of the tasks periods. This statement is formally

proven in the next theorem.

6 REDUCING PESSIMISM Theorem 5. If a task set satisfies:

In this section, we present two particular task set scenarios Y

n

i¼1

reduced to improve schedulability:

then it also satisfies:

1. The first scenario includes task sets with harmonic !

period chains, as also discussed by Kuo and Mok Y X

in [14]; 1þ Ui 2;

S2P i2S

2. The second scenario includes task sets where the

condition T1 Ti 2T1 is relaxed. where P is the partition in harmonic chains.

BINI ET AL.: RATE MONOTONIC ANALYSIS: THE HYPERBOLIC BOUND 941

6.2 Relaxing T1 Ti 2 T1

By relaxing the worst-case condition for which T1 < Ti < 2 T1 ,

a better schedulability test can be found. In this section, we

present the analysis for the simple case of two tasks. By

defining

Fig. 8. Schedulability regions of the plain H-bound (a) and its T2

improvement with harmonic chains (b). F ¼ ;

T1

Proof. For the associative property of the product and for the worst-case situation occurs when

the properties of partitions, the hyperbolic bound can be

C1 ¼ T2 ÿ F T1

written as: ð21Þ

C2 ¼ T2 ÿ ðF þ 1Þ C1 :

" #

Y Y Hence, the schedulability condition can be written as

ð1 þ Ui Þ 2:

S2P i2S

F þ1

C2 F T2 ÿ1 :

Expanding the innermost product, we have: T2 =T1

Y

ð1 þ Ui Þ Now, observing that

i2S

X X X T2

¼1þ Ui þ Ui Uj þ Ui Uj Uk þ ¼ U1 þ F ;

T1

i2S i6¼j i6¼j6¼k

X the schedulability condition becomes

1þ Ui :

i2S

F þ1

U2 F ÿ1 ;

Hence, U1 þ F

! " #

Y X Y Y Y

n that is,

1þ Ui ð1 þ Ui Þ ¼ ð1 þ Ui Þ 2;

S2P i2S S2P i2S i¼1 U2 F þ1

þ1 ;

F U1 þ F

as required. u

t

Fig. 8 provides a graphical representation of the and, finally,

improvement for a simple case of three tasks, 1 , 2 , and 2

Y

Ui 1

3 , in which 1 and 2 have harmonic periods and, hence, þ1 þ 1: ð22Þ

F F

can be grouped into a chain. i¼1

A precise evaluation of the gain introduced by the Fig. 9 plots (22) in the U-space for different values of the

harmonic chain method would require computing the

F parameter. In this case, the asymptotes intersect each axis

measure of

in ÿF , so the hyperbole tends to approach the EDF line as F

( ! )

Y X gets larger.

n

Kn ðPÞ ¼ x 2 IR : xi 0; 1þ xi 2 Unfortunately, generalizing (22) to the case of n tasks is

S2P i2S

not trivial and will be investigated as future work.

942 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMPUTERS, VOL. 52, NO. 7, JULY 2003

7 CONCLUSIONS [14] T.-W. Kuo and A.K. Mok, “Load Adjustment in Adaptive Real-

Time Systems,” Proc. IEEE Real-Time Systems Symp., Dec. 1991.

In this paper, we presented a hyperbolic schedulability

bound for the Rate Monotonic algorithm and evaluated its Enrico Bini is a PhD student in computer

engineering at Scuola Superiore S. Anna in

effectiveness with respect to the classical Liu and Layland Pisa, Italy. In 2000, he graduated in the same

utilization bound and the necessary and sufficient condition subject from the University of Pisa and received,

computed through a response time analysis. The asymptotic in the same year, the Licenza at Scuola Super-

iore S. Anna, where he won a national competi-

behavior of the hyperbolic bound relative to the LL bound tion as a student. In 1999, through a European

was also computed

pffiffi for n tending to infinity and found to be Union student exchange program, he studied at

equal to 2. Since the hyperbolic test has an OðnÞ the Delft University of Technology in The Neder-

lands. His interests cover scheduling algorithms,

complexity, it can be effectively used to perform online real-time operating systems, linear programming, and combinatorial

admission control in large periodic task sets under the RM optimization.

algorithm, when the exact schedulability analysis cannot be

applied for efficiency reasons. Giorgio C. Buttazzo graduated in electronic

engineering from the University of Pisa in 1985,

We proved that the hyperbolic bound is the tightest received the Master’s degree in computer

among those using task utilizations as application para- science from the University of Pennsylvania in

meters and we showed how the proposed analysis can be 1987, and the PhD degree in computer en-

gineering from the Scuola Superiore S. Anna of

improved by relaxing some pessimistic assumptions typi-

Pisa in 1991. He is an associate professor of

cally made on the task set to take advantage of additional computer engineering at the University of Pavia,

knowledge on the application. In particular, we considered Italy. His main research interests include real-

the case in which some tasks may have harmonic period time operating systems, dynamic scheduling

algorithms, quality of service control, multimendia systems, advanced

relations and the case in which periods are not constrained robotics applications, and neural networks. He is a member of the IEEE

to be in the worst-case configuration. and the IEEE Computer Society.

As future work, we believe additional pessimistic

assumptions can be relaxed or special task set character- Giuseppe M. Buttazzo graduated in mathe-

matics from the University of Pisa in 1976 and

istics identified to improve the schedulability of the received, in the same year, the Diploma of

RM algorithm within the same computational complexity. Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, where he

We are also investigating the possibility of deriving a won a national competition as a student. He was

a PhD student from 1976 until 1980 at Scuola

tighter schedulability condition with polynomial complex- Normale di Pisa, where he also received his first

ity as a function of arbitrary period relations. permanent position as a researcher in 1980. He

became a full professor in mathematical analysis

at the University of Ferrara in 1986 and moved,

REFERENCES in 1990, to the University of Pisa, where he presently works in the

Department of Mathematics. His main research interests include

[1] J. Locke, “Designing Real-Time Systems,” invited talk at IEEE Int’l calculus of variations, partial differential equations, optimization pro-

Conf. Real-Time Computing Systems and Applications, Dec. 1997. blems, optimal control theory. On these subjects, he has written more

[2] C.L. Liu and J.W. Layland, “Scheduling Algorithms for Multi- than 120 scientific papers and several books.

programming in a Hard Real-Time Environment,” J. ACM, vol. 20,

no. 1, pp. 40-61, 1973.

[3] J.P. Lehoczky, L. Sha, and Y. Ding, “The Rate-Monotonic

Scheduling Algorithm: Exact Characterization and Average Case

Behavior,” Proc. IEEE Real-Time Systems Symp., pp. 166-172, 1989.

[4] M. Joseph and P. Pandya, “Finding Response Times in a Real- . For more information on this or any computing topic, please visit

Time System,” The Computer J., vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 390-395, 1986. our Digital Library at http://computer.org/publications/dlib.

[5] N.C. Audsley, A. Burns, K. Tindell, and A. Wellings, “Applying

New Scheduling Theory to Static Priority Preemptive Schedul-

ing,” Software Eng. J., Dec. 1993.

[6] M. Sjödin and H. Hansson, “Improved Response-Time Analysis

Calculations,” Proc. 19th IEEE Real-Time Systems Symp., pp. 399-

409, Dec. 1998.

[7] L. Sha, R. Rajkumar, and J.P. Lehoczky, “Priority Inheritance

Protocols: An Approach to Real-Time Synchronization,” IEEE

Trans. Computers, vol. 39, no. 9, pp. 1175-1185, Sept. 1990.

[8] Y. Oh and S.H. Son, “Allocating Fixed-Priority Periodic Tasks on

Multiprocessor Systems,” Real-Time Systems, vol. 9, pp. 207-239,

1995.

[9] J.W.S. Liu, Real-Time Systems. Prentice Hall, 2000.

[10] E. Bini, G.C. Buttazzo, and G.M. Buttazzo, “A Hyperbolic Bound

for the Rate Monotonic Algorithm,” IEEE Proc. 13th Euromicro

Conf. Real-Time Systems, June 2001.

[11] R. Devillers and J. Goossens, “Liu and Layland’s Schedulability

Test Revisited,” Information Processing Letters, vol. 73, no. 5,

pp. 157-161, Mar. 2000.

[12] J.P. Lehoczky, L. Sha, and J.K. Strosnider, “Enhanced Aperiodic

Responsiveness in Hard Real-Time Environments,” Proc. IEEE

Real-Time Systems Symp., pp. 261-270, 1987.

[13] J.K. Strosnider, J.P. Lehoczky, and L. Sha, “The Deferrable Server

Algorithm for Enhanced Aperiodic Responsiveness in Hard Real-

Time Environments,” IEEE Trans. Computers, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 73-

91, Jan. 1995.

- Platform LSF Version 7.5 Users GuideUploaded bywynelldj
- NR 220503 Operating SystemUploaded bySrinivasa Rao G
- Otrs Admin BookUploaded byNancy Esmeralda Barillas Cabrera
- CMS User's Manual(V6.0)Uploaded byIulian Best
- 5- SOCRATES_2008_COST 2100 TD(08)616Uploaded bynassr_ismail
- IJHPCA Final 445.FullUploaded byYogendra Singh
- Rpt Instruction PlanUploaded byAnjan Taneja
- ty-bsc-computer-science 25-06-15Uploaded byapi-294302817
- RTOS uCOS IIUploaded byAkshay Bhosale
- ijcnc050308Uploaded byAIRCC - IJCNC
- Chapter 23 Algorithm Efficiency Liang 8thUploaded byRosendo Stuart
- B34-R3Uploaded byHari Kalathil
- What is an RTOS and Why Use One Embedded.comUploaded byzoka
- Posix4 MasterUploaded byisrish
- SWIFT PresentationUploaded byAnoop Singh
- AC13Uploaded byNavaneeth Nair
- Unit 1.1Uploaded byKirthi Rk
- NotificationUploaded bySrinivasa Rao Mullapudi
- comp sylUploaded bySandeep Rai
- HW4_OSUploaded byDuy Anh
- Computer_Networks_OSL Lab Manual.pdfUploaded byAjith Suresh
- rptInstructionPlan (2)Uploaded byAbhishek Sau
- Chapter 5.pdfUploaded byMd. Ayub Khan
- publi-3350Uploaded byankitamaheshwari
- syllabus.docxUploaded byRakesh M B
- Performance Tuning Oracle Rac on LinuxUploaded byvigyanik
- Interview Questions 01Uploaded byMohd anas
- The Function of Operating SystemsUploaded byRajiv Beeharee
- Sched IMS Paper FINALUploaded bySushant Kotian
- Concurrency Control Model for Distributed DatabaseUploaded byIRJET Journal

- landstown measureUploaded byapi-383120938
- Ed103- Methods of ResearchUploaded byangely joy arabis
- Stats AP ReviewUploaded byLudovica Paparo
- Memory EnhancementUploaded byRenee LeMieux
- QuestionnaireUploaded byEdge Ces
- Financial Goal SettingUploaded bymahesh19689
- Pert MasterUploaded byAlex Ciupitu
- A Biomedical EngineerUploaded bySamira Kennedy
- PATIENT SAFETY AND QUALITY.pdfUploaded byfernlover3901
- tmp7238.tmpUploaded byFrontiers
- Sentence Completion 1Uploaded bySindu Killamsetty
- SAESM_2013Uploaded byTania Saha
- chapter 11.docUploaded byChristian John Linalcoso Arante
- English as a Business Lingua FrancaUploaded byMarc
- DO 22 s 2017 - QMS Manual.pdfUploaded byBien Garcia III
- Basic AerodynamicsUploaded byAnonymous XykTMaXO
- 2001 JEBO Konow FairAndSquareUploaded byBagus Priyo Prasojo
- SME Toolkit - Demand ForecastingUploaded byArul Ram
- validationanddean.docxUploaded byAthena Choi
- CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR IN ONLINE SHOPPING-PRASHANT PRIYADARSHIUploaded byPrashant
- Ravens SPM v2.0 SampleReportUploaded byAbhishek Sharma
- 10.1.1.611.8909.pdfUploaded byMatheus Baños
- alexis final technical paperUploaded byapi-206728684
- BPL Project FinalUploaded byPramod Pandey
- Authoritarian SociopathUploaded byCopBlock
- Philippine Republic Act No 9003Uploaded bySammy Aquino
- Akbulut, Eristi - 2011 - Cyberbullying and victimisation among Turkish University students.pdfUploaded byJulian Lloyd
- Review of Art and Cognition IntegratingUploaded byMESTRESIDINEY
- Entrepreunor Lesson 3Uploaded byAhmadKhaidirHamzah
- MAT1033C - 2014-2015 - InstructorUploaded byHanzDucNguyen