Skip to main content
Log in

Improving the Analysis of Distributed Non-Preemptive FP/DP* Scheduling with the Trajectory Approach

  • Published:
Telecommunication Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, we are interested in real-time flows requiring quantitative and deterministic Quality of Service (QoS) guarantees. We focus more particularly on two QoS parameters: the worst case end-to-end response time and jitter. We consider a non-preemptive scheduling of flows, called fp/dp*, combining fixed priority and dynamic priority established on the first node visited in the network. Examples of such a scheduling are fp/fifo* and fp/edf*. With any flow is associated a fixed priority denoting the importance of the flow from the user point of view. The arbritation between packets having the same fixed priority is done according to their dynamic priority. A classical approach used to compute the worst case end-to-end response time is the holistic one. We show that this approach leads to pessimistic upper bounds and propose the trajectory approach to improve the accuracy of the results. Indeed, the trajectory approach considers the worst case scenarios experienced by a flow along its trajectory. It then eliminates scenarios that cannot occur.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. D. Awduche, J. Malcolm, J. Agogbua and others, Requirements for traffic engineering over MPLS, RFC 2702, IETF (September 1999).

  2. S. Baruah, R. Howell and L. Rosier, Algorithms and complexity concerning the preemptive scheduling of periodic real-time tasks on one processor, Real-Time Systems 2 (1990) 301–324.

    Google Scholar 

  3. J. Y. Le Boudec, P. Thiran, Network calculus: A Theory of Deterministic Queuing Systems for the Internet, LNCS 2050 (Springer-Verlag, September, 2003).

  4. L. George, D. Marinca and P. Minet, A solution for a deterministic Qo S in multimedia systems, International Journal on Computer and Information Science, 1(3) (2001).

  5. J. Liu, Real-Time Systems (Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  6. S. Martin and P. Minet, Worst case end-to-end response times for non-preemptive FP/DP* scheduling, INRIA Research Report (December 2004).

  7. S. Martin, P. Minet and L. George, Improving non-preemptive Fixed Priority scheduling with Dynamic Priority as secondary criterion, in: 13th International Conference on Real-Time Systems, RTS'05 (Paris, France April 2005).

  8. A. Parekh and R. Gallager, A generalized processor sharing approach to flow control in integrated services networks, IEEE ACM Transactions on Networking (1994).

  9. M. Spuri, Holistic analysis for deadline scheduled real-time distributed systems, INRIA Research Report No 2873, (April 1996).

  10. K. Tindell, A. Burns and A.J. Wellings, Analysis of hard real-time communications, Real-Time Systems 9 (1995) 147–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. K. Tindell and J. Clark, Holistic schedulability analysis for distributed hard real-time systems, Microprocessors and Microprogramming, Euromicro Jal, vol. 40 (1994).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steven Martin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Martin, S., Minet, P. Improving the Analysis of Distributed Non-Preemptive FP/DP* Scheduling with the Trajectory Approach. Telecommun Syst 30, 49–79 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11235-005-4315-2

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11235-005-4315-2

Keywords

Navigation