Skip to main content
Log in

Feasibility analysis under fixed priority scheduling with limited preemptions

  • Published:
Real-Time Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Preemptive scheduling often generates a significant runtime overhead that may increase task worst-case execution times up to 40%, with respect to a fully non-preemptive execution. In small embedded systems, such an extra cost results in longer and more variable response times that can significantly affect the overall energy consumption, as well as the system predictability. Limiting preemptions is often possible without jeopardizing schedulability. Although several authors addressed schedulability analysis under different forms of limited preemptive scheduling, current results exhibit two major deficiencies: (i) The maximum lengths of the non-preemptive regions for each task are still unknown under fixed priorities; (i) The exact response time analysis for tasks with fixed preemption points is too complex.

This paper presents the schedulability analysis of real-time tasks with non-preemptive regions, under fixed priority assignments. In particular, two different preemption models are considered: the floating and the fixed preemption point model. Under each model, the feasibility analysis is addressed by deriving simple and effective schedulability tests, as well as an algorithm for computing the maximum length of the non-preemptive regions for each task. Finally, simulation experiments are presented to compare the two models in terms of schedulability.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Altmeyer S, Gebhard G (2008) Wcet analysis for preemptive scheduling. In: 8th int. workshop on worst-case execution time analysis, Prague, Czech, pp 105–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker TP (1991) Stack-based scheduling of real-time processes. Real-Time Syst 3(1):67–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baruah S (2005) The limited-preemption uniprocessor scheduling of sporadic systems. In: ECRTS ’05: proc. of Euromicro conf. on real-time systems, pp 137–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertogna M, Buttazzo G, Marinoni M, Yao G, Esposito F, Caccamo M (2010) Preemption points placement for sporadic task sets. In: Proceedings of 22nd Euromicro conference on real-time systems (ECRTS’10), Bruxelles, Belgium

    Google Scholar 

  • Bini E, Buttazzo GC (2004) Schedulability analysis of periodic fixed priority systems. IEEE Trans Comput 53(11):1462–1473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bini E, Buttazzo GC (2005) Measuring the performance of schedulability tests. Real-Time Syst 30(1–2):129–154

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Bril R (2004) Specification and compositional verification of real-time systems. PhD thesis, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven (TU/e)

  • Bril R, Lukkien J, Verhaegh W (2009) Worst-case response time analysis of real-time tasks under fixed-priority scheduling with deferred preemption. Real-Time Syst 42(1–3):63–119

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Bril RJ, Lukkien JJ, Verhaegh WFJ (2007) Worst-case response time analysis of real-time tasks under fixed-priority scheduling with deferred revisited. In: ECRTS ’07: proc. of Euromicro conf. on real-time systems, pp 269–279

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns A (1994) Preemptive priority based scheduling: an appropriate engineering approach. In: Son S (ed) Advances in real-time systems, pp 225–248

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns A, Wellings A (2009) In: Real-time systems and programming languages: ADA, real-time Java and C/real-time POSIX (44th edn.). Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis RI, Burns A, Bril RJ, Lukkien JJ (2007) Controller area network (CAN) schedulability analysis: refuted, revisited and revised. Real-Time Syst 35(3):239–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frederickson G (1983) Scheduling unit-time tasks with integer release times and deadlines. Inf Process Lett 16(4):171–173

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Garey M, Johnson D, Simons B, Tarjan R (1981) Scheduling unit-time tasks with arbitrary release times and deadlines. SIAM J Comput 10(2):256–269

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Gebhard G, Altmeyer S (2007) Optimal task placement to improve cache performance. In: Proc. of the ACM-IEEE int. conf. on embedded software, Salzburg, Austria, pp 259–268

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • George L, Rivierre N, Spuri M (1996) Preemptive and non-preemptive real-time uniprocessor scheduling. Research report RR-2966, INRIA, France

  • Jeffay K, Stanat D, Martel C (1991) On non-preemptive scheduling of period and sporadic tasks. In: Proc. of real-time systems symposium, pp 129–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawler E, Martel C (1981) Scheduling periodically occurring tasks on multiple processors. Inf Process Lett 12(1):9–12

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Lee C-G, Hahn J, Seo Y-M, Min SL, Ha R, Hong S, Park CY, Lee M, Kim CS (1998) Analysis of cache-related preemption delay in fixed-priority preemptive scheduling. IEEE Trans Comput 47(6):700–713

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Lehoczky J, Sha L, Ding Y (1989) The rate monotonic scheduling algorithm: exact characterization and average case behavior. In: Proc. of the real-time systems symposium, CA, USA, pp 166–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Leung J, Whitehead J (1982) On the complexity of fixed-priority scheduling of periodic real-time tasks. Perform Eval 2(4):237–250

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Li C, Ding C, Shen K (2007) Quantifying the cost of context switch. In: Proc. of workshop on experimental computer science, San Diego, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu CL, Layland JW (1973) Scheduling algorithms for multiprogramming in a hard-real-time environment. J ACM 20(1):46–61

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Mok A-L (1983) Fundamental design problems of distributed systems for the hard real-time environment. PhD thesis, MIT, USA

  • Ramaprasad H, Mueller F (2006) Tightening the bounds on feasible preemption points. In: RTSS ’06. proc. of 27th real-time systems symposium, pp 212–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Regehr J (2002) Scheduling tasks with mixed preemption relations for robustness to timing faults. In: Proc. of the 23rd IEEE real-time systems symposium, pp 315–326

    Google Scholar 

  • Sha L, Rajkumar R, Lehoczky JP (1990) Priority inheritance protocols: an approach to real-time synchronization. IEEE Trans Comput 39(9):1175–1185

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Stankovic JA, Ramamritham K (1991) The spring kernel: a new paradigm for real-time systems. IEEE Softw 8(3):62–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staschulat J, Ernst R (2004) Multiple process execution in cache related preemption delay analysis. In: Proc. of ACM int. conf. on embedded software, Pisa, Italy, pp 278–286

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wang Y, Saksena M (1999) Scheduling fixed-priority tasks with preemption threshold. In: Proc. of conf. on embedded and real-time computing systems and applications, pp 328–335

    Google Scholar 

  • Yao G, Buttazzo G, Bertogna M (2009) Bounding the maximum length of non-preemptive regions under fixed priority scheduling. In: Proceedings of the 16th IEEE international conference on embedded and real-time computing systems and applications (RTCSA 2009), Beijing, China, August 24–26, 2009, pp 351–360

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Yao G, Buttazzo G, Bertogna M (2010) Comparative evaluation of limited preemptive methods. In: Proceedings of the 15th IEEE international conference on emerging technology and factory automation (ETFA10), Bilbao, Spain, September 13–16, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yao G, Buttazzo G, Bertogna M (2010) Feasibility analysis under fixed priority scheduling with fixed preemption points. In: Proceedings of the 16th IEEE international conference on embedded and real-time computing systems and applications (RTCSA 2010), Macao, China, August 23–25, 2010, pp 71–80

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marko Bertogna.

Additional information

This work has been partially supported by the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme FP7/2007-2013 under grant agreement No. 216008.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yao, G., Buttazzo, G. & Bertogna, M. Feasibility analysis under fixed priority scheduling with limited preemptions. Real-Time Syst 47, 198–223 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11241-010-9113-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11241-010-9113-6

Keywords

Navigation