skip to main content
10.1145/2491899.2465572acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescpsweekConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A two-step optimization technique for functions placement, partitioning, and priority assignment in distributed systems

Published:20 June 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

Modern development methodologies from the industry and the academia for complex real-time systems define a stage in which application functions are deployed onto an execution platform. The deployment consists of the placement of functions on a distributed network of nodes, the partitioning of functions in tasks and the scheduling of tasks and messages. None of the existing optimization techniques deal with the three stages of the deployment problem at the same time. In this paper, we present a staged approach towards the efficient deployment of real-time functions based on genetic algorithms and mixed integer linear programming techniques. Application to case studies shows the applicability of the method to industry-size systems and the quality of the obtained solutions when compared to the true optimum for small size examples.

References

  1. http://www.omg.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Autosar 4.0 specifications. http://www.autosar.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. A. Aleti, B. Buhnova, L. Grunske, A. Koziolek, and I. Meedeniya. Software architecture optimization methods: A systematic literature review. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, To appear.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. S. Anssi, S. Tucci-Piergiovanni, S. Kuntz, S. Gerard, and F. Terrier. Enabling scheduling analysis for autosar systems. Object-Oriented Real-Time Distributed Computing, IEEE International Symposium on, 0:152--159, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. N. Audsley, A. Burns, M. Richardson, and A. Wellings. Hard realtime scheduling: The deadline monotonic approach. In Proceedings 8th IEEE Workshop on Real-Time Operating Systems and Software, pages 127--132, 1991.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. E. Azketa, J. Uribe, J. Gutiírrez, M. Marcos, and L. Almeida. Permutational genetic algorithm for the optimized assignment of priorities to tasks and messages in distributed real-time systems. In Proceedings of the 10th IEEE International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications, pages 958--965, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. C. Bartolini, G. Lipari, and M. Di Natale. From functional blocks to the synthesis of the architectural model in embedded real-time applications. In Proc. 11th IEEE Real Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium, pages 458--467, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. I. Bate and P. Emberson. Incorporating scenarios and heuristics to improve flexibility in real-time embedded systems. In Proceedings of the 12th IEEE Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium, pages 221--230, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. E. Bini, M. D. Natale, and G. Buttazzo. Sensitivity analysis for fixedpriority real-time systems. In Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems, Dresden, Germany, June 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. R. Bosch. CAN specification, version 2.0. Stuttgart, 1991.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. L. Davis, editor. Handbook of Genetic Algorithms. Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1991.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. R. Davis, A. Burns, R. Bril, and J. Lukkien. Controller area network (can) schedulability analysis: Refuted, revisited and revised. Real-Time Systems, 35(3):239--272, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. A. Hamann, R. Racu, and R. Ernst. Multi-dimensional robustness optimization in heterogeneous distributed embedded systems. In Proceedings of the 13th IEEE Real Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium, April 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. X. He, Z. Gu, and Y. Zhu. Task allocation and optimization of distributed embedded systems with simulated annealing and geometric programming. The Computer Journal, 53(7):1071--1091, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. B. Kienhuis, E. Deprettere, P. Van Der Wolf, and K. Vissers. A methodology to design programmable embedded systems. In Embedded processor design challenges, pages 321--324. Springer, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. S. Kodase, S. Wang, and K. Shin. Transforming structural model to runtime model of embedded software with real-time constraints. In Proceedings of the conference on Design, Automation and Test in Europe, pages 170--175, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. S. Kugele, W. Haberl, M. Tautschnig, and M. Wechs. Optimizing automatic deployment using non-functional requirement annotations. Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation, pages 400--414, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. A. Mehiaoui. A mixed integer linear programming formulations for optimizing timing performance during the deployment phase in realtime systems design. Technical Report CEA, http://hal-cea.archivesouvertes.fr/cea-00811359, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. B. L. Miller, B. L. Miller, D. E. Goldberg, and D. E. Goldberg. Genetic algorithms, tournament selection, and the effects of noise. Complex Systems, 9:193--212, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. C. Mraidha, S. Tucci-Piergiovanni, and S. Gerard. Optimum: a martebased methodology for schedulability analysis at early design stages. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 36(1):1--8, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. J. C. Palencia and M. G. Harbour. Exploiting precedence relations in the schedulability analysis of distributed real-time systems. In Proceedings of the 20th IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. P. Pop, P. Eles, Z. Peng, and T. Pop. Analysis and optimization of distributed real-time embedded systems. ACM Transactions on Design Automation of Electronic Systems, 11(3):593--625, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. T. Pop, P. Eles, and Z. Peng. Design optimization of mixed time/eventtriggered distributed embedded systems. In Proc. of the First IEEE/ACM/IFIP International Conference on Hardware/Software Codesign and System Synthesis, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. R. Racu, M. Jersak, and R. Ernst. Applying sensitivity analysis in real-time distributed systems. In Proceedings of the 11th IEEE Real Time on Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium, pages 160--169, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. M. Richard, P. Richard, and F. Cottet. Allocating and scheduling tasks in multiple fieldbus real-time systems. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. M. Saksena, P. Karvelas, and Y. Wang. Automatic synthesis of multi-tasking implementations from real-time object-oriented models. In Proceedings of 3rd IEEE International Symposium on Object-Oriented Real-Time Distributed Computing, pages 360--367, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. A. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli and G. Martin. Platform-based design and software design methodology for embedded systems. IEEE Design and Test of Computers, 18(6):23--33, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. K. Tindell and J. Clark. Holistic schedulability analysis for distributed hard real-time systems. Microprocessing and microprogramming, 40(2-3):117--134, 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. W. Zheng, M. Di Natale, C. Pinello, P. Giusto, and A. Vincentelli. Synthesis of task and message activation models in real-time distributed automotive systems. In Proceedings of the conference on Design, automation and test in Europe, pages 93--98, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Q. Zhu, Y. Yang, M. Di Natale, E. Scholte, and A. Sangiovanni- Vincentelli. Optimizing the software architecture for extensibility in hard real-time distributed systems. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 6(4):621--636, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Q. Zhu, Y. Yang, E. Scholte, M. Di Natale, and A. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli. Optimizing extensibility in hard real-time distributed systems. In Proceedings of the 15th IEEE Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium, pages 275-284, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Q. Zhu, H. Zeng, W. Zheng, M. Di Natale, and A. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli. Optimization of task allocation and priority assignment in hard real-time distributed systems. ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems, 11(4):85:1--85:30, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. A two-step optimization technique for functions placement, partitioning, and priority assignment in distributed systems

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      LCTES '13: Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGPLAN/SIGBED conference on Languages, compilers and tools for embedded systems
      June 2013
      184 pages
      ISBN:9781450320856
      DOI:10.1145/2491899
      • cover image ACM SIGPLAN Notices
        ACM SIGPLAN Notices  Volume 48, Issue 5
        LCTES '13
        May 2013
        165 pages
        ISSN:0362-1340
        EISSN:1558-1160
        DOI:10.1145/2499369
        Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2013 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 20 June 2013

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      LCTES '13 Paper Acceptance Rate16of60submissions,27%Overall Acceptance Rate116of438submissions,26%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader