skip to main content
10.1145/2659787.2659822acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesrtnsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Antinomy between schedulability and quality of control using a feedback scheduler

Published: 08 October 2014 Publication History

Abstract

This paper addresses system control quality in a real-time context. Comparing the impact of sampling period reduction by a Feedback Scheduler, using three different processor utilization bounds, we stress the antinomy of control quality and schedulability. We then measure statistically the impact of scheduling artefacts (task jitters, input/output delays) to outline the main factors causing this antinomy.

References

[1]
A. Aminifar, E. Bini, P. Eles, and Z. Peng. Designing bandwidth-efficient stabilizing control servers. In RTSS, pages 298--307, 2013.
[2]
A. Aminifar, E. Bini, P. Eles, and Z. Peng. Bandwidth-efficient controller: Server co-design with stability guarantees. In Proceedings of the Conference on Design, Automation & Test in Europe, DATE, pages 55:1--55:6, 3001 Leuven, Belgium, Belgium, 2014. European Design and Automation Association.
[3]
A. Aminifar, P. Eles, Z. Peng, and A. Cervin. Stability-aware analysis and design of embedded control systems. In Embedded Software (EMSOFT), 2013 Proceedings of the International Conference on, pages 1--10, Sept 2013.
[4]
K. J. Åström and K. Furuta. Brief swinging up a pendulum by energy control. Automatica, 36(2):287--295, 2000.
[5]
K. J. Åström and T. Hägglund. PID controllers: Theory, design, and tuning - 2nd ed. Instrument Society of America, 1995.
[6]
K. J. Åström and B. Wittenmark. Computer-controlled Systems (3rd Ed.). Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1997.
[7]
S. Baruah, E. Bini, T. H. C. Nguyen, and P. Richard. Continuity and approximability of response time bounds. In Euromicro Conf. on Real-Time Systems (ECRTS), Work-in Progress, Pisa, 2007.
[8]
E. Bini and G. Buttazzo. The optimal sampling pattern for linear control systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 59(1):78--90, 2014.
[9]
E. Bini, G. C. Buttazzo, and G. M. Buttazzo. Rate monotonic analysis: the hyperbolic bound. Computers, IEEE Transactions on, 52(7):933--942, 2003.
[10]
E. Bini and A. Cervin. Delay-aware period assignment in control systems. In Proceedings of the Real-Time Systems Symposium, pages 291--300, 2008.
[11]
G. C. Buttazzo, E. Bini, and D. Buttle. Rate-adaptive tasks: Model, analysis, and design issues. In Design, Automation and Test in Europe Conference, Dresden, Germany, 2014.
[12]
A. Cervin. Integrated control and real-time scheduling. PhD thesis, 2003.
[13]
A. Cervin, H. Dan, and O. Martin. TRUETIME 2.0 beta-Reference Manual. Department of Automatic Control, Lund University, 2010.
[14]
A. Cervin, J. Eker, B. Bernhardsson, and K.-E. Årzén. Feedbackfeedforward scheduling of control tasks. Real-Time Syst., 23(1/2):25--53, July 2002.
[15]
A. Cervin, D. Henriksson, B. Lincoln, J. Eker, and K.-E. Årzén. How does control timing affect performance? Analysis and simulation of timing using Jitterbug and TrueTime. IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 23(3):16--30, June 2003.
[16]
J. Eker, P. Hagander, and K.-E. Årzén. A feedback scheduler for real-time controller tasks. Control Engineering Practice, 8(12):1369--1378, 2000.
[17]
D. Goswami, M. Lukasiewycz, R. Schneider, and S. Chakraborty. Time-triggered implementations of mixed-criticality automotive software. In Proceedings of the Conference on Design, Automation and Test in Europe, DATE '12, pages 1227--1232, San Jose, CA, USA, 2012. EDA Consortium.
[18]
D. Henriksson and J. Åkesson. Flexible Implementation of Model Predictive Control Using Sub-optimal Solutions. Institutionen för reglerteknik, Lunds tekniska högskola. 2004.
[19]
D. Henriksson, A. Cervin, J. Akesson, and K. Arzen. On dynamic real-time scheduling of model predictive controllers. In Decision and Control, Proceedings of the 41st IEEE Conference on, volume 2, pages 1325--1330, 2002.
[20]
C. L. Liu and J. W. Layland. Scheduling algorithms for multiprogramming in a hard-real-time environment. J. ACM, 20(1):46--61, Jan. 1973.
[21]
D. Robert, O. Sename, and D. Simon. Sampling period dependent RST controller used in control/scheduling co-design. In 16th IFAC World Conference, 2005.
[22]
D. Robert, O. Sename, and D. Simon. An H∞ LPV design for sampling varying controllers experimentation with a T -- inverted pendulum. Control Systems Technology, IEEE Transactions on, pages 741--749, 2010.
[23]
M. Ryu, S. Hong, and M. Saksena. Streamlining real-time controller design: From performance specifications to end-to-end timing constraints. In Real-Time Technology and Applications Symposium. Proceedings., Third IEEE, pages 91--99. IEEE, 1997.
[24]
O. Sename, D. Simon, and M. Ben Gaid. A LPV approach to control and real-time scheduling codesign: Application to a robot-arm control. In Decision and Control, 47th IEEE Conference on, pages 4891--4897, 2008.
[25]
D. Seto, J. P. Lehoczky, L. Sha, and K. G. Shin. On task schedulability in real-time control systems. In Proceedings of the RTSS Symposium, pages 13--21, Washington, DC, USA, 1996.
[26]
R. Wilhelm, J. Engblom, A. Ermedahl, N. Holsti, S. Thesing, D. Whalley, G. Bernat, C. Ferdinand, R. Heckmann, T. Mitra, et al. The worst-case execution-time problemâĂŤoverview of methods and survey of tools. ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems (TECS), 7(3):36, 2008.
[27]
B. Wittenmark and K. Åström. Simple self-tuning controllers. In H. Unbehauen, editor, Methods and Applications in Adaptive Control, volume 24 of Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences, pages 21--30. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1980.
[28]
F. Xia, X. Dai, Y. Sun, and J. Shou. Control oriented direct feedback scheduling. International Journal of Information Technology, 12(3):21--32, 2006.
[29]
J. Yepez, J. Fuertes, and P. Marti. The large error first (lef) scheduling policy for real-time control systems. In Work in Progress Proceedings of the RTSS WIP Systems Symposium, pages 63--66, 2003.
[30]
W. Yifan, G. Buttazzo, E. Bini, and A. Cervin. Parameter selection for real-time controllers in resource-constrained systems. Industrial Informatics, IEEE Transactions on, 6(4):610--620, Nov 2010.

Cited By

View all
  • (2020)Performance Optimization of Control Applications on Fog Computing Platforms Using Scheduling and IsolationIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2020.29993228(104085-104098)Online publication date: 2020
  • (2019)Toward a codesign task model for stochastic real-time control sensitivity analysis2019 International Conference on Control, Automation and Diagnosis (ICCAD)10.1109/ICCAD46983.2019.9037966(1-6)Online publication date: Jul-2019
  • (2015)Non-work-conserving scheduling of non-preemptive hard real-time tasks based on fixed prioritiesProceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Real Time and Networks Systems10.1145/2834848.2834856(309-318)Online publication date: 4-Nov-2015

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
RTNS '14: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Real-Time Networks and Systems
October 2014
335 pages
ISBN:9781450327275
DOI:10.1145/2659787
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]

In-Cooperation

  • CEA: Commissariat à l'énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives
  • GDR ASR: GDR Architecture, Systèmes et Réseaux

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 08 October 2014

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. feedback scheduling
  2. jitter
  3. latency
  4. quality of control
  5. real-time
  6. sampling period

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Conference

RTNS '14

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 119 of 255 submissions, 47%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)2
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 16 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2020)Performance Optimization of Control Applications on Fog Computing Platforms Using Scheduling and IsolationIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2020.29993228(104085-104098)Online publication date: 2020
  • (2019)Toward a codesign task model for stochastic real-time control sensitivity analysis2019 International Conference on Control, Automation and Diagnosis (ICCAD)10.1109/ICCAD46983.2019.9037966(1-6)Online publication date: Jul-2019
  • (2015)Non-work-conserving scheduling of non-preemptive hard real-time tasks based on fixed prioritiesProceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Real Time and Networks Systems10.1145/2834848.2834856(309-318)Online publication date: 4-Nov-2015

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media