skip to main content
10.1145/584369.584399acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicpeConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Using an architecture description language for quantitative analysis of real-time systems

Published:24 July 2002Publication History

ABSTRACT

An architecture description language (ADL) specifies the structure of an overall system as an assembly of interacting components. ADLs can serve as input to a variety of development tools. We outline the Avionics Architecture Description Language, an emerging SAE standard for describing the architectures of hard real-time, safety-critical embedded computer systems. We describe a suite of tools that perform a set of verification, modeling and analysis, and implementation activities given an AADL specification. We summarize a study that applied these technologies using data about a complex avionics system, identifying and discussing some of the issues raised by this exercise.

References

  1. Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification, RTCA/DO-178B, RTCA, Inc., Washington D.C., December 1992.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Guidelines and Methods for Conducting the Safety Assessment Process on Civil Airborne Systems and Equipment, SAE/ARP 4761, December 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Real-Time Systems, special issue on worst-case execution-time analysis, v18, n2/3, May 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. MetaH User's Guide, Honeywell Laboratories, 3660 Technology Drive, Minneapolis, MN, www.htc.honeywell.com/metah.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Neil C. Audsley, Alan Burns, Robert I. Davis, Ken W. Tindell and Andy J. Wellings, "Fixed Priority Pre-emptive Scheduling: An Historical Perspective," Journal of Real-Time Systems, 8, pp 173-198. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Pam Binns, "Scheduling Slack in MetaH," Real-Time Systems Symposium, work-in-progress session, December 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Pam Binns, "Incremental Rate Monotonic Scheduling for Improved Control System Performance," Real-Time Applications Symposium, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Pam Binns and Steve Vestal, "Message Passing in MetaH using Precedence-Constrained Multi-Criticality Preemptive Fixed Priority Scheduling," Life Cycle Software Engineering Conference, Redstone Arsenal, AL, August 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Pam Binns and Steve Vestal, "Formalizing Software Architectures for Embedded Systems," First International Workshop on Embedded Software, Tahoe City, CA, October 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Pam Binns, Steve Vestal, William Sanders, Jay Doyle and Dan Deavours, "MetaH/Möbius Integration Report," prepared by Honeywell Laboratories and University of Illinois, prepared for U.S. Army AMCOM Software Engineering Directorate, April, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. R. L. Graham, "Bounds on Multiprocessing and Timing Anomalies," SIAM Journal of Applied Mathematics, v17, March 1969.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Holger Hermanns, Ulrich Herzog and Vassilis Mertsiotakis, "Stochastic Process Algebras as a Tool for Performance and Dependability Modeling," Proceedings of the IEEE International Computer Performance and Dependability Symposium (IPDS'95), April 24-26, 1995, Erlangen, Germany. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Farnam Jahanian and Aloysius K. Mok, "Modechart: A Specification Language for Real-Time Systems," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v20 n12, December 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. José Javier Gutiérrez García and Michael González Harbour, "Optimized Priority Assignment for Tasks and Messages in Distributed Hard Real-Time Systems," Third Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Real-Time Systems, April 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. J. C. Gutiérrez and M. González Harbour, "Schedulability Analysis for Tasks with Static and Dynamic Offsets," 19th IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Bruce Lewis, "Software Portability Gains Realized with MetaH, an Avionics Architecture Description Language," 18thDigital Avionics Systems Conference, St. Louis, MO, October 24-29, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Frederick T. Sheldon, Krishna M. Kavi and Farhad A. Kamangar, "Reliability Analysis of CSP Specifications: A New Method Using Petri Nets," Proceedings of AIAA Computing In Aerospace, San Antonio, TX, March 28-30, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Jun Sun and Jane Liu, "Synchronization Protocols in Distributed Real-Time Systems," Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, May, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. J. Sun and J. Liu, "Bounding the End-to-End Response Time in Multiprocessor Real-Time Systems," Third Workshop on Parallel and Distributed RealTime Systems, April, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Steve Vestal, "Fixed Priority Sensitivity Analysis for Linear Compute Time Models," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, April 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Steve Vestal, "Modeling and Verification of Real-Time Software Using Extended Linear Hybrid Automata," NASA Langley Formal Methods Workshop, June 2000, shemesh.larc.nasa.gov/fm/Lfm2000/Proc/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Steve Vestal, "MetaH Support for Real-Time Multi-Processor Avionics," 5th IEEE Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Real-Time Systems, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Steve Vestal, "Mode Changes in a Real-Time Architecture Description Language," International Workshop on Configurable Distributed Systems, March 1994.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Steve Vestal, "MetaH Avionics Architecture Description Language Software and System Safety and Certification Study," prepared by Honeywell Laboratories, prepared for U.S. Army AMCOM Software Engineering Directorate, March 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

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
    WOSP '02: Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on Software and performance
    July 2002
    318 pages
    ISBN:1581135637
    DOI:10.1145/584369

    Copyright © 2002 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: 24 July 2002

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • Article

    Acceptance Rates

    WOSP '02 Paper Acceptance Rate35of64submissions,55%Overall Acceptance Rate149of241submissions,62%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader