Scheduling Periodic Real-Time Tasks on Uniprocessor Systems. LS 12, TU Dortmund

Transcription

1 Scheduling Periodic Real-Time Tasks on Uniprocessor Systems Prof. Dr. Jian-Jia Chen LS 12, TU Dortmund 08, Dec., 2015 Prof. Dr. Jian-Jia Chen (LS 12, TU Dortmund) 1 / 38

2 Periodic Control System Pseudo-code for this system Control System set timer to interrupt periodically with period T ; A/D yk Control law computation uk D/A at each timer interrupt do perform analog-to-digital conversion to get y; y(t) sensor plant (The system being controlled) u(t) actuator compute control output u; output u and do digital-to-analog conversion; od Prof. Dr. Jian-Jia Chen (LS 12, TU Dortmund) 2 / 38

3 Example: Sporadic Control System Pseudo-code for this system Control System while (true) start := get the system tick; perform analog-to-digital conversion to get y; compute control output u; A/D y(t) sensor yk Control law computation plant (The system being controlled) uk D/A u(t) actuator output u and do digital-to-analog conversion; end := get the system tick; timetosleep := T (end start); sleep timetosleep; end while Prof. Dr. Jian-Jia Chen (LS 12, TU Dortmund) 3 / 38

4 Periodic and Sporadic Task Models When jobs (usually with the same computation requirement) are released recurrently, these jobs can be modeled by a recurrent task Periodic Task τ i : A job is released exactly and periodically by a period T i A phase φ i indicates when the first job is released A relative deadline D i for each job from task τ i (φ i, C i, T i, D i ) is the specification of periodic task τ i, where C i is the worst-case execution time. When φ i is omitted, we assume φ i is 0. Prof. Dr. Jian-Jia Chen (LS 12, TU Dortmund) 4 / 38

5 Periodic and Sporadic Task Models When jobs (usually with the same computation requirement) are released recurrently, these jobs can be modeled by a recurrent task Periodic Task τ i : A job is released exactly and periodically by a period T i A phase φ i indicates when the first job is released A relative deadline D i for each job from task τ i (φ i, C i, T i, D i ) is the specification of periodic task τ i, where C i is the worst-case execution time. When φ i is omitted, we assume φ i is 0. Sporadic Task τ i : T i is the minimal time between any two consecutive job releases A relative deadline D i for each job from task τ i (C i, T i, D i ) is the specification of sporadic task τ i, where C i is the worst-case execution time. Prof. Dr. Jian-Jia Chen (LS 12, TU Dortmund) 4 / 38

6 Examples of Recurrent Task Models Periodic task: (φ i, C i, T i, D i ) = (2, 2, 6, 6) release deadline J 1 J 1 J 1 J 1 J Sporadic task: (C i, T i, D i ) = (2, 6, 6) J 1 J 1 J 1 J Prof. Dr. Jian-Jia Chen (LS 12, TU Dortmund) 5 / 38

7 Relative Deadline <=> Period For a task set, we say that the task set is with implicit deadline when the relative deadline D i is equal to the period T i, i.e., D i = T i, for every task τ i, constrained deadline when the relative deadline D i is no more than the period T i, i.e., D i T i, for every task τ i, or arbitrary deadline when the relative deadline D i could be larger than the period T i for some task τ i. The response time of a job is its finishing time minus its arrival time. The worst-case response time of task τ i is the maximum response time among the jobs of task τ i. Prof. Dr. Jian-Jia Chen (LS 12, TU Dortmund) 6 / 38

8 Some Definitions for Sporadic/Periodic Tasks Periodic Tasks: Synchronous system: Each task has a phase of 0. Asynchronous system: Phases are arbitrary. Hyperperiod: Least common multiple (LCM) of T i. Task utilization of task τ i : U i := C i T i. System (total) utilization: U(T ) := τ i T U i. Prof. Dr. Jian-Jia Chen (LS 12, TU Dortmund) 7 / 38

9 Outline Schedulability for Dynamic-Priority Scheduling Schedulability for Static-Priority (or Fixed-Priority) Scheduling Prof. Dr. Jian-Jia Chen (LS 12, TU Dortmund) 8 / 38

10 Utilization-Based Test for EDF Scheduling Theorem Liu and Layland: A task set T of n independent, preemptable, periodic tasks with implicit deadlines can be feasibly scheduled (under EDF) on one processor if and only if its total utilization U is at most one. Proof The only if part is obvious: If U > 1, then some task clearly must miss a deadline. So, we concentrate on the if part. Contrapositive: if T is not schedulable, then U > 1. Let J i,k be the first job to miss its deadline Let d i,k be the absolute deadline of J i,k Let t 1 be the last instant before d i,k, at which the processor is either idle or executing a job with absolute deadline larger than d i,k (cont.) Prof. Dr. Jian-Jia Chen (LS 12, TU Dortmund) 9 / 38

11 Proof of Utilization-Bound Test for EDF Proof. Because J i,k missed its deadline, we know that d i,k t 1 < demand in [t 1, d i,k ) by jobs with absolute deadline no more than d i,k n di,k t 1 = C j j=1 n j=1 T j d i,k t 1 C j T j By cancelling d i,k t 1, we conclude the proof by 1 < n j=1 C j T j = U. Prof. Dr. Jian-Jia Chen (LS 12, TU Dortmund) 10 / 38

12 Relative Deadlines Less than Periods Theorem A task set T of n independent, preemptable, periodic tasks with constrained deadlines can be feasibly scheduled (under EDF) on one processor if n C k min{d k, T k } 1. k=1 This theorem only gives a sufficient schedulability test. Prof. Dr. Jian-Jia Chen (LS 12, TU Dortmund) 11 / 38

13 Outline Schedulability for Dynamic-Priority Scheduling Schedulability for Static-Priority (or Fixed-Priority) Scheduling Prof. Dr. Jian-Jia Chen (LS 12, TU Dortmund) 12 / 38

14 Static-Priority (or Fixed-Priority) Scheduling Different jobs of a task are assigned the same priority. Note: we will assume that no two tasks have the same priority. We will implicitly index tasks in decreasing priority order, i.e., τ i has higher priority than τ k if i < k. Prof. Dr. Jian-Jia Chen (LS 12, TU Dortmund) 13 / 38

15 Static-Priority (or Fixed-Priority) Scheduling Different jobs of a task are assigned the same priority. Note: we will assume that no two tasks have the same priority. We will implicitly index tasks in decreasing priority order, i.e., τ i has higher priority than τ k if i < k. Which strategy is better or the best? largest execution time first? shortest job first? least-utilization first? most importance first? least period first? Prof. Dr. Jian-Jia Chen (LS 12, TU Dortmund) 13 / 38

16 Rate-Monotonic (RM) Scheduling (Liu and Layland, 1973) Priority Definition: A task with a smaller period has higher priority, in which ties are broken arbitrarily. Example Schedule: τ 1 = (1, 6, 6), τ 2 = (2, 8, 8), τ 3 = (4, 12, 12). [(C i, T i, D i )] τ 1 τ 1 τ 1 τ 1 τ τ 2 τ 2 τ 2 τ τ 3 τ 3 τ 3 τ 3 τ Prof. Dr. Jian-Jia Chen (LS 12, TU Dortmund) 14 / 38

17 Deadline-Monotonic (DM) Scheduling (Leung and Whitehead) Priority Definition: A task with a smaller relative deadline has higher priority, in which ties are broken arbitrarily. Example Schedule: τ 1 = (2, 8, 4), τ 2 = (1, 6, 6), τ 3 = (4, 12, 12). [(C i, T i, D i )] τ 1 τ 1 τ 1 τ τ 2 τ 2 τ 2 τ 2 τ τ 3 τ 3 τ 3 τ 3 τ Prof. Dr. Jian-Jia Chen (LS 12, TU Dortmund) 15 / 38

18 Optimality (or not) of RM and DM Example Schedule: τ 1 = (2, 4, 4), τ 2 = (5, 10, 10) τ 1 τ 1 τ 1 τ 1 τ 1 τ τ 2 τ 2 τ 2 τ 2 τ The above system is schedulable. Prof. Dr. Jian-Jia Chen (LS 12, TU Dortmund) 16 / 38

19 Optimality (or not) of RM and DM Example Schedule: τ 1 = (2, 4, 4), τ 2 = (5, 10, 10) τ 1 τ 1 τ 1 τ 1 τ 1 τ τ 2 τ 2 τ 2 τ 2 τ The above system is schedulable. No static-priority scheme is optimal for scheduling periodic tasks: However, a deadline will be missed, regardless of how we choose to (statically) prioritize τ 1 and τ 2. Corollary Neither RM nor DM is optimal. Prof. Dr. Jian-Jia Chen (LS 12, TU Dortmund) 16 / 38

20 τ 4 t Properties of Worst-Case Response Time Suppose that we are analyzing the worst-case response time of task τ i. Let us assume that the n 1 tasks are already verified to meet their deadlines. τ 1 τ 2 τ 3 Suppose t is the arrival time of a job of task τ i. A higher priority task τ j may release a job before t and this job is executed after t. Prof. Dr. Jian-Jia Chen (LS 12, TU Dortmund) 17 / 38

21 Properties of Worst-Case Response Time (cont.) Let t j be the arrival time of the first job of task τ j after or at time t. t j t. The remaining execution time of the job of task τ j arrived before t and unfinished at time t is at most C j. Since fixed-priority scheduling greedily executes an available job, the system remains busy from t till the time instant f at which task τ n finishes the job arrived at time t. That is, i 1 i 1 { t t tj < t < f, C i + C j + max j=1 As a result, (t t is replaced by t) j=1 i 1 i 1 t 0 < t < f t tj, C i + C j + j=1 j=1 T j T j } C j, 0 > t. C j > t. Prof. Dr. Jian-Jia Chen (LS 12, TU Dortmund) 18 / 38

22 Properties of Worst-Case Response Time (cont.) The minimum t such that i 1 i 1 t tj 0 < t T i, C i + C j + j=1 j=1 T j C j = t. is a safe upper bound on the worst-case response time of task τ i. Why do we need to constrain t T i? Prof. Dr. Jian-Jia Chen (LS 12, TU Dortmund) 19 / 38

23 Aside: Critical Instants Definition The critical instant of a task τ i is a time instant such that: 1 the job of τ i released at this instant has the maximum response time of all jobs in τ i, if the response time of every job of τ i is at most T i, the period of τ i, and 2 the response time of the job released at this instant is greater than T i if the response time of some job in τ i exceeds T i. Informally, a critical instant of τ i represents a worst-case scenario from τ i s standpoint when we use static-priority scheduling. Prof. Dr. Jian-Jia Chen (LS 12, TU Dortmund) 20 / 38

24 Critical Instants in Static-Priority Systems Theorem [Liu and Layland, JACM 1973] The critical instance of task τ i for a set of independent, preemptable periodic tasks with implicit deadlines is to release the first jobs of all the higher-priority tasks at the same time. We are not saying that τ 1,..., τ i will all necessarily release their first jobs at the same time, but if this does happen, we are claiming that the time of release will be a critical instant for task τ i. Prof. Dr. Jian-Jia Chen (LS 12, TU Dortmund) 21 / 38

25 Critical Instants: Informal Proof τ 1 τ 2 τ 3 τ 4 t 1 t t R Shifting the release time of tasks together will increase the response time of task τ i. Consider a job of τ i, released at time t, with completion time t R. Let t 1 be the latest idle instant for τ 1,..., τ i 1 at or before t R. Let J be τ i s job released at t. Prof. Dr. Jian-Jia Chen (LS 12, TU Dortmund) 22 / 38

26 Critical Instants: Informal Proof τ 1 τ 2 τ 3 τ 4 t 1 t t R We will show that shifting the release time of tasks together will increase the response time of task τ i. Moving J from t to t 1 does not decrease the completion time of J. Prof. Dr. Jian-Jia Chen (LS 12, TU Dortmund) 23 / 38

27 Critical Instants: Informal Proof τ 1 τ 2 τ 3 τ 4 t 1 t t R We will show that shifting the release time of tasks together will increase the response time of task τ i. Releasing τ 1 at t 1 does not decrease the completion time of J. Prof. Dr. Jian-Jia Chen (LS 12, TU Dortmund) 24 / 38

28 Critical Instants: Informal Proof τ 1 τ 2 τ 3 τ 4 t 1 t t R We will show that shifting the release time of tasks together will increase the response time of task τ i. Releasing τ 2 at t 1 does not decrease the completion time of J. Repeating the above movement and proves the criticality of the critical instant Prof. Dr. Jian-Jia Chen (LS 12, TU Dortmund) 25 / 38

29 Necessary and Sufficient (Exact) RM-Schedulability Time-demand analysis (TDA) TDA can be applied to produce a schedulability test for any fixed-priority algorithm that ensures that each job of every task completes before the next job of that task is released. For some important task models and scheduling algorithms, this schedulability test will be necessary and sufficient. Prof. Dr. Jian-Jia Chen (LS 12, TU Dortmund) 26 / 38

30 Schedulability Condition According to the critical instant theorem, to test the schedulability of task τ i, we have to 1 release all the higher-priority tasks at time 0 together with task τ i 2 release all the higher-priority task instances as early as they can We can simply simulate the above behavior to verify whether task τ i misses the deadline. Prof. Dr. Jian-Jia Chen (LS 12, TU Dortmund) 27 / 38

31 Schedulability Test The time-demand function W i (t) of the task τ i is defined as follows: i 1 t W i (t) = C i + C j. Theorem A system T of periodic, independent, preemptable tasks is schedulable on one processor by algorithm A if j=1 T j τ i T t with 0 < t D i and W i (t) t holds. This condition is also necessary for synchronous, periodic task systems and also sporadic task sets. Note that this holds for implicit-deadline and constrained-deadline task sets. The sufficient condition can be proved by contradiction. Prof. Dr. Jian-Jia Chen (LS 12, TU Dortmund) 28 / 38

32 How to Use TDA? The theorem of TDA might look strong as it requires to check all the time t with 0 < t D i for a given τ i. There are two ways to avoid this: Iterate using t(k + 1) := W i (t(k)), starting with t(0) := i j=1 C j, and stopping when, for some l, t(l) = W i (t(l)) or t(l) > D i. Only consider t {lt j ɛ 1 j i, l N + }, where ɛ is a constant close to 0. That is, only consider t at which a job of higher-priority tasks arrives. Prof. Dr. Jian-Jia Chen (LS 12, TU Dortmund) 29 / 38

33 Optimality Among Static-Priority Algorithms Theorem A system T of n independent, preemptable, synchronous periodic tasks with implicit deadlines can be feasibly scheduled on one processor according to the RM algorithm whenever it can be feasibly scheduled according to any static priority algorithm. The proof is omitted. It can be proved by using the critical instant theorem and the TDA analysis. Prof. Dr. Jian-Jia Chen (LS 12, TU Dortmund) 30 / 38

34 Harmonic Real-Time Systems Definition A system of periodic tasks is said with harmonic periods (also: simply periodic) if for every pair of tasks τ i and τ k in the system where T i < T k, T k is an integer multiple of T i. For example: Periods are 2, 6, 12, 24. Theorem [Kuo and Mok]: A system T of harmonic, independent, preemptable, and implicit-deadline tasks is schedulable on one processor according to the RM algorithm if and only if its total utilization U(T ) = τ j T C j T j is less than or equal to 1. Prof. Dr. Jian-Jia Chen (LS 12, TU Dortmund) 31 / 38

35 Proof for Harmonic Systems The case for the only-if part is skipped. τ 1 τ 2 τ 3 By using the contrapositive proof approach, suppose that T is not schedulable and τ i misses its deadline. We will prove that the utilization must be larger than 1. The response time of τ i is larger than D i. By critical instants, releasing all the tasks τ 1, τ 2,..., τ i at time 0 will lead to a response time of τ i larger than D i. Prof. Dr. Jian-Jia Chen (LS 12, TU Dortmund) 32 / 38

36 Proof for Harmonic Systems (cont.) As the schedule is workload-conserving, we know that from time 0 to time D i, the whole system is executing jobs. Therefore, D i < the workload released in time interval [0, D i ) i = C j ( the number of job releases of τ j in time interval [0, D i )) = j=1 i C j j=1 Di T j i = C j Di, T j j=1 where = is because D i = T i is an integer multiple of T j when j i. Prof. Dr. Jian-Jia Chen (LS 12, TU Dortmund) 33 / 38

37 Proof for Harmonic Systems (cont.) As the schedule is workload-conserving, we know that from time 0 to time D i, the whole system is executing jobs. Therefore, D i < the workload released in time interval [0, D i ) i = C j ( the number of job releases of τ j in time interval [0, D i )) = j=1 i C j j=1 Di T j i = C j Di, T j j=1 where = is because D i = T i is an integer multiple of T j when j i. By canceling D i, we reach the contradiction by having i C j 1 < C j. T j T j τ j T j=1 Prof. Dr. Jian-Jia Chen (LS 12, TU Dortmund) 33 / 38

38 Utilization-Based Schedulability Test Task utilization: U i := C i. T i System (total) utilization: U(T ) := τ i T C i T i. A task system T fully utilizes the processor under scheduling algorithm A if any increase in execution time (of any task) causes A to miss a deadline. In this case, U(T ) is an upper bound on utilization for A, denoted U ub (T, A). U lub (A) is the least upper bound for algorithm A: U lub (A) = min T U ub(t, A) Prof. Dr. Jian-Jia Chen (LS 12, TU Dortmund) 34 / 38

39 What is U lub (A) for? T 1 U ub (T 1, A) T 2 U ub (T 2, A) T 3 U ub (T 3, A) T 4 U ub (T 4, A) T 5 U ub (T 5, A)... T? U ub (T?, A) 0 U lub (A) 1 Feasible Unsure Infeasible Prof. Dr. Jian-Jia Chen (LS 12, TU Dortmund) 35 / 38

40 Liu and Layland Bound Theorem [Liu and Layland] A set of n independent, preemptable periodic tasks with implicit deadlines can be scheduled on a processor according to the RM algorithm if its total utilization U is at most n(2 1 n 1). In other words, U lub (RM, n) = n(2 1 n 1) n U lub (RM, n) n U lub (RM, n) = ln2 Prof. Dr. Jian-Jia Chen (LS 12, TU Dortmund) 36 / 38

41 Least Upper Bound Least Upper Bound RM Bound n Prof. Dr. Jian-Jia Chen (LS 12, TU Dortmund) 37 / 38

42 Comparison between RM and EDF (Implicit Deadlines) RM Low run-time overhead:o(1) with priority sorting in advance Optimal for static-priority Schedulability test is N P-hard (even if the relative deadline = period) Least upper bound: In general, more preemption EDF High run-time overhead:o(log n) with balanced binary tree Optimal for dynamic-priority Schedulability test is easy (when the relative deadline = period) Least upper bound: 1 In general, less preemption Prof. Dr. Jian-Jia Chen (LS 12, TU Dortmund) 38 / 38