1 / 23

Analyzing Fixed-Priority Global Multiprocessor Scheduling

Analyzing Fixed-Priority Global Multiprocessor Scheduling. Seminar Multiprocessor Scheduling May 22 2006 Tobias Queck. Content. Problem Definition Fixed-Priority Scheduling Rate-monotonic Scheduling (RMS) Dhall’s effect Bound on utilization bounds RM-US[US-LIMIT] US-LIMIT = 0,33

clunn
Télécharger la présentation

Analyzing Fixed-Priority Global Multiprocessor Scheduling

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Analyzing Fixed-Priority Global Multiprocessor Scheduling Seminar Multiprocessor Scheduling May 22 2006 Tobias Queck

  2. Content • Problem Definition • Fixed-Priority Scheduling • Rate-monotonic Scheduling (RMS) • Dhall’s effect • Bound on utilization bounds • RM-US[US-LIMIT] • US-LIMIT = 0,33 • US-LIMIT = 0,37482 • Summary

  3. Problem Definition Partition Priorities Definitions

  4. Partioned versus global scheduling • Partioned • A task is assigned ones to only one processor • Global • Task migration is permitted • Assumption: no penalty associated with task migration • One task can use more the one processor • But only one at any given time

  5. Priority driven scheduling algorithms vs. Non-Preemprive • Preemptive • Tasks with low priority will be interrupted by incoming tasks with higher priority • Static • Priorities for task are assigned ones • Dynamic • Priorities might change during runtime

  6. Problem definition • n independent tasks • Task ti (1 ≤ i ≤ n) • Execution requirement Ci • Period Ti • Utilization Ui = Ci / Ti • multiprocessor with midentical processors • . • A task set is schedulable if all tasks meet their deadlines (end of period) in all periods

  7. Fixed-Priority Scheduling Rate-monotonic Scheduling (RMS) Dhall’s effect Bound on utilization bounds

  8. Rate-monotonic Scheduling • Algorithm • Priorities assigned inversely proportional to their periods • Proved Theorems [3]: • A critical instant for any task occurs whenever the task is requested simultaneously with requests for all higher priority tasks. • If a feasible priority assignment exists for some task set, the rate-monotonic priority assignment is feasible for the task set. • For a set of m tasks with fixed priority order the least upper bound to processor utilization factor is U = m(21/m – 1)

  9. Dhall’s Effect t1: C1=1 T1=4 U1=25% t2: C2=1 T2=4 U2=25% t3: C3=4 T3=5 U3=80% misses deadline m = 2, US = (25%+25%+80%)/2 = 65%

  10. Dhall’s Effect t1: C1=1 T1=4 U1=25% t2: C2=1 T2=4 U2=25% . . . tn-1: Cn-1=1 Tn-1=4 Un-1=25% tn: Cn=4 Tn=5 Un=80% misses deadline m = n-1, US = ((n-1)*25% + 80%)/m = 25%

  11. Dhall’s Effect t1: C1=1 T1=8 U1=12,5% t2: C2=1 T2=8 U2=12,5% . . . tn-1: Cn-1=1 Tn-1=8 Un-1=12,5% tn: Cn=8 Tn=9 Un=88% misses deadline m=n-1, US=12,5%

  12. Dhall’s Effect t1: C1=1 T1=x U1=0% t1: C1=1 T1=x U2=0% . . . tn-1: Cn-1=1 Tn-1=x Un-1=0% tn: Cn=x Tn=x+1 Un=100% misses deadline m=n-1, US0% with infinitely large x

  13. Bound on utilization bounds t1: C1=1 T1=4 U1=25% t1: C1=2 T1=4 U1=50% “The utilization guarantee bound for any static-priority multiprocessor scheduling algorithm (partitioned or global) cannot be higher than 1/2 of the capacity of the multiprocessor platform.” [2] t2: C2=1 T2=4 U2=25% t2: C2=2 T2=4 U2=50% t3: C3=1 T3=4 U2=25% t3: C3=2 T3=4 U2=50% t4: C4=2 T4=4 U4-=50% t4: C4=1 T4=4 U4=25% m = 3

  14. RM-US[US-LIMIT] Idea Example Finding optimal US-LIMIT

  15. Idea • Task ti with Ui ≤ US-LIMIT • Lower priorities than tasks with Ui > US-LIMIT • Priorities assigned according to the rate monotonic priority assignment scheme • Task ti with Ui > US-LIMIT • Highest priority • Proved Limit [2]:

  16. Example • Processors m = 3 • Scheduling Algorithm RM-US[0,429] • Task set: •  2 •  3 •  1 • 3

  17. Finding optimal US-LIMIT • Select a task set such that the task set is not schedulable and such that there is no other unschedulable task set with a lower US (called extremal task set). • m high prior tasks form block interference to a lower prior task (tn) • All tasks are released first at the same time • All m task are released two times within Tn • m is infinitely large • Ci = ∂ is infinitely small (1 ≤ i ≤ x) • Ti = Tn - i∂ (1 ≤ i ≤ m)

  18. Finding optimal US-LIMIT (2) • Definition: • Following Situation:

  19. Finding optimal US-LIMIT (3) • Calculating US-LIMIT

  20. Being able to schedule all task sets? • Three exhaustive cases • All tasks have Ui ≤ US-LIMIT • All tasks have Ui > US-LIMIT • Some tasks have Ui > US-LIMIT and some have Ui ≤ US-LIMiT

  21. Comparison and Conclusion

  22. Thank you for your attention References Questions?

  23. References [1] Lars Lundberg, "Analyzing Fixed-Priority Global Multiprocessor Scheduling“, rtas, p. 145,  Eighth IEEE Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium (RTAS'02),  2002. [2] B. Andersson, S. Baruah, and J. Jonsson, “Static-priority scheduling on multiprocessors”, in Proc. of the IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium (RTSS'01), Dec. 3-6, 2001, London, pp. 193 - 202. [3] C. L. Liu and J. W. Layland, “Scheduling algorithms for multiprogramming in a hard real-time environment”, Journal of the ACM, 20(1): 46-61, Jan. 1973.

More Related