Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

A comparative study of rate monotonic schedulability tests

  • Published:
The Journal of Supercomputing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

With the increased penetration of real-time systems into our surroundings, the selection of an efficient schedulability test under fixed priority system from a plethora of existing results, has become a matter of primary interest to real-time system designers. The need for a faster schedulability tests becomes more prominent when it applies to online systems, where processor time is a sacred resource and it is of central importance to assign processor to execute tasks instead of determining system schedulability. Under fixed priority nonpreemptive real-time systems, current schedulability tests (in exact form) can be divided into: response time based tests, and scheduling points tests. To the best of our knowledge, no comparative study of these test to date has ever been presented. The aim of this work is to assist the system designers in the process of selecting a suitable technique from the existing literature after knowing the pros and cons associated with these tests. We highlight the mechanism behind the feasibility tests, theoretically and experimentally. Our experimental results show that response time based tests are faster than scheduling points tests, which make the response time based tests an excellent choice for online systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Audsley NC, Burns, A, Richardson, M, Wellings, A (1993) Applying new scheduling theory to static priority preemptive scheduling. Softw Eng J 8(5):284–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bini E, Buttazzo GC (2004) Schedulability analysis of periodic fixed priority systems. IEEE Trans Comput 53(11):1462–1473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bini E, Buttazzo GC, Buttazzo GM (2001) A hyperplanes bound for the rate monotonic algorithm. In: Proceedings of the 13th euromicro conference on real-time systems, pp 59–67

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Bini E, Natale, MD, Buttazzo, G (2008) Sensitivity analysis for fixed-priority real-time systems. Real-Time Syst 39(1–3):5–30

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Burns, A, Wellings, A (2001) Real-time systems and programming languages. Ada 95, Real-Time Java and real-time POSIX, 3rd edn. Addison Wesley Longman, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  6. Buttazzo GC (2005) Rate monotonic vs. edf: Judgment day. Real-Time Syst 29(1):5–26

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Davis RI, Zabos A, Burns A (2008) Efficient exact schedulability tests for fixed priority real-time systems. IEEE Trans Comput 57:1261–1276

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. George L, Riverre N, Spuri M (1996) Preemptive and non-preemptive real-time uniprocessor scheduling. Technical report, 2966, INRIA

  9. Liu JWS (2000) Real time systems, 1st edn. Prentice Hall, New York

    Google Scholar 

  10. Joseph M, Pandya P (1986) Finding response times in a real-time system. Comput J 29(5):390–395

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Laplante PA (2004) Real-time systems design and analysis, 3rd edn. Wiley, Inc., New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Lehoczky JP, Sha L, Ding Y (1989) The rate monotonic scheduling algorithm: Exact characterization and average case behavior. In: Proceedings of the IEEE real-time system symposium, pp 166–171

    Google Scholar 

  13. Liu CL, Layland JW (1973) Scheduling algorithms for multiprogramming in a hard real-time environment. J ACM 20(1):40–61

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Manabe Y, Aoyagi S (1998) A feasibility decision algorithm for rate monotonic and deadline monotonic scheduling. Real-Time Syst 14(2):171–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Min-Allah N, Wang Y, Jian-Sheng X, Jiu-Xiang L (2007) Revisiting fixed priority techniques. In: Embedded and ubiquitous computing. LNCS, vol 4808. Springer, Berlin, pp 134–145

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Min-Allah N, Ali I, Xing J, Wang Y (2010) Utilization bound for periodic task set with composite deadline. J Comput Electr Eng 36(6):1101–1109

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Min-Allah N, Khan SU, Wang Y (2010) Optimal task execution times for periodic tasks using nonlinear constrained optimization. J Supercomput. doi:10.1007/s11227-010-0506-z

  18. Orozco J, Cayssials R, Santos J, Santos R (1998) On the minimum number of priority levels required for the rate monotonic scheduling of real-time systems. In: Proceedings of the 10th euromicro workshop on real time system.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Sjodin M, Hansson H (1998) Improved response-time analysis calculations. In: Proceedings of the 19th IEEE real-time systems symposium, pp. 399–409

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Islamabad, 44000, Pakistan

    Nasro Min-Allah

  2. North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, 58108-6050, USA

    Samee Ullah Khan & Juan Li

  3. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, 87131-0001, USA

    Nasir Ghani

  4. Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 47408, USA

    Lizhe Wang

  5. University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

    Pascal Bouvry

Authors
  1. Nasro Min-Allah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Samee Ullah Khan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nasir Ghani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Juan Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lizhe Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Pascal Bouvry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Samee Ullah Khan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Min-Allah, N., Khan, S.U., Ghani, N. et al. A comparative study of rate monotonic schedulability tests. J Supercomput 59, 1419–1430 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-011-0554-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-011-0554-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation