1 / 27

Risat Pathan Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden

Improving the Schedulability and Quality of Service for Federated Scheduling of Parallel Mixed-Criticality Tasks on Multiprocessors. Risat Pathan Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden. Outline. Background State-of-the-art and its limitations Improving Schedulability Improving QoS

wlightner
Download Presentation

Risat Pathan Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden

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. Improving the Schedulability and Quality of Service for Federated Scheduling of Parallel Mixed-Criticality Tasks on Multiprocessors Risat Pathan Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden

  2. Outline • Background • State-of-the-art and its limitations • Improving Schedulability • Improving QoS • Results and Conclusion J. Li, D. Ferry, S. Ahuja, K. Agrawal, C. Gill, and C. Lu. Mixed-criticality federated scheduling for parallel real-time tasks. In Proc. of RTAS, April 2016. J. Li, J. J. Chen, K. Agrawal, C. Lu, C. Gill, and A. Saifullah. Mixed-criticality federated scheduling for parallel real-time tasks. Real-Time Systems, Sep 2017.

  3. 3 Background: Parallel non-MC Tasks (DAG) A sequential task with WCET C = 10 Period T = 20 A parallel task with Total work C=12 Length of longest path L=10 Period T=20

  4. Background: Federated Scheduling of non-MC parallel tasks 3 3 Phase 1: Assigning processors to the tasks Phase 2: Scheduling Algorithm 8 10 • Each task is either a heavy task or a light task • Each heavy task is assigned a number of dedicated processors • Nodes of each heavy task are scheduled using some greedy scheduleronly on its dedicated processors • All the light tasks are assigned to the remaining (shared) processors • Light tasks are executed sequentially • Partitioned scheduling of sequential tasks A heavy task Total work C=24 Period T=20 Utilization U=1.2 A light task Total work C=12 Period T=20 Utilization U=0.6

  5. Example: Federated Scheduling of non-MC parallel tasks 30 3 5 3 10 C=25 T =100 U=0.25 C=50 T =40 U=1.25 Light Task 5 14 5 2 10 C=8 T=16 U=0.5 Heavy Task C=60 T =30 U=2.0 Light Task Heavy Task 10 Analysis Analysis Analysis 10 1 1 M3 = 1 M1 = 3 M2 = 4 Sched Test: IfM1+M2+M3 <=P, then all deadlines are met. whereP=# of processors

  6. 3 Parallel Mixed-Critical (MC) Tasks A parallel MC task with Total work CN=12 Length (longest path) LN=10 Period T=15 CO=20 LO=14 A sequential MC task with WCET CN = 10 CO=12 Period T = 20 Dual-Criticality System Each task is either a high (HI) or a low (LO) critical task Nominal WCET Overloaded WCET Nominal work and critical path length Overloaded Work and critical path length

  7. MC Parallel Task Model • We consider n implicit-deadline parallel MC sporadic tasks • Task i  (Zi, Ti, Ci, Li) where Zi {LO, HI} and Ti= period (also deadline) • If Zi=HI, thenCi = <CN , CO> where CN ≤ CO Li = <LN , LO> where LN ≤ LO • If Zi=LO, thenCi = CN and Li=LN • Each task is also assigned a virtual deadline Vi

  8. Federated Scheduling of MC tasks • Phase 1: Assigning processors to MC tasks • Phase 2: Runtime MC scheduling

  9. States/CriticalityBehaviors Typical State Critical State Only HI-crit tasks execute Task do not overrun LiHIand CiHI Both LO and HI-crit tasks execute No task overrun its virtual deadline Some task does not signal completion by its virtual deadline STATE SWITCHES AT (t+s) t+s starts at time t LO-crit tasks are dropped at time (t+s) to provide more processors to high critical tasks

  10. Example: Processors Assignment to Tasks (Federated Scheduling of MC tasks) 30 5 3 3 UN=0.25 10 UN=0.25 UO=0.5 Light, LowCrit UN=1.25 2 5 5 14 Light, HighCrit 10 Heavy, LowCrit UN=1.0 UO=2.0 Heavy, HighCrit Analysis Analysis Analysis 10 1 10 1 MN =1 MO =1 MN =2 MO =0 MN =3 MO =8 Each task iis also assigned its virtual deadline Vi

  11. Federated MC Scheduling (Runtime) • The system starts in typical state • All the light MC tasks execute on Mlight processors • Partitioned MC scheduling of sequential tasks • Each heavy taski executes on MiN dedicated processors based on greedy scheduling • If some task does not complete by its virtual deadline, then state switches to critical state • The heavy task inow executes on MiO dedicated processors • The additional (MiO-MiN) processors are taken by dropping some LO-criticality tasks

  12. State-of-the-art Test: Federated Scheduling of MC tasks Consider P=8 Processors ΣMN=2+3+1=6 (Success in Typical State) ΣMO=0+8+1=9 (Failure in Critical State) 3 3 30 5 LightLowCrit 10 LightHighCrit Heavy LowCrit 2 5 5 14 10 Heavy HighCrit Analysis Analysis Analysis 10 10 1 1 MN =1 MO =1 MN =3 MO =8 MN =2 MO =0 Schedulability Test If ΣMN <= P, then all the deadlines are met in typical state If ΣMO <= P, then all the deadlines are met in critical state

  13. State-of-the-art Test: Federated Scheduling of MC tasks Consider P=8 processors ΣMN=2+3+1=6 (Success in Typical State) ΣMO=0+8+1=9 (Failure in Critical State) 30 5 3 3 LightLowCrit 10 LightHighCrit Heavy LowCrit 5 5 2 14 10 Heavy HighCrit Analysis Analysis Analysis 10 1 1 10 MN =1 MO =1 MN =3 MO =8 MN =2 MO =0 Do we have some other assignment of processors such that the task set is schedulable? Schedulability Test If ΣMN <= P, then all the deadlines are met in typical state If ΣMO <= P, then all the deadlines are met in critical state

  14. Improving the Schedulability and Quality of Service for Federated Scheduling of Parallel Mixed-Criticality Tasks on Multiprocessors

  15. The main contribution A new schedulability test for each heavy MC task i is proposed TEST(MN, MO, i)= True and False For MN=1 to P For MO=1 to P if TEST(MN, MO, i)==TRUE “Valid alternative (MN, MO) for i” We select one (MN, MO) form all the alternatives such that the overall task set is schedulable

  16. Improving Schedulability: Federated Scheduling of MC tasks Consider P=8 processors ΣMN=2+4+1=7 (Success) ΣMO=0+6+1=7 (Success) Consider P=8 processors ΣMN=2+3+1=6 (Success) ΣMO=0+8+1=9 (Failure) Consider P=8 processors ΣMN=2+3+1=6 (Success) ΣMO=0+8+1=9 (Failure) 30 5 3 3 LightLowCrit 10 LightHighCrit Heavy LowCrit 5 14 2 5 10 Heavy HighCrit Analysis Analysis Analysis 10 10 1 1 MN =1 MO =1 MN =3 MO =8 MN =2 MO =0 MN =4 MO =6 Schedulability Test If ΣMN <= P, then typical ok If ΣMO <= P, then critical ok

  17. Improving QoS: Federated Scheduling of MC tasks Consider P=8 processors ΣMN=2+5+1=8 (Success) ΣMO=2+5+1=8 (Success) Although schedulable, the low-crit heavy task is dropped. Do we have some other assignment of processors to the heavy tasks such that the LO-crit task is not dropped? Consider P=8 processors ΣMN=2+4+1=7 (Success) ΣMO=0+6+1=7 (Success) 30 3 3 5 LightLowCrit 10 LightHighCrit Heavy LowCrit 5 14 5 2 10 Heavy HighCrit LO Critical (Heavy) High Critical (Heavy) LO and HI critical (Light) Analysis Analysis Analysis 10 1 1 10 MN =1 MO =1 MN =3 MO =8 MN =2 MO =0 MN =4 MO =6 Schedulability Test If ΣMN <= P, then typical ok If ΣMO <= P, then critical ok MN =2 MO =2 MN =5 MO =5

  18. Other Contributions • Each task may have O(P) possible ways of assigning processors (MN, MO) • N tasks may have O(PN) possible ways of selecting the alternative • A dynamic programming algorithm is proposed to find the allocation of the processors to the tasks in polynomial time • There may be multiple valid ways to allocate the processors to the tasks • By selecting the allocation that requires the minimum number of processors during the critical state, we see that some LO crit tasks are not dropped. • An ILP is formulated to maximize the number of LO-crittaskshat are never dropped • Simulation shows better QoS w.r.t. the state of the art

  19. Simulation • Randomly generated task sets are evaluated • Our-MCF test are compared with MCFS-Improve [RTAS16, RTJ17] test

  20. AcceptanceRatio, M=16

  21. AcceptanceRatio, M=16, 32, 64, 128

  22. QoSmetric: Averagefractionof LO-crit tasks thatare never dropped • For each schedulable task set, • The fraction of LO-crit tasks that are never dropped is computed • For example, if 2 out of 10 LO-crit tasks are never dropped, then this fraction is 20% • Metric: Average fraction of LO-crit tasks that are never dropped

  23. QoS

  24. Conclusion • A new way to assign the processors to MC parallel tasks for federated scheduling • Improves the schedulability and the QoS of the system • Future work: Greedy vs. other scheduler

  25. ThankYou risat@chalmers.se

  26. WeightedSchedulability

More Related