Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Optimizing Logical Execution Time Model for Both Determinism and Low Latency

Published 30 Oct 2023 in eess.SY, cs.OS, cs.SC, and cs.SY | (2310.19699v3)

Abstract: The Logical Execution Time (LET) programming model has recently received considerable attention, particularly because of its timing and dataflow determinism. In LET, task computation appears always to take the same amount of time (called the task's LET interval), and the task reads (resp. writes) at the beginning (resp. end) of the interval. Compared to other communication mechanisms, such as implicit communication and Dynamic Buffer Protocol (DBP), LET performs worse on many metrics, such as end-to-end latency (including reaction time and data age) and time disparity jitter. Compared with the default LET setting, the flexible LET (fLET) model shrinks the LET interval while still guaranteeing schedulability by introducing the virtual offset to defer the read operation and using the virtual deadline to move up the write operation. Therefore, fLET has the potential to significantly improve the end-to-end timing performance while keeping the benefits of deterministic behavior on timing and dataflow. To fully realize the potential of fLET, we consider the problem of optimizing the assignments of its virtual offsets and deadlines. We propose new abstractions to describe the task communication pattern and new optimization algorithms to explore the solution space efficiently. The algorithms leverage the linearizability of communication patterns and utilize symbolic operations to achieve efficient optimization while providing a theoretical guarantee. The framework supports optimizing multiple performance metrics and guarantees bounded suboptimality when optimizing end-to-end latency. Experimental results show that our optimization algorithms improve upon the default LET and its existing extensions and significantly outperform implicit communication and DBP in terms of various metrics, such as end-to-end latency, time disparity, and its jitter.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (50)
  1. T. A. Henzinger, B. Horowitz, and C. M. Kirsch, “Giotto: a time-triggered language for embedded programming,” in Proceedings of the IEEE, 2001.
  2. Y. Tang, X. Jiang, N. Guan, D. Ji, X. Luo, and W. Yi, “Comparing communication paradigms in cause-effect chains,” IEEE Transactions on Computers, vol. 72, pp. 82–96, 2023.
  3. A. Hamann, D. Dasari, S. Kramer, M. Pressler, and F. Wurst, “Communication centric design in complex automotive embedded systems,” in Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems, 2017.
  4. P. Pazzaglia, D. Casini, A. Biondi, and M. D. Natale, “Optimizing inter-core communications under the let paradigm using dma engines,” IEEE Transactions on Computers, vol. 72, pp. 127–139, 2023.
  5. P. Pazzaglia, D. Casini, A. Biondi, and M. D. Natale, “Optimal memory allocation and scheduling for dma data transfers under the let paradigm,” 58th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference, pp. 1171–1176, 2021.
  6. P. Pazzaglia, A. Biondi, and M. D. Natale, “Optimizing the functional deployment on multicore platforms with logical execution time,” IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium, pp. 207–219, 2019.
  7. A. Biondi and M. D. Natale, “Achieving predictable multicore execution of automotive applications using the let paradigm,” IEEE Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium, pp. 240–250, 2018.
  8. A. M. Kordon and N. Tang, “Evaluation of the age latency of a real-time communicating system using the let paradigm,” in Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems, 2020.
  9. A. Shrivastava and P. Derler, “Introduction to the special issue on time for cps (tcps),” ACM Transactions on Cyber-Physical Systems, vol. 5, pp. 1 – 2, 2021.
  10. D. Ziegenbein and A. Hamann, “Timing-aware control software design for automotive systems,” in ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference, pp. 56:1–56:6, 2015.
  11. J. Martinez, I. Sañudo, and M. Bertogna, “Analytical characterization of end-to-end communication delays with logical execution time,” IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, vol. 37, pp. 2244–2254, 2018.
  12. PerceptIn, “2021 rtss industry challenge.” http://2021.rtss.org/industry-session/, 2021.
  13. C. M. Kirsch and R. Sengupta, “The evolution of real-time programming,” in Handbook of Real-Time and Embedded Systems, pp. 11–1, Figure 1.12, 2006.
  14. E. Bini, P. Pazzaglia, and M. Maggio, “Zero-jitter chains of periodic let tasks via algebraic rings,” IEEE Transactions on Computers, vol. 72, no. 11, pp. 3057–3071, 2023.
  15. AUTOSAR, “Autosar timing extensions document,” 2022-11-24.
  16. N. Feiertag, K. Richter, J. E. Nordlander, and J. Å. Jönsson, “A compositional framework for end-to-end path delay calculation of automotive systems under different path semantics,” in RTSS 2009, 2008.
  17. J. Abdullah, G. Dai, and W. Yi, “Worst-case cause-effect reaction latency in systems with non-blocking communication,” Design, Automation & Test in Europe, pp. 1625–1630, 2019.
  18. M. Günzel, K.-H. Chen, N. Ueter, G. von der Brüggen, M. Dürr, and J.-J. Chen, “Timing analysis of asynchronized distributed cause-effect chains,” IEEE Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium, pp. 40–52, 2021.
  19. M. Dürr, G. von der Brüggen, K.-H. Chen, and J.-J. Chen, “End-to-end timing analysis of sporadic cause-effect chains in distributed systems,” ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems (TECS), vol. 18, pp. 1 – 24, 2019.
  20. J. Schlatow, M. Möstl, S. Tobuschat, T. Ishigooka, and R. Ernst, “Data-age analysis and optimisation for cause-effect chains in automotive control systems,” IEEE Symposium on Industrial Embedded Systems, pp. 1–9, 2018.
  21. T. Kloda, A. Bertout, and Y. Sorel, “Latency analysis for data chains of real-time periodic tasks,” IEEE Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation, pp. 360–367, 2018.
  22. M. Verucchi, M. Theile, M. Caccamo, and M. Bertogna, “Latency-aware generation of single-rate dags from multi-rate task sets,” IEEE Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium, pp. 226–238, 2020.
  23. T. Klaus, M. Becker, W. Schröder-Preikschat, and P. Ulbrich, “Constrained data-age with job-level dependencies: How to reconcile tight bounds and overheads,” IEEE Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium, pp. 66–79, 2021.
  24. M. Günzel, H. Teper, K.-H. Chen, G. von der Brüggen, and J.-J. Chen, “On the equivalence of maximum reaction time and maximum data age for cause-effect chains,” in Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems, 2023.
  25. R. Li, N. Guan, X. Jiang, Z. Guo, Z. Dong, and M. Lv, “Worst-case time disparity analysis of message synchronization in ros,” IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium, pp. 40–52, 2022.
  26. X. Jiang, X. Luo, N. Guan, Z. Dong, S. Liu, and W. Yi, “Analysis and optimization of worst-case time disparity in cause-effect chains,” Design, Automation & Test in Europe, pp. 1–6, 2023.
  27. R. Ernst, S. Kuntz, S. Quinton, and M. Simons, “The logical execution time paradigm: New perspectives for multicore systems (dagstuhl seminar 18092),” Dagstuhl Reports, vol. 8, pp. 122–149, 2018.
  28. K.-B. Gemlau, L. KÖHLER, R. Ernst, and S. Quinton, “System-level logical execution time: Augmenting the logical execution time paradigm for distributed real-time automotive software,” ACM Trans. Cyber-Phys. Syst., vol. 5, jan 2021.
  29. J. Martinez, I. Sañudo, and M. Bertogna, “End-to-end latency characterization of task communication models for automotive systems,” Real-Time Systems, pp. 1–33, 2020.
  30. M. Becker, D. Dasari, S. Mubeen, M. Behnam, and T. Nolte, “End-to-end timing analysis of cause-effect chains in automotive embedded systems,” J. Syst. Archit., vol. 80, pp. 104–113, 2017.
  31. E. A. Lee and M. Lohstroh, “Generalizing logical execution time,” in Principles of Systems Design, 2022.
  32. C. Bradatsch, F. Kluge, and T. Ungerer, “Data age diminution in the logical execution time model,” in ARCS, 2016.
  33. L. Maia and G. Fohler, “Reducing end-to-end latencies of multi-rate cause-effect chains for the let model,” ArXiv, vol. abs/2305.02121, 2023.
  34. K. Tindell, “Adding time-offsets to schedulability analysis,” 1994.
  35. J. C. Palencia and M. G. Harbour, “Schedulability analysis for tasks with static and dynamic offsets,” IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium, pp. 26–37, 1998.
  36. M. Günzel, K.-H. Chen, N. Ueter, G. v. der Brüggen, M. Dürr, and J.-J. Chen, “Compositional timing analysis of asynchronized distributed cause-effect chains,” ACM Trans. Embed. Comput. Syst., mar 2023. Just Accepted.
  37. C. Sofronis, S. Tripakis, and P. Caspi, “A memory-optimal buffering protocol for preservation of synchronous semantics under preemptive scheduling,” in Proceedings of the 6th ACM & IEEE International conference on Embedded software, pp. 21–33, 2006.
  38. D.-S. Chen, R. G. Batson, and Y. Dang, “Applied integer programming: Modeling and solution,” 2010.
  39. Wikipedia contributors, “Multigraph — Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.” https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multigraph&oldid=1158564961, 2023. [Online; accessed 25-October-2023].
  40. S. Wang, R. K. Williams, and H. Zeng, “A general and scalable method for optimizing real-time systems with continuous variables,” IEEE Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium, pp. 119–132, 2023.
  41. S. Wang, D. Li, S.-Y. Huang, X. Deng, A. H. Sifat, C. Jung, R. Williams, and H. Zeng, “A general and scalable method for optimizing real-time systems,” ArXiv, vol. abs/2401.03284, 2024.
  42. O. Redell and M. Törngren, “Calculating exact worst case response times for static priority scheduled tasks with offsets and jitter,” Proceedings. Eighth IEEE Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium, pp. 164–172, 2002.
  43. IBM ILOG, “V12. 1: User’s manual for cplex,” International Business Machines Corporation, vol. 46, no. 53, p. 157, 2009.
  44. M. Joseph and P. K. Pandya, “Finding response times in a real-time system,” Comput. J., vol. 29, pp. 390–395, 1986.
  45. A. H. Simon Kramer, Dirk Ziegenbein, “Real world automotive benchmarks for free,” in Workshop on Analysis Tools and Methodologies for Embedded and Real-time Systems, 2015.
  46. E. Bini and G. Buttazzo, “Measuring the performance of schedulability tests,” Real-Time Systems, vol. 30, pp. 129–154, 2005.
  47. Q. He, M. Lv, and N. Guan, “Response time bounds for dag tasks with arbitrary intra-task priority assignment,” in ECRTS, 2021.
  48. J. G. Siek, L.-Q. Lee, and A. Lumsdaine, “The boost graph library - user guide and reference manual,” in C++ in-depth series, 2001.
  49. A. Hamann, S. Kramer, M. Pressler, D. Dasari, F. Wurst, and D. Ziegenbein, “Waters industrial challenge 2017,” in Workshop on Analysis Tools and Methodologies for Embedded and Real-time Systems, 2017.
  50. A. H. Sifat, X. Deng, B. Bharmal, S. Wang, S.-Y. Huang, J. Huang, C. Jung, H. Zeng, and R. K. Williams, “A safety-performance metric enabling computational awareness in autonomous robots,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 8, pp. 5727–5734, 2023.
Citations (2)

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.