Abstract
In this paper scheduling strategies for a rapid prototyping system are discussed. Our rapid prototyping system is able to deal with several CASE-tools and generate code for models of heterogenous domains. By using the emerging CASE Data Interchange Format CDIF the model data of CASE-tools is represented tool-independent. This tool-independent layer serves as a basis for analysis, simulation and code generation. The generated code is partitioned in tasks which must be scheduled as fast as possible using a real-time operating system to support high performance applications. We classify scheduling requirements for the constraints of rapid prototyping and present a new scheduling strategy called pseudo-rate scheduling which significantly improve the execution speed of rapid prototyping applications. Additionally, we provide a set of equations to estimate schedulability. Experimental results demonstrate the main advantages of our scheduling strategy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Audsley, N. 1990. Deadline monotonic scheduling. Internal paper, Department of Computer Science, University of York, YCS–90–146.
Burst, A., Spitzer, M., Wolff, B., and Müller-Glaser, K. 1998. On code generation for rapid prototyping using CDIF. Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications OOPSLA, Vancouver, Canada.
Burst, A., Wolff, M., Kühl, M., and Müller-Glaser, K. 1998. A rapid prototyping environment for the concurrent development of mechatronic systems. European Concurrent Engineering Conference ECEC. Erlangen, Germany.
Burst, A., Wolff, M., Kühl, M., and Müller-Glaser, K. 1998. Using CDIF for concept-oriented rapid prototyping of electronic systems. Rapid System Prototyping Conference RSP. Leuven, Belgium.
EIA/CDIF Technical Committee. 1994. CDIF / CASE Data Interchange Format. EIA Interim Std. EIA, IS–106–112.
I-Logix, Inc. 1998. Software Code Generator Reference Manual.
Integrated Systems, Inc. 1999. Autocode User's Guide.
Jefferson, D., and Sowizral, H. 1985. Fast concurrent simulation using the time warp mechanism. Distributed Simulation SCS, LaJolla.
Katcher, D., Arakawa, H., and Strosnider, J. 1993. Engineering and analysis of fixed priority schedulers. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineerings 19(9).
Lawler, E. 1983. Recent results in the theory of machine scheduling. Mathematical Programming: The State of the Art A. Bachen, New York: Springer-Verlag.
Lehoczky, J., Sha, L., and Ding, Y. 1989. The rate-monotonic scheduling algorithm: exact classification and average case behavior. Proc. Real-Time Systems Symp. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE CS Press.
Leung, J., and Whitehead, J. 1982. On the complexity of fixed-priority scheduling of periodic real-time tasks. Performance Evaluation 2.
Liu, C., and Layland, J. 1973. Scheduling algorithms for multiprogramming in a hard real-time environment. JACM, No., No. 1.
The MathWorks Inc. 1998. Real-Time Workshop User's Guide.
Stankovic, J., Spuri, M., Di Natale, M., and Buttazzo, G. 1995. Implications of classical scheduling results for real-time systems. IEEE Computer 6.
Zalewski, J. 1995. What every engineer needs to know about rate-monotonic scheduling: a tutorial. Advanced Multiprocessor Bus Architectures Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Burst, A., Wolff, M., Spitzer, B. et al. Scheduling for Concept-Oriented Rapid Prototyping. Design Automation for Embedded Systems 5, 265–280 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008902202071
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008902202071