skip to main content
research-article

Sharp utilization thresholds for some realtime scheduling problems

Published:09 April 2012Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Scheduling policies for real-time systems exhibit threshold behavior that is related to the utilization of the task set they schedule, and in some cases this threshold is sharp. A task set is considered schedulable if it can be scheduled to meet all associated deadlines. A schedulability test for a chosen policy is a test of feasibility: given a task set, can all deadlines be met? For the rate monotonic scheduling policy, we show that periodic workload with utilization less than a threshold URM can be scheduled almost surely and that all workload with utilization greater than URM is almost surely not schedulable. We study such sharp threshold behavior in the context of processor scheduling using static task priorities, not only for periodic real-time tasks but for aperiodic real-time tasks as well. The notion of a utilization threshold provides a simple schedulability test for most real-time applications. These results improve our understanding of scheduling policies and provide an interesting characterization of the typical behavior of policies. The threshold is sharp (small deviations around the threshold cause schedulability, as a property, to appear or disappear) for most policies; this is a happy consequence that can be used to address the limitations of existing utilization-based tests for schedulability. We demonstrate the use of such an approach for balancing power consumption with the need to meet deadlines in web servers.

References

  1. ABDELZAHER, T., SHARMA, V., AND LU, C. A utilization bound for aperiodic tasks and priority-driven scheduling. IEEE Transactions on Computers 53, 3 (Mar. 2004), 334--350. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. ABDELZAHER, T., THAKER, G., AND LARDIERI, P. A feasible region for meeting aperiodic end-to-end deadlines in resource pipelines. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (Mar. 2004). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. ABDELZAHER, T. F., AND LU, C. Schedulability analysis and utilization bounds for highly scalable real-time service. In Proceedings of the IEEE Real-Time Technology and Application Symposium (2001), pp. 15--25. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. BARUAH, S., AND BURNS, A. Sustainable scheduling analysis. In Proceedings of the IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium (December 2006), pp. 159--168. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. BARUAH, S., MOK, A. K., AND ROSIER, L. Preemptively scheduling hard real-time sporadic tasks on one processor. In Proceedings of the IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium (December 1990), pp. 182--190.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. BASTONI, A., BRANDENBURG, B., AND ANDERSON, J. An empirical comparison of global, partitioned and clustered multiprocessor EDF schedulers. In Proceedings of the IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium (December 2010), pp. 14--24. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. BERTINI, L., LEITE, J., AND MOSSÉ, D. Statistical QoS guarantee and energy-efficiency in web server clusters. In Proceedings of the Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems (Jul. 2007). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. BINI, E., BUTTAZZO, G., AND BUTTAZZO, G. Rate monotonic analysis: the hyperbolic bound. IEEE Transactions on Computers 52 (July 2003), 933--942. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. BINI, E., AND BUTTAZZO, G. C. Measuring the performance of schedulability tests. Real-Time Systems 30, 1-2 (May 2005), 129--154. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. CHEESEMAN, P., KANEFSKY, B., AND TAYLOR, W. M. Where the really hard problems are. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (1991), pp. 331--337. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. DUTERTRE, B. Dynamic scan scheduling. In Proceedings of the IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium (Dec. 2002), pp. 327--336. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. ERDÖS, P., AND RÉNYI, A. On random graphs I. Publicationes Mathematicae Debrecen 6 (1959), 290--297.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. ERDÖS, P., AND RÉNYI, A. On the evolution of random graphs. Publ. Math. Inst. Hungar. Acad. Sci. 5 (1960), 17--61.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. FIDLER, M. An end-to-end probabilistic network calculus with moment generating functions. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Workshop on Quality of Service (June 2006), pp. 261--270.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. FISHER, N., AND BARUAH, S. A polynomial-time approximation scheme for feasibility analysis in static-priority systems with arbitrary relative deadlines. In Proceedings of the Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems (July 2005), pp. 117--126. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. FRIEDGUT, E. Sharp thresholds for graph properties, and the k-SAT problem; with an appendix by Jean Bourgain. Journal of the American Mathematical Society 12, 4 (1999), 1017--1054.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. FRIEDGUT, E., AND KALAI, G. Every monotone graph property has a sharp threshold. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 124 (1996), 2993--3002.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. GHOSH, S., RAJKUMAR, R., HANSEN, J., AND LEHOCZKY, J. P. Integrated resource management and scheduling with multi-resource constraints. In Proceedings of the IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium (Dec. 2004), pp. 12--22. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. GOPALAKRISHNAN, S., CACCAMO, M., AND SHA, L. Sharp thresholds for scheduling recurring tasks with distance constraints. IEEE Transactions on Computers 57, 3 (March 2008), 344--358. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. GOPALAKRISHNAN, S., CACCAMO, M., SHIH, C.-S., LEE, C.-G., AND SHA, L. Finite horizon scheduling of radar dwells with online template construction. In Proceedings of the IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium (Dec. 2004), pp. 23--33. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. HORVATH, T., ABDELZAHER, T., AND SKADRON., K. Dynamic voltage scaling in multi-tier web servers with end-to-end delay control. IEEE Transactions on Computers 56, 4 (Apr. 2007), 444--458. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. KIRKPATRICK, S., AND SELMAN, B. Critical behavior in the satisfiability of random boolean expressions. Science 264 (1994), 1297--1301.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. KUO, T.-W., AND MOK, A. K. Load adjustment in adaptive real-time systems. In Proceedings of the IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium (1991), pp. 160--171.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. LEE, C.-G., SHA, L., AND PEDDI, A. Enhanced utilization bounds for QoS management. IEEE Transactions on Computers 53, 2 (Feb. 2004), 187--200. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. LEHOCZKY, J. P. Real-time queuing theory. In Proceedings of the IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium (Dec. 1996), pp. 186--195. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. LEHOCZKY, J. P. Real-time queuing network theory. In Proceedings of the IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium (Dec. 1997), pp. 58--67. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. LEHOCZKY, J. P., SHA, L., AND DING, Y. The rate-monotonic scheduling algorithm: Exact characterization and average case behavior. In Proceedings of the IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium (1989), pp. 166--171.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. LIU, C. L., AND LAYLAND, J. W. Scheduling algorithms for multiprogramming in a hard real-time environment. Journal of the ACM 20, 1 (Jan. 1973), 46--61. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. LU, C., STANKOVIC, J. A., TAO, G., AND SON, S. H. Feedback control real-time scheduling: Framework, modeling and algorithms. Real-Time Systems 23, 1/2 (Jul./Sept. 2002), 85--126. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. MITCHELL, D., SELMAN, B., AND LEVESQUE, H. Hard and easy distributions of SAT problems. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI92) (1992), pp. 459--465. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. MOSBERGER, D., AND JIN, T. httperf: A tool for measuring web server performance. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Internet Server Performance (June 1998).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. PARK, D.-W., NATARAJAN, S., AND KANEVSKY, A. Fixed-priority scheduling of real-time systems using utilization bounds. Journal of Systems and Software 33, 1 (Apr. 1996), 57--63. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. RED HAT INC. Red Hat content accelerator manuals. http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/tux/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. SHARMA, V., THOMAS, A., ABDELZAHER, T., SKADRON, K., AND LU, Z. Power-aware QoS management in web servers. In Proceedings of the IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium (December 2003). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. STAVRINIDES, G. L., AND KARATZA, H. D. Scheduling multiple task graphs with end-to-end deadlines in distributed real-time systems utilizing imprecise computations. Journal of Systems and Software 83, 6 (June 2010), 1004--1014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. WU, J., LIU, J.-C., AND ZHAO, W. On schedulability bounds of static priority schedulers. In Proceedings of the IEEE Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium (Mar. 2005), pp. 529--540. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. WU, J., LIU, J.-C., AND ZHAO, W. A general framework for parametrized schedulability bound analysis of real-time systems. IEEE Transactions on Computers 59, 6 (June 2010), 776--783. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in

Full Access

  • Published in

    cover image ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review
    ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review  Volume 39, Issue 4
    March 2012
    134 pages
    ISSN:0163-5999
    DOI:10.1145/2185395
    Issue’s Table of Contents

    Copyright © 2012 Author

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 9 April 2012

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader