1 / 21

Deferrable Scheduling for Temporal Consistency: Schedulability Analysis and Overhead Reduction

Deferrable Scheduling for Temporal Consistency: Schedulability Analysis and Overhead Reduction. Ming Xiong : Lucent Bell Labs Song Han: City University of Hong Kong Deji Chen: Emerson Process Management. Outline. Overview and motivation Deferrable scheduling alg and analysis:

gent
Download Presentation

Deferrable Scheduling for Temporal Consistency: Schedulability Analysis and Overhead Reduction

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. Deferrable Scheduling for Temporal Consistency: Schedulability Analysis andOverhead Reduction Ming Xiong: Lucent Bell Labs Song Han: City University of Hong Kong Deji Chen: Emerson Process Management

  2. Outline • Overview and motivation • Deferrable scheduling alg and analysis: • Deferrable Scheduling (DS): A fixed priority scheduling alg for maintaining freshness of real-time data (RTSS05) • A sufficient condition for DS feasibility (schedulability) • DS with Hyper-period algs for reducing on-line scheduling overhead • Performance Studies • Conclusions and Future Work

  3. Real-Time Databases RTDB Model for Maintaining Temporal Validity of Real-Time Data Sensor 1 Network Sensor 2 . . . . Sensor N • A real-time object in RTDBs models a real world entity, e.g., position of an aircraft • Values are sampled by sensors, and propagated to RTDBs • Real-time data in RTDBs must remain fresh in order to react to abnormal situations • timely • Transactions may be triggered to deal with abnormal situations

  4. What is Data Temporal Validity in RTDBs? Value Temporal Validity: keep data valid relative to real world X 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time • Real-time data values change continuously • Data values are sampled periodically • A validity interval is associated with a data value • Within validity interval, a data value is fresh (temporally valid) • deviation from real world is acceptable

  5. D P ML t t t+V/2 t +V V Prior Work: Half-Half (HH) & More-Less (ML) Definition: • X : Real-Time Data • V : Validity Interval Length • T : Trans Updating X • P: Period of T • D: Relative Deadline of T P=D P=D HH t t t +V t+V/2 Observation : Data validity can be guaranteed if Period + Relative Deadline  Validity Length Half-Half : Sample at twice the rate of change (P = D= V/2) More-Less : P  V/2 & D  V/2

  6. Intuition of Deferrable Scheduling • More-Less: Periodic approach that is unnecessarily pessimistic • More-Less uses the worst-case response time (WCRT) of a transaction as its relative deadline • Period (Ti) = Validity Length (Ti) - WCRT (Ti) • Relative deadline and period are fixed for all instances of a transaction • DS: Sporadic approach that allows variable separations and relative deadlines for instances of a transaction • DS uses response time of an instance as the relative deadline of the instance • Separation(Ti,j, Ti,j+1) = Validity Length(Ti) – ResponseTime(Ti,j+1) • Relative deadline and separation of two instances are varied for all instances of a transaction • DS increases the average separation of two consecutive instances

  7. Di Di ri,1 di,0 d’i,2 di,2 di,1 Vi Vi r’i,1 di,1 Deferrable Scheduling: Example Illustration Ti,0 Ti,1 Validity Length Vi Higher-priority preemption ri,j: Sampling(Release) time of Ti,j di,j: Absolute deadline of Ti,j ri,0 How to determine the response time of Ti,1 if it completes at di,1?

  8. Deferrable Scheduling:Key Steps • Release time ri,j fortransaction instance Ti,j is derived backwards from its deadline di,j : • di,j+1 = ri,j + Vi (validity constraint) • ri,j+1 = di,j+1 – ResponseTime(Ti,j+1 ) • ResponseTime(Ti,j+1 ) = HPPreemption(ri,j+1, di,j+1 ) + Ci HPPreemption(ri,j+1, di,j+1) is the total amount of processor demand from higher priority transactions during [ri,j+1, di,j+1]. • HPPreemption(ri,j+1, di,j+1) can be derived only if the schedule of all higher priority transactions of Ti up to di,j+1have been determined • Note that Eq 2) above can be solved by an iterative algorithm in fixed priority scheduling

  9. DS Feasibility Analysis: A Sufficient Condition • Theorem: Given a synchronous sensor transaction set T, if T can be scheduled by More-Less, then it can also be scheduled by Deferrable Scheduling. • Synchronous means that the first instances of all transactions are released at the same time

  10. Proof Sketch of the Theorem • T can be scheduled by More-Less: WCRTML (Ti) <= Validity Length (Ti)/2 • T can be scheduled by More-Less: WCRT (Ti) <= WCRTML (Ti) • WCRT (Ti) <= Validity Length (Ti)/2:T can be scheduled by Deferrable Scheduling.

  11. WCRTML (Ti) <= Validity Length (Ti)/2 • True by the definition of More-Less

  12. WCRT (Ti) <= WCRTML (Ti) • Prove by contradiction. • For any 1 < k <= m and WCRT (Tk) > WCRTML (Tk), • we could find 1 <= l < k and WCRT (Tl) > WCRTML (Tl). • Tl could be found from the schedule that produces WCRT (Tk) • But we know: WCRT (T1) = WCRTML (T1)

  13. T can be scheduled by Deferrable Scheduling • If ri,k+1 <= di,k, then T is schedulable. • According to DS-FP: ri,k = di,k – Ri,kdi,k+1 = ri,k + Viri,k+1 = di,k+1-Ri,k+1 • We have: ri,k+1 – di,k + Ri,k+1 + Ri,k = Vi • Since: Ri,k+1 + Ri,k <= 2 WCRT (Ti) <= Vi • We have: ri,k+1 – di,k <= 0

  14. Reducing DS On-line Scheduling Overhead • Worst-case time complexity of on-line scheduling is O(mVm2) • It is much higher than More-Less (O(1)) • Time complexity of on-line scheduling can be reduced by making DS based hyper-period schedule (off-line) • Periodic on-line scheduling (O(1)) • On-line space overhead to maintain schedule information is low

  15. Deferrable Scheduling with Hyper-period (DESH) • Criteria for hyper-period: two consecutive instances of a transaction satisfy the validity constraint • Two instances in the same hyper-period • Two instances across two hyper-periods • Off-line Schedule Adjustment (DESH-SA) Alg • Finds an interval [0, tend] in a partial DS schedule that has its utilization close to Uest • Adjusts the schedule backwards from tend so that the schedule in [0, tend] can be repeated on-line without violating the validity constraint

  16. DESH-SA Alg • Finds an idle time t • Repeats the schedule in [0, t] for Ti if Ti and its higher priority transactions satisfy the validity constraint for the last instance before t and the first instance after t • Otherwise, • Pushes back the first Ti instance after t and sets t as its deadline, and computes its release time • If its release time < its prior instance’s absolute deadline, adjusts the schedule of its prior instance (may incur ripple effect)

  17. Performance Studies • Experiments are conducted by simulation • Single CPU RTDB with all real-time data in main memory • Sensor and triggered transactions are generated following an air traffic control application

  18. Performance Results: DESH Algs • DESH-SA has CPU utilization close to DS

  19. Performance Results:Hyper-period Length

  20. Conclusions • Introduced Deferrable Scheduling (DS) for fixed priority transactions maintaining real-time data freshness • Proposed a sufficient condition for DS feasibility • Developed DS based algorithm that schedule transactions with hyper-period while reducing on-line scheduling overhead to O(1) • Experimental results demonstrated that DS significantly outperforms More-Less

  21. Future Work • Open questions: • Is time 0 a critical instant for synchronous sensor transactions ? • What is a sufficient and necessary condition for DS feasibility ? • What is processor utilization bound for DS feasibility ? • How much can DS improve the feasibility of More-Less ?

More Related