Traffic class assignment for mixed-criticality frames in TTEthernet

In this paper we are interested in mixed-criticality applications, which have functions with different timing requirements, i.e., hard real-time (HRT), soft real-time (SRT) and functions that are not time-critical (NC). The applications are implemented on distributed architectures that use the TTEthernet protocol for communication. TTEthernet supports three traffic classes: Time-Triggered (TT), where frames are transmitted based on static schedule tables; Rate Constrained (RC), for dynamic frames with a guaranteed bandwidth and bounded delays; and Best Effort (BE), for which no timing guarantees are provided. HRT messages have deadlines, whereas for SRT messages we capture the quality-of-service using "utility functions". Given the network topology, the set of application messages and their routing, we are interested to determine the traffic class of each message, such that all HRT messages are schedulable and the total utility for SRT messages is maximized. For the TT frames we decide their schedule tables, and for the RC frames we decide their bandwidth allocation. We propose aTabu Search-based metaheuristic to solve this optimization problem. The proposed approach has been evaluated using several benchmarks, including two realistic test cases.</jats:p

Intégration itérative des systèmes avioniques communicants en mode synchrone et asynchrone

Les systèmes avioniques modernes sont des systèmes distribués complexes et évolutifs. Ces systèmes sont conçus d’une manière itérative en intégrant à chaque itération une ou plusieurs fonctionnalités. L’ajout de nouvelles fonctionnalités impose des coûts supplémentaires de reconfiguration de telle sorte que l’ensemble du système soit conforme aux exigences temps-réel. Ces systèmes reposent également sur l’adoption d’un protocole de communication déterministe tel que le protocole AFDX. Ce dernier est utilisé dans les avions modernes tels que l’A380 de Airbus et le B787 de Boeing. Il repose sur une communication asynchrone avec limitation de la bande passante. Ce mécanisme permet d’assurer des délais finis de communication. La recherche de plus de déterminisme a poussé la communauté scientifique à chercher d’autres alternatives à AFDX. Le standard Time-triggered Ethernet constitue une bonne alternative. En plus de la communication asynchrone à bande passante limitée, il définit également une communication synchrone. Suivant le type de communication, les approches de vérification des exigences temps-réel diffèrent. Pour analyser les flux asynchrones, on utilise principalement des approches analytiques. Elles assurent un bon compromis entre performance et pessimisme. Pour les flux synchrones, on s’appuie plutôt sur le formalisme de contraintes pour synthétiser un ordonnancement faisable. La combinaison des deux flux constitue un défi en termes de vérification. De plus, les approches de vérification définies ne modélisent ni l’aspect évolutif ni la notion coût.----------ABSTRACT: Modern avionics systems are complex and evolving distributed ones. They are designed iteratively by integrating at each iteration one or more functionalities. Adding new functionality may impose additional reconfiguration costs so that the whole system complies with the realtime requirements. These systems also rely on the adoption of a deterministic communication protocol such as AFDX. The latter is used in modern aircrafts such as the Airbus A380 and the Boeing B787. It relies on asynchronous communication with bandwidth limitations. This mechanism ensures finite communication delays. The search for more determinism encourage the scientific community to look for other alternatives to AFDX. The Time-triggered Ethernet standard is a good alternative. In addition to asynchronous communication with limited bandwidth, it also defines synchronous ones. Depending on the type of communication, verification approaches of real-time requirements differ. To analyze asynchronous flows, we mainly use analytical approaches. They ensure a good compromise between performance and pessimism. For synchronous flows, we rely instead on constraint formalism to synthesize a feasible scheduling. The combination of the two flows is a challenge in terms of verification. In addition, defined verification approaches do not model neither the evolving aspect nor the cost concept