Replica determinism and flexible scheduling in hard real-time dependable systems

Fault-tolerant real-time systems are typically based on active replication where replicated entities are required to deliver their outputs in an identical order within a given time interval. Distributed scheduling of replicated tasks, however, violates this requirement if on-line scheduling, preemptive scheduling, or scheduling of dissimilar replicated task sets is employed. This problem of inconsistent task outputs has been solved previously by coordinating the decisions of the local schedulers such that replicated tasks are executed in an identical order. Global coordination results either in an extremely high communication effort to agree on each schedule decision or in an overly restrictive execution model where on-line scheduling, arbitrary preemptions, and nonidentically replicated task sets are not allowed. To overcome these restrictions, a new method, called timed messages, is introduced. Timed messages guarantee deterministic operation by presenting consistent message versions to the replicated tasks. This approach is based on simulated common knowledge and a sparse time base. Timed messages are very effective since they neither require communication between the local scheduler nor do they restrict usage of on-line flexible scheduling, preemptions and nonidentically replicated task sets

Non-clairvoyant Scheduling Games

In a scheduling game, each player owns a job and chooses a machine to execute it. While the social cost is the maximal load over all machines (makespan), the cost (disutility) of each player is the completion time of its own job. In the game, players may follow selfish strategies to optimize their cost and therefore their behaviors do not necessarily lead the game to an equilibrium. Even in the case there is an equilibrium, its makespan might be much larger than the social optimum, and this inefficiency is measured by the price of anarchy -- the worst ratio between the makespan of an equilibrium and the optimum. Coordination mechanisms aim to reduce the price of anarchy by designing scheduling policies that specify how jobs assigned to a same machine are to be scheduled. Typically these policies define the schedule according to the processing times as announced by the jobs. One could wonder if there are policies that do not require this knowledge, and still provide a good price of anarchy. This would make the processing times be private information and avoid the problem of truthfulness. In this paper we study these so-called non-clairvoyant policies. In particular, we study the RANDOM policy that schedules the jobs in a random order without preemption, and the EQUI policy that schedules the jobs in parallel using time-multiplexing, assigning each job an equal fraction of CPU time

A Comprehensive Experimental Comparison of Event Driven and Multi-Threaded Sensor Node Operating Systems

The capabilities of a sensor network are strongly influenced by the operating system used on the sensor nodes. In general, two different sensor network operating system types are currently considered: event driven and multi-threaded. It is commonly assumed that event driven operating systems are more suited to sensor networks as they use less memory and processing resources. However, if factors other than resource usage are considered important, a multi-threaded system might be preferred. This paper compares the resource needs of multi-threaded and event driven sensor network operating systems. The resources considered are memory usage and power consumption. Additionally, the event handling capabilities of event driven and multi-threaded operating systems are analyzed and compared. The results presented in this paper show that for a number of application areas a thread-based sensor network operating system is feasible and preferable

Statistic Rate Monotonic Scheduling

In this paper we present Statistical Rate Monotonic Scheduling (SRMS), a generalization of the classical RMS results of Liu and Layland that allows scheduling periodic tasks with highly variable execution times and statistical QoS requirements. Similar to RMS, SRMS has two components: a feasibility test and a scheduling algorithm. The feasibility test for SRMS ensures that using SRMS' scheduling algorithms, it is possible for a given periodic task set to share a given resource (e.g. a processor, communication medium, switching device, etc.) in such a way that such sharing does not result in the violation of any of the periodic tasks QoS constraints. The SRMS scheduling algorithm incorporates a number of unique features. First, it allows for fixed priority scheduling that keeps the tasks' value (or importance) independent of their periods. Second, it allows for job admission control, which allows the rejection of jobs that are not guaranteed to finish by their deadlines as soon as they are released, thus enabling the system to take necessary compensating actions. Also, admission control allows the preservation of resources since no time is spent on jobs that will miss their deadlines anyway. Third, SRMS integrates reservation-based and best-effort resource scheduling seamlessly. Reservation-based scheduling ensures the delivery of the minimal requested QoS; best-effort scheduling ensures that unused, reserved bandwidth is not wasted, but rather used to improve QoS further. Fourth, SRMS allows a system to deal gracefully with overload conditions by ensuring a fair deterioration in QoS across all tasks---as opposed to penalizing tasks with longer periods, for example. Finally, SRMS has the added advantage that its schedulability test is simple and its scheduling algorithm has a constant overhead in the sense that the complexity of the scheduler is not dependent on the number of the tasks in the system. We have evaluated SRMS against a number of alternative scheduling algorithms suggested in the literature (e.g. RMS and slack stealing), as well as refinements thereof, which we describe in this paper. Consistently throughout our experiments, SRMS provided the best performance. In addition, to evaluate the optimality of SRMS, we have compared it to an inefficient, yet optimal scheduler for task sets with harmonic periods.National Science Foundation (CCR-970668