Mixed Criticality Systems with Weakly-Hard Constraints

Mixed criticality systems contain components of at least two criticality levels which execute on a common hardware platform in order to more efficiently utilise re- sources. Due to multiple worst-case execution time estimates, current adaptive mixed criticality scheduling policies assume the notion of a low criticality mode where by a taskset executes under a set of more realistic temporal assumptions and a high criticality mode, in which all low criticality tasks in the taskset are descheduled, to ensure that high criticality tasks can meet more conservative timing constraints derived from certification approved methods. This issue is known as the service abrupt problem and comprises the topic of this work. The principles of real-time schedulability analysis are first reviewed, providing relevant background and theory on which mixed criticality systems analysis is based. The current state-of-the-art of mixed criticality systems scheduling policies on uni-processor systems are then discussed along with the major challenges facing the adoption of such approaches in practice. To address the service abrupt issue this work presents a new policy, Adaptive Mixed Criticality - Weakly Hard which provides a guaranteed minimum quality of service for low criticality tasks in the event of a criticality mode change. Two offline response time based schedulability tests are derived for this model and dominance relationship proved. Empirical evaluations are then used to assess the relative performance against previously published policies and their schedulability tests, where the new policy is shown to offer a scalable performance trade-off between existing fixed priority preemptive and adaptive mixed criticality policies. The work concludes with possible directions for future research

Exact Speedup Factors and Sub-Optimality for Non-Preemptive Scheduling

Fixed priority scheduling is used in many real-time systems; however, both preemptive and non-preemptive variants (FP-P and FP-NP) are known to be sub-optimal when compared to an optimal uniprocessor scheduling algorithm such as preemptive earliest deadline first (EDF-P). In this paper, we investigate the sub-optimality of fixed priority non-preemptive scheduling. Specifically, we derive the exact processor speed-up factor required to guarantee the feasibility under FP-NP (i.e. schedulability assuming an optimal priority assignment) of any task set that is feasible under EDF-P. As a consequence of this work, we also derive a lower bound on the sub-optimality of non-preemptive EDF (EDF-NP). As this lower bound matches a recently published upper bound for the same quantity, it closes the exact sub-optimality for EDF-NP. It is known that neither preemptive, nor non-preemptive fixed priority scheduling dominates the other, in other words, there are task sets that are feasible on a processor of unit speed under FP-P that are not feasible under FP-NP and vice-versa. Hence comparing these two algorithms, there are non-trivial speedup factors in both directions. We derive the exact speed-up factor required to guarantee the FP-NP feasibility of any FP-P feasible task set. Further, we derive the exact speed-up factor required to guarantee FP-P feasibility of any constrained-deadline FP-NP feasible task set

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome

Mixed criticality systems with weakly-hard constraints

International audienceCurrent adaptive mixed criticality scheduling policies assume a high criticality mode in which all low criticality tasks are descheduled to ensure that high criticality tasks can meet timing constraints derived from certification approved methods. In this paper we present a new scheduling policy, Adaptive Mixed Criticality - Weakly Hard, which provides a guaranteed minimum quality of service for low criticality tasks in the event of a criticality mode change. We derive response time based schedulability tests for this model. Empirical evaluations are then used to assess the relative performance against previously published policies and their schedulability tests

Quantifying the Exact Sub-Optimality of Non-Preemptive Scheduling

International audienceFixed priority scheduling is used in many real-time systems; however, both preemptive and non-preemptive variants (FP-P and FP-NP) are known to be sub-optimal when compared to an optimal uniprocessor scheduling algorithm such as preemptive Earliest Deadline First (EDF-P). In this paper, we investigate the sub-optimality of fixed priority non-preemptive scheduling. Specifically, we derive the exact processor speed-up factor required to guarantee the feasibility under FP-NP (i.e. schedulablability assuming an optimal priority assignment) of any task set that is feasible under EDF-P. As a consequence of this work, we also derive a lower bound on the sub-optimality of non-preemptive EDF (EDF-NP), which since it matches a recently published upper bound gives the exact sub-optimality for EDF-NP. It is known that neither preemptive, nor non-preemptive fixed priority scheduling dominates the other, i.e., there are task sets that are feasible on a processor of unit speed under FP-P that are not feasible under FP-NP and vice-versa. Hence comparing these two algorithms, there are non-trivial speedup factors in both directions. We derive the exact speed-up factor required to guarantee the FP-NP feasibility of any FP-P feasible task set. Further, we derive upper and lower bounds on the speed-up factor required to guarantee FP-P feasibility of any FP-NP feasible task set. Empirical evidence suggests that the lower bound may be tight, and hence equate to the exact speed-up factor in this case

Exact comparison of fixed priority and EDF scheduling based on speedup factors for both pre-emptive and non-pre-emptive paradigms

International audienc