1 / 18

Task Mapping and Bandwidth Reservation for Mixed Hard/Soft Fault-Tolerant Embedded Systems

Task Mapping and Bandwidth Reservation for Mixed Hard/Soft Fault-Tolerant Embedded Systems. Prabhat Kumar Saraswat Paul Pop Jan Madsen. 16th IEEE Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium April 14, 2010, Stockholm, Sweden. Introduction.

acacia
Download Presentation

Task Mapping and Bandwidth Reservation for Mixed Hard/Soft Fault-Tolerant Embedded Systems

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. Task Mapping and Bandwidth Reservation forMixed Hard/Soft Fault-Tolerant Embedded Systems Prabhat Kumar Saraswat Paul Pop Jan Madsen 16th IEEE Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium April 14, 2010, Stockholm, Sweden

  2. Introduction Trend: Integration of different applications on the same platform Critical (e.g., ABS) Deadline miss – catastrophe Based on worst-case assumptions Best effort (e.g., multimedia) Deadline miss – performance degradation Variability in execution times Worst-case leads to overdesign Bridging the gap: partitioned architectures Fault tolerance

  3. Mapping? ? ? Problem Description Utilization? • Given: A mixed hard/soft fault-tolerant application and a distributed platform • Determine: Mapping and Utilization • Such that: • Deadlines for all hard real-time tasks are satisfied (Even in case of faults) • Probability of meeting of deadline for soft tasks is maximized ? ? ? ? ? k transient faults Soft Task Hard Task Application Platform

  4. Deadline Period WCET Hard real-time tasks Soft real-time tasks PDF Deadline Probability Execution Time Period Periodic Application Model • Set of tasks • Mixed task set – Hard and Soft tasks • All tasks are periodic • Tasks can tolerate transient or no faults

  5. Constant Bandwidth Server • Temporal partitioning of hard/soft tasks. • Each soft task is assigned a CBS with parameters: • Qi – maximum server budget (bandwidth) • Ti – server period (period of the soft task) • A soft task is allowed to execute for only Qi units of time every period Ti • Hard tasks and CBS servers execute under EDF • Probability of meeting the deadline (QoS) depends on Qi Soft Hard Processor Util.

  6. 2+7+7+7 2+7+7 2+7 3 1 2 CBS Example [Abeni 98] Hard WCET=2 Period=3 Soft task CBS Bandwidth = 2 Period = 7 18 20 22 2 10 4 12 6 14 8 16

  7. A Execution Segment τ1 With checkpointing and fault recovery τ11 τ12 τ12 Checkpointing Overhead Error Detection Overhead Recovery Overhead Platform Model Fault model • Equidistant checkpointing with rollback recovery • Execution of task is divided into segments • After each segment checkpoints (state of a task) are stored in a stable storage • In case of fault, the state is restored from the stored checkpoint Without checkpointing

  8. Schedulability analysis • Utilization based test is used to check if the task set mapped on a processor is schedulable • Sum of utilizations of the following: • Hard tasks • Considering checkpointing overheads • Soft tasks • CBS parameters – Server budget and the period • Recovery Utilization • Utilization needed to recover the hard tasks incase of faults considering worst case scenario

  9. Stochastic Analysis • CBS server is modeled as a queue • A request of Ck units arrives every Ti units of time. • At most Qi units can be served every Ti units • The probability that a job Jk finishes before its deadline is related to Vk • Vk (the length of queue at kTi) isa Markov Chain describing the system • A stationary solution for the state probability vector of Vk is calculated • QoS is calculated from this stationary solution Qi Probability Vk = max{0,Vk-1 – Qi} + cj Execution time

  10. Over design! Implementation not possible 1 (0.60) 2 (0.80) QoS 74.50 QoS 94.74 1 (0.38) 1 (0.23) 2 (0.37) 2 (0.22) WCET (99.98%, 37) (99.98%, 22) PDFs (89.50%, 38) AET (49.02%, 23) PDFs Bandwidth Allocation using PDFs 0.6 Util. = 1 0.4 • Naive approach: • Allocate Q proportional to their AETs • For 1 • Util = 11/(11+17) x 0.6 • For 2 • Util = 17/(11+17) x 0.6 Initial AET Spare Utilization Utilization for Hard tasks period = 100 (60) (80) (11) (17) (40) Using PDFs better design decisions can be taken

  11. Mapping Example N1 N2 1 6 5 3 19 55 9 55 P5 P5 10 65 23 45 4 2 24 55 15 55 i Q Period QoS: 72.10 % i Optimal solution using AETs WCET Period N1 N2 2 1 6 5 17 55 6 55 P5 P5 4 3 10 65 23 45 26 55 17 55 QoS: 94.22 % Optimal solution using PDFs

  12. Tabu Search Mapping and Bandwidth Allocation (TSMBA) • Iterative exploration of design space • Use of Tabu List to avoid revisiting of already explored solutions • TSMBA • Takes as input, the application and the architecture model • An initial solution, can be unschedulable • Produces a solution containing • Mapping for all tasks • Set of bandwidth values for all soft tasks • Solutions are evaluated on the basis of this Cost function: • Minimize cost function = Schedulable solutions and Maximized QoS

  13. Tabu Search - Moves Diversification move – mapping and bandwidth for all tasks are changed N1 N2 τ1 6 τ2 11 τ3 16 τ4 21 QoS: 63% τ3 τ1 τ4 τ6 τ2 τ5 mapping move bandwidth move N1 N2 N1 N2 τ1 6 τ2 11 τ3 16 τ4 21 QoS: 48% τ1 τ3 τ1 τ1 6 τ2 15 τ3 16 τ4 21 QoS: 71% τ1 τ3 τ4 τ6 τ2 τ5 τ4 τ6 τ2 τ5

  14. Experimental Setup • Proposed optimizing strategy (TSMBA) vs straightforward (SF) strategy • SF strategy • Used when only AETs are available, not PDFs • Maximizing the difference between allocated Q value and AET for all soft tasks • Cost Function avg / dev • Generated synthetic benchmarks: • PDFs to match the shape of real-life benchmarks • Messages (bus utilization should not be greater than 1, non preemptive EDF) • Assume that all half of the hard tasks are safety critical Allocated Q AET WCET avg

  15. Experimental results Synthetic benchmarks • QoS resulted by TSMBA is better than SF on an average of 29.60% • TSMBA finds schedulable solutions much earlier than SF approach

  16. Experimental results Real-life benchmarks • QoS resulted by TSMBA is better than SF on an average of 28.04%

  17. Conclusions • A Tabu Search based heuristic is proposed to perform design optimizations • Results in implementation where deadlines of hard tasks are satisfied (even in case of faults) and QoS for soft tasks is maximized • Better design choices can be made by taking stochastic execution times of soft tasks into consideration.

  18. Thanks Questions?

More Related