1 / 15

Filling the Gap Between System Design & Performance Verification

Filling the Gap Between System Design & Performance Verification. Rafik HENIA, Laurent RIOUX, Nicolas SORDON Thales Research & Technology. Real-Time Embedded Applications. Characterized by : High complexity Strict Time-to-market constraints Strong real-time requirements. Issue :

inara
Download Presentation

Filling the Gap Between System Design & Performance Verification

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. Filling the Gap Between System Design & Performance Verification Rafik HENIA, Laurent RIOUX, Nicolas SORDON Thales Research & Technology

  2. Real-Time Embedded Applications • Characterized by : • High complexity • Strict Time-to-market constraints • Strong real-time requirements • Issue : • Traditional V-cycle not suitable any more since performance verification activities only start when development and integration are completed • Performance issues are more difficult and expensive to fix at this stage complexity time-criticality money • Challenge : • Reliable model-based performance verification approach at early design stages to avoid costly timing errors • Requires bridging the gap between design model and performance verification activities • Requires seamless integration of performance verification methods in the design process

  3. Current Design Approach at THALES • MyCCM (Make your Component Connector Model) • Component-based design approach • Components encapsulate functional code • Components connected through communication ports • Construction of applications by assembling components • Code generation of non-functional code • Supported by UML modelers and Thales MDE internal modeling tools Separation of concerns between functional and non-functional code Black-box components for easy application prototyping Reuse of components

  4. Use Case Context Software Defined Radio • Signal modulation implementation using software rather than hardware • Easy reprogramming to fit different situations with the same hardware • Typically used by armies to guarantee confidentiality of communications • Strong real-time constraints

  5. Design Use Case – Software Defined Radio

  6. From Design Model to Performance Analysis ? ? • Available in modeling tool • Application model • Mapping Modelingtool • Required by SymTA/S • Application model • Mapping • Timing characteristics • Scheduling characteristics SymTA/S

  7. From Design Model to Performance Analysis ? ? • Performance Viewpoint • A model view from the performance engineering perspective • Separation of concerns to master the system design complexity Modelingtool Performance Viewpoint Security Viewpoint Safety Viewpoint SymTA/S

  8. Performance Viewpoint • UML-profile MARTE • OMG standard • Concepts for real-time constraints modeling • Concepts for target platform modeling • Syntax is not user-friendly !

  9. Performance Viewpoint • UML-profile MARTE • OMG standard • Concepts for real-time constraints modeling • Concepts for target platform modeling • Syntax is not user-friendly ! •  Syntax adaptation required

  10. Semantic Gap between Design Model to Performance Analysis ? ? • Available in design tool • Application model • Mapping • Timing characteristics • Scheduling characteristics Performance Viewpoint • semantic gap • A task produces output data • at the end of its execution • Required by SymTA/S • Application model • Mapping • Timing characteristics • Scheduling characteristics

  11. Design Model Semantic asynchronous communication Performance Viewpoint synchronous communication

  12. Design Model Transformation Task 1 Task 2 Modelingtool Task 1,a Task 2 SymTA/S Task 1,b

  13. From Design Model to Performance Analysis via Pivot Model Pivot analysis model Performance Viewpoint • Pivot analysis model • Introduce a minimum of independence from modeling and analysis tools Spectra Cx MainStream Engineering

  14. From Performance Analysis Back to Design Model Pivot analysis model Performance Viewpoint • Analysis results adaptation • Transformation rules required to inject the analysis results in the design model

  15. Summary • We developed a framework allowing the automation of the model-based performance verification activities at the early design stages • Essential to decrease design time and increase productivity • We meet the industrial needs through: • Viewpoint concept to achieve a clear separation between design main stream and performance engineering activities • Adapted DSL (Domain-Specific Language) for performance (MARTE) • Transformation rules from design model to performance analysis model via pivot model, thus allowing bridging the semantic gap separating them • Transformations rules adapting performance analysis results to design model

More Related