skip to main content
10.1145/1629335.1629358acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesesweekConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Towards a time-triggered schedule calculation tool to support model-based embedded software design

Published:12 October 2009Publication History

ABSTRACT

Time-triggered architectures (TTA) provide replica determinism in safety-critical distributed embedded software designs. TTA has become a crucial part of many high-confidence embedded paradigms, as it decouples functional concerns from platform timing concerns in system designs. Complex embedded software development workflows for safety-critical applications are increasingly managed by model-based design tools, in order to support automated verification and reconcile conflicts between functional and non-functional concerns in designs. We present a prototype scheduling tool (ESched) which calculates cyclic schedules for time-triggered networks. ESched supports the model-based workflow of the ESMoL modeling language and tool suite. Using ESMoL, designers can rapidly iterate through simulating a control design, capturing platform effects in models, generating a schedule (if feasible), and re-simulating the control design subject to the platform model and the computed schedule. ESched specifications include a number of useful platform parameters, and it supports troubleshooting of infeasible schedules by allowing the user to specify partial platform models to solve.

References

  1. Modeling and Analysis Suite for Real-Time Applications (MAST). http://mast.unican.es/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Rapid-RMA: The Art of Modeling Real-Time Systems. http://www.tripac.com/html/prod-fact-rrm.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Rational Rose. http://www-01.ibm.com/software/rational/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. TTTech TTP/C Cluster. http://www.tttech.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. TTTech TTPlan Scheduling Tools. http://www.tttech.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Aditya Agrawal et al. The design of a language for model transformations. Journal on Software and System Modeling, 5(3):261--288, Sep 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. R. Alur and G. Weiss. RTComposer: a framework for real-time components with scheduling interfaces. In EMSOFT '08: Proc. of the 8th ACM Intl. Conf. on Embedded software, pages 159--168, New York, NY, USA, 2008. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. A. Anta and P. Tabuada. On the benefits of relaxing the periodicity assumption for networked control systems over CAN. Submitted for publication, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. K.-E. Arzen and B. B. et al. Integrated control and scheduling. Technical Report ISRN LUTFD2/TFRT-7586-SE, Dept. of Automatic Control, Lund Inst. of Technology, Sweden, Aug 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. F. Balarin, Y. Watanabe, H. Hsieh, L. Lavagno, C. Paserone, and A. L. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli. Metropolis: an integrated electronic system design environment. IEEE Computer, 36(4), April 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. N. Beldiceanu and M. Carlsson. A new multi-resource cumulatives constraint with negative heights. In P. van Hentenryck, editor, CP, LNCS, pages 63--79. Springer, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. A. Benveniste and P. C. et al. Loosely time-triggered architectures based on communication-by-sampling. In EMSOFT '07: Proc. of the 7th ACM&IEEE Intl. Conf. on Embedded Software, pages 231--239, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. L. P. Carloni and F. D. B. et al. Platform-based design for embedded systems. In R. Zurawski, editor, The Embedded Systems Handbook. CRC Press, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. A. Cimatti, A. Griggio, and R. Sebastiani. A Simple and Flexible Way of Computing Small Unsatisfiable Cores in SAT Modulo Theories. In Proc. of Tenth Intl. Conf. on Satisfiability Testing (SAT '07), volume 4501 of LNCS. Springer, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. C. Ekelin and J. Jonsson. Solving embedded systems scheduling problems using constraint programming. Technical Report TR 00-12, Chalmers Univ. of Technology, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. E. Farcas, C. Farcas, W. Pree, and J. Templ. Transparent distribution of real-time components based on logical execution time. In Proc. of the 2005 ACM Conf. on Lang., Compilers, and Tools for Embedded Systems (LCTES '05), pages 31--39, New York, NY, June 2005. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. T. Henzinger, B. Horowitz, and C. Kirsch. Giotto: A time-triggered language for embedded programming. Proceedings of the IEEE, 91:84--99, January 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. T. Henzinger and J. Sifakis. The embedded systems design challenge. In FM: Formal Methods, volume 4085 of LNCS, pages 1--15. Springer, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. John Hudak and Peter Feiler. Developing AADL Models for Control Systems: A Practitioner's Guide. Technical Report CMU/SEI-2007-TR-014, CMU Software Engineering Institute (SEI), 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. G. Karsai, J. Sztipanovits, A. Ledeczi, and T. Bapty. Model-integrated development of embedded software. Proceedings of the IEEE, 91(1):145--164, January 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. H. Kopetz and G. Bauer. The Time-Triggered Architecture. Proc. of the IEEE, 91(1):112--126, Jan 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. A. Ledeczi and M. M. et al. The Generic Modeling Environment. Workshop on Intelligent Signal Processing, May 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. S. Matic and T. A. Henzinger. Trading end-to-end latency for composability. In Proc. of the 26th Annual Real-Time Systems Symposium (RTSS), pages 99--110. IEEE Computer Society Press, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. S. McConnell. Rapid Development: Taming Wild Software Schedules. Microsoft Press, Redmond, WA, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. A. Naderlinger and J. P. et al. Model-Driven Development of FlexRay-Based Systems with the Timing Definition Language (TDL). In Proc. of the 4th Intl. ICSE workshop on Software Engineering for Automotive Systems, Minneapolis, May 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Y. Oh, M. Mneimneh, Z. Andraus, K. Sakallah, and I. Markov. AMUSE: A Minimally-Unsatisfiable Subformula Extractor. In Proc. of the Design Automation Conference (DAC), pages 518--523. ACM/IEEE, June 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. M. Ohlin, D. Henriksson, and A. Cervin. TrueTime 1.5 Reference Manual. Dept. of Automatic Control, Lund University, Sweden, January 2007. http://www.control.lth.se/truetime/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. J. Porter and G. K. et al. Towards model-based integration of tools and techniques for embedded control system design, verification, and implementation. In Workshops and Symposia at MoDELS 2008, LNCS 5421, Toulouse, France, 2008. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. K. Schild and J. Wurtz. Scheduling of time-triggered real-time systems. Constraints, 5(4):335--357, Oct. 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. C. Schulte, M. Lagerkvist, and G. Tack. Gecode: Generic Constraint Development Environment. http://www.gecode.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. J. Siek, L.-Q. Lee, and A. Lumsdaine. The Boost Graph Library: User Guide and Ref. Manual, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. F. Singhoff, J. Legrand, L. Nana, and L. Marce. Cheddar : a Flexible Real Time Scheduling Framework. Ada Letters, 24(4):1--8, December 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. F. Singhoff, J. Legrand, L. Nana, and L. Marce. Scheduling and memory requirements analysis with AADL. Ada Letters, 25(4):1--10, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. G. Tack. Constraint Propagation -- Models, Techniques, Implementation. PhD thesis, Saarland University, Jan 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. The MathWorks, Inc. Simulink/Stateflow Tools. http://www.mathworks.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. R. Thibodeaux. The specification and implementation of a model of computation. Master's thesis, Vanderbilt University, May 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Z. Wei and J. C. et al. Extensible and Scalable Time Triggered Scheduling. In Proc. of the 5th Intl. Conf. on Application of Concurrency to System Design, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Towards a time-triggered schedule calculation tool to support model-based embedded software design

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in
            • Published in

              cover image ACM Conferences
              EMSOFT '09: Proceedings of the seventh ACM international conference on Embedded software
              October 2009
              332 pages
              ISBN:9781605586274
              DOI:10.1145/1629335

              Copyright © 2009 ACM

              Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

              Publisher

              Association for Computing Machinery

              New York, NY, United States

              Publication History

              • Published: 12 October 2009

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • research-article

              Acceptance Rates

              EMSOFT '09 Paper Acceptance Rate33of106submissions,31%Overall Acceptance Rate60of203submissions,30%

              Upcoming Conference

              ESWEEK '24
              Twentieth Embedded Systems Week
              September 29 - October 4, 2024
              Raleigh , NC , USA

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader