Library prosa.analysis.facts.priority.classes
In this section, we prove some basic properties about priority relations.
Consider any type of tasks ...
... and any type of jobs associated with these tasks.
Consider a JLFP policy that indicates a higher-or-equal priority
relation.
First, we prove that another_hep_job relation is anti-reflexive.
Second, we relate another_hep_job to same_task.
We show that another_task_hep_job is "task-wise"
anti-reflexive; that is, given two jobs j and j' from the
same task, another_task_hep_job j' j is false.
Lemma another_task_hep_job_taskwise_antireflexive :
∀ tsk j j',
job_of_task tsk j →
job_of_task tsk j' →
¬ another_task_hep_job j' j.
∀ tsk j j',
job_of_task tsk j →
job_of_task tsk j' →
¬ another_task_hep_job j' j.
Lemma another_task_hep_job_another_hep_job :
∀ j1 j2,
another_task_hep_job j1 j2
= another_hep_job j1 j2 && (job_task j1 != job_task j2).
∀ j1 j2,
another_task_hep_job j1 j2
= another_hep_job j1 j2 && (job_task j1 != job_task j2).
another_hep_job can either come from another or the same task...
Lemma another_hep_job_split_task :
∀ j1 j2,
another_hep_job j1 j2
= another_task_hep_job j1 j2 || another_hep_job_of_same_task j1 j2.
∀ j1 j2,
another_hep_job j1 j2
= another_task_hep_job j1 j2 || another_hep_job_of_same_task j1 j2.
...but not both.
Lemma another_hep_job_exclusive :
∀ j1 j2,
~~ (another_task_hep_job j1 j2 && another_hep_job_of_same_task j1 j2).
End BasicLemmas.
∀ j1 j2,
~~ (another_task_hep_job j1 j2 && another_hep_job_of_same_task j1 j2).
End BasicLemmas.
In this section, we prove a basic consequence of total job-level
fixed-priority relations.
Consider any type of jobs ...
... and any JLFP policy.
If a job does not have higher-or-equal priority than another job, then
totality gives the priority relation in the opposite direction.
Lemma total_priority_not_hep_job :
total_job_priorities JLFP →
∀ j j',
~~ hep_job j j' → hep_job j' j.
End TotalJLFPProperties.
total_job_priorities JLFP →
∀ j j',
~~ hep_job j j' → hep_job j' j.
End TotalJLFPProperties.
In the following section, we establish properties of hp_task and ep_task auxiliary
priority relations defined for FP policies. They are useful in proving properties of the
ELF scheduling policy.
Consider any type of tasks and an FP policy that indicates a higher-or-equal
priority relation on the tasks.
First, we prove some trivial lemmas about the hep_task and ep_task
relations.
hp_task is irreflexive.
If a task tsk1 has higher priority than task tsk2, then task tsk1 has
higher-or-equal priority than task tsk2.
If a task tsk1 has equal priority as task tsk2, then task tsk1 has
higher-or-equal priority than task tsk2.
If a task has higher priority than another task, then the two do not
have equal priority.
Task tsk1 having equal priority as task tsk2 is equivalent to task tsk2
having equal priority as task tsk1.
If a task tsk1 has higher-or-equal priority than a task
tsk2, then tsk1 either has strictly higher priority than
tsk2 or the two have equal priority.
In the following section, we establish a useful property about the equal
priority relation, which follows when the FP policy is reflexive.
Assuming that the FP policy is reflexive ...
... it follows that the equal priority relation is reflexive.
Now we establish useful properties about the higher priority relation,
which follow when the FP policy is transitive.
Assuming that the FP policy is transitive ...
... it follows that the higher priority relation is also transitive.
If task tsk1 has higher priority than task tsk2, and task tsk2 has
higher-or-equal priority than task tsk3, then task tsk1 has higher priority
than task tsk3.
If task tsk1 has higher-or-equal priority than task tsk2, and task tsk2
has strictly higher priority than task tsk3, then task tsk1
has higher priority than task tsk3.
Lemma hep_hp_trans :
∀ tsk1 tsk2 tsk3,
hep_task tsk1 tsk2 →
hp_task tsk2 tsk3 →
hp_task tsk1 tsk3.
End TransitiveProperties.
∀ tsk1 tsk2 tsk3,
hep_task tsk1 tsk2 →
hp_task tsk2 tsk3 →
hp_task tsk1 tsk3.
End TransitiveProperties.
Finally, we establish a useful property about the higher priority relation,
which follows when the FP policy is total.
We assume that the FP policy is total.
If a task tsk1 does not have higher-or-equal priority than task tsk2, then
task tsk2 has higher priority than task tsk1.
The converse also holds.
If a task tsk1 does not have higher priority than a task
tsk2, then tsk1 either has lesser priority than
tsk2 or the two have equal priority.
Lemma nhp_ep_nhep_task :
∀ tsk1 tsk2,
~~hp_task tsk1 tsk2 = ~~hep_task tsk1 tsk2 || ep_task tsk1 tsk2.
End TotalProperties.
End FPRelationsProperties.
∀ tsk1 tsk2,
~~hp_task tsk1 tsk2 = ~~hep_task tsk1 tsk2 || ep_task tsk1 tsk2.
End TotalProperties.
End FPRelationsProperties.
In the following section, we show that FP policies respect the sequential
tasks hypothesis. It means that later-arrived jobs of a task don't have
higher priority than earlier-arrived jobs of the same task (assuming that
task priorities are reflexive).
Consider any type of tasks ...
... and any type of jobs associated with these tasks, ...
.. and assume that jobs have a cost and an arrival time.
Under any FP policy, ...
... later-arriving jobs do not have higher priority than earlier-arriving
ones.
Remark respects_sequential_tasks :
reflexive_task_priorities FP →
policy_respects_sequential_tasks (fp_to_jlfp FP).
End FPRemarks.
reflexive_task_priorities FP →
policy_respects_sequential_tasks (fp_to_jlfp FP).
End FPRemarks.
We add some lemmas into the "Hint Database" basic_rt_facts, so Coq will be
able to apply it automatically.
Global Hint Resolve
respects_sequential_tasks
total_priority_not_hep_job
: basic_rt_facts.
respects_sequential_tasks
total_priority_not_hep_job
: basic_rt_facts.