Abstract RTA for FP-schedulers with Bounded Priority Inversion

In this module we instantiate the Abstract Response-Time analysis (aRTA) to FP-schedulers for ideal uni-processor model of real-time tasks with arbitrary arrival models. Given FP priority policy and an ideal uni-processor scheduler model, we can explicitly specify interference, interfering_workload, and interference_bound_function. In this settings, we can define natural notions of service, workload, busy interval, etc. The important feature of this instantiation is that we can induce the meaningful notion of priority inversion. However, we do not specify the exact cause of priority inversion (as there may be different reasons for this, like execution of a non-preemptive segment or blocking due to resource locking). We only assume that that a priority inversion is bounded.

Consider any type of tasks ...

... and any type of jobs associated with these tasks.

Consider an FP policy that indicates a higher-or-equal priority relation, and assume that the relation is reflexive. Note that we do not relate the FP policy with the scheduler. However, we define functions for Interference and Interfering Workload that actively use the concept of priorities. We require the FP policy to be reflexive, so a job cannot cause lower-priority interference (i.e. priority inversion) to itself.

Consider any arrival sequence with consistent, non-duplicate arrivals.

Next, consider any ideal uni-processor schedule of this arrival sequence, ...

... allow for any work-bearing notion of job readiness, ...

... and assume that the schedule is valid.

Instantiation of Interference

We say that job j incurs interference at time t iff it cannot execute due to a higher-or-equal-priority job being scheduled, or if it incurs a priority inversion.

Instantiation of Interfering Workload

The interfering workload, in turn, is defined as the sum of the priority inversion function and interfering workload of jobs with higher or equal priority.

Note that we differentiate between abstract and classical notions of work conserving schedule.

We assume that the schedule is a work-conserving schedule in the classical sense, and later prove that the hypothesis about abstract work-conservation also holds.

Assume we have sequential tasks, i.e, jobs from the same task execute in the order of their arrival.

Assume that a job cost cannot be larger than a task cost.

Consider an arbitrary task set ts.

Next, we assume that all jobs come from the task set.

Let max_arrivals be a family of valid arrival curves, i.e., for any task tsk in ts max_arrival tsk is (1) an arrival bound of tsk, and (2) it is a monotonic function that equals 0 for the empty interval delta = 0.

Let tsk be any task in ts that is to be analyzed.

Consider a valid preemption model...

...and a valid task run-to-completion threshold function. That is, task_rtct tsk is (1) no bigger than tsk's cost, (2) for any job of task tsk job_rtct is bounded by task_rtct.

For clarity, let's define some local names.

We introduce task_rbf as an abbreviation of the task request bound function, which is defined as task_cost(tsk) × max_arrivals(tsk,Δ).

Using the sum of individual request bound functions, we define the request bound function of all tasks with higher-or-equal priority (with respect to tsk).

Similarly, we define the request bound function of all tasks other than tsk with higher-or-equal priority (with respect to tsk).

Assume that there exists a constant priority_inversion_bound that bounds the length of any priority inversion experienced by any job of tsk. Since we analyze only task tsk, we ignore the lengths of priority inversions incurred by any other tasks.

Let L be any positive fixed point of the busy interval recurrence.

To reduce the time complexity of the analysis, recall the notion of search space. Intuitively, this corresponds to all "interesting" arrival offsets that the job under analysis might have with regard to the beginning of its busy-window.

Let R be a value that upper-bounds the solution of each response-time recurrence, i.e., for any relative arrival time A in the search space, there exists a corresponding solution F such that R ≥ F + (task cost - task lock-in service).

Finally, we define the interference bound function (IBF_other). IBF_other bounds the interference if tasks are sequential. Since tasks are sequential, we exclude interference from other jobs of the same task. For FP, we define IBF_other as the sum of the priority interference bound and the higher-or-equal-priority workload.

Filling Out Hypotheses Of Abstract RTA Theorem

In this section we prove that all preconditions necessary to use the abstract theorem are satisfied.

Recall that L is assumed to be a fixed point of the busy interval recurrence. Thanks to this fact, we can prove that every busy interval (according to the concrete definition) is bounded. In addition, we know that the conventional concept of busy interval and the one obtained from the abstract definition (with the interference and interfering workload) coincide. Thus, it follows that any busy interval (in the abstract sense) is bounded.

Next, we prove that IBF_other is indeed an interference bound. Recall that in module abstract_seq_RTA hypothesis task_interference_is_bounded_by expects to receive a function that maps some task tsk, the relative arrival time of a job j of task tsk, and the length of the interval to the maximum amount of interference. However, in this module we analyze only one task -- tsk, therefore it is “hard-coded” inside the interference bound function IBF_other. Moreover, in case of a model with fixed priorities, interference that some job j incurs from higher-or-equal priority jobs does not depend on the relative arrival time of job j. Therefore, in order for the IBF_other signature to match the required signature in module abstract_seq_RTA, we wrap the IBF_other function in a function that accepts, but simply ignores, the task and the relative arrival time.

Finally, we show that there exists a solution for the response-time recurrence.

Consider any job j of tsk.

Given any job j of task tsk that arrives exactly A units after the beginning of the busy interval, the bound of the total interference incurred by j within an interval of length Δ is equal to task_rbf (A + ε) - task_cost tsk + IBF_other Δ.

Next, consider any A from the search space (in the abstract sense).

We prove that A is also in the concrete search space.

Then, there exists a solution for the response-time recurrence (in the abstract sense).

Final Theorem

Based on the properties established above, we apply the abstract analysis framework to infer that R is a response-time bound for tsk.