# Library prosa.analysis.abstract.search_space

Require Import prosa.util.epsilon.

Require Import prosa.util.tactics.

Require Import prosa.model.task.concept.

From mathcomp Require Import ssreflect ssrbool eqtype ssrnat seq path fintype bigop.

Require Import prosa.util.tactics.

Require Import prosa.model.task.concept.

From mathcomp Require Import ssreflect ssrbool eqtype ssrnat seq path fintype bigop.

# Reduction of the search space for Abstract RTA

In this file, we prove that in order to calculate the worst-case response time it is sufficient to consider only values of A that lie in the search space defined below.
The response-time analysis we are presenting in this series of documents is based on searching
over all possible values of A, the relative arrival time of the job respective to the beginning
of the busy interval. However, to obtain a practically useful response-time bound, we need to
constrain the search space of values of A. In this section, we define an approach to
reduce the search space.

First, we provide a constructive notion of equivalent functions.

Consider an arbitrary type T...

Let B be an arbitrary constant.

Then we say that f1 and f2 are equivalent at values less than B iff
for any natural number x less than B f1 x is equal to f2 x.

And vice versa, we say that f1 and f2 are not equivalent at values
less than B iff there exists a natural number x less than B such
that f1 x is not equal to f2 x.

Definition are_not_equivalent_at_values_less_than :=

∃ x, x < B ∧ f1 x ≠ f2 x.

End EquivalentFunctions.

∃ x, x < B ∧ f1 x ≠ f2 x.

End EquivalentFunctions.

Let tsk be any task that is to be analyzed

To ensure that the analysis procedure terminates, we assume an upper bound B on
the values of A that must be checked. The existence of B follows from the assumption
that the system is not overloaded (i.e., it has bounded utilization).

Instead of searching for the maximum interference of each individual job, we
assume a per-task interference bound function IBF(tsk, A, x) that is parameterized
by the relative arrival time A of a potential job (see abstract_RTA.definitions.v file).

Recall the definition of ε, which defines the neighborhood of a point in the timeline.
Note that ε = 1 under discrete time. To ensure that the search converges more quickly, we only check values of A in the interval
[0, B)] for which the interference bound function changes, i.e., every point [x] in which
[interference_bound_function (A - ε, x)] is not equal to [interference_bound_function (A, x)].

Definition is_in_search_space A :=

A = 0 ∨

0 < A < B ∧ are_not_equivalent_at_values_less_than

(interference_bound_function tsk (A - ε)) (interference_bound_function tsk A) B.

A = 0 ∨

0 < A < B ∧ are_not_equivalent_at_values_less_than

(interference_bound_function tsk (A - ε)) (interference_bound_function tsk A) B.

In this section we prove that for every A there exists a smaller A_sp
in the search space such that interference_bound_function(A_sp,x) is
equal to interference_bound_function(A, x).

We prove that there exists a constant A_sp such that:
(a) A_sp is no greater than A, (b) interference_bound_function(A_sp, x) is
equal to interference_bound_function(A, x) and (c) A_sp is in the search space.
In other words, either A is already inside the search space, or we can go
to the "left" until we reach A_sp, which will be inside the search space.

Lemma representative_exists:

∃ A_sp,

A_sp ≤ A ∧

are_equivalent_at_values_less_than (interference_bound_function tsk A)

(interference_bound_function tsk A_sp) B ∧

is_in_search_space A_sp.

Proof.

induction A as [|n].

- ∃ 0; repeat split.

by rewrite /is_in_search_space; left.

- have ALT:

all (fun t ⇒ interference_bound_function tsk n t == interference_bound_function tsk n.+1 t) (iota 0 B)

∨ has (fun t ⇒ interference_bound_function tsk n t != interference_bound_function tsk n.+1 t) (iota 0 B).

{ apply/orP.

rewrite -[_ || _]Bool.negb_involutive Bool.negb_orb.

apply/negP; intros CONTR.

move: CONTR ⇒ /andP [NALL /negP NHAS]; apply: NHAS.

by rewrite -has_predC /predC in NALL.

}

feed IHn; first by apply ltn_trans with n.+1.

move: IHn ⇒ [ASP [NEQ [EQ SP]]].

move: ALT ⇒ [/allP ALT| /hasP ALT].

{ ∃ ASP; repeat split; try done.

{ by apply leq_trans with n. }

{ intros x LT.

move: (ALT x) ⇒ T. feed T; first by rewrite mem_iota; apply/andP; split.

move: T ⇒ /eqP T.

by rewrite -T EQ.

}

}

{ ∃ n.+1; repeat split; try done.

rewrite /is_in_search_space; right.

split; first by apply/andP; split.

move: ALT ⇒ [y IN N].

∃ y.

move: IN; rewrite mem_iota add0n. move ⇒ /andP [_ LT].

split; first by done.

rewrite subn1 -pred_Sn.

intros CONTR; move: N ⇒ /negP N; apply: N.

by rewrite CONTR.

}

Qed.

End ExistenceOfRepresentative.

∃ A_sp,

A_sp ≤ A ∧

are_equivalent_at_values_less_than (interference_bound_function tsk A)

(interference_bound_function tsk A_sp) B ∧

is_in_search_space A_sp.

Proof.

induction A as [|n].

- ∃ 0; repeat split.

by rewrite /is_in_search_space; left.

- have ALT:

all (fun t ⇒ interference_bound_function tsk n t == interference_bound_function tsk n.+1 t) (iota 0 B)

∨ has (fun t ⇒ interference_bound_function tsk n t != interference_bound_function tsk n.+1 t) (iota 0 B).

{ apply/orP.

rewrite -[_ || _]Bool.negb_involutive Bool.negb_orb.

apply/negP; intros CONTR.

move: CONTR ⇒ /andP [NALL /negP NHAS]; apply: NHAS.

by rewrite -has_predC /predC in NALL.

}

feed IHn; first by apply ltn_trans with n.+1.

move: IHn ⇒ [ASP [NEQ [EQ SP]]].

move: ALT ⇒ [/allP ALT| /hasP ALT].

{ ∃ ASP; repeat split; try done.

{ by apply leq_trans with n. }

{ intros x LT.

move: (ALT x) ⇒ T. feed T; first by rewrite mem_iota; apply/andP; split.

move: T ⇒ /eqP T.

by rewrite -T EQ.

}

}

{ ∃ n.+1; repeat split; try done.

rewrite /is_in_search_space; right.

split; first by apply/andP; split.

move: ALT ⇒ [y IN N].

∃ y.

move: IN; rewrite mem_iota add0n. move ⇒ /andP [_ LT].

split; first by done.

rewrite subn1 -pred_Sn.

intros CONTR; move: N ⇒ /negP N; apply: N.

by rewrite CONTR.

}

Qed.

End ExistenceOfRepresentative.

In this section we prove that any solution of the response-time recurrence for
a given point A_sp in the search space also gives a solution for any point
A that shares the same interference bound.

Variables A_sp F_sp : duration.

Hypothesis H_less_than : A_sp + F_sp < B.

Hypothesis H_fixpoint : A_sp + F_sp = interference_bound_function tsk A_sp (A_sp + F_sp).

Hypothesis H_less_than : A_sp + F_sp < B.

Hypothesis H_fixpoint : A_sp + F_sp = interference_bound_function tsk A_sp (A_sp + F_sp).

Next, let A be any point such that: (a) A_sp ≤ A ≤ A_sp + F_sp and
(b) interference_bound_function(A, x) is equal to
interference_bound_function(A_sp, x) for all x less than B.

Variable A : duration.

Hypothesis H_bounds_for_A : A_sp ≤ A ≤ A_sp + F_sp.

Hypothesis H_equivalent :

are_equivalent_at_values_less_than

(interference_bound_function tsk A)

(interference_bound_function tsk A_sp) B.

Hypothesis H_bounds_for_A : A_sp ≤ A ≤ A_sp + F_sp.

Hypothesis H_equivalent :

are_equivalent_at_values_less_than

(interference_bound_function tsk A)

(interference_bound_function tsk A_sp) B.

We prove that there exists a constant F such that A + F is equal to A_sp + F_sp
and A + F is a solution for the response-time recurrence for A.

Lemma solution_for_A_exists:

∃ F,

A_sp + F_sp = A + F ∧

F ≤ F_sp ∧

A + F = interference_bound_function tsk A (A + F).

Proof.

move: H_bounds_for_A ⇒ /andP [NEQ1 NEQ2].

set (X := A_sp + F_sp) in ×.

∃ (X - A); split; last split.

- by rewrite subnKC.

- by rewrite leq_subLR /X leq_add2r.

- by rewrite subnKC // H_equivalent.

Qed.

End FixpointSolutionForAnotherA.

End AbstractRTAReduction.

∃ F,

A_sp + F_sp = A + F ∧

F ≤ F_sp ∧

A + F = interference_bound_function tsk A (A + F).

Proof.

move: H_bounds_for_A ⇒ /andP [NEQ1 NEQ2].

set (X := A_sp + F_sp) in ×.

∃ (X - A); split; last split.

- by rewrite subnKC.

- by rewrite leq_subLR /X leq_add2r.

- by rewrite subnKC // H_equivalent.

Qed.

End FixpointSolutionForAnotherA.

End AbstractRTAReduction.