Control-schedule co-design for fast stabilization in real time systems facing repeated reconfigurations

  • Jaishree MayankEmail author
  • Arijit Mondal
  • Arnab Sarkar


Efficient scheduling of tasks in cyber-physical systems or internet-of-things is a challenging prospect primarily due to their demands to meet critical performance goals in the face of stringent resource constraints. In addition, to enhance ease of implementation and more efficient usage of resources, these schedulers are many-a-times restricted to be non-preemptive, where jobs once started must be continuously executed until completion. In this work, we address the following resource allocation issue. Given, (i) a set of functionalities (tasks) whose performance qualities are directly proportional to the rates at which they receive service from a resource, and (ii) a discrete set of allowable alternative execution rates for each task, the objective is to determine a non-preemptive execution schedule for the tasks with appropriately chosen rates over time, such that the performance of the overall system combining all functionalities, is optimized. In this work, performance of the system is considered to be directly proportional to the time taken to re-stabilize all functionalities within stipulated thresholds, subsequent to reconfigurations in the desired outputs of a subset of these functionalities. We first propose branch and bound based techniques for determining optimal schedules under different restrictions on the adaptability of execution rates for the tasks. However, although optimal, branch and bound based solutions incur significant computational overheads, which often make them prohibitively expensive towards online application, especially for large task-set sizes. Hence, we further propose two fast and efficient heuristic strategies to quickly obtain near optimal schedules. Experimental results show that the proposed schemes are able to achieve significant performance gain, 30–55% in case of optimal strategy and 10–50% for heuristic methods compared to traditional fixed rate execution mode.


Cyber-physical systems Non-preemptive Branch and bound Variable time period 



  1. 1.
    Benhai Z, Dapeng Y (2013) Research on reserved real-time scheduling approach for cyber and physical system. In: IEEE 6th international conference on intelligent networks and intelligent systems (ICINIS), pp 62–65Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buttazzo GC, Lipari G, Abeni L (1998) Elastic task model for adaptive rate control. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 19th real-time systems symposium, pp 286–295Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buttazzo GC, Lipari G, Caccamo M, Abeni L (2002) Elastic scheduling for flexible workload management. IEEE Trans Comput 51(3):289–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Caccamo M, Buttazzo G, Sha L (2000) Elastic feedback control. In: IEEE 12th Euromicro conference on real-time systems, pp 121–128Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cao X, Cheng P, Chen J, Sun Y (2013) An online optimization approach for control and communication codesign in networked cyber-physical systems. IEEE Trans Ind Inform 9(1):439–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cervin A, Velasco M, Martí P, Camacho A (2011) Optimal online sampling period assignment: theory and experiments. IEEE Trans Control Syst Technol 19(4):902–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Du C, Tan L, Dong Y (2015) Period selection for integrated controller tasks in cyber-physical systems. Chin J Aeronaut 28(3):894–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eker J, Hagander P, Årzén KE (2000) A feedback scheduler for real-time controller tasks. Control Eng Pract 8(12):1369–1378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gaid El Mongi Ben, Çela AS, Hamam Y (2009) Optimal real-time scheduling of control tasks with state feedback resource allocation. IEEE Trans Control Syst Technol 17(2):309–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Görges D, Izák M, Liu S (2007) Optimal control of systems with resource constraints. In: IEEE 46th conference on decision and control, pp 1070–1075Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goswami D, Masrur A, Schneider R, Xue CJ, Chakraborty S (2013) Multirate controller design for resource-and schedule-constrained automotive ecus. In: Proceedings of the conference on design, automation and test in Europe, EDA consortium, pp 1123–1126Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Henriksson D, Cervin A (2005) Optimal on-line sampling period assignment for real-time control tasks based on plant state information. In: IEEE 44th conference on decision and control, European control conference (CDC-ECC), IEEE, pp 4469–4474Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jeffay K, Stanat DF, Martel CU (1991) On non-preemptive scheduling of period and sporadic tasks. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 12th real-time systems symposium, pp 129–139Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Karmakar G, Kabra A, Ramamritham K (2013) Coordinated scheduling of thermostatically controlled real-time systems under peak power constraint. In: IEEE 19th real-time and embedded technology and applications symposium (RTAS), pp 33–42Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kohler WH, Steiglitz K (1974) Characterization and theoretical comparison of branch-and-bound algorithms for permutation problems. J ACM (JACM) 21(1):140–156MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lu C, Stankovic JA, Tao G, Son SH (1999) Design and evaluation of a feedback control edf scheduling algorithm. In: IEEE 1999 20th proceedings of the real-time systems symposium, IEEE, pp 56–67Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lu C, Stankovic JA, Abdelzaher TF, Tao G, Son SH, Marley M (2000) Performance specifications and metrics for adaptive real-time systems. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 21st real-time systems symposium, pp 13–23Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lu C, Stankovic JA, Son SH, Tao G (2002) Feedback control real-time scheduling: framework, modeling, and algorithms. Real-Time Syst 23(1–2):85–126CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Marti P, Lin C, Brandt SA, Velasco M, Fuertes JM (2004) Optimal state feedback based resource allocation for resource-constrained control tasks. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 25th international real-time systems symposium, pp 161–172Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mayank J, Mondal A (2015) Performance optimization of real time control systems using variable time period. In: IEEE 2015 19th international symposium on VLSI design and test (VDAT), pp 1–6Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Palopoli L, Pinello C, Bicchi A, Sangiovanni-Vincentelli A (2005) Maximizing the stability radius of a set of systems under real-time scheduling constraints. IEEE Trans Autom Control 50(11):1790–1795MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pelusi D (2012) Improving settling and rise times of controllers via intelligent algorithms. In: IEEE 2012 14th international conference on modelling and simulation, pp 187–192Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Phavorin G, Richard P (2015) Cache-related preemption delays and real-time scheduling: a survey for uniprocessor systems. Technical Report, CiteseerGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Russell SJ, Norvig P (2016) Artificial intelligence: a modern approach. Pearson Education Limited, Kuala LumpurzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Seto D, Lehoczky JP, Sha L, Shin KG (1996) On task schedulability in real-time control systems. In: IEEE 17th real-time systems symposium, pp 13–21Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Seto D, Lehoczky JP, Sha L (1998) Task period selection and schedulability in real-time systems. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 19th real-time systems symposium, pp 188–198Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stankovic JA, He T, Abdelzaher T, Marley M, Tao G, Son S, Lu C (2001) Feedback control scheduling in distributed real-time systems. In: IEEE 2001 22nd proceedings of the real-time systems symposium, (RTSS 2001), IEEE, pp 59–70Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yepez J, Fuertes J, Marti P (2003) The large error first (lef) scheduling policy for real-time control systems. In: Work in progress proceedings of the 24th IEEE real-time systems symposium (RTSS WIP 2003), pp 63–66Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zhang F, Szwaykowska K, Wolf W, Mooney V (2008) Task scheduling for control oriented requirements for cyber-physical systems. In: IEEE real-time systems symposium, pp 47–56Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zhang F, Shi Z, Wolf W (2009) A dynamic battery model for co-design in cyber-physical systems. In: IEEE 29th international conference on distributed computing systems workshops, pp 51–56Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Indian Institute of Technology PatnaPatnaIndia
  2. 2.Indian Institute of Technology GuwahatiGuwahatiIndia

Personalised recommendations