Performance Debugging of Heterogeneous Real-Time Systems
Today most real-time embedded systems are made up of a heterogeneous collection of processors, communication subsystems and partially programmable or fixed-function components. These are typically supplied by different vendors and as a result have different interfaces, require different programming models and implement different resource scheduling and arbitration policies. Hence, performance analysis and debugging of such systems is increasingly becoming complex. Although a lot of work exists in the real-time systems literature on timing and schedulability analysis of specific task and event models-which can be applied to analyze individual subsystems-the issue of compositionality has not received sufficient attention so far. In this paper we discuss a framework which can help in the analysis and performance debugging of such heterogeneous real-time systems. It can account for a variety of combinations of task and event models and scheduling policies and does not require any global state-space construction. As a result, it is highly scalable and can be used to analyze real-life hardware/software architectures. The main focus of this paper is on illustrating the utility of this framework in analyzing a heterogeneous collection of electronic control units that communicate via a FlexRay bus.
KeywordsTransmitted Message Electronic Control Unit Adaptive Cruise Control Event Stream Processor Cycle
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.S. Chakraborty, S. Kunzli, and L. Thiele. A general framework for analysing system properties in platform-based embedded system designs. In DATE, 2003.Google Scholar
- 2.S. Chakraborty, L. T. X. Phan, and P. S. Thiagarajan. event count automata: a state-based model for stream processing systems. In RTSS, 2005.Google Scholar
- 3.The FlexRay Communications System Specifications, Ver 2.1. www.flexray.com, 2005.
- 4.A. Maxiaguine, S. Kunzli, and L. Thiele. Workload characterization model for tasks with vari-able execution demand. In DATE, 2004.Google Scholar
- 5.A. Maxiaguine, Y. Zhu, S. Chakraborty, and W.-F. Wong. Tuning soc platforms for multimedia processing: identifying limits and tradeoffs. In CODES+ISSS, 2004.Google Scholar
- 6.T. Pop, P. Pop, P. Eles, Z. Peng, and A. Andrei. Timing analysis of the FlexRay communication protocol. In ECRTS, 2006.Google Scholar
- 7.K. Richter and R. Ernst. Model interfaces for heterogeneous system analysis. In DATE, 2002.Google Scholar
- 8.K. Richter, M. Jersak, and R. Ernst. A formal approach to MpSoC performance verification. IEEE Computer, 36(4):60-67, 2003.Google Scholar
- 9.K. Richter, D. Ziegenbein, M. Jersak, and R. Ernst. Model composition for scheduling analysis in platform design. In DAC, 2002.Google Scholar