Performance Debugging of Heterogeneous Real-Time Systems

  • Unmesh D. Bordoloi
  • Samarjit Chakraborty
  • Andrei Hagiescu
Conference paper

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.

Keywords

Torque Radar Phan 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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. 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. 3.
    The FlexRay Communications System Specifications, Ver 2.1. www.flexray.com, 2005.
  4. 4.
    A. Maxiaguine, S. Kunzli, and L. Thiele. Workload characterization model for tasks with vari-able execution demand. In DATE, 2004.Google Scholar
  5. 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. 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. 7.
    K. Richter and R. Ernst. Model interfaces for heterogeneous system analysis. In DATE, 2002.Google Scholar
  8. 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. 9.
    K. Richter, D. Ziegenbein, M. Jersak, and R. Ernst. Model composition for scheduling analysis in platform design. In DAC, 2002.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    E. Wandeler, A. Maxiaguine, and L. Thiele. Quantitative characterization of event streams in analysis of hard real-time applications. Real-Time Systems, 29(2-3):205-225, 2005.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Unmesh D. Bordoloi
    • 1
  • Samarjit Chakraborty
    • 1
  • Andrei Hagiescu
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceNational University of SingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations