Abstract
Once the specification has been completed, design activities can start. This is consistent with the simplified design information flow (see Fig. 6.1). Mapping applications to execution platforms is really a key activity. Therefore, we underline the importance of this Chapter.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
This is the time from the occurrence of an external event until the completion of the reaction required for the event.
- 2.
This term refers to a processor in this case.
- 3.
Pinedo denotes the makespan as \(C_{max}\). We prefer to avoid confusion with execution times \(C_i\).
- 4.
This proof assumes a discrete time domain. It can be extended to a continuous time domain.
- 5.
I owe this hint to J.J. Chen of TU Dortmund.
- 6.
The presentation of pfair scheduling is based on slides by I. Puaut [437].
- 7.
I owe this informal explanation to J.J. Chen, TU Dortmund.
- 8.
A tighter bound has been shown by Chen et al. [95].
- 9.
Indexes k and l are not explicit in the original paper.
- 10.
A more recent version uses a satisfiability (SAT) solver for the same purpose.
- 11.
We merge Singh’s hybrid mappings with these three classes.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Marwedel, P. (2018). Application Mapping. In: Embedded System Design. Embedded Systems. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56045-8_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56045-8_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-56043-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-56045-8
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)