Ravenscar-EDF: Comparative Benchmarking of an EDF Variant of a Ravenscar Runtime

  • Paolo CarlettoEmail author
  • Tullio VardanegaEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10300)


Subsequent to the publication of the seminal work by Liu and Layland in 1973, researchers and practitioners alike started discussing which online scheduling algorithm was to be preferred between FPS and EDF. Results published in 2005 sustained the superiority of EDF, already proven in theory, also from an implementation perspective. With this work, we aim at digging deeper into the roots of those results. To this end, we took the first-ever instance of an Ada Ravenscar runtime, with its FPS scheduler, combined with its IPCP locking policy companion, and developed a variant of it that implements EDF scheduling coupled with DFP locking. In this manner, we were able to transparently attach those two runtime variants to a suite of synthetic benchmarks, which we used to perform an extensive quantitative comparison between those two runtimes, getting to the bottom of where one prevails on the other.


Ravenscar profile Earliest Deadline First Deadline Floor Protocol Analysis and development Performance comparison 


  1. 1.
    Burns, A.: A deadline-floor inheritance protocol for EDF scheduled real-time systems with resource sharing. Technical report YCS- 2012-476, Department of Computer Science, University of York, UK (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burns, A.: An EDF runtime profile based on Ravenscar. Ada Lett XXXII(1), 24–31 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burns, A.: The Ravenscar profile ACM. Ada Lett. XIX(4), 49–52 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burns, A., Dobbing, B., Romanski, G.: The Ravenscar tasking profile for high integrity real-time programs. In: Asplund, L. (ed.) Ada-Europe 1998. LNCS, vol. 1411, pp. 263–275. Springer, Heidelberg (1998). doi: 10.1007/BFb0055011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burns, A., Wellings, A.: The deadline floor protocol and Ada. ACM SIGAda Ada Lett. 36(1), 29–34 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Liu, L., Layland, J.W.: Scheduling algorithms for multiprogramming in a hard real-time environment. J. ACM 20(1), 46–61 (1973)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Buttazzo, G.: Rate monotonic vs EDF: judgment day. Real Time Syst. 29, 5–26 (2005)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goossens, J., Macq, C.: Limitation of the hyperperiod in real-time periodic task set generation. In: Proceedings of the RTS Embedded System (RTS 2001), pp. 133–147 (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sha, L., Rajkumar, R., Lehoczky, J.: Priority inheritance protocols: an approach to real-time synchronisation. IEEE Trans. Comput. 39, 1175–1185 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Audsley, N., Burns, A., Richardson, M., Tindell, K., Wellings, A.J.: Applying new scheduling theory to static priority pre-emptive scheduling. Softw. Eng. J. 8(5), 284–292 (1993). doi: 10.1049/sej.1993.0034
  11. 11.
    Davis, R., Baruah, S., Rothvoss, T., Burns, A.: Quantifying the sub-optimality of uniprocessor fixed priority pre-emptive scheduling for sporadic tasksets with arbitrary deadlines. In: RTNS 2009, Paris, ECE, 26–27 October 2009Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vardanega, T., Zamorano, J., De La Puente, A.J.: On the dynamic semantics and the timing behavior of Ravenscar kernels. Real Time Syst. 29, 59–89 (2005)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MathematicsUniversity of PaduaPaduaItaly

Personalised recommendations