Kahn Process Networks and a Reactive Extension

  • Marc GeilenEmail author
  • Twan Basten


Kahn and MacQueen have introduced a generic class of determinate asynchronous data-flow applications, called Kahn Process Networks (KPNs) with an elegant mathematical model and semantics in terms of Scott-continuous functions on data streams together with an implementation model of independent asynchronous sequential programs communicating through FIFO buffers with blocking read and non-blocking write operations. The two are related by the Kahn Principle which states that a realization according to the implementation model behaves as predicted by the mathematical function. Additional steps are required to arrive at an actual implementation of a KPN to take care of scheduling of independent processes on a single processor and to manage communication buffers. Because of the expressiveness of the KPN model, buffer sizes and schedules cannot be determined at design time in general and require dynamic run-time system support. Constraints are discussed that need to be placed on such system support so as to maintain the Kahn Principle. We then discuss a possible extension of the KPN model to include the possibility for sporadic, reactive behavior which is not possible in the standard model. The extended model is called Reactive Process Networks. We introduce its semantics, look at analyzability and at more constrained data-flow models combined with reactive behavior.



This work is supported in part by the EC through FP7 IST project 216224, MNEMEE and by the Netherlands Ministry of Economic Affairs under the Senter TS program in the Octopus project.


  1. 1.
    Allen G, Evans B, Schanbacher D (1998) Real-time sonar beamforming on a UNIX workstation using process networks and POSIX threads. In: Proc. of the 32nd Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers, IEEE Computer Society, pp 1725–1729Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allen G, Zucknick P, Evans B (2007) A distributed deadlock detection and resolution algorithm for process networks. In: Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, 2007. ICASSP 2007. IEEE International Conference on, vol 2, pp II–33–II–36,
  3. 3.
    Basten T, Hoogerbrugge J (2001) Efficient execution of process networks. In: Chalmers A, Mirmehdi M, Muller H (eds) Proc. of Communicating Process Architectures 2001, Bristol, UK, September 2001, IOS Press, pp 1–14Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benveniste A, Guemic PL (1990) Hybrid dynamical systems theory and the signal language. IEEE Trans Automat Contr 35:535–546MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Benveniste A, Caillaud B, Carloni LP, Caspi P, Sangiovanni-Vincentelli AL (2008) Composing heterogeneous reactive systems. ACM Trans Embed Comput Syst 7(4):1–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berry G, Gonthier G (1992) The Esterel synchronous programming language: Design, semantics, implementation. Sci Comput Program 19:87–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bhattacharya B, Bhattacharyya S (2001) Parameterized dataflow modeling for DSP systems. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 49(10):2408–2421MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bhattacharyya S, Murthy P, Lee E (1999) Synthesis of embedded software from synchronous dataflow specifications. J VLSI Signal Process Syst 21(2):151–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bhattacharyya SS, Deprettere EF, Theelen BD (2013) Dynamic Dataflow Graphs, Springer New York, New York, NY, pp 905–944., URL CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brock J, Ackerman W (1981) Scenarios: A model of non-determinate computation. In: Díaz J, Ramos I (eds) Formalization of Programming Concepts, International Colloquium, Peniscola, Spain, April 19–25, 1981, Proceedings, LNCS Vol. 107, Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp 252–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brookes S (1998) On the Kahn principle and fair networks. Tech. Rep. CMU-CS-98-156, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon UniversityGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Broy M, Dendorfer C (1992) Modelling operating system structures by timed stream processing functions. Journal of Functional Programming 2(1):1–21, URL CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Buck J (1993) Scheduling dynamic dataflow graphs with bounded memory using the token flow model. PhD thesis, University of California, EECS Dept., Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Carloni LP, Sangiovanni-Vincentelli AL (2006) A framework for modeling the distributed deployment of synchronous designs. Form Methods Syst Des 28:93–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Castrillon J, Tretter A, Leupers R, Ascheid G (2012) Communication-aware mapping of kpn applications onto heterogeneous mpsocs. In: Proceedings of the 49th Annual Design Automation Conference, ACM, New York, NY, USA, DAC ’12, pp 1266–1271,, URL
  16. 16.
    Cheng S, Wawrzynek J (2016) Synthesis of statically analyzable accelerator networks from sequential programs. In: Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Computer-Aided Design, ACM, New York, NY, USA, ICCAD ’16, pp 126:1–126:8,, URL
  17. 17.
    Davey BA, Priestley HA (1990) Introduction to Lattices and Order. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dulloo J, Marquet P (2004) Design of a real-time scheduler for Kahn Process Networks on multiprocessor systems. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Processing Techniques and Applications, PDPTA, pp 271–277Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Eker J, Janneck J, Lee EA, Liu J, Liu X, Ludvig J, Sachs S, Xiong Y (2003) Taming heterogeneity - the ptolemy approach. Proceedings of the IEEE 91(1):127–144, URL CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Falk J, Haubelt C, Zebelein C, Teich J (2013) Integrated Modeling Using Finite State Machines and Dataflow Graphs, Springer New York, New York, NY, pp 975–1013., URL CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Faustini A (1982) An operational semantics for pure dataflow. In: Nielsen M, Schmidt EM (eds) Automata, Languages and Programming, 9th Colloquium, Aarhus, Denmark, July 12–16, 1982, Proceedings, LNCS Vol. 140, Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp 212–224Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Geilen M (2009) An hierarchical compositional operational semantics of Kahn Process Networks and its Kahn Principle. Tech. rep., Electronic Systems Group, Dept. of Electrical Engineering, Eindhoven University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Geilen M (2011) Synchronous data flow scenarios. Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems 10(2):16:1–16:31MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Geilen M, Basten T (2003) Requirements on the execution of Kahn process networks. In: Degano P (ed) Proc. Of the 12th European Symposium on Programming, ESOP 2003, Held as Part of the Joint European Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software, ETAPS 2003, Warsaw, Poland, April 7–11, 2003. LNCS Vol.2618, Springer Verlag, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Geilen M, Basten T (2004) Reactive process networks. In: EMSOFT ’04: Proceedings of the 4th ACM international conference on Embedded software, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 137–146, CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Geilen M, Stuijk S (2010) Worst-case performance analysis of synchronous dataflow scenarios. In: International Conference on Hardware-Software Codesign and System Synthesis, CODES+ISSS 10, Proc., Scottsdale, Az, USA, 24–29 October, 2010, pp 125–134Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Geilen M, Falk J, Haubelt C, Basten T, Theelen B, Stuijk S (2017) Performance analysis of weakly-consistent scenario-aware dataflow graphs. Journal of Signal Processing Systems 87(1):157–175,, URL CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Girault A, Lee B, Lee E (1999) Hierarchical finite state machines with multiple concurrency models. IEEE Transactions on Computer-aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems 18(6):742–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Goel M (1998) Process networks in Ptolemy II. Technical Memorandum UCB/ERL No. M98/69, University of California, EECS Dept., Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ha S, Oh H (2013) Decidable Dataflow Models for Signal Processing: Synchronous Dataflow and Its Extensions, Springer New York, New York, NY, pp 1083–1109., URL CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Halbwachs N, Caspi P, Raymond P, Pilaud D (1991) The synchronous programming language LUSTRE. Proceedings of the IEEE 79:1305–1319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jiang B, Deprettere E, Kienhuis B (2008) Hierarchical run time deadlock detection in process networks. In: Signal Processing Systems, 2008. SiPS 2008. IEEE Workshop on, pp 239–244,
  33. 33.
    Jonsson B (1989) A fully abstract trace model for dataflow networks. In: POPL ’89: Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 155–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kahn G (1974) The semantics of a simple language for parallel programming. In: Rosenfeld J (ed) Information Processing 74: Proceedings of the IFIP Congress 74, Stockholm, Sweden, August 1974, North-Holland, Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp 471–475Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kahn G, MacQueen D (1977) Coroutines and networks of parallel programming. In: Gilchrist B (ed) Information Processing 77: Proceedings of the IFIP Congress 77, Toronto, Canada, August 8–12, 1977, North-Holland, pp 993–998Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kock, de et al E (2000) YAPI: Application modeling for signal processing systems. In: Proc. of the 37th. Design Automation Conference, Los Angeles, CA, June 2000, IEEE, pp 402–405Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lee B (2000) Specification and design of reactive systems. PhD thesis, Electronics Research Laboratory, University of California, EECS Dept., Berkeley, CA, memorandum UCB/ERL M00/29Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lee E (2001) Overview of the Ptolemy project. Technical Memorandum UCB/ERL No. M01/11, University of California, EECS Dept., Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lee E, Messerschmitt D (1987) Synchronous data flow. IEEE Proceedings 75(9):1235–1245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lee E, Sangiovanni-Vincentelli A (Dec 1998) A framework for comparing models of computation. Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, IEEE Transactions on 17(12):1217–1229, CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lee EA, Matsikoudis E (2007) The Semantics of Dataflow with Firing, Cambridge University Press. URL, chapter from “From Semantics to Computer Science: Essays in memory of Gilles Kahn”
  42. 42.
    Li P, Agrawal K, Buhler J, Chamberlain RD (2010) Deadlock avoidance for streaming computations with filtering. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-second Annual ACM Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures, ACM, New York, NY, USA, SPAA ’10, pp 243–252,, URL
  43. 43.
    Liu X, Lee EA (2008) Cpo semantics of timed interactive actor networks. Theor Comput Sci 409(1):110–125, MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lynch N, Stark E (1989) A proof of the Kahn principle for Input/Output automata. Information and Computation 82(1):81–92, URL MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Martin A (1985) The probe: An addition to communication primitives. Information Processing Letters 20(3):125–130MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Neuendorffer S, Lee EA (2004) Hierarchical reconfiguration of dataflow models. In: Proc. Second ACM-IEEE International Conference on Formal Methods and Models for Codesign (MEMOCODE 2004), IEEE Computer Society PressGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Olson A, Evans B (2005) Deadlock detection for distributed process networks. In: Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 2005. Proceedings. (ICASSP ’05). IEEE International Conference on, vol 5, pp v/73–v/76 Vol. 5,
  48. 48.
    Park D (1979) On the semantics of fair parallelism. In: Abstract Software Specifications, Volume 86 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Parks T (1995) Bounded Scheduling of Process Networks. PhD thesis, University of California, EECS Dept., Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Plotkin G (1981) A structural approach to operational semantics. Tech. Rep. DAIMI FN-19, Århus University, Computer Science Department, Århus, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Poplavko P, Basten T, van Meerbergen J (2007) Execution-time prediction for dynamic streaming applications with task-level parallelism. In: DSD ’07: Proceedings of the 10th Euromicro Conference on Digital System Design Architectures, Methods and Tools, IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, pp 228–235, Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Rai D, Schor L, Stoimenov N, Thiele L (2013) Distributed stable states for process networks - algorithm, analysis, and experiments on intel scc. In: 2013 50th ACM/EDAC/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC), pp 1–10Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Russell J (1989) Full abstraction for nondeterministic dataflow networks. Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science 0:170–175,
  54. 54.
    Schor L, Bacivarov I, Yang H, Thiele L (2014) Adapnet: Adapting process networks in response to resource variations. In: Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Compilers, Architecture and Synthesis for Embedded Systems, ACM, New York, NY, USA, CASES ’14, pp 22:1–22:10,, URL
  55. 55.
    Sriram S, Bhattacharyya SS (2000) Embedded Multiprocessors: Scheduling and Synchronization. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Stark E (1987) Concurrent transition system semantics of process networks. In: Proc. of the 1987 SIGACT-SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, Munich, Germany, January 1987, ACM Press, pp 199–210Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Stevens R, Wan M, Laramie P, Parks T, Lee E (1997) Implementation of process networks in Java. Technical Memorandum UCB/ERL No. M97/84, University of California, EECS Dept., Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Strehl K, Thiele L, Gries M, Ziegenbein D, Ernst R, Teich J (2001) FunState - an internal design representation for codesign. IEEE Transactions on Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI) Systems 9(4):524–544, URL CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Theelen BD, Geilen M, Basten T, Voeten J, Gheorghita SV, Stuijk S (2006) A scenario-aware data flow model for combined long-run average and worst-case performance analysis. In: Proceedings of the Fourth ACM and IEEE International Conference on Formal Methods and Models for Co-Design 2006 (MEMOCODE ’06), pp 185–194Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Thies W, Karczmarek M, Amarasinghe S (2002) StreamIt: A language for streaming applications. In: Horspool RN (ed) Compiler Construction, 11th International Conference, CC 2002, Held as Part of the Joint European Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software, ETAPS 2002, Grenoble, France, April 8–12, 2002, Proceedings, LNCS Vol. 2306, Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp 179–196Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Thies W, Karczmarek M, Sermulins J, Rabbah R, Amarasinghe S (2005) Teleport messaging for distributed stream programs. In: PPoPP ’05: Proceedings of the tenth ACM SIGPLAN symposium on Principles and practice of parallel programming, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 224–235, CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Thomas T Hildebrandt GW Prakash Panangaden (2004) A relational model of non-deterministic dataflow. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science pp 613–649Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Vayssière J, Webb D, Wendelborn A (1999) Distributed process networks. Tech. Rep. TR 99-03, University of Adelaide, Department of Computer Science, South Australia 5005, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Verdoolaege S (2013) Polyhedral Process Networks, Springer New York, New York, NY, pp 1335–1375. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Yates RK (1993) Networks of real-time processes. In: Best E (ed) CONCUR’93: Proc. of the 4th International Conference on Concurrency Theory, Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 384–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Eindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Embedded Systems Innovation by TNO and Eindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations