mdh.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
An empirical investigation of eager and lazy preemption approaches in global limited preemptive scheduling
Mälardalen University, School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Embedded Systems.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6355-3564
Mälardalen University, School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Embedded Systems.
Mälardalen University, School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Embedded Systems.
Mälardalen University, School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Embedded Systems.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4157-3537
Show others and affiliations
2016 (English)In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, 2016, 163-178 p.Conference paper, Published paper (Refereed)
Resource type
Text
Abstract [en]

Global limited preemptive real-time scheduling in multiprocessor systems using Fixed Preemption Points (FPP) brings in an additional challenge with respect to the choice of the task to be preempted in order to maximize schedulability. Two principal choices with respect to the preemption approach exist (1) the scheduler waits for the lowest priority job to become preemptible, (2) the scheduler preempts the first job, among the lower priority ones, that becomes preemptible. We refer to the former as the Lazy Preemption Approach (LPA) and the latter as the Eager Preemption Approach (EPA). Each of these choice has a different effect on the actual number of preemptions in the schedule, that in turn determine the runtime overheads. In this paper, we perform an empirical comparison of the run-time preemptive behavior of Global Preemptive Scheduling and Global Limited Preemptive Scheduling with EPA and LPA, under both Earliest Deadline First (EDF) and Fixed Priority Scheduling (FPS) paradigms. Our experiments reveal interesting observations some of which are counterintuitive. We then analyse the counter-intuitive observations and identify the associated reasons. The observations presented facilitate the choice of appropriate strategies when using limited preemptive schedulers on multiprocessor systems.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer, 2016. 163-178 p.
Series
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, ISSN 0302-9743 ; 9695
Keyword [en]
Multiprocessing systems, Real time systems, Response time (computer systems), Earliest deadline first, Empirical - comparisons, Empirical investigation, Fixed priority scheduling, Multi processor systems, Pre-emptive scheduler, Pre-emptive scheduling, Real - time scheduling, Scheduling
National Category
Computer and Information Science
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:mdh:diva-32413DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-39083-3_11ISI: 000386324400011Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84977508721ISBN: 9783319390826 (print)OAI: oai:DiVA.org:mdh-32413DiVA: diva2:950164
Conference
13 June 2016 through 17 June 2016
Available from: 2016-07-28 Created: 2016-07-28 Last updated: 2016-11-17Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records BETA

Thekkilakattil, AbhilashDobrin, Radu

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Thekkilakattil, AbhilashDobrin, Radu
By organisation
Embedded Systems
Computer and Information Science

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
isbn
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
isbn
urn-nbn
Total: 9 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf