CprE 458/558: Real-Time Systems

Scheduling Results &

RMS and EDF Schedulers

CprE 458/558: Real-Time Systems (G. Manimaran) 1

Understanding Fundamentals
• Understanding the boundary between
polynomial and NP-complete problems
can provide insights into developing
useful heuristics.

• Understanding the algorithms that

achieve some of the polynomial results
can again provide basis for developing
heuristics.

CprE 458/558: Real-Time Systems (G. Manimaran) 2

Understanding Fundamentals (cont.)

• Understanding the fundamental

limitations of on-line algorithms will help
designers avoid scheduling anomalies
and misconceptions.

CprE 458/558: Real-Time Systems (G. Manimaran) 3

Performance Metrics
• Minimizing Schedule Length.

• Minimizing Sum of Completion Times.

• Maximizing Weighted Sum of Values (Useful in

RT systems).

• Minimizing the Maximum Lateness (useful in

RT systems).

CprE 458/558: Real-Time Systems (G. Manimaran) 4

Uniprocessor - some results
• One processor, Non-preemptive, Minimizing
the Max. Lateness (Polynomial).

• One processor, Non-preemptive, release time

constraint, Minimizing the Max. Lateness (NP-
hard).

• One processor, Preemptive, release time

constraint, Minimizing the Max. Lateness
(Polynomial).

CprE 458/558: Real-Time Systems (G. Manimaran) 5

Uniprocessor - more results
• Result: When there are mutual exclusion
constraints, it is impossible to find a totally on-
line optimal scheduler.

• Result: The problem of deciding whether it is

possible to schedule a set of periodic tasks
that use semaphores only to enforce mutual
exclusion in NP-hard.

• Overload Result: There does not exist an on-

line scheduling algorithm with a competitive
factor greater than 0.25. (this is for general
case: arbitrary number of processors).

CprE 458/558: Real-Time Systems (G. Manimaran) 6

Multiprocessor – Some Results
• Result: The multiprocessor scheduling on P
processors with task preemption allowed and
with minimization of the number of late tasks
is NP-hard.

• Result: For two or more processors, no

deadline scheduling algorithm can be optimal
without complete a prior knowledge of
deadlines, computation times, and task ready
times.

CprE 458/558: Real-Time Systems (G. Manimaran) 7

Multiprocessor – more results

• EDF is not optimal in the multiprocessor case.

• No on-line scheduling algorithm can guarantee

a cumulative value greater than one half for
the dual processor case. (A special case of
overload result)

CprE 458/558: Real-Time Systems (G. Manimaran) 8

Multiprocessor; Single Deadline;
Non-premptive

NP-completeness is mainly due to non-uniform

task execution time and resource constraints.
CprE 458/558: Real-Time Systems (G. Manimaran) 9
Multiprocessing Anomalies
• Assume that a set of tasks is optimally
schedulable on a multiprocessor with some
priority order, a fixed number of processors,
fixed computation times, and precedence
constraints.

• Result: For the stated problem, changing the

priority list, increasing the number of
processors, reducing the computation times,
or weakening the precedence constraints can
increase the schedule length.

CprE 458/558: Real-Time Systems (G. Manimaran) 10

Multiprocessing Anomalies (cont.)

• These anomalies may cause some of the

already guaranteed tasks to miss their
deadlines.

• It can be shown that run-time anomalies

cannot occur in a multiprocessor schedule
when the tasks are independent.

CprE 458/558: Real-Time Systems (G. Manimaran) 11

Run-time Anomaly
Run-time anomaly may occur when the actual
computation time of a task differs from its
worst case computation time in a non-
preemptive multiprocessor schedule with
resource constraints.

A processor is said to be work conserving if it is

never idle when there is a task to execute. Any
work conserving scheme may lead to run-time
anomaly.

CprE 458/558: Real-Time Systems (G. Manimaran) 12

Run-time Anomaly – Example
Example: Ti=(ai ,ci ,di )

T1=(0,20,22); T2=(0,12,25); T3=(10,8,26);T4=(8,10,30).

T3 and T4 have resource conflicts;

Actual computation time of T1 is 10.

CprE 458/558: Real-Time Systems (G. Manimaran) 13

Priority-driven Preemptive Scheduling
Assumptions & Definitions
• Tasks are periodic
• No aperiodic or sporadic tasks
• Job (instance) deadline = end of period
• No resource constraints
• Tasks are preemptable
C’i
• Laxity of a Task
t di
• Ti = di – (t + ci’)
where di: deadline; Laxity

t : current time;
ci’ : remaining computation time.
CprE 458/558: Real-Time Systems (G. Manimaran) 14
Rate Monotonic Scheduling (RMS)
• Schedulability check (off-line)
- A set of n tasks is schedulable on a
uniprocessor by the RMS algorithm if the
processor utilization (utilization test):

The term n(21/n -1) approaches ln 2,

(0.69 as n  ).
- This condition is sufficient, but not necessary.
CprE 458/558: Real-Time Systems (G. Manimaran) 15
RMS (cont.)
• Schedule construction (online)
- Task with the smallest period is assigned the
highest priority.
- At any time, the highest priority task is
executed.

RMS is an optimal preemptive scheduling

algorithm with fixed priorities.
Static/fixed priority algorithm assigns the same
priority to all the jobs (instances) in each task.

CprE 458/558: Real-Time Systems (G. Manimaran) 16

RMS Scheduler -- Example 1
Task set: Ti = (ci, pi)
T1 = (2,4) and T2 = (1,8)

Schedulability check:
2/4 + 1/8 = 0.5 + 0.125 = 0.625 ≤ 2(√2 -1) = 0. 82

Active Active
Active Tasks : Tasks :
Tasks : {T2} {T1}
{T1, T2}

T11 T21 T12

0 2 3 4 6 8

CprE 458/558: Real-Time Systems (G. Manimaran) 17

RMS scheduler -- Example-2
Task set: Ti = (ci, pi)
T1 = (2,4) and T2 = (4,8)
Schedulability check:
2/4 + 4/8 = 0.5 + 0.5 = 1.0 > 2(√2 -1) = 0. 82

Active Active Active

Active Tasks : Tasks : Tasks :
Tasks : {T2} {T2, T1} {T2}
{T1, T2}

T11 T21 T12 T21

0 2 3 4 6 8

Some task sets that FAIL the utilization-based schedulability test are also
schedulable under RMS  We need exact analysis (necessary & sufficient)

CprE 458/558: Real-Time Systems (G. Manimaran) 18

Earliest Deadline First (EDF)
• Schedulability check (off-line)
- A set of n tasks is schedulable on a
uniprocessor by the EDF algorithm if the
processor utilization.

• This condition is both necessary and sufficient.

- Least Laxity First (LLF) algorithm has the

same schedulability check.
CprE 458/558: Real-Time Systems (G. Manimaran) 19
EDF/LLF (cont.)
• Schedule construction (online)
– EDF/LLF: Task with the smallest
deadline/laxity is assigned the highest
priority.
– At any time, the highest priority task is
executed.

EDF/LLF is an optimal preemptive scheduling

algorithm with dynamic priorities.

Dynamic priority algorithm assigns different

priorities to the individual jobs (instances) in
each task.

CprE 458/558: Real-Time Systems (G. Manimaran) 20

EDF scheduler -- Example
Task set: Ti = (ci, pi, di)
T1 = (1,3,3) and T2 = (4,6,6)

Schedulability check:
1/3 + 4/6 = 0.33 + 0.67 = 1.0

Active Active Active

Active Tasks : Tasks : Tasks :
Tasks : {T2} {T2, T1} {T1}
{T1, T2}

T11 T21 T21 T12

0 1 3 5 6

Unlike RMS, Only those task sets which pass the schedulability test are
schedulable under EDF

CprE 458/558: Real-Time Systems (G. Manimaran) 21

RMS vs. EDF/LLF
• RMS is an optimal preemptive scheduling
algorithm with fixed priorities.

• EDF/LLF is an optimal preemptive scheduling

algorithm with dynamic priorities.

• RMS schedulability properties can be

analyzed; rich theory exists and it is widely
used in practice.

• EDF/LLF offers higher schedulability than

RMS, but it is more difficult to implement.
CprE 458/558: Real-Time Systems (G. Manimaran) 22
 RMS & EDF -- Example
Process Period, T WCET, C
T1 5 2
EDF schedule T2 7 4

T1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

T2
0 7 14 21 28 35

RMS schedule

T1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Deadline miss

T2
0 7 14 21 28 35
CprE 458/558: Real-Time Systems (G. Manimaran) 23