Real-Time Operating Systems
Prof. Stephen A. Edwards
Copyright 2001 Stephen A. Edwards All rights reserved
Whats an Operating System?
Provides environment for executing programs Process abstraction for multitasking/concurrency
Scheduling
Hardware abstraction layer (device drivers) Filesystems Communication We will focus on concurrent, real-time issues
Copyright 2001 Stephen A. Edwards All rights reserved
Do I Need One?
Not always Simplest approach: cyclic executive
loop
do part of task 1 do part of task 2
do part of task 3
end loop
Copyright 2001 Stephen A. Edwards All rights reserved
Cyclic Executive
Advantages
Simple implementation Low overhead Very predictable
Disadvantages
Cant handle sporadic events Everything must operate in lockstep Code must be scheduled manually
Copyright 2001 Stephen A. Edwards All rights reserved
Interrupts
Some events cant wait for next loop iteration
Communication channels Transient events
A solution: Cyclic executive plus interrupt routines Interrupt: environmental event that demands attention
Example: byte arrived interrupt on serial channel
Interrupt routine: piece of code executed in response to an interrupt
Copyright 2001 Stephen A. Edwards All rights reserved
Handling an Interrupt
1. Normal program execution 2. Interrupt occurs
3. Processor state saved
4. Interrupt routine runs
6. Processor state restored
7. Normal program execution resumes
5. Interrupt routine terminates
Copyright 2001 Stephen A. Edwards All rights reserved
Interrupt Service Routines
Most interrupt routines: Copy peripheral data into a buffer Indicate to other code that data has arrived
Acknowledge the interrupt (tell hardware)
Longer reaction to interrupt performed outside interrupt routine E.g., causes a process to start or resume running
Copyright 2001 Stephen A. Edwards All rights reserved
Cyclic Executive Plus Interrupts
Works fine for many signal processing applications 56001 has direct hardware support for this style
Insanely cheap, predictable interrupt handler:
When interrupt occurs, execute a single user-specified instruction This typically copies peripheral data into a circular buffer No context switch, no environment save, no delay
Copyright 2001 Stephen A. Edwards All rights reserved
Drawbacks of CE + Interrupts
Main loop still running in lockstep Programmer responsible for scheduling Scheduling static Sporadic events handled slowly
Copyright 2001 Stephen A. Edwards All rights reserved
Cooperative Multitasking
A cheap alternative Non-preemptive Processes responsible for relinquishing control Examples: Original Windows, Macintosh
A process had to periodically call get_next_event() to let other processes proceed
Drawbacks:
Programmer had to ensure this was called frequently An errant program would lock up the whole system
Alternative: preemptive multitasking
Copyright 2001 Stephen A. Edwards All rights reserved
Concurrency Provided by OS
Basic philosophy:
Let the operating system handle scheduling, and let the programmer handle function
Scheduling and function usually orthogonal
Changing the algorithm would require a change in scheduling First, a little history
Copyright 2001 Stephen A. Edwards All rights reserved
Batch Operating Systems
Original computers ran in batch mode:
Submit job & its input Job runs to completion Collect output Submit next job
Processor cycles very expensive at the time Jobs involved reading, writing data to/from tapes
Cycles were being spent waiting for the tape!
Copyright 2001 Stephen A. Edwards All rights reserved
Timesharing Operating Systems
Solution
Store multiple batch jobs in memory at once When one is waiting for the tape, run the other one
Basic idea of timesharing systems Fairness primary goal of timesharing schedulers
Let no one process consume all the resources Make sure every process gets equal running time
Copyright 2001 Stephen A. Edwards All rights reserved
Real-Time Is Not Fair
Main goal of an RTOS scheduler: meeting deadlines If you have five homework assignments and only one is due in an hour, you work on that one Fairness does not help you meet deadlines
Copyright 2001 Stephen A. Edwards All rights reserved
Priority-based Scheduling
Typical RTOS based on fixed-priority preemptive scheduler Assign each process a priority At any time, scheduler runs highest priority process ready to run Process runs to completion unless preempted
Copyright 2001 Stephen A. Edwards All rights reserved
Typical RTOS Task Model
Each task a triplet: (execution time, period, deadline) Usually, deadline = period Can be initiated any time during the period
Initiation
Execution time
Deadline
Time Period
Copyright 2001 Stephen A. Edwards All rights reserved
Example: Fly-by-wire Avionics
Hard real-time system with multirate behavior
Sensors gyros, accel. Signal Conditioning INU 1kHz GPS 20 Hz Air data 1 kHz Control laws Actuating Aileron 1 1 kHz Aileron 2 1 kHz Elevator 1 kHz Actuators Aileron
Pitch control 500 Hz Lateral Control 250 Hz
GPS
Sensor Stick
Aileron
Elevator Rudder
Joystick 500 Hz
Throttle Control 250 Hz
Rudder 1 kHz
Copyright 2001 Stephen A. Edwards All rights reserved
Priority-based Preemptive Scheduling
Always run the highest-priority runnable process
1 2
Copyright 2001 Stephen A. Edwards All rights reserved
Priority-Based Preempting Scheduling
Multiple processes at the same priority level? A few solutions
Simply prohibit: Each process has unique priority Time-slice processes at the same priority
Extra context-switch overhead No starvation dangers at that level
Processes at the same priority never preempt the other
More efficient Still meets deadlines if possible
Copyright 2001 Stephen A. Edwards All rights reserved
Rate-Monotonic Scheduling
Common way to assign priorities Result from Liu & Layland, 1973 (JACM) Simple to understand and implement: Processes with shorter period given higher priority E.g., Period 10 12 15 20 Priority 1 (highest) 2 3 4 (lowest)
Copyright 2001 Stephen A. Edwards All rights reserved
Key RMS Result
Rate-monotonic scheduling is optimal: If there is fixed-priority schedule that meets all deadlines, then RMS will produce a feasible schedule
Task sets do not always have a schedule
Simple example: P1 = (10, 20, 20) P2 = (5, 9, 9)
Requires more than 100% processor utilization
Copyright 2001 Stephen A. Edwards All rights reserved
RMS Missing a Deadline
p1 = (10,20,20) p2 = (15,30,30) utilization is 100%
2
Would have met the deadline if p2 = (10,30,30), utilization reduced 83% P2 misses first deadline
Copyright 2001 Stephen A. Edwards All rights reserved
When Is There an RMS Schedule?
Key metric is processor utilization: sum of compute time divided by period for each process: U = ci / pi No schedule can possibly exist if U > 1
No processor can be running 110% of the time
Fundamental result:
RMS schedule always exists if U < n (2 1/n 1) Proof based on case analysis (P1 finishes before P2)
Copyright 2001 Stephen A. Edwards All rights reserved
When Is There an RMS Schedule?
n 1 2 3 Bound for U 100% 83% 78% Trivial: one process Two process case
76%
69%
Asymptotic bound
Copyright 2001 Stephen A. Edwards All rights reserved
When Is There an RMS Schedule?
Asymptotic result:
If the required processor utilization is under 69%, RMS will give a valid schedule Converse is not true. Instead:
If the required processor utilization is over 69%, RMS might still give a valid schedule, but there is no guarantee
Copyright 2001 Stephen A. Edwards All rights reserved
EDF Scheduling
RMS assumes fixed priorities Can you do better with dynamically-chosen priorities? Earliest deadline first: Processes with soonest deadline given highest priority
Copyright 2001 Stephen A. Edwards All rights reserved
EDF Meeting a Deadline
p1 = (10,20,20) p2 = (15,30,30) utilization is 100%
P2 takes priority because its deadline is sooner
Copyright 2001 Stephen A. Edwards All rights reserved
Key EDF Result
Earliest deadline first scheduling is optimal:
If a dynamic priority schedule exists, EDF will produce a feasible schedule
Earliest deadline first scheduling is efficient: A dynamic priority schedule exists if and only if utilization is no greater than 100%
Copyright 2001 Stephen A. Edwards All rights reserved
Static Scheduling More Prevalent
RMA only guarantees feasibility at 69% utilization, EDF guarantees it at 100% EDF is complicated enough to have unacceptable overhead More complicated than RMA: harder to analyze Less predictable: cant guarantee which process runs when
Copyright 2001 Stephen A. Edwards All rights reserved
Priority Inversion
RMS and EDF assume no process interaction Often a gross oversimplification Consider the following scenario:
1
2
Process 1 tries to acquire lock for resource Process 1 preempts Process 2 Process 2 acquires lock on resource Process 2 begins running
Copyright 2001 Stephen A. Edwards All rights reserved
Priority Inversion
Lower-priority process effectively blocks a higherpriority one Lower-priority processs ownership of lock prevents higher-priority process from running Nasty: makes high-priority process runtime unpredictable
Copyright 2001 Stephen A. Edwards All rights reserved
Nastier Example
Higher priority process blocked indefinitely
Process 2 delays process 3s release of lock
1 2 3
Process 1 tries to acquire lock and is blocked Process 1 preempts Process 2 Process 2 preempts Process 3 Process 3 acquires lock on resource Process 3 begins running
Copyright 2001 Stephen A. Edwards All rights reserved
Priority Inheritance
Solution to priority inversion Temporarily increase processs priority when it acquires a lock Level to increase: highest priority of any process that might want to acquire same lock
I.e., high enough to prevent it from being preempted
Danger: Low-priority process acquires lock, gets high priority and hogs the processor
So much for RMS
Copyright 2001 Stephen A. Edwards All rights reserved
Priority Inheritance
Basic rule: low-priority processes should acquire high-priority locks only briefly An example of why concurrent systems are so hard to analyze RMS gives a strong result No equivalent result when locks and priority inheritance is used
Copyright 2001 Stephen A. Edwards All rights reserved
Summary
Cyclic executive
Way to avoid an RTOS Adding interrupts helps somewhat
Interrupt handlers
Gather data, acknowledge interrupt as quickly as possible
Cooperative multitasking
But programs dont like to cooperate
Copyright 2001 Stephen A. Edwards All rights reserved
Summary
Preemptive Priority-Based Multitasking
Deadlines, not fairness, the goal of RTOSes
Rate-monotonic analysis
Shorter periods get higher priorities Guaranteed at 69% utilization, may work higher
Earliest deadline first scheduling
Dynamic priority scheme Optimal, guaranteed when utilization 100% or less
Copyright 2001 Stephen A. Edwards All rights reserved
Summary
Priority Inversion
Low-priority process acquires lock, blocks higherpriority process Priority inheritance temporarily raises process priority Difficult to analyze
Copyright 2001 Stephen A. Edwards All rights reserved
