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