Open Problem Resolved: The "Two" in Existing Multiprocessor PI-Blocking Bounds Is Fundamental

Authors Shareef Ahmed , James H. Anderson



PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

LIPIcs.ECRTS.2024.11.pdf
  • Filesize: 0.83 MB
  • 21 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Shareef Ahmed
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC, USA
James H. Anderson
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC, USA

Cite AsGet BibTex

Shareef Ahmed and James H. Anderson. Open Problem Resolved: The "Two" in Existing Multiprocessor PI-Blocking Bounds Is Fundamental. In 36th Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems (ECRTS 2024). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 298, pp. 11:1-11:21, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2024)
https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ECRTS.2024.11

Abstract

The goal of a real-time locking protocol is to reduce any priority-inversion blocking (pi-blocking) a task may incur while waiting to access a shared resource. For mutual-exclusion sharing on an m-processor platform, the best existing lower bound on per-task pi-blocking under suspension-oblivious analysis is a (trivial) lower bound of (m-1) request lengths under any job-level fixed-priority (JLFP) scheduler. Surprisingly, most asymptotically optimal locking protocols achieve a per-task pi-blocking upper bound of (2m-1) request lengths under JLFP scheduling, even though a range of very different mechanisms are used in these protocols. This paper closes the gap between these existing lower and upper bounds by establishing a lower bound of (2m-2) request lengths under global fixed-priority (G-FP) and global earliest-deadline-first (G-EDF) scheduling. This paper also shows that worst-case per-task pi-blocking can be arbitrarily close to (2m-1) request lengths for locking protocols that satisfy a certain property that is met by most (if not all) existing locking protocols. These results imply that most known asymptotically optimal locking protocols are almost truly optimal (not just asymptotic) under G-FP and G-EDF scheduling.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Computer systems organization → Real-time systems
Keywords
  • Real-Time Systems
  • Real-Time Synchronization
  • Multiprocessors

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads

References

  1. S. Ahmed and J. Anderson. Optimal multiprocessor locking protocols under FIFO scheduling. In ECRTS'23, pages 16:1-16:21, 2023. Google Scholar
  2. A. Block, H. Leontyev, B. Brandenburg, and J. Anderson. A flexible real-time locking protocol for multiprocessors. In RTCSA'07, pages 47-56, 2007. Google Scholar
  3. B. Brandenburg. A fully preemptive multiprocessor semaphore protocol for latency-sensitive real-time applications. In ECRTS'13, pages 292-302, 2013. Google Scholar
  4. B. Brandenburg. Improved analysis and evaluation of real-time semaphore protocols for P-FP scheduling. In RTAS'13, pages 141-152, 2013. Google Scholar
  5. B. Brandenburg. The FMLP+: an asymptotically optimal real-time locking protocol for suspension-aware analysis. In ECRTS'14, pages 61-71, 2014. Google Scholar
  6. B. Brandenburg. Multiprocessor real-time locking protocols. In Handbook of Real-Time Computing, pages 347-446. Springer, 2022. Google Scholar
  7. B. Brandenburg and J. Anderson. Optimality results for multiprocessor real-time locking. In RTSS'10, pages 49-60, 2010. Google Scholar
  8. B. Brandenburg and J. Anderson. Real-time resource-sharing under clustered scheduling: Mutex, reader-writer, and k-exclusion locks. In EMSOFT'11, pages 69-78, 2011. Google Scholar
  9. B. Brandenburg and J. Anderson. The OMLP family of optimal multiprocessor real-time locking protocols. Des. Autom. Embed., 17(2):277-342, 2014. Google Scholar
  10. C. Chen, S. Tripathi, and A. Blackmore. A resource synchronization protocol for multiprocessor real-time systems. In ICPP'94, pages 159-162, 1994. Google Scholar
  11. A. Easwaran and B. Andersson. Resource sharing in global fixed-priority preemptive multiprocessor scheduling. In RTSS'09, pages 377-386, 2009. Google Scholar
  12. J. Erickson, J. Anderson, and B. Ward. Fair lateness scheduling: reducing maximum lateness in G-EDF-like scheduling. Real-Time Syst., 50(1):5-47, 2014. Google Scholar
  13. D. Faggioli, G. Lipari, and T. Cucinotta. Analysis and implementation of the multiprocessor bandwidth inheritance protocol. Real Time Syst., 48(6):789-825, 2012. Google Scholar
  14. K. Lakshmanan, D. Niz, and R. Rajkumar. Coordinated task scheduling, allocation and synchronization on multiprocessors. In RTSS'09, pages 469-478, 2009. Google Scholar
  15. F. Nemati, M. Behnam, and T. Nolte. Independently-developed real-time systems on multi-cores with shared resources. In ECRTS'11, pages 251-261, 2011. Google Scholar
  16. F. Nemati and T. Nolte. Resource hold times under multiprocessor static-priority global scheduling. In RTCSA'11, pages 197-206, 2011. Google Scholar
  17. F. Nemati and T. Nolte. Resource sharing among real-time components under multiprocessor clustered scheduling. Real Time Syst., 49(5):580-613, 2013. Google Scholar
  18. R. Rajkumar. Synchronization In Real-Time Systems - A Priority Inheritance Approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1991. Google Scholar
  19. R. Rajkumar, L. Sha, and J. Lehoczky. Real-time synchronization protocols for multiprocessors. In RTSS'88, pages 259-269, 1988. Google Scholar
  20. Z. Tong, S. Ahmed, and J. Anderson. Overrun-resilient multiprocessor real-time locking. In ECRTS'22, pages 9:1-9:23, 2022. Google Scholar
  21. M. Yang, A. Wieder, and B. Brandenburg. Global real-time semaphore protocols: A survey, unified analysis, and comparison. In RTSS'15, pages 1-12, 2015. Google Scholar