Efficient and Effective Multi-Objective Optimization for Real-Time Multi-Task Systems

Authors Shashank Jadhav , Heiko Falk

Thumbnail PDF


  • Filesize: 0.75 MB
  • 12 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Shashank Jadhav
  • Hamburg University of Technology, Germany
Heiko Falk
  • Hamburg University of Technology, Germany

Cite AsGet BibTex

Shashank Jadhav and Heiko Falk. Efficient and Effective Multi-Objective Optimization for Real-Time Multi-Task Systems. In 21th International Workshop on Worst-Case Execution Time Analysis (WCET 2023). Open Access Series in Informatics (OASIcs), Volume 114, pp. 5:1-5:12, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2023)


Embedded real-time multi-task systems must often not only comply with timing constraints but also need to meet energy requirements. However, optimizing energy consumption might lead to higher Worst-Case Execution Time (WCET), leading to an un-schedulable system, as frequently executed code can easily differ from timing-critical code. To handle such an impasse in this paper, we formulate a Metaheuristic Algorithm-based Multi-objective Optimization (MAMO) for multi-task real-time systems. But, performing multiple WCET, energy, and schedulability analyses to solve a MAMO poses a bottleneck concerning compilation times. Therefore, we propose two novel approaches - Path-based Constraint Approach (PCA) and Impact-based Constraint Approach (ICA) - to reduce the solution search space size and to cope with this problem. Evaluations showed that PCA and ICA reduced compilation times by 85.31% and 77.31%, on average, over MAMO. For all the task sets, out of all solutions found by ICA-FPA, on average, 88.89% were on the final Pareto front.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Computer systems organization → Real-time systems
  • Software and its engineering → Compilers
  • Mathematics of computing → Discrete mathematics
  • Real-time systems
  • Multi-objective optimization
  • Metaheuristic algorithms
  • Compilers
  • Design space reduction


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


  1. AbsInt Angewandte Informatik, GmbH. aiT Worst-Case Execution Time Analyzers, 2021. Google Scholar
  2. Anuradha Balasundaram and Vivekanandan Chenniappan. Optimal code layout for reducing energy consumption in embedded systems. In 2015 International Conference on Soft-Computing and Networks Security (ICSNS), pages 1-5. IEEE, 2015. Google Scholar
  3. Sanghamitra Bandyopadhyay and Arpan Mukherjee. An algorithm for many-objective optimization with reduced objective computations: A study in differential evolution. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 19(3):400-413, 2014. Google Scholar
  4. Michael TM Emmerich and André H Deutz. A tutorial on multiobjective optimization: fundamentals and evolutionary methods. Natural computing, 17:585-609, 2018. Google Scholar
  5. Heiko Falk, Sebastian Altmeyer, Peter Hellinckx, Björn Lisper, Wolfgang Puffitsch, Christine Rochange, Martin Schoeberl, Rasmus Bo Sørensen, Peter Wägemann, and Simon Wegener. Taclebench: A benchmark collection to support worst-case execution time research. In 16th International Workshop on Worst-Case Execution Time Analysis (WCET 2016). Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 2016. Google Scholar
  6. Heiko Falk and Paul Lokuciejewski. A Compiler Framework for the Reduction of Worst-Case Execution Times. Real-Time Systems, 46(2):251-298, 2010. Google Scholar
  7. Heiko Falk, Sascha Plazar, and Henrik Theiling. Compile-Time Decided Instruction Cache Locking Using Worst-Case Execution Paths. In International Conference on Hardware/Software Codesign and System Synthesis (CODES+ISSS), pages 143-148, 2007. DOI URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1289816.1289853.
  8. Chi-Keong Goh and Kay Chen Tan. A competitive-cooperative coevolutionary paradigm for dynamic multiobjective optimization. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 13(1):103-127, 2008. Google Scholar
  9. Jan Gustafsson, Adam Betts, Andreas Ermedahl, and Björn Lisper. The mälardalen wcet benchmarks: Past, present and future. In 10th International Workshop on Worst-Case Execution Time Analysis (WCET 2010). Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 2010. Google Scholar
  10. Thomas Huybrechts, Siegfried Mercelis, and Peter Hellinckx. A new hybrid approach on wcet analysis for real-time systems using machine learning. In 18th International Workshop on Worst-Case Execution Time Analysis (WCET 2018). Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 2018. Google Scholar
  11. Synopsys Inc. Comet system engineering ide, Online. URL: http://www.synopsys.com.
  12. Yuriko Ishitobi, Tohru Ishihara, and Hiroto Yasuura. Code placement for reducing the energy consumption of embedded processors with scratchpad and cache memories. In 2007 IEEE/ACM/IFIP Workshop on Embedded Systems for Real-Time Multimedia, pages 13-18. IEEE, 2007. Google Scholar
  13. Shashank Jadhav and Heiko Falk. Approximating wcet and energy consumption for fast multi-objective memory allocation. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Real-Time Networks and Systems, pages 162-172, 2022. Google Scholar
  14. Andhi Janapsatya, Aleksandar Ignjatović, and Sri Parameswaran. A novel instruction scratchpad memory optimization method based on concomitance metric. In Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference (ASP-DAC), pages 612-617, 2006. Google Scholar
  15. Yooseong Kim, David Broman, and Aviral Shrivastava. WCET-Aware Function-Level Dynamic Code Management on Scratchpad Memory. ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems (TECS), 16(4):1-26, 2017. Google Scholar
  16. Arno Luppold and Heiko Falk. Schedulability aware wcet-optimization of periodic preemptive hard real-time multitasking systems. In Proceedings of the 18th International Workshop on Software and Compilers for Embedded Systems, pages 101-104, 2015. Google Scholar
  17. Arno Luppold and Heiko Falk. Schedulability-aware spm allocation for preemptive hard real-time systems with arbitrary activation patterns. In Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE), 2017, pages 1074-1079. IEEE, 2017. Google Scholar
  18. Dominic Oehlert, Arno Luppold, and Heiko Falk. Practical challenges of ilp-based spm allocation optimizations. In Proceedings of the 19th International Workshop on Software and Compilers for Embedded Systems, pages 86-89. ACM, 2016. Google Scholar
  19. Douglas Rodrigues, Xin-She Yang, André Nunes De Souza, and João Paulo Papa. Binary flower pollination algorithm and its application to feature selection. In Recent advances in swarm intelligence and evolutionary computation, pages 85-100. Springer, 2015. Google Scholar
  20. Mikko Roth, Arno Luppold, and Heiko Falk. Measuring and modeling energy consumption of embedded systems for optimizing compilers. In Proceedings of the 21st International Workshop on Software and Compilers for Embedded Systems, pages 86-89. ACM, 2018. Google Scholar
  21. Akash Sachan and Bibhas Ghoshal. Learning based compilation of embedded applications targeting minimal energy consumption. Journal of Systems Architecture, 116:102116, 2021. Google Scholar
  22. Stefan Steinke, Lars Wehmeyer, Bo-Sik Lee, and Peter Marwedel. Assigning program and data objects to scratchpad for energy reduction. In Design, Automation & Test in Europe (DATE), pages 409-415, 2002. Google Scholar
  23. TeamPlay Consortium. Deliverable D3.1 - Report on the TeamPlay Basic Compiler Infrastructure - Version 1.0, 2018. Google Scholar
  24. Xin-She Yang. Flower pollination algorithm for global optimization. In International conference on unconventional computing and natural computation, pages 240-249. Springer, 2012. Google Scholar
  25. Xin-She Yang, Mehmet Karamanoglu, and Xingshi He. Flower pollination algorithm: a novel approach for multiobjective optimization. Engineering Optimization, 46(9):1222-1237, 2014. Google Scholar
  26. Eckart Zitzler. Evolutionary algorithms for multiobjective optimization: Methods and applications, volume 63. Citeseer, 1999. Google Scholar
  27. Eckart Zitzler and Lothar Thiele. Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: a comparative case study and the strength pareto approach. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 3(4):257-271, 1999. Google Scholar