Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 56 references

PAStime: Progress-aware Scheduling for Time-critical Computing

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Checking a high-criticality task's progress at a code checkpoint lets a mixed-criticality system keep serving low-criticality work without missing hard deadlines.

desk verdict A genuine systems contribution with a working LITMUS-RT implementation, but the safety guarantee and the utilization numbers are both more conditional than the paper lets on. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06211 v2 pith:RGKBVDIE submitted 2019-08-17 cs.OS

Soham Sinha , Richard West , Ahmad Golchin This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.OS
keywords progress-awareschedulingmixed-criticalitysystemsadaptiveWCEToverestimationcheckpointinstrumentationresponse-timeanalysisreal-timeLinuxqualityofservice
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

PAStime argues that a high-criticality real-time task's progress, measured by how long it takes to reach a checkpoint in its control-flow graph, can be used to extend its low-criticality-mode budget by a predicted amount without relaxing worst-case guarantees. The paper integrates this idea with Adaptive Mixed-Criticality (AMC) scheduling: when a delayed task's extended budget is approved by an online schedulability test, the system stays in LO-mode and keeps serving low-criticality tasks; when the extended budget is exhausted, the deadline-enforcement timer switches the system to HI-mode exactly as AMC would. In experiments with real-time Linux applications (object classification, object tracking, video decoding), the combined scheduler raises low-criticality average utilization by 1.5–9 times across 2–20 tasks and cuts mode switches by 28–55%, while no high-criticality job misses its deadline.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the checkpoint progress metric: a single marked point in the high-criticality task's control-flow graph where the task compares its actual CPU-time consumption to a profiled reference. The online schedulability test uses extended AMC response-time recurrences—$R^{LO\text{-}ext}$ for LO-mode and $R^{*\text{-}ext}$ for the mode-switch case—to check that the extended budget $C'(LO)$ keeps every affected task schedulable; a per-task $max\_extended\_budget$ makes the test safe across multiple jobs without storing per-job histories. The enforcement timer, set to the extended budget, provides the safety net that returns the system to AMC behavior if the prediction is wrong.

What would settle it

Run the Darknet object classifier on a held-out set of images with deliberately adversarial cache and DRAM interference, and count jobs that exceed the profiled $C(HI)$ or miss their deadlines; any such job would falsify the claim that high-criticality tasks are always guaranteed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that average-case execution time, which is normally wasted when budgets are set to worst-case values, can be recovered at runtime through checkpoint-based progress monitoring. A high-criticality task is profiled to obtain its LO-mode budget $C(LO)$, its HI-mode budget $C(HI)$, and a reference time to reach a checkpoint; at runtime the delay at the checkpoint $X\%$ is extrapolated linearly to predict a new total execution time $C'(LO) = C(LO) + C(LO)\times X/100$. If extending the task's LO-mode budget to $C'(LO)$ passes an online response-time schedulability test (using extended versions of the AMC recurrence equations), the budget is extended and the system remains in LO-mode. The enforcement mechanism remains AMC's: if the extended budget is exhausted, the system switches to HI-mode and the task gets its $C(HI)$ budget, so the high-criticality deadline guarantee is preserved. The paper shows experimentally that this schedule keeps low-criticality utilization 1.5–9 times higher than AMC for 2–20 tasks, reduces mode switches by 28–55%, and bounds the additional scheduling overhead to roughly 130 microseconds.

Load-bearing premise

The HI-mode budget $C(HI)$, measured as the maximum observed execution time during profiling, is a true worst-case budget for every high-criticality job; if any job exceeds it, the enforcement timer cannot guarantee the deadline.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Low-criticality tasks receive 1.5 to 9 times higher average utilization for tasksets of 2 to 20 tasks compared with plain AMC scheduling.
  • The number of transitions to HI-mode drops by 28–55% (35% in the base case), directly improving the QoS of video-decoding and other low-criticality work.
  • The online schedulability test has a bounded worst-case overhead: at most 120 response-time iterations and roughly 130 µs per budget-extension decision in the tested configurations.
  • The method remains safe when the prediction is wrong: an exhausted extended budget triggers the normal AMC mode switch, and high-criticality jobs still complete within $C(HI)$ in all experiments.
  • Alternative progress metrics, such as a memory-access-based progress ratio, also improve low-criticality utilization, showing the framework supports prediction models beyond linear time extrapolation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper does not explore it, but the same progress signal could drive power management (e.g., DVFS) or cloud scheduling, since a checkpoint gives a cheap online estimate of residual work.
  • The reliance on a single checkpoint makes placement crucial; a systematic method that chooses checkpoints based on the variance of remaining execution time could reduce the observed sensitivity to placement (0.1× vs 0.8× positions).
  • The $max\_extended\_budget$ memory, which keeps the online test safe, also makes the test conservative: a task that once requested a large extension retains it for future releases, so the method trades some potential utilization for safety; a windowed or credit-based memory could reclaim some of that slack.
  • One could test the prediction model on a broader family of high-criticality applications (e.g., control loops with input-dependent loops) where the linear extrapolation assumption may be less accurate; the memory-access model shows the framework already anticipates such cases.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces PAStime, a progress-aware extension of Adaptive Mixed-Criticality (AMC) scheduling. A high-criticality (HC) task is instrumented with a checkpoint; at runtime the system measures the delay to that checkpoint relative to a profiled reference and tentatively extends the task's LO-mode budget to a predicted execution time, subject to an online response-time schedulability test. If the extension is approved, the system remains in LO-mode and low-criticality (LC) tasks continue to execute; if the extended budget is exhausted, the system falls back to HI-mode as in AMC. The authors implement AMC and AMC-PAStime in LITMUS-RT, using Darknet object classification, dlib object tracking, and an MPEG decoder, reporting 1.5--9x improvements in LC utilization and reduced numbers of mode switches while all HC tasks meet deadlines in their experiments. The paper also contributes an LLVM pass to automatically instrument checkpoints and a C library for checkpoint profiling and runtime announcement.

Significance. If the schedulability argument were sound, PAStime would be a valuable practical contribution to mixed-criticality scheduling: it converts observed average-case slack into better LC service without, in the authors' experiments, violating HC deadlines. The implementation work is a strength: it is the first AMC implementation in LITMUS-RT, the source code is publicly available, and the evaluation uses realistic applications with a full system implementation rather than simulation only. The automatic checkpoint-instrumentation pass is also useful. However, the central online schedulability test has a logical gap that, as written, can approve budget extensions that make lower-priority tasks miss their deadlines, and the safety of the mode-switch fallback depends on an unverified measurement-based C(HI) assumption. These issues affect the core claim that AMC-PAStime preserves schedulability while improving QoS.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.4, Algorithm 1, and Equations (4)--(5)] Algorithm 1's online schedulability test does not propagate the newly requested extension C_k(LO)+e into the interference terms of Equations (4) and (5) for lower-priority tasks. When the loop reaches a task τ_i below τ_k, the pseudocode sets C'_i(LO) = τ_i.max_extended_budget (line 8) and only for τ_i = τ_k does it use C_k(LO)+e (line 10); the recurrence for τ_i then sums over higher-priority tasks using the stored (stale) budgets of those tasks, including τ_k. Thus the test can approve an extension that actually makes a lower-priority task miss its deadline. Concretely, take τ1 (HC, highest priority) with C1(LO)=3, T1=6, and τ2 (LC) with C2(LO)=1, T2=5; both tasks are schedulable under AMC-rtb. If τ1 is delayed by e=2 at its checkpoint, Algorithm 1 as written computes RLO-ext_2 using C1(LO)=3, obtains R=4≤5, and approves the extension, whereas with the actual C'_1(LO)=5 the recurrence gives R=1+5=6>5. This contradicts the statement in Section 3.3 that 'the system uses the maximum extended budget of every high-criticality task' for the online test; the algorithm must make the proposed budget visible to every lower-priority response-time computation, or provide a proof that the initialization RLO_i+e' is a safe substitute (the counterexample shows it is not). This is load-bearing for the paper's main claim that AMC-PAStime keeps the system in LO-mode without weakening schedulability.
  2. [Section 5.1, Table 2, and Section 4.6] The HI-mode budget C(HI) is derived as the maximum observed execution time during profiling, and the paper explicitly assumes (Section 5.1) that 'our derivation of LO- and HI-mode budgets are safe and correct for our experiments.' A measurement-based maximum is not a certified WCET; if a job exceeds C(HI) due to an unseen input, cache state, or I/O, the enforcement timer described in Section 4.6 will fire only at the extended budget, and the high-criticality task can miss its deadline. The paper should either use a measurement-based WCET tool with a documented safety margin or state clearly that the deadline guarantee holds only under the (unverified) assumption that C(HI) is a true WCET. Separately, setting C(LO) to the average profiling time makes the plain-AMC baseline switch to HI-mode whenever a job exceeds the average, which may exaggerate the reported 1.5--9x utilization improvements; the overestimation study in Section 5.5 only partially addresses this, since the headline result uses the average-case baseline.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.3] The phrase 'the the extended LO-mode response time' contains a duplicated article; please fix.
  2. [Section 4.6] The text 'depletion of itc_extended time' should read 'depletion of its c_extended time.'
  3. [Algorithm 1, line 16] The comment 'Initialize R*-ext i for Equation 4' should refer to Equation 5, since line 17 solves Equation 5; the equation references should be consistent throughout the pseudocode and surrounding text.
  4. [Section 3.3] The condition for resetting max_extended_budget ('when a task has not requested a LO-mode budget extension for any of its dispatched jobs within the maximum period of all tasks') should be accompanied by a safety argument; as stated, it is not obvious that a still-active job that previously received an extension could not be forgotten, which would cause the online test to underestimate interference.
  5. [Section 5.3 and abstract] The abstract claims utilization improvement of '1.5 to 9 times for 2 to 20 tasks,' but Figure 4 and the text report improvement factors of 3, 5, and 9 for 8, 14, and 20 tasks; please clarify where the 1.5 factor appears or adjust the claim.
  6. [Figure 1] The checkpoint location and the 500 ms / 2000 ms annotations are not visually tied to specific basic blocks; please add explicit labels for readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: AMC-PAStime's extended-budget schedulability test is standard RTA with heuristic budget prediction, and the QoS gains are measured, not derived from the model's inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central safety and QoS claims do not reduce to their inputs. Equations 4 and 5 are the standard AMC response-time recurrences with the LO-mode budget C_i(LO) replaced by an extended value C'_i(LO); the extension C'_i(LO)=f(C_i(LO),X) is introduced as an explicit prediction heuristic, not derived from the schedulability equations. The online test (Algorithm 1) uses the maximum extended budget as a conservative bound, and the QoS improvement is an experimental measurement comparing AMC-PAStime with AMC, not a quantity defined by the test. Section 5.8 explicitly compares alternative prediction models (compensatory, scaled linear with K, memory-access progress), so the reported 1.5-9x utilization gain is not forced by a single fitted parameter. The paper's admitted assumption in Section 5.1 ('we assume that our derivation of LO- and HI-mode budgets are safe and correct for our experiments') is a genuine limitation about WCET safety, but it is an empirical assumption, not a circular derivation. Self-citations (e.g., cache/memory work [53,55]) appear only as background and are not load-bearing. The potential online-test presentation issue raised by a skeptical reader (whether Algorithm 1 propagates the newly requested C'_k(LO) into lower-priority response-time calculations) would be a soundness defect, not a circularity, and the surrounding text in Section 3.3 states the intended conservative use of maximum extended budgets. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited, and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central method introduces no new physical entities. It relies on standard AMC theory, a safe-WCET assumption that is explicitly flagged, a linear prediction heuristic with a chosen constant K, and a manually or automatically placed checkpoint. The 120-iteration cap is an empirical bound on overhead. These are the main items a reader pays for beyond the paper's own contribution.

free parameters (2)
  • K (linear extrapolation factor) = 1 (default); sensitivity tested from 0.1 to 1.5 in Section 5.8.2
    The default execution-time prediction model uses K=1, chosen after experiments in Figure 12 showed K=1 outperforms alternatives. The qualitative benefit of progress-aware scheduling is not highly sensitive since other prediction models also improve low-criticality utilization, but the reported utilization numbers depend on this choice.
  • Checkpoint location = Approximately 0.4x to 0.6x of C(LO) in the Darknet forward_network function (Section 5.6)
    The benefit depends on placing the checkpoint early enough to allow extension but late enough to observe meaningful delay. The paper selects a good location after experiments, which is a manual design choice rather than a first-principles derivation.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math AMC response-time analysis (Equations 1-3) from Baruah et al. [7] is correct for fixed-priority mixed-criticality scheduling.
    Used as the base schedulability framework; the paper extends these recurrences to Equations 4-5 for the online test.
  • domain assumption Each task's HI-mode budget C(HI) is a safe upper bound on its worst-case execution time.
    Load-bearing for the deadline guarantee. The authors assume budgets are safe and correct in Section 5.1, with C(HI) set to the maximum observed execution time in Table 2.
  • ad hoc to paper The delay observed at a checkpoint is linearly extrapolated to the total remaining execution time (C'(LO) = C(LO) + C(LO)*X/100).
    Heuristic introduced in Section 3.3; accuracy is validated only empirically in Section 5.8.1, and it is a core component of the utilization benefit.
  • domain assumption Profiling-phase inputs are representative of execution-phase inputs for checkpoint reference times.
    Used in Section 5; profiling and execution both use random COCO images with similar dimensions, which can inflate prediction accuracy.
  • domain assumption The 120-iteration bound for the online schedulability test, derived from 500 random tasksets, bounds runtime overhead.
    Used in Section 5.7 to cap online overhead; this is an empirical bound, not a formal worst-case bound for all tasksets.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PAStime: Progress-aware Scheduling for Time-critical Computing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RGKBVDIE

@misc{pith2026190806211,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PAStime: Progress-aware Scheduling for Time-critical Computing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RGKBVDIE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06211}
}
read the original abstract

Over-estimation of worst-case execution times (WCETs) of real-time tasks leads to poor resource utilization. In a mixed-criticality system (MCS), the over-provisioning of CPU time to accommodate the WCETs of highly critical tasks may lead to degraded service for less critical tasks. In this paper, we present PAStime, a novel approach to monitor and adapt the runtime progress of highly time-critical applications, to allow for improved service to lower criticality tasks. In PAStime, CPU time is allocated to time-critical tasks according to the delays they experience as they progress through their control flow graphs. This ensures that as much time as possible is made available to improve the Quality-of-Service of less critical tasks, while high-criticality tasks are compensated after their delays. In this paper, we integrate PAStime with Adaptive Mixed-criticality (AMC) scheduling. The LO-mode budget of a high-criticality task is adjusted according to the delay observed at execution checkpoints. This is the first implementation of AMC in the scheduling framework Using LITMUS-RT, which is extended with our PAStime runtime policy and tested with real-time Linux applications such as object classification and detection. We observe in our experimental evaluation that AMC-PAStime significantly improves the utilization of the low-criticality tasks while guaranteeing service to high-criticality tasks.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    PRO: Progress-aware GPU Warp Scheduling Algorithm

    Jayvant Anantpur and R Govindarajan. PRO: Progress-aware GPU Warp Scheduling Algorithm . In Proceedings of the IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS) , pages 979--988, 2015

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    On Priority Assignment in Fixed Priority Scheduling

    Neil C Audsley. On Priority Assignment in Fixed Priority Scheduling . Information Processing Letters , 79(1):39--44, 2001

    work page 2001

  3. [3]

    Fixed-priority Scheduling of Dual-criticality Systems

    Sanjoy Baruah and Alan Burns. Fixed-priority Scheduling of Dual-criticality Systems . In Proceedings of the 21st International conference on Real-Time Networks and Systems , pages 173--181. ACM, 2013

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    Scheduling Mixed-criticality Systems to Guarantee Some Service under All Non-erroneous Behaviors

    Sanjoy Baruah, Alan Burns, and Zhishan Guo. Scheduling Mixed-criticality Systems to Guarantee Some Service under All Non-erroneous Behaviors . In 2016 28th Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems (ECRTS) , pages 131--138. IEEE, 2016

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Towards the Design of Certifiable Mixed-criticality Systems

    Sanjoy Baruah, Haohan Li, and Leen Stougie. Towards the Design of Certifiable Mixed-criticality Systems . In Proceedings of the 16th IEEE Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium (RTAS) , pages 13--22, 2010

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    Schedulability Analysis of Sporadic Tasks with Multiple Criticality Specifications

    Sanjoy Baruah and Steve Vestal. Schedulability Analysis of Sporadic Tasks with Multiple Criticality Specifications . In Proceedings of the Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems (ECRTS) , pages 147--155, 2008

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    Response-time Analysis for Mixed Criticality Systems

    Sanjoy K Baruah, Alan Burns, and Robert I Davis. Response-time Analysis for Mixed Criticality Systems . In Proceedings of the 32nd IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium (RTSS) , pages 34--43, 2011

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    https://www.bigbuckbunny.org, 2018

    Big Buck Bunny . https://www.bigbuckbunny.org, 2018

    work page 2018

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Measuring the Performance of Schedulability Tests

    Enrico Bini and Giorgio C Buttazzo. Measuring the Performance of Schedulability Tests . Real-Time Systems , 30(1-2):129--154, 2005

    2005

  2. [10]

    Scheduling and Locking in Multiprocessor Real-time Operating Systems

    Bj \"o rn Brandenburg and James H Anderson. Scheduling and Locking in Multiprocessor Real-time Operating Systems . PhD thesis, PhD thesis, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2011

    2011

  3. [11]

    Towards a more practical model for mixed criticality systems

    Alan Burns and Sanjoy Baruah. Towards a more practical model for mixed criticality systems. In Workshop on Mixed-Criticality Systems (colocated with RTSS) , 2013

    2013

  4. [12]

    Alan Burns and Robert I. Davis. A Survey of Research into Mixed Criticality Systems . ACM Comput. Surv. , 50(6):82:1--82:37, November 2017. URL: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/3131347, http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3131347 doi:10.1145/3131347

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    Combinatorial Test Techniques: Table-based Automation, Test Generation and Code Coverage

    Kevin Burr and William Young. Combinatorial Test Techniques: Table-based Automation, Test Generation and Code Coverage . In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Testing Analysis & Review , 1998

    1998

  6. [14]

    LITMUS RT : A Testbed for Empirically Comparing Real-time Multiprocessor Schedulers

    John M Calandrino, Hennadiy Leontyev, Aaron Block, UmaMaheswari C Devi, and James H Anderson. LITMUS RT : A Testbed for Empirically Comparing Real-time Multiprocessor Schedulers . In 2006 27th IEEE International Real-Time Systems Symposium (RTSS'06) , pages 111--126. IEEE, 2006

    2006

  7. [15]

    On the Scheduling of Mixed-criticality Real-time Task Sets

    Dionisio De Niz, Karthik Lakshmanan, and Ragunathan Rajkumar. On the Scheduling of Mixed-criticality Real-time Task Sets . In Proceedings of the 30th IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium (RTSS) , pages 291--300, 2009

    2009

  8. [16]

    dlib: Video Tracking

    dlib C++ Library . dlib: Video Tracking . http://dlib.net/video_tracking_ex.cpp.html, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    Per-thread Cycle Accounting in SMT Processors

    Stijn Eyerman and Lieven Eeckhout. Per-thread Cycle Accounting in SMT Processors . ACM Sigplan Notices , 44(3):133--144, 2009

    2009

  10. [18]

    Addressing Fairness in SMT Multicores with a Progress-aware Scheduler

    Josue Feliu, Julio Sahuquillo, Salvador Petit, and Jos \'e Duato. Addressing Fairness in SMT Multicores with a Progress-aware Scheduler . In Proceedings of the IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS) , pages 187--196, 2015

    2015

  11. [19]

    Perf&Fair: A Progress-aware Scheduler to Enhance Performance and Fairness in SMT Multicores

    Feliu, Josue and Sahuquillo, Julio and Petit, Salvador and Duato, Jose . Perf&Fair: A Progress-aware Scheduler to Enhance Performance and Fairness in SMT Multicores . IEEE Transactions on Computers , 66(5):905--911, 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    https://www.ffmpeg.org/, 2019

    FFmpeg Multimedia Framework . https://www.ffmpeg.org/, 2019

    2019

  13. [21]

    Supporting Graceful Degradation through Elasticity in Mixed-Criticality Federated Scheduling

    Chris Gill, James Orr, and Steven Harris. Supporting Graceful Degradation through Elasticity in Mixed-Criticality Federated Scheduling . In Proc. 6th Workshop on Mixed Criticality Systems (WMC), RTSS , pages 19--24, 2018

    2018

  14. [22]

    Google . trucov. https://code.google.com/archive/p/trucov/, 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    Implementation and Evaluation of Mixed-criticality Scheduling Approaches for Sporadic Tasks

    Huang-Ming Huang, Christopher Gill, and Chenyang Lu. Implementation and Evaluation of Mixed-criticality Scheduling Approaches for Sporadic Tasks . ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems (TECS) , 13(4s):126, 2014

    2014

  16. [24]

    Intel NUC Kit NUC6i7KYK (Skull Canyon): Features and Configurations

    Intel. Intel NUC Kit NUC6i7KYK (Skull Canyon): Features and Configurations . https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/docs/boards-kits/nuc/nuc-kit-nuc6i7kyk-features-configurations.html, 2019

    2019

  17. [25]

    A QoS-aware Memory Controller for Dynamically Balancing GPU and CPU Bandwidth Use in an MPSoC

    Min Kyu Jeong, Mattan Erez, Chander Sudanthi, and Nigel Paver. A QoS-aware Memory Controller for Dynamically Balancing GPU and CPU Bandwidth Use in an MPSoC . In Proceedings of the 49th annual Design Automation Conference , pages 850--855. ACM, 2012

    2012

  18. [26]

    Run-time Control to Increase Task Parallelism in Mixed-critical Systems

    Angeliki Kritikakou, Olivier Baldellon, Claire Pagetti, Christine Rochange, and Matthieu Roy. Run-time Control to Increase Task Parallelism in Mixed-critical Systems . In Proceedings of the 26th Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems (ECRTS) , 2014

    2014

  19. [27]

    DYNASCORE: DYNAmic Software COntroller to increase REsource Utilization in Mixed-critical Systems

    Angeliki Kritikakou, Thibaut Marty, and Matthieu Roy. DYNASCORE: DYNAmic Software COntroller to increase REsource Utilization in Mixed-critical Systems . ACM Transactions on Design Automation of Electronic Systems (TODAES) , 23(2), 2017

    2017

  20. [28]

    Distributed Run-time WCET Controller for Concurrent Critical Tasks in Mixed-critical Systems

    Angeliki Kritikakou, Christine Rochange, Madeleine Faug \`e re, Claire Pagetti, Matthieu Roy, Sylvain Girbal, and Daniel Gracia P \'e rez. Distributed Run-time WCET Controller for Concurrent Critical Tasks in Mixed-critical Systems . In Proceedings of the 22nd International Co...

    2014

  21. [29]

    LLVM: A Compilation Framework for Lifelong Program Analysis & Transformation

    Chris Lattner and Vikram Adve. LLVM: A Compilation Framework for Lifelong Program Analysis & Transformation . In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Code Generation and Optimization: Feedback-directed and Runtime Optimization , page 75. IEEE Computer Society, 2004

    2004

  22. [30]

    An Efficient and Scalable Implementation of Global EDF in Linux

    Juri Lelli, Giuseppe Lipari, Dario Faggioli, and Tommaso Cucinotta. An Efficient and Scalable Implementation of Global EDF in Linux . In Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Operating Systems Platforms for Embedded Real-Time Applications (OSPERT) , pages 6--15, 2011

    2011

  23. [31]

    Deadline Scheduling in the Linux kernel

    Juri Lelli, Claudio Scordino, Luca Abeni, and Dario Faggioli. Deadline Scheduling in the Linux kernel . Software: Practice and Experience , 46(6):821--839, 2016

    2016

  24. [32]

    Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Context

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Doll \'a r, and C Lawrence Zitnick. Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Context . In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision , pages 740--755. Springer, 2014

    2014

  25. [33]

    hrtimers - Subsystem for High-resolution Kernel Timers

    Linux. hrtimers - Subsystem for High-resolution Kernel Timers . https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/timers/hrtimers.txt, Last Accessed: May 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    SCHED\_DEADLINE Scheduling Policy

    Linux . SCHED\_DEADLINE Scheduling Policy . https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt, Last Accessed: May 2019

    2019

  27. [35]

    Scheduling analysis of imprecise mixed-criticality real-time tasks

    Di Liu, Nan Guan, Jelena Spasic, Gang Chen, Songran Liu, Todor Stefanov, and Wang Yi. Scheduling analysis of imprecise mixed-criticality real-time tasks. IEEE Transactions on Computers , 67(7):975--991, 2018

    2018

  28. [36]

    Edf-vd scheduling of mixed-criticality systems with degraded quality guarantees

    Di Liu, Jelena Spasic, Nan Guan, Gang Chen, Songran Liu, Todor Stefanov, and Wang Yi. Edf-vd scheduling of mixed-criticality systems with degraded quality guarantees. In 2016 IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium (RTSS) , pages 35--46. IEEE, 2016

    2016

  29. [37]

    https://llvm.org/doxygen/LoopInfo_8h_source.html, Last Accessed: May 2019

    LLVM LoopInfo Class . https://llvm.org/doxygen/LoopInfo_8h_source.html, Last Accessed: May 2019

    2019

  30. [38]

    Light-PREM: Automated Software Refactoring for Predictable Execution on COTS Embedded Systems

    Renato Mancuso, Roman Dudko, and Marco Caccamo. Light-PREM: Automated Software Refactoring for Predictable Execution on COTS Embedded Systems . In 2014 IEEE 20th International Conference on Embedded and Real-Time Computing Systems and Applications , pages 1--10. IEEE, 2014

    2014

  31. [39]

    Mixed-criticality scheduling with i/o

    Eric Missimer, Katherine Missimer, and Richard West. Mixed-criticality scheduling with i/o. In 2016 28th Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems (ECRTS) , pages 120--130. IEEE, 2016

    2016

  32. [40]

    AdaptMC: A control-theoretic approach for achieving resilience in mixed-criticality systems

    Alessandro Papadopoulos, Enrico Bini, Sanjoy Baruah, and Alan Burns. AdaptMC: A control-theoretic approach for achieving resilience in mixed-criticality systems . In Proceeding ECRTS Conference , page 14. LIPICS, 2018

    2018

  33. [41]

    Source Code

    PAStime. Source Code . http://cs-people.bu.edu/soham1/pastime/, 2020

    2020

  34. [42]

    A Predictable Execution Model for COTS-based Embedded Systems

    Rodolfo Pellizzoni, Emiliano Betti, Stanley Bak, Gang Yao, John Criswell, Marco Caccamo, and Russell Kegley. A Predictable Execution Model for COTS-based Embedded Systems . In 2011 17th IEEE Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium , pages 269--279. IEEE, 2011

    2011

  35. [43]

    Multi-rate Fluid Scheduling of Mixed-criticality Systems on Multiprocessors

    Saravanan Ramanathan, Arvind Easwaran, and Hyeonjoong Cho. Multi-rate Fluid Scheduling of Mixed-criticality Systems on Multiprocessors . Real-Time Systems , 54(2):247--277, 2018

    2018

  36. [44]

    Darknet: Open Source Neural Networks in C

    Joseph Redmon. Darknet: Open Source Neural Networks in C . http://pjreddie.com/darknet/, 2013--2016

    2013

  37. [45]

    Relaxing mixed-criticality scheduling strictness for task sets scheduled with fp

    Francois Santy, Laurent George, Philippe Thierry, and Jo \"e l Goossens. Relaxing mixed-criticality scheduling strictness for task sets scheduled with fp. In 2012 24th Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems , pages 155--165. IEEE, 2012

    2012

  38. [46]

    Fixed-priority Dual-rate Mixed-criticality Systems: Schedulability Analysis and Performance Optimization

    Hang Su, Peng Deng, Dakai Zhu, and Qi Zhu. Fixed-priority Dual-rate Mixed-criticality Systems: Schedulability Analysis and Performance Optimization . In 2016 IEEE 22nd International Conference on Embedded and Real-Time Computing Systems and Applications (RTCSA) , pages 59--68....

    2016

  39. [47]

    Service guarantee exploration for mixed-criticality systems

    Hang Su, Nan Guan, and Dakai Zhu. Service guarantee exploration for mixed-criticality systems . In 2014 IEEE 20th International Conference on Embedded and Real-Time Computing Systems and Applications , pages 1--10. IEEE, 2014

    2014

  40. [48]

    An Elastic Mixed-criticality Task Model and its Scheduling Algorithm

    Hang Su and Dakai Zhu. An Elastic Mixed-criticality Task Model and its Scheduling Algorithm . In Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE) , pages 147--152. IEEE, 2013

    2013

  41. [49]

    An Elastic Mixed-Criticality Task Model and Early-Release EDF Scheduling Algorithms

    Hang Su, Dakai Zhu, and Scott Brandt. An Elastic Mixed-Criticality Task Model and Early-Release EDF Scheduling Algorithms . ACM Transactions on Design Automation of Electronic Systems (TODAES) , 22(2):28, 2017

    2017

  42. [50]

    Efficient Instrumentation for Code Coverage Testing

    Mustafa M Tikir and Jeffrey K Hollingsworth. Efficient Instrumentation for Code Coverage Testing . In ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes , volume 27, pages 86--96. ACM, 2002

    2002

  43. [51]

    Supporting Low-Latency, Low-Criticality Tasks in A Certified Mixed-Criticality OS

    Manohar Vanga, Andrea Bastoni, Henrik Theiling, and Bj \"o rn B Brandenburg. Supporting Low-Latency, Low-Criticality Tasks in A Certified Mixed-Criticality OS . In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Real-Time Networks and Systems , pages 227--236. ACM, 2017

    2017

  44. [52]

    Preemptive Scheduling of Multi-criticality Systems with Varying Degrees of Execution Time Assurance

    Steve Vestal. Preemptive Scheduling of Multi-criticality Systems with Varying Degrees of Execution Time Assurance . In Proceedings of the 28th IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium (RTSS) , pages 239--243, 2007

    2007

  45. [53]

    Online Cache Modeling for Commodity Multicore Processors

    Richard West, Puneet Zaroo, Carl A Waldspurger, and Xiao Zhang. Online Cache Modeling for Commodity Multicore Processors . ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review , 44(4):19--29, 2010

    2010

  46. [54]

    The Worst-case Execution-time Problem - Overview of Methods and Survey of Tools

    Reinhard Wilhelm, Jakob Engblom, Andreas Ermedahl, Niklas Holsti, Stephan Thesing, David Whalley, Guillem Bernat, Christian Ferdinand, Reinhold Heckmann, Tulika Mitra, et al. The Worst-case Execution-time Problem - Overview of Methods and Survey of Tools . ACM Transactions on ...

    2008

  47. [55]

    COLORIS: A Dynamic Cache Partitioning System using Page Coloring

    Ying Ye, Richard West, Zhuoqun Cheng, and Ye Li. COLORIS: A Dynamic Cache Partitioning System using Page Coloring . In 2014 23rd International Conference on Parallel Architecture and Compilation Techniques (PACT) , pages 381--392. IEEE, 2014

    2014

  48. [56]

    PALLOC: DRAM Bank-aware Memory Allocator for Performance Isolation on Multicore Platforms

    Heechul Yun, Renato Mancuso, Zheng-Pei Wu, and Rodolfo Pellizzoni. PALLOC: DRAM Bank-aware Memory Allocator for Performance Isolation on Multicore Platforms . In 2014 IEEE 19th Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium (RTAS) , pages 155--166. IEEE, 2014

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.