Codesign of control and scheduling systems is commonly used in the literature to address scheduling artifacts such as latencies and jitters. However, As controllers’ designs remain unchanged and fail to express any concerns regarding this matter, it becomes challenging to quantify the quality of control and its trade-off with resource utilization while adapting control or scheduling settings at runtime. In the present article, we propose a new proportional–integral–derivative (PID) controller design for the problem of scheduling artifacts. Based on our prior work, the latency processor utilization is revealed as a hidden artifact for the control deterioration when developing new predicted PID controller terms. This artifact effect is proven analytically using a codesign task model and considering an extrapolated measurement. The effectiveness of the proposed solution is assessed with a benchmark system and compared with previous works.
AudsleyNTindellKBurnsA. The end of the line for static cyclic scheduling?. In: Proceedings of the fifth Euromicro workshop on real-time systems, Oulu, 22–24 June 1993, pp.36–41. New York: IEEE.
2.
TiaTSDengZShankarM, et al. Probabilistic performance guarantee for real-time tasks with varying computation times. In: Proceedings of the real-time technology and applications symposium, Chicago, IL, 15–17 May 1995, pp.164–173. New York: IEEE.
3.
JosephMPandyaP. Finding response times in a real-time system. Comput J1986; 29(5): 390–395.
4.
DíazJLópezJGarciaM, et al. Pessimism in the stochastic analysis of real-time systems: concept and applications. In: Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE 32nd real-time systems symposium, Vienna, 29 November–2 December 2011, pp.197–207. New York: IEEE.
5.
SlomkaFSadeghiM. Beyond the limitations of real-time scheduling theory: a unified scheduling theory for the analysis of real-time systems. Softw Intens Cyb Phys Syst2021; 35: 201–236.
6.
CervinADanHMartinO. TrueTime 2.0 beta-reference manual. Lund: Department of Automatic Control, Lund University, 2010.
7.
AminifarABiniEElesP, et al. Bandwidth-efficient controller-server co-design with stability guarantees. In: Proceedings of the 2014 design, automation & test in European conference & exhibition (DATE), Dresden, 24–28 March 2014, pp.55:1–55:6. New York: IEEE.
8.
EkerJHaganderPÅrzénKE. A feedback scheduler for real-time controller tasks. Control Eng Pract2000; 8(12): 1369–1378.
9.
CervinAEkerJ. Feedback scheduling of control tasks. In: Proceedings of the 39th IEEE conference on decision and control, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 12–15 December 2000, vol. 5, pp.4871–4876. New York: IEEE.
10.
CervinA. Integrated control and real-time scheduling. PhD Thesis, Lund University, Lund, 2003.
11.
SetoDLehoczkyJPShaL, et al. On task schedulability in real-time control systems. In: Proceedings of the 17th IEEE real-time systems symposium, Washington, DC, 4–6 December 1996, pp.13–21. New York: IEEE.
12.
RyuMHongSSaksenaM. Streamlining real-time controller design: from performance specifications to end-to-end timing constraints. In: Proceedings of the third IEEE real-time technology and applications symposium (RTAS), Montreal, QC, Canada, 9–11 June 1997, pp.91–99. New York: IEEE.
13.
ZakariaSEmmanuelGMohamedAN, et al. Antinomy between schedulability and quality of control using a feedback scheduler. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on real-time networks and systems (RTNS), Versailles, 8–10 October 2014, pp.171–180. New York: ACM.
14.
ZakariaSEmmanuelGDrissM, et al. Predictive-delay control based on real-time feedback scheduling. Simul Model Pract Theory2016; 66: 16–35.
15.
CervinAEkerJ. Control-scheduling codesign of realtime systems: the control server approach. J Embed Comput2005; 1: 209–224.
16.
BiniECervinA. Delay-aware period assignment in control systems. In: Proceedings of the real-time systems symposium (RTSS), Barcelona, 30 November–3 December 2008, pp.291–300. New York: IEEE.
17.
XuYÅrzénKEBiniE, et al. Response time driven design of control systems. IFAC Proc Vol2014; 47: 6098–6104.
18.
HenrikssonDCervinAÅkessonJ, et al. On dynamic real-time scheduling of model predictive controllers. In: Proceedings of the 41st IEEE conference on decision and control, Las Vegas, NV, 10–13 December 2002, vol. 2, pp.1325–1330. New York: IEEE.
YepezJFuertesJMartíP. The large error first (LEF) scheduling policy for real-time control systems. In: Proceedings of the real-time systems symposium, Cancun, Mexico, 3–5 December 2003, pp.63–66. New York: IEEE.
21.
RobertDSenameOSimonD. Sampling period dependent RST controller used in control/scheduling co-design. IFAC Proc Vol2005; 38: 225–230.
22.
SenameOSimonDBen GaïdMEM. A LPV approach to control and real-time scheduling codesign: application to a robot-arm control. In: Proceedings of the 47th IEEE conference on decision and control (CDC), Cancun, Mexico, 9–11 December 2008, pp.4891–4897. New York: IEEE.
23.
RobertDSenameOSimonD. An H∞ LPV design for sampling varying controllers: experimentation with a T inverted pendulum. IEEE Trans Control Syst Technol2010; 18(3): 741–749.
24.
AminifarAElesPPengZ, et al. Stability-aware analysis and design of embedded control systems. In: Proceedings of the 11th ACM international conference on embedded software (EMSOFT), Montreal, QC, Canada, 29 September–4 October 2013, pp.1–10. New York: ACM.
25.
ButtazzoGCBiniEButtleD. Rate-adaptive tasks: model, analysis, and design issues. In: Proceedings of the 2014 design, automation & test in European conference & exhibition (DATE), Dresden, 24–28 March 2014, pp.1–6. New York: IEEE.
26.
LiuCLLaylandJW. Scheduling algorithms for multiprogramming in a hard-real-time environment. J ACM1973; 20(1): 46–61.
EisenbrandFRothvoßT. Static-priority real-time scheduling: response time computation is NP-hard. In: Proceedings of the 29th IEEE real-time systems symposium (RTSS), Barcelona, 30 November–3 December 2008, pp.397–406. New York: IEEE.
NguyenTHCRichardPGrolleauE. An FPTAS for response time analysis of fixed priority real-time tasks with resource augmentation. IEEE Trans Comput2015; 64(7): 1805–1818.
31.
HamzaMFYapHJChoudhuryIA, et al. Current development on using rotary inverted pendulum as a benchmark for testing linear and nonlinear control algorithms. Mech Syst Signal Process2019; 116: 347–369.
32.
JonesDRPerttunenCDStuckmanBE. Lipschitzian optimization without the Lipschitz constant. J Optim Theor Appl1993; 79(1): 157–181.
