Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Background
Worst-Case Execution Time
Wcet Tool Design
The Three-Round Test Procedure
Summary
Test Results
The First-Round: Test Results Without Annotations
Final: Test Results with Annotations
Discussion
Achievements and Limitations
Conclusion
References
All Topics
Computer Science
Embedded Systems

The worst-case execution time tool challenge 2006

Profile image of Jan GustafssonJan Gustafsson

2009, International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer

Abstract

The first international Worst Case Execution Time (WCET) Tool Challenge in 2006 used benchmark programs to evaluate academic and commercial WCET tools. It aimed to study the state-of-the-art in WCET analysis. The WCET Tool Challenge comprised two parallel evaluation approaches: an internal evaluation by the respective tool developers and an external test by a neutral person of an independent institute. The latter was conducted by the author of this paper. Focusing on the external test, we describe the rules, benchmarks, participants and discuss the obtained results.

Related papers

Measurement-based worst-case execution time analysis
Raimund Kirner

2005

View PDFchevron_right
Predicated Worst-Case Execution-Time Analysis
Amine Marref

Reliable Software Technologies–Ada-Europe 2009, 2009

Knowledge about the Worst-Case Execution-Time (WCET) is of primordial importance in the validation of real-time systems. A WCET estimation must be safe and tight. Tightness in WCET estimation is highly desirable for an efficient utilisation of resources. In order to obtain accurate WCET values, more program execution-history must be accounted for. In this thesis we propose the use of Predicated WCET Analysis which uses constraint-logic programming to model context-sensitive execution-times of program segments. We prove that our predicated analysis is safe and very tight compared to contemporary analysis techniques.

View PDFchevron_right
Fully automatic, parametric worst-case execution time analysis. MRTC report, Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering, Mälardalen University
Björn Lisper

Worst-Case Execution Time (WCET) analysis means to compute a safe upper bound to the execution time of a piece of code. Parametric WCET analysis yields symbolic upper bounds: expressions that may contain parameters. These parameters may represent, for instance, values of input parameters to the program, or maximal iteration counts for loops. We describe a technique for fully automatic parametric WCET analysis, which is based on known mathematical methods: an abstract interpretation to calculate parametric constraints on program flow, a symbolic method to count integer points in polyhedra, and a symbolic ILP technique to solve the subsequent IPET calculation of WCET bound. The technique is capable of handling unstructured code, and it can find upper bounds to loop iteration counts automatically.

View PDFchevron_right
Toward Language Independent Worst-Case Execution Time Calculation
Gordana Rakic

Analyzers (SSQSA) is a set of software tools for static analysis that is incorporated in the framework developed to target the common aim-consistent software quality analysis. The main characteristic of all integrated tools is the independency of the input computer language. Language independency is achieved by enriched Concrete Syntax Tree (eCST) that is used as an intermediate representation of the source code. This characteristic gives the tools more generality comparing to the other similar static analyzers. The aim of this paper is to describe an early idea for introducing support for static timing analysis and Worst Case Execution Time (WCET) calculation at code level in SSQSA framework.

View PDFchevron_right
Classification of WCET analysis techniques
Raimund Kirner

Object-Oriented Real-Time Distributed …, 2005

View PDFchevron_right
A tool for average and worst-case execution time analysis}
Raimund Kirner

2010

Abstract We have developed a new programming paradigm which, for conforming programs, allows the averagecase execution time (ACET) to be obtained automatically by a static analysis. This is achieved by tracking the data structures and their distributions that will exist during all possible executions of a program. This new programming paradigm is called MOQA and the tool which performs the static analysis is called Distritrack. In this paper we give an overview of both MOQA and Distritrack.

View PDFchevron_right
Fast, Interactive Worst-Case Execution Time Analysis With Back-Annotation
Raymond Klefstad

IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 2000

For hard real-time systems, static code analysis is needed to derive a safe bound on the worst-case execution time (WCET). Virtually all prior work has focused on the accuracy of WCET analysis without regard to the speed of analysis. The resulting algorithms are often too slow to be integrated into the development cycle, requiring WCET analysis to be postponed until a final verification phase.

View PDFchevron_right
The Mälardalen WCET benchmarks–past, present and future
Björn Lisper

2010

Modelling of real-time systems requires accurate and tight estimates of the Worst-Case Execution Time (WCET) of each task scheduled to run. In the past two decades, two main paradigms have emerged within the field of WCET analysis: static analysis and hybrid measurement-based analysis. These techniques have been succesfully implemented in prototype and commercial toolsets. Yet, comparison among the WCET estimates derived by such tools remains somewhat elusive as it requires a common set of benchmarks which serve a multitude of needs.

View PDFchevron_right
Measurement-based worst-case execution time analysis using automatic test-data generation
Raimund Kirner

Proc. 4th Euromicro International …, 2004

View PDFchevron_right
Automatic amortised worst-case execution time analysis
Kevin Hammond

2007

Abstract Our research focuses on formally bounded WCET analysis, where we aim to provide absolute guarantees on execution time bounds. In this paper, we describe how amortisation can be used to improve the quality of the results that are obtained from a fully-automatic and formally guaranteed WCET analysis, by delivering analysis results that are parameterised on specific input patterns and which take account of relations between these patterns.

View PDFchevron_right

References (41)

  1. aiT. http://www.absint.de/ait/.
  2. Altium Tasking Compiler. http://www.altium.com/ TASKING/.
  3. ARM9. http://www.arm.com/products/CPUs/ families/ARM9Family.html.
  4. ASCET. http://www.etas.com/de/products/ascet_ software_products.php.
  5. Bound-T. http://www.tidorum.fi/bound-t/.
  6. C-Lab. http://www.c-lab.de/.
  7. Chronos. http://www.comp.nus.edu.sg/ ~rpembed/ chronos/.
  8. Cosmic. http://www.cosmicsoftware.com/.
  9. CPLEX. http://www.ilog.com/products/cplex/.
  10. Freescale MPC565. http://www.freescale.com/ webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=MPC565.
  11. Gaisler BCC Compiler. http://gaisler.com/doc/bcc. pdf.
  12. GNU C Compiler. http://gcc.gnu.org/.
  13. Graphviz. http://www.graphviz.org/. 14. H8/300. http://eu.renesas.com/fmwk.jsp?cnt= h8300_series_landing.jsp&fp=/products/mpumcu/h8_ family/h8300_series/.
  14. HCS12. http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/ overview.jsp?nodeId=02Wcbf8WD69BXm.
  15. IAR. http://www.iar.com/.
  16. Infineon. http://www.infineon.com/ cms/en/product/channel.html?channel= ff80808112ab681d0112ab6b2f42075b.
  17. ISO9241. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_9241.
  18. Mälardalen Benchmarks. http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/ projects/wcet/sweet.html.
  19. Matlab/Simulink. http://www.mathworks.com.
  20. MIPS. http://www.mips.com/.
  21. PapaBench. http://www.irit.fr/recherches/ARCHI/ MARCH/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=97/.
  22. SCADE. http://www.esterel-technologies.com/ products/scade-suite/.
  23. SimpleScalar. http://www.simplescalar.com/.
  24. SPARCV7/V8. http://www.sparc.org/ specificationsDownload.html.
  25. SPEC95. http://www.spec.org/cpu95/.
  26. SWEET. http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/projects/wcet/ sweet.html.
  27. TMS470. http://focus.ti.com/mcu/docs/ mcuprodoverview.tsp?sectionId=95&tabId= 203&familyId=454.
  28. WindRiver Compiler. http://www.windriver.com/ products/development_suite/wind_river_compiler/.
  29. WCET Tool Challenge 2006. Internet, 2006. http:// www.idt.mdh.se/personal/jgn/challenge/.
  30. M. Berkelaar. lp solve: A mixed integer linear program solver. Tech. rep., Eindhoven University of Technology, 1997.
  31. Jakob Engblom. Processor Pipelines and Static Worst- Case Execution Time Analysis. PhD thesis, Uppsala Uni- versity.
  32. Christian Ferdinand. Cache Behavior Prediction for Real-Time Systems. PhD Thesis, Universität des
  33. Saarlandes, 1997. http://rw4.cs.uni-sb.de/ ~ferdi/ publications.html.
  34. Jan Gustafsson. The WCET Tool Challenge 2006. In Bernhard Steffen Tiziana Margaris, Anna Philippeu, ed- itor, Second International Symposium on Leveraging Ap- plications of Formal Methods (ISOLA'06), pages 233- 240, November 2007.
  35. David Harel. Statecharts: A visual formalism for complex systems. Sci. Comput. Program., 8(3):231-274, 1987.
  36. University of Maryland. The Omega project. http:// www.cs.umd.edu/projects/omega/.
  37. Lili Tan. The Worst-Case Execution Time Tool Chal- lenge 2006: The External Test. In Bernhard Steffen Tiziana Margaris, Anna Philippeu, editor, Second In- ternational Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods (ISOLA'06), pages 241-248, November 2007.
  38. Ingomar Wenzel, Raimund Kirner, Bernhard Rieder, and Peter P. Puschner. Measurement-Based Worst-Case Ex- ecution Time Analysis. In SEUS, pages 7-10. IEEE Com- puter Society, 2005.
  39. Ingomar Wenzel, Bernhard Rieder, Raimund Kirner, and Peter Puschner. Automatic timing model generation by cfg partitioning and model checking. In DATE '05: Pro- ceedings of the conference on Design, Automation and Test in Europe, pages 606-611, Washington, DC, USA, 2005. IEEE Computer Society.
  40. Reinhard Wilhelm, Jakob Engblom, Andreas Ermedahl, Niklas Holsti, Stephan Thesing, David Whalley, Guillem Bernat, Christian Ferdinand, Reinhold Heckmann, Tu- lika Mitra, Frank Mueller, Isabelle Puaut, Peter Puschner, Jan Staschulat, and Per Stenström. The worst- case execution-time problem-overview of methods and survey of tools. Trans. on Embedded Computing Sys., 7(3):1-53, 2008.
  41. Reinhard Wilhelm, Jakob Engblom, Stephan Thesing, and David B. Whalley. Industrial Requirements for WCET Tools -Answers to the ARTIST Questionnaire. In Jan Gustafsson, editor, WCET, volume MDH-MRTC- 116/2003-1-SE, pages 39-43. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Mälardalen University, Box 883, 721 23 Västerås, Sweden, 2003.

Related papers

WCET 2008--Report from the Tool Challenge 2008--8th Intl. Workshop on Worst-Case Execution Time (WCET) Analysis}
Armelle Bonenfant

8th Intl. Workshop on Worst-Case Execution Time (WCET) Analysis}, 2008

Following the successful WCET Tool Challenge in 2006, the second event in this series was organized in 2008, again with support from the ARTIST2 Network of Excellence. The WCET Tool Challenge 2008 (WCC'08) provides benchmark programs and poses a number of "analysis problems" about the dynamic, runtime properties of these programs. The participants are challenged to solve these problems with their programanalysis tools. Two kinds of problems are defined: WCET problems, which ask for bounds on the execution time of chosen parts (sub programs) of the benchmarks, under given constraints on input data; and flowanalysis problems, which ask for bounds on the number of times certain parts of the benchmark can be executed, again under some constraints. We describe the organization of WCC'08, the benchmark programs, the participating tools, and the general results, successes, and failures. Most participants found WCC'08 to be a useful test of their tools. Unlike the 2006 Challenge, the WCC'08 participants include several tools for the same target (ARM7, LPC2138), and tools that combine measurements and static analysis, as well as pure staticanalysis tools.

View PDFchevron_right
8th International Workshop on Worst-Case Execution Time Analysis
Raimund Kirner

2008

Following the successful WCET Tool Challenge in 2006, the second event in this series was organized in 2008, again with support from the ARTIST2 Network of Excellence. The WCET Tool Challenge 2008 (WCC'08) provides benchmark programs and poses a number of "analysis problems" about the dynamic, runtime properties of these programs. The participants are challenged to solve these problems with their programanalysis tools. Two kinds of problems are defined: WCET problems, which ask for bounds on the execution time of chosen parts (sub programs) of the benchmarks, under given constraints on input data; and flowanalysis problems, which ask for bounds on the number of times certain parts of the benchmark can be executed, again under some constraints. We describe the organization of WCC'08, the benchmark programs, the participating tools, and the general results, successes, and failures. Most participants found WCC'08 to be a useful test of their tools. Unlike the 2006 Challenge, the WCC'08 participants include several tools for the same target (ARM7, LPC2138), and tools that combine measurements and static analysis, as well as pure staticanalysis tools.

View PDFchevron_right
Obstacles in worst-case execution time analysis
Raimund Kirner

11th IEEE Symposium on Object Oriented …, 2008

View PDFchevron_right
12th International Workshop on Worst-Case Execution Time Analysis
Juan Antonio de la Puente

2012

I take real pleasure in seeing the proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Worst-Case Execution Time Analysis online already on the day of the workshop. This helps WCET'12 achieve its goal of facilitating discussion and interaction among participants as well as of returning value to the authors of the works that were accepted for presentation.

View PDFchevron_right
The worst-case execution-time problem—overview of methods and survey of tools
Peter Puschner

ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems, 2008

The determination of upper bounds on execution times, commonly called Worst-Case Execution Times (WCETs), is a necessary step in the development and validation process for hard real-time systems. This problem is hard if the underlying processor architecture has components such as caches, pipelines, branch prediction, and other speculative components. This article describes different approaches to this problem and surveys several commercially available tools and research prototypes.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Embedded Systems
  • Timing Analysis
  • Real Time system
  • Worst Case Execution Time Analysis
  • Embedded System
  • Hard Real-Time
  • Worst Case Execution Time
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved