Mode-Dynamic Task Allocation and Scheduling for an Engine Management Real-Time System Using a Multicore Microcontroller
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A variety of methodologies to use embedded multicore controllers efficiently has been discussed in the last years. Several assumptions are usually made in the automotive domain, such as static assignment of tasks to the cores. This paper shows an approach for efficient task allocation depending on different system modes. An engine management system (EMS) is used as application example, and the performance improvement compared to static allocation is assessed. The paper is structured as follows: First the control algorithms for the EMS will be classified according to operating modes. The classified algorithms will be allocated to the cores, depending on the operating mode. We identify mode transition points, allowing a reliable switch without neglecting timing requirements. As a next step, it will be shown that a load distribution by mode-dependent task allocation would be better balanced than a static task allocation. All EMS tasks being applied in this paper serve for a 4 cylinder gasoline torque based system including engine low level drivers. The Infineon AURIX microcontroller is used, featuring three cores. Performance evaluation is done by simulation on the chosen abstraction level. The last section of the document will address proposals for future work to measure and reduce the behavioral differences between the simulation and the implementation on the real target.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".