Sharp utilization thresholds for some realtime scheduling problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scheduling policies for real-time systems exhibit threshold behavior that is related to the utilization of the task set they schedule, and in some cases this threshold is sharp. A task set is considered schedulable if it can be scheduled to meet all associated deadlines. A schedulability test for a chosen policy is a test of feasibility: given a task set, can all deadlines be met? For the rate monotonic scheduling policy, we show that periodic workload with utilization less than a threshold U RM can be scheduled almost surely and that all workload with utilization greater than U RM is almost surely not schedulable. We study such sharp threshold behavior in the context of processor scheduling using static task priorities, not only for periodic real-time tasks but for aperiodic real-time tasks as well. The notion of a utilization threshold provides a simple schedulability test for most real-time applications. These results improve our understanding of scheduling policies and provide an interesting characterization of the typical behavior of policies. The threshold is sharp (small deviations around the threshold cause schedulability, as a property, to appear or disappear) for most policies; this is a happy consequence that can be used to address the limitations of existing utilization-based tests for schedulability. We demonstrate the use of such an approach for balancing power consumption with the need to meet deadlines in web servers.
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 | 0.003 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".