towards programming safety critical systems in java bent thomsen aalborg university
TRANSCRIPT
Towards Programming Safety Critical Systems in
JavaBent Thomsen
Aalborg University
2
Joint work with:
• Martin Schoeberl– Institute of Computer Engineering Vienna University of Technology, Austria
• Hans Søndergaard– Vitus Bering University College
• Stephan Korsholm– Polycom (former KIRK telecom) and CISS
• Anders P. Ravn, Thomas Bøgholm, Henrik Kragh-Hansen, Petur Olsen, Kim G. Larsen, Rene R. Hansen and Lone Leth Thomsen – CISS/Department of Computer Science Aalborg University
3
Computers today
A computer is a grey box full of black smoke.When the black smoke escapes the computerdoes not work any more
Anonymous CS student
4
Some have a broader view
5
But what about these?
6
Especially this one
• JOP - Java Optimized Processor
7
• Computer purchased as part of some other piece of equipment
– Typically dedicated software (may be user customizable)
– Often replaces previously electromechanical components
– Often no “real” keyboard
– Often limited display or no general purpose display
Embedded Systems
8
Real-time Systems Landscape
• Interaction software– Psychology
• Signal processing– Compute as much as possible within deadline
• Media processing– QoS, graceful degradation
• Control software– Catastrophic consequences of missed
deadlines
9
High Integrity Embedded Real-Time Systems
• Implemented in hardware
• Customized components
• Hardware specific software
• Poor reusability
• Specially trained programmers– Assembler and C (and C++) dominate
embedded systems programming– Still at lot of Ada programming going on
10
What is the problem?
• Sheer number of systems
• Poor programmer productivity– Fewer and fewer C/C++ programmers
11
How to increase Programmer Productivity?
3 ways of increasing programmer productivity:
1. Process (software engineering)
– Controlling programmers– Good process can yield up to 20% increase
2. Tools (verification, static analysis, program generation)
– Good tools can yield up to 10% increase3. Better designed Languages --- the center of the universe!
– Core abstractions, mechanisms, services, guarantees– Affect how programmers approach a task (C vs. SML)– New languages can yield 700% increase
12
Why Java
• Easy to learn
• Early (first) programming language
• Object oriented
• Industrial strength
• Platform independent
• Concurrent
• (Almost) Well-defined semantics
13
Java is all around us
Java-enabled Handsets
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
Un
its
(in
mil
lio
n)
Installed Base Annual Shipment
1B 1B installedinstalledbase in base in 20062006
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
14
Even in space
15
Java Disadvantages wrt. Real-time
• Unpredictable performance– Scheduling– Memory– Control and data flow
• Automatic garbage collection
• Dynamic class loading
16
Real-Time Specification for Java
• RTSJ for short• First JSR request (JSR-001)• Still not completely finished• Implementations
– Timesys RI– OVM (Purdue)– PERCS (AONIX), – JamaicaVM (AICAS)– McKinack (SUN) based on Hotspot– Websphere (IBM) based on J9
17
RTSJ Guiding Principles
• Backward compatibility to standard Java
• Write Once, Run Anywhere
• Reflects current real-time practice
• Predictable execution
• No Syntactic extension– But subtle changes to semantics
• Allow implementation flexibility
18
RTSJ Overview
• Clear definition of scheduler• Priority inheritance protocol• NoHeapRealtimeThread• BoundAsyncEventHandler• Scoped memory to avoid GC• Low-level access through raw memory• High resolution time and timer• Targeted at larger systems
– implementation from Sun requires a dual UltraSparc III or higher with 512 MB memory and the Solaris 10 operating system
19
RTSJ Subset
• Ravenscar Java– Name from Ravenscar Ada– Based in Puschner & Wellings paper
• Profile for high integrity applications• RTSJ compatible• No dynamic thread creation• Simplified scoped memory• Targeted at Java 2 Micro Edition• Implementations?
– Partial on aJ-100 at CISS/AAU
20
Observation
There is essentially only one way to get a more predictable language:
• Namely to select a set of features which makes it controllable.
• Which implies that a set of features can be deselected as well
21
The bottom up approach1. take the Java language and its associated VM2. provide low level access to physical memory (and interrupts),3. add an interface to a scheduler which is some mechanism that
gives predictability to thread execution, and which implements some policy that is specified through release and scheduling parameters,
4. add an interface to some memory areas controlled by mechanisms that may give more predictable allocation of objects,
5. add some mechanism to make synchronization more predictable,
6. add new classes of asynchronous events and their handlers, and internal event generators called timers related to clocks,
7. and try to come to terms with asynchronous transfer of control and termination.
22
Life is complicated enough
• apart from 1 and 2, the remaining ”enhancements” complicate life for a programmer
• source program for an application becomes a mixture of – application specific requirements
• (deadlines, periods, binding of external events, and program logic),
– parameters for controlling policies of the underlying middleware mechanisms
• (cost, priority, importance, event queue sizes, memory area sizes),
– parameters for tuning or sidestepping the mechanisms • (miss handlers, timers).
23
Our Target Community
Real-TimeComputing
ControlEngineeringSC Java
Control in Real-Time Computing
Real-Time Programming Techniques in Control System Implementation
24
A typical embedded program
Cruise control:Loop
Read the sensors;
Compute speed;
if speed too high
Compute pressure for brake pedal;
if speed too low
Compute pressure for accelerator;
Transmit the outputs to actuators;
25
FOSS WineScan Case Study
enclosed in a Thermobox
FTIR instrument
Interfero-gram
FTIR technology: Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy
26
Interferometer functional requirements
The instrument
• Temperature reading and regulation
thermobox, cuvette, interferometer, IR-source
reading: 5 times/sec regulation: 1 time/sec
• Interferometer measurement move the mirror and read IR-detector
every 333 µs up to 3200 times in a scan
an interferometer measurement 32 scans
Thermobox
27
Our approach
• the Java language and machine supported by existing RT mechanisms and policies
• low level access to hardware, since hardware abstraction layers are yet in the future
• plus periodic and sporadic threads with application specific parameters, including program logic
28
The Aim
• An easy to use framework
• Simplified program analysis
• Easy to implement on embedded systems
• Minimum implementation details
• J2ME programmers should be able to learn to use SC Java in a day
29
SC Java Programming ModelInitialized: An RT application is in the Initialized state untilthe initialization code of the RealTimeSystem hasrun to completion and its start method has not beeninvoked. Application threads and passive objects arecreated and initialized here. Threads are not started.
Mission: An RT application is in the Mission state whenit has returned from its start method which starts allthreads.
Stop: An RT application is in the Stop state when it hasreturned from the stop method which waits for threadsto perform their optional cleanup.
30
Difference to RTSJ
• No Initializer Thread– Done as part of main method
• No WaitForNextperiod– Scheduler does this
• No priorities– Programmer Specify deadline and periods– Scheduler calculates priorities
31
Only few concepts
• Periodic Threads
• Sporadic Threads
• RunTimeSystem
• Relative Time
• Immortal and Raw Memory
32
Schedulable Entities
All schedulable entities (periodic and sporadic) are represented by threads.
The abstract class RealtimeThread has two methods:
• run() – the run logic to be executed every time the thread is activated
• cleanup() – a clean-up method to be executed if the system should be shut
down or stopped
Initialize is done in main()
33
The Class Diagram
34
The RealtimeThread Class
35
PeriodicThread
36
SporadicThread
37
The Runtime System
38
An example
39
Implementations of SC Java
• On Ajile aJ-100 and JOP– Use existing schedulers and threads
• On Mechatronic Brick and Polycom (Kirk)– Currently experimenting with JamVM
• Implementation on RTSJ underway
40
What about Program Analysis?
• Traditional approaches to analysis of RT systems are hard and conservative
• Alternatives via:– Java PathFinder– SARTS
• WCET and Schedulability on JOP
41
Utilisation-Based Analysis
• A simple sufficient but not necessary schedulability test exists
)12( /1
1
NN
i i
i NT
CU
NU as 69.0
Where C is WCET and T is period
42
Response Time Equation
jihpj
j
iii C
T
RCR
)(
Where hp(i) is the set of tasks with priority higher than task i
Solve by forming a recurrence relationship:
jihpj
j
n
ii
n
i CTw
Cw
)(
1
The set of values is monotonically non decreasingWhen the solution to the equation has been found, must not be greater that (e.g. 0 or )
1 n
i
n
i ww,..,...,,, 210 n
iiii wwww0
iw
iR iC
43
Java PathFinder
void add(Object o) { buffer[head] = o; head = (head+1)%size;}
Object take() { … tail=(tail+1)%size; return buffer[tail];}
Java Code
JAVAC JVM
0: iconst_01: istore_22: goto #395: getstatic 8: aload_09: iload_210: aaload
Bytecode
Special JVM
Model Checker
44
SARTS
• WCET and Schedulability analyzer for Java programs written in the SCJ profile (PRTJ)
• Assumes correct Loop bounds annotations• Generated code to be executed on JOP
• Generates Timed Automata• Control flow graph with timing information• Uppaal Model-checker checks for deadlock
45
SARTS Overview
46
Java to UPPAAL
47
Timed Automata templates
• Translation of Basic Blocks into states and transitions
• Patterns for:– Loops– Monitor statements– If statements– Method invoke– Sporadic task release
48
Simple models of RM scheduler
• Predefined models– Scheduler– Periodic Task– Sporadic Task
49
Periodic Task/Sporadic Task
50
SARTS can do better than utilisation test
• Example• One periodic task• Two sporadic tasks
– Mutually exclusive
51
SARTS can do better than utilisation test
• Period: 240• Minimum inter-arrival time: 240• Periodic cost: 161• Sporadic cost: 64• Utilisation test fails:
52
Time Line
53
real-time sorting machine
54
SARTS future work
• Cache analysis• Different scheduling strategies• Memory usage analysis• Multicore• IDE integration
55
Java Objects Project
• CISS/DPT CS AAU• Vitus Bering Denmark• Polycom (Kirk telecom A/S)• Wirtek A/S• Mechatronic Brick ApS • Aalborg Industries A/S• Prevas A/S • Teknologisk Institut
JJ B
O J
56
Project Objectives
• Porting JVM on various hardware platforms• WCET and other prgl. analysis• Integration into IDE (eclipse)• Legacy programming (not JNI)• Applications, applications …
57
The missing parts
• Standard Libraries • Generalised phases• Generalised WCET analysis
– Works for JOP!
• Memory usage analysis• Memory mechanisms
– Immortal and local (with weak references) memory
58
Standard Library
• Problems with existing libraries:– Use a lot of dynamic allocations– Bad for WCET and memory usage– Focus on improved average performance
• Javolution– Reuse memory– Focus on WCET, but no guarantees– Focus on predictability
59
Standard Library
• Canteen– Implements List, Set and Map– WCET analysis possible– Does not throw exceptions– No memory allocation in mission phase– Support for generics– Use standard interfaces (almost)
60
Generalised Phases
• JSR 302 proposal by The Open Group:
61
Generalised Mode Change
62
Mode Change Requirements
Requirements the transition from mode mi to the next mode mj must satisfy:
R1. When a Mode Change Request (MCR) has occurred, a transition from mode mi to mode mj must take place
R2. Continuing tasks belonging to both mode mi and mode mj are permitted
R3. A mix of old tasks from mode mi and new tasks from mode mj must not be concurrently active
R4. All real-time requirements of the system must be met (deadlines, periods, etc.)
R5. The mode changes of the system must happen within a bounded time δt
63
Mode Change Contract
C1. Each mode m in {m1,..,mn} has a fixed set of periodic or sporadic tasks τ(m) which are individually schedulable under a given scheduling discipline
C2. A specific event, MCR, is designated as request to change from a current mode mi to a new mode mj
C3. When a MCR occurs, the task set τ(mi) of the current mode mi remains active till a time-interval, Δt idle, within a delay δt(mi) after MCR, after which the task set τ(mj) of mode mj is active
C4. Periodic and sporadic tasks that occur in both mi and mj remain periodic and sporadic over the mode change
64
65
SC Java Programming Model
• Periodic/sporadic tasks with constant period, hard deadline, and known WCET
• Just a model:– Does not fit all control problems– Overly restrictive for many control problems
66
JSR 302
• Safety Critical Java Technology• This specification creates a J2ME capability,
based on the Real-Time Specification for Java (JSR-1), containing minimal features necessary for safety critical systems capable of certification, e.g., DO-178B