Your browser does not support JavaScript! Skip to main content
Free 30-day trial Customer portal Careers DO-178C Handbook
 
Rapita Systems
 

Industry leading verification tools & services

Rapita Verification Suite (RVS)

  RapiTest - Unit/system testing   RapiCover - Structural coverage analysis   RapiTime - Timing analysis (inc. WCET)   RapiTask - Scheduling visualization   RapiCoverZero - Zero footprint coverage analysis   RapiTimeZero - Zero footprint timing analysis   RapiTaskZero - Zero footprint scheduling analysis

Multicore verification

  MACH178   Multicore Timing Solution   RapiDaemons

Services

  V & V Services   Qualification   Training   Tool Integration  Support

Industries

  Aerospace (DO-178C)   Automotive (ISO 26262)   Space

Other

  RTBx   Mx-Suite   Software licensing   Product life cycle policy  RVS development roadmap

Latest from Rapita HQ

Latest news

Danlaw Acquires Maspatechnologies - Expanding Rapita Systems to Spain
Rapita co-authored paper wins ERTS22 Best paper award
A look back on Rapita's Multicore DO-178C training in Huntsville
RVS 3.17 Launched
View News

Latest from the Rapita blog

Why mitigating interference alone isn’t enough to verify timing performance for multicore DO-178C projects
There are how many sources of interference in a multicore system?
Supporting modern development methodologies for verification of safety-critical software
Flexible licensing software fit for modern working
View Blog

Latest discovery pages

do178c DO-178C Guidance: Introduction to RTCA DO-178 certification
matlab_simulink MATLAB® Simulink® MCDC coverage and WCET analysis
code_coverage_ada Code coverage for Ada, C and C++
amc-20-193 AMC 20-193
View Discovery pages

Upcoming events

Aerospace Tech Week Europe 2023
2023-03-29
Certification Together International Conference
2023-05-10
View Events

Technical resources for industry professionals

Latest White papers

DO178C Handbook
Efficient Verification Through the DO-178C Life Cycle
A Commercial Solution for Safety-Critical Multicore Timing Analysis
Compliance with the Future Airborne Capability Environment (FACE) standard
View White papers

Latest Videos

Efficient DO-178C verification - WCET analysis
Efficient DO-178C verification - Code coverage
Efficient DO-178C verification - Functional testing
SCADE Test video thumbnail
Complementary DO-178C verification with Ansys(R) SCADE Test(TM) and RVS
View Videos

Latest Case studies

Supporting ISO 26262 ASIL D software verification for EasyMile
RapiCover’s advanced features accelerate the certification of military UAV Engine Control
Front cover of whitepaper collins
Delivering world-class tool support to Collins Aerospace
View Case studies

Other Downloads

 Webinars

 Brochures

 Product briefs

 Technical notes

 Research projects

Discover Rapita

Who we are

The company menu

  • About us
  • Customers
  • Distributors
  • Locations
  • Partners
  • Research projects
  • Contact us

US office

+1 248-957-9801
info@rapitasystems.com
Rapita Systems, Inc.
41131 Vincenti Ct.
Novi
MI 48375
USA

UK office

+44 (0)1904 413945
info@rapitasystems.com
Rapita Systems Ltd.
Atlas House
Osbaldwick Link Road
York, YO10 3JB
UK

Spain office

+34 930 46 42 72
info@rapitasystems.com
Rapita Systems S.L.
Parc UPC, Edificio K2M
c/ Jordi Girona, 1-3, Office 306-307
Barcelona 08034
Spain

Working at Rapita

Careers

Careers menu

  • Current opportunities & application process
  • Working at Rapita
Back to Top

Robust partitioning for multicore systems doesn’t mean freedom from interference

Breadcrumb

  1. Home
  2. Blog
  3. Robust partitioning for multicore systems doesn’t mean freedom from interference
Steven VanderLeest & Daniel Wright
2022-01-05

Partitioning is well understood for single core systems. Two types of partitioning exist: space (or resource) partitioning, where partitioned components are isolated by operating on different hardware devices or different regions in a single device, and time partitioning, where partitioned components are isolated by operating in non-overlapping time periods (time slices). Both types of isolation are well understood for single core systems, and are implemented in many real-time operating systems used in the aerospace domain through the use of scheduling architectures such as ARINC 653.

The most rigorous separation is termed robust partitioning. This is defined for single core systems in the ARINC 653 standard, where it refers to complete isolation of separated components, i.e. the execution of one component can have no effect on the other. To put this another way, the execution time of each thread is completely free from interference by the other threads (Figure 1).

Partitioning for single core systems means freedom from interference
Figure 1. When threads in a single core system are scheduled according to e.g. ARINC 653 schedules, threads can be temporally isolated and free from interference

Most of the technology for partitioning of single core systems also applies to multicore systems. Multicore systems are more complex, however – for these systems, interference can exist between software hosted on different cores but running at the same time. Various interference channels can exist in such a system, such as for shared resources, and interference can increase software execution times and cause software to become non-deterministic (Figure 2). While the use of scheduling architectures such as ARINC 653 is enough to isolate partitioned software components in single core systems and ensure that the software is free from interference, this is not the case for multicore systems, where interference can be present even between (space) partitioned threads.

Partitioning for multicore systems doesnt mean freedom from interference
Figure 2. In a multicore system, interference can result from software running on different cores sharing use of common resources

For multicore systems, robust partitioning according to its understood single core definition (isolation and freedom from interference) cannot be guaranteed by using a scheduling architecture alone. Because of this, we could infer that robust partitioning is not possible in multicore systems. CAST-32A, however, provides guidance on robust partitioning1, stating that robust space partitioning is comparable for single core and multicore systems, and providing a definition of robust time partitioning for multicore systems, stating that “[robust time partitioning is] achieved when, as a result of mitigating the time interference between partitions hosted on different cores, no software partition consumes more than its allocation of execution time on the core(s) on which it executes, irrespective of whether partitions are executing on none of the other active cores or on all of the other active cores.”. A sensible interpretation of this definition is that robust time partitioning is achieved when each software partition is guaranteed to meet its critical timing deadlines even when interference is present. To meet CAST-32A objectives and provide evidence that the software is robustly partitioned, the platform and hosted software must be tested by the analysis of software execution times when multicore interference is present. While various strategies may be used to mitigate against the actual interference present, this analysis is still necessary to demonstrate robust partitioning.

A major benefit of demonstrating robust partitioning is that it enables the use of software with different criticality levels to be executed on the same computing platform, provided that they are segregated into different partitions. Otherwise, even software that could nominally be certified to a lower Design Assurance Level would be forced to certify to the highest assurance level of any software on the system. Demonstrating robust partitioning also enables incremental assurance, allowing each supplier to test their software partitions independently of other suppliers. In this case, certification artifacts can be generated incrementally and aggregated by the system integrator. To be able to demonstrate robust partitioning to multicore systems and achieve these benefits, unique techniques are needed to support the analysis of software execution times when multicore interference is present, such as MACH178.

DO-178C webinars

DO178C webinars

White papers

DO178C Handbook Efficient Verification Through the DO-178C Life Cycle
A Commercial Solution for Safety-Critical Multicore Timing Analysis
Compliance with the Future Airborne Capability Environment (FACE) standard
5 key factors to consider when selecting an embedded testing tool

Related blog posts

Why mitigating interference alone isn’t enough to verify timing performance for multicore DO-178C projects

.
2022-11-17

Assured Multicore Partitioning for FACE Systems

.
2020-11-10

Why Static analysis doesn't work for Multicore WCET estimation

.
2019-10-07

Highlights from Ada-Europe 2018

.
2018-07-03

Pagination

  • Current page 1
  • Page 2
  • Page 3
  • Page 4
  • Next page Next ›
  • Last page Last »
  • Solutions
    • Rapita Verification Suite
    • RapiTest
    • RapiCover
    • RapiTime
    • RapiTask
    • MACH178

    • Verification and Validation Services
    • Qualification
    • Training
    • Integration
  • Latest
  • Latest menu

    • News
    • Blog
    • Events
    • Videos
  • Downloads
  • Downloads menu

    • Brochures
    • Webinars
    • White Papers
    • Case Studies
    • Product briefs
    • Technical notes
    • Software licensing
  • Company
  • Company menu

    • About Rapita
    • Careers
    • Customers
    • Distributors
    • Industries
    • Locations
    • Partners
    • Research projects
    • Contact
  • Discover
    • AMC 20-193
    • What is CAST-32A?
    • Multicore Timing Analysis
    • MC/DC Coverage
    • Code coverage for Ada, C & C++
    • Embedded Software Testing Tools
    • Aerospace Software Testing
    • Automotive Software Testing
    • Certifying eVTOL
    • DO-178C
    • WCET Tools
    • Worst Case Execution Time
    • Timing analysis (WCET) & Code coverage for MATLAB® Simulink®

All materials © Rapita Systems Ltd. 2023 - All rights reserved | Privacy information | Trademark notice Subscribe to our newsletter