TECS1501-14 ACM-TRANSACTION January 2, 2016 10:1
14:6 J. Sun et al.
Fig. 3. An example CRT task τ .
Fig. 4. An example FJRT task that cannot be ex-
pressed by a CRT model.
model into a regular substructure of the hypergraph, which can subsequently be used205
to construct an equivalent FJRT model for the original CRT model. Finally, we present206
the counterexample of t he parallel task that can be expressed by the FJRT model but207
cannot be expressed by the CRT model.208
Definition 2.5 (Concurrent Real-Time Task System [Ejsing-Duun et al. 2013]). A209
Concurrent Real-Time Task System (CRT) S isatupleS = (τ, J, e, d), where210
—J is a finite set of jobs,211
—e: J → N is a mapping from jobs to worst-case execution times,212
—d: J → N is a mapping from jobs to relative deadlines, and213
—τ is a configuration defined by the following grammar.214
—Configuration: τ ::= T | T τ215
—Task: T ::= j | T
1
xT
2
| S
1
S
2
| T
1
+ T
2
| T
ω
216
—Subtask: S ::= j | S
1
xS
2
| S
1
S
2
| S
1
+ S
2
217
Here, j ∈ J is a job and x ∈ N, T
1
xT
2
is the sequential composition of tasks T
1
and218
T
2
, with interrelease time x, T
1
+ T
2
is the choice between tasks T
1
and T
2
, S
1
S
2
is219
the parallel composition of subtasks S
1
and S
2
,andT
ω
is one or more iterations of T .220
In contrast to the definition of our FJRT model, the CRT model is inductively defined221
by some regular grammar. The grammar of the configuration defines the task system,222
which can be viewed as a composition of arbitrarily many independent tasks running in223
parallel (intertask parallelism). Moreover, a nondeterministic choice between different224
execution paths or subtasks running in parallel can be expressed by the grammar of225
tasks and subtasks. Note that the subtasks defined in the CRT are restricted to not226
include any cycles. This article considers only acyclic parallel subtasks in the FJRT227
model.228
Example 2.6. Figure 3 represents the CRT task τ = ( j
1
30(( j
2
40 j
3
)( j
4
+ j
5
)))
ω
,229
where e( j
1
) = 1, d( j
1
) = 20; e( j
2
) = 4, d( j
2
) = 25; e( j
3
) = 6, d( j
3
) = 25; e( j
4
) =230
2, d( j
4
) = 25; and e( j
5
) = 4, d( j
5
) = 25. As shown in Figure 3, the vertices in the231
graph represent jobs, each labeled with an execution time and a deadline. The arcs in232
the graph represent dependencies between jobs and are labeled with their minimum233
interrelease time.234
The combination of Theorem 2.7 and Example 2.8 proves that our digraph-based235
FJRT model is more expressive than the CRT models.236
THEOREM 2.7. The FJRT model is at least as expressive as the CRT model.237
PROOF. We prove by induction that each grammar rule listed in Definition 2.5 can238
be fully expressed by a substructure of the hypergraph. We do this by first introducing239
the prefix and suffix operations for tasks, as follows.240
ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems, Vol. 15, No. 1, Article 14, Publication date: December 2015.