{"date_created":"2018-12-11T12:08:43Z","author":[{"first_name":"Slobodan","last_name":"Matic","full_name":"Matic, Slobodan"},{"first_name":"Thomas A","id":"40876CD8-F248-11E8-B48F-1D18A9856A87","full_name":"Thomas Henzinger","last_name":"Henzinger","orcid":"0000−0002−2985−7724"}],"quality_controlled":0,"day":"01","title":"Trading end-to-end latency for composability","publist_id":"317","citation":{"mla":"Matic, Slobodan, and Thomas A. Henzinger. <i>Trading End-to-End Latency for Composability</i>. IEEE, 2005, pp. 99–110, doi:<a href=\"https://doi.org/10.1109/RTSS.2005.43\">10.1109/RTSS.2005.43</a>.","apa":"Matic, S., &#38; Henzinger, T. A. (2005). Trading end-to-end latency for composability (pp. 99–110). Presented at the RTSS: Real-Time Systems Symposium, IEEE. <a href=\"https://doi.org/10.1109/RTSS.2005.43\">https://doi.org/10.1109/RTSS.2005.43</a>","ieee":"S. Matic and T. A. Henzinger, “Trading end-to-end latency for composability,” presented at the RTSS: Real-Time Systems Symposium, 2005, pp. 99–110.","ama":"Matic S, Henzinger TA. Trading end-to-end latency for composability. In: IEEE; 2005:99-110. doi:<a href=\"https://doi.org/10.1109/RTSS.2005.43\">10.1109/RTSS.2005.43</a>","ista":"Matic S, Henzinger TA. 2005. Trading end-to-end latency for composability. RTSS: Real-Time Systems Symposium, 99–110.","short":"S. Matic, T.A. Henzinger, in:, IEEE, 2005, pp. 99–110.","chicago":"Matic, Slobodan, and Thomas A Henzinger. “Trading End-to-End Latency for Composability,” 99–110. IEEE, 2005. <a href=\"https://doi.org/10.1109/RTSS.2005.43\">https://doi.org/10.1109/RTSS.2005.43</a>."},"date_published":"2005-01-01T00:00:00Z","conference":{"name":"RTSS: Real-Time Systems Symposium"},"_id":"4412","status":"public","year":"2005","publication_status":"published","extern":1,"date_updated":"2021-01-12T07:56:47Z","publisher":"IEEE","abstract":[{"text":"The periodic resource model for hierarchical, compositional scheduling abstracts task groups by resource requirements. We study this model in the presence of dataflow constraints between the tasks within a group (intragroup dependencies), and between tasks in different groups (inter-group dependencies). We consider two natural semantics for dataflow constraints, namely, RTW (real-time workshop) semantics and LET (logical execution time) semantics. We show that while RTW semantics offers better end-to-end latency on the task group level, LET semantics allows tighter resource bounds in the abstraction hierarchy and therefore provides better composability properties. This result holds both for intragroup and intergroup dependencies, as well as for shared and for distributed resources.","lang":"eng"}],"type":"conference","page":"99 - 110","month":"01","doi":"10.1109/RTSS.2005.43"}