Results for “priorities”

NASA NTRS1992

Sources of unbounded priority inversions in real-time systems and a comparative study of possible solutions

In the design of real-time systems, tasks are often assigned priorities. Preemptive priority driven schedulers are used to schedule tasks to meet the timing requirements. Priority inversion is the term used to describe the situation when a higher priority task's execution is delayed by lower priority tasks. Priority inversion can occur when there is contention for resources among tasks of different priorities. The duration of priority inversion could be long enough to cause tasks to miss their dead lines. Priority inversion cannot be completely eliminated. However, it is important to identify sources of priority inversion and minimize the duration of priority inversion. In this paper, a comprehensive review of the problem of and solutions to unbounded priority inversion is presented.

Davari, Sadegh↗

NASA NTRS1995

Setting priorities for space research: An experiment in methodology

In 1989, the Space Studies Board created the Task Group on Priorities in Space Research to determine whether scientists should take a role in recommending priorities for long-term space research initiatives and, if so, to analyze the priority-setting problem in this context and develop a method by which such priorities could be established. After answering the first question in the affirmative in a previous report, the task group set out to accomplish the second task. The basic assumption in developing a priority-setting process is that a reasoned and structured approach for ordering competing initiatives will yield better results than other ways of proceeding. The task group proceeded from the principle that the central criterion for evaluating a research initiative must be its scientific merit -- the value of the initiative to the proposing discipline and to science generally. The group developed a two-stage methodology for priority setting and constructed a procedure and format to support the methodology. The first of two instruments developed was a standard format for structuring proposals for space research initiatives. The second instrument was a formal, semiquantitative appraisal procedure for evaluating competing proposals. This report makes available complete templates for the methodology, including the advocacy statement and evaluation forms, as well as an 11-step schema for a priority-setting process. From the beginning of its work, the task group was mindful that the issue of priority setting increasingly pervades all of federally supported science and that its work would have implications extending beyond space research. Thus, although the present report makes no recommendations for action by NASA or other government agencies, it provides the results of the task group's work for the use of others who may study priority-setting procedures or take up the challenge of implementing them in the future.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1999

Priority in Process Algebras

This paper surveys the semantic ramifications of extending traditional process algebras with notions of priority that allow for some transitions to be given precedence over others. These enriched formalisms allow one to model system features such as interrupts, prioritized choice, or real-time behavior. Approaches to priority in process algebras can be classified according to whether the induced notion of preemption on transitions is global or local and whether priorities are static or dynamic. Early work in the area concentrated on global pre-emption and static priorities and led to formalisms for modeling interrupts and aspects of real-time, such as maximal progress, in centralized computing environments. More recent research has investigated localized notions of pre-emption in which the distribution of systems is taken into account, as well as dynamic priority approaches, i.e., those where priority values may change as systems evolve. The latter allows one to model behavioral phenomena such as scheduling algorithms and also enables the efficient encoding of real-time semantics. Technically, this paper studies the different models of priorities by presenting extensions of Milner's Calculus of Communicating Systems (CCS) with static and dynamic priority as well as with notions of global and local pre- emption. In each case the operational semantics of CCS is modified appropriately, behavioral theories based on strong and weak bisimulation are given, and related approaches for different process-algebraic settings are discussed.

Cleaveland, Rance↗

NASA NTRS1990

Conservative parallel simulation of priority class queueing networks

A conservative synchronization protocol is described for the parallel simulation of queueing networks having C job priority classes, where a job's class is fixed. This problem has long vexed designers of conservative synchronization protocols because of its seemingly poor ability to compute lookahead: the time of the next departure. For, a job in service having low priority can be preempted at any time by an arrival having higher priority and an arbitrarily small service time. The solution is to skew the event generation activity so that the events for higher priority jobs are generated farther ahead in simulated time than lower priority jobs. Thus, when a lower priority job enters service for the first time, all the higher priority jobs that may preempt it are already known and the job's departure time can be exactly predicted. Finally, the protocol was analyzed and it was demonstrated that good performance can be expected on the simulation of large queueing networks.

Nicol, David M.↗

NASA NTRS1992

Conservative parallel simulation of priority class queueing networks

A conservative synchronization protocol is described for the parallel simulation of queueing networks having C job priority classes, where a job's class is fixed. This problem has long vexed designers of conservative synchronization protocols because of its seemingly poor ability to compute lookahead: the time of the next departure. For, a job in service having low priority can be preempted at any time by an arrival having higher priority and an arbitrarily small service time. The solution is to skew the event generation activity so that the events for higher priority jobs are generated farther ahead in simulated time than lower priority jobs. Thus, when a lower priority job enters service for the first time, all the higher priority jobs that may preempt it are already known and the job's departure time can be exactly predicted. Finally, the protocol was analyzed and it was demonstrated that good performance can be expected on the simulation of large queueing networks.

Nicol, David↗

NASA NTRS1998

Priority Queues for Computer Simulations

The present invention is embodied in new priority queue data structures for event list management of computer simulations, and includes a new priority queue data structure and an improved event horizon applied to priority queue data structures. ne new priority queue data structure is a Qheap and is made out of linked lists for robust, fast, reliable, and stable event list management and uses a temporary unsorted list to store all items until one of the items is needed. Then the list is sorted, next, the highest priority item is removed, and then the rest of the list is inserted in the Qheap. Also, an event horizon is applied to binary tree and splay tree priority queue data structures to form the improved event horizon for event management.

Steinman, Jeffrey S.↗

NASA NTRS1989

Concurrence control for transactions with priorities

Priority inversion occurs when a process is delayed by the actions of another process with less priority. With atomic transactions, the concurrency control mechanism can cause delays, and without taking priorities into account can be a source of priority inversion. Three traditional concurrency control algorithms are extended so that they are free from unbounded priority inversion.

Marzullo, Keith↗

NASA NTRS1989

Concurrency control for transactions with priorities

Priority inversion occurs when a process is delayed by the actions of another process with less priority. With atomic transations, the concurrency control mechanism can cause delays, and without taking priorities into account can be a source of priority inversion. In this paper, three traditional concurrency control algorithms are extended so that they are free from unbounded priority inversion.

Marzullo, Keith↗

NASA NTRS2012

A Mathematical Analysis of Air Traffic Priority Rules

This paper analyzes priority rules, such as those in Part 91.113 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. Such rules determine which of two aircraft should maneuver in a given conflict scenario. While the rules in 91.113 are well accepted, other concepts of operation for NextGen, such as self separation, may allow for different priority rules. A mathematical framework is presented that can be used to analyze a general set of priority rules and enables proofs of important properties. Specific properties considered in this paper include safety, effectiveness, and stability. A set of rules is said to be safe if it ensures that it is never the case that both aircraft have priority. They are effective if exactly one aircraft has priority in every situation. Finally, a set of rules is called stable if it produces compatible results even under small changes to input data.

Nakawicz, Anthony J.↗

NASA NTRS1991

Priority scheme planning for the robust SSM/PMAD testbed

Whenever mixing priorities of manually controlled resources with those of autonomously controlled resources, the space station module power management and distribution (SSM/PMAD) environment requires cooperating expert system interaction between the planning function and the priority manager. The elements and interactions of the SSM/PMAD planning and priority management functions are presented. Their adherence to cooperating for common achievement are described. In the SSM/PMAD testbed these actions are guided by having a system planning function, KANT, which has insight to the executing system and its automated database. First, the user must be given access to all information which may have an effect on the desired outcome. Second, the fault manager element, FRAMES, must be informed as to the change so that correct diagnoses and operations take place if and when faults occur. Third, some element must engage as mediator for selection of resources and actions to be added or removed at the user's request. This is performed by the priority manager, LPLMS. Lastly, the scheduling mechanism, MAESTRO, must provide future schedules adhering to the user modified resource base.

Elges, Michael R.↗

NASA NTRS1994

Average waiting time in FDDI networks with local priorities

A method is introduced to compute the average queuing delay experienced by different priority group messages in an FDDI node. It is assumed that no FDDI MAC layer priorities are used. Instead, a priority structure is introduced to the messages at a higher protocol layer (e.g. network layer) locally. Such a method was planned to be used in Space Station Freedom FDDI network. Conservation of the average waiting time is used as the key concept in computing average queuing delays. It is shown that local priority assignments are feasable specially when the traffic distribution is asymmetric in the FDDI network.

Gercek, Gokhan↗

NASA NTRS2009

Deep-Space Ka-Band Link Priority Data Protection: Pre-Emptive Retransmission vs. Margin

In this paper the performance of two preemptive retransmission schemes for protection of priority data over deep-space Ka-band links is evaluated. The first scheme merges the correctly received bit from each transmission to create the most complete set of priority data for each pass (bit merge). The second scheme (symbol combining) combines the soft symbols received from each transmission of the priority data to increase the priority data's signal to noise ratio (SNR), thus increasing the liklihood of the correct reception.

Shambayati, Shervin↗

NASA NTRS2020

Scheduling NASA's Deep Space Network: Priorities, Preferences, and Optimization

NASA's Deep Space Network (DSN) is the primary resource for communications and navigation for interplanetary space missions, for both NASA and partner agencies. Growth in mission demand, both in number of spacecraft and in data return, has led to increased loading levels on the network, and actual demand frequently exceeds network capacity. The DSN scheduling process involves peer-to-peer collaborative negotiation, which consumes significant time and resources in order to reach a baseline version of the schedule, and then to manage and agree to changes. Process delays are exacerbated by the high level of oversubscription experienced by the DSN: it is not unusual for the scheduling process to start with 20-40\% more requested time can be accommodated on the available antennas. The other NASA networks make use of a static mission priority list to address a similar problem: missions are ranked in priority order, then the schedule is populated by priority from highest to lowest. Such a mechanism would not work for DSN due to the heterogeneity of the mission set, and to the time-varying mission requirements with mission phase. This paper describes an alternative approach for the DSN that addresses key problems inherent in the current process --- oversubsubscription and how to "fairly'" reduce it to a manageable level. The main characteristics of the new approach are the use of loading-based limits based on balancing requested time, along with priorities and user preferences as the basis for optimization criteria that can be used by new algorithms.

Johnston, Mark D↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Analysis of Exploration Capability Gaps for Future Habitation Systems to Inform Risk Assessment and Development Priorities

Within NASA, exploration capability gaps are defined as the difference between the current state-of-the-art in capabilities and the anticipated needs of future human spaceflight architectures. As NASA and its partners’ capabilities for human exploration of deep space continue to mature, it is necessary to understand the capability gaps that require closure to support future habitation systems, such as the Lunar Surface Habitat (SH) and Mars Transit Habitat (TH) currently in concept development. This paper will identify high-priority capability gaps for exploration habitation and show potential options for gap closure through investment in technology, development, and testing. High-priority capability gaps are divided into the following general taxonomy areas: human health/life support/habitation systems, flight computing and avionics, power and energy storage, communications and navigation, thermal management systems, human exploration destination systems, autonomous systems, sensors and instruments, GNC (guidance, navigation, and control), robotic systems, ground and uncrewed surface systems, and materials/structures/mechanical systems/manufacturing. In the gap identification process, teams of discipline experts from across NASA reviewed the latest habitation architecture needs against current capabilities to understand where gaps may exist. The results of the assessment established a basis for the current state-of-the-art within each gap and identified the capability needs of the proposed exploration missions the gap links to. An assessment of how each test platform (e.g., Ground, International Space Station (ISS), Commercial Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Destinations, Gateway) may be leveraged to mature capabilities and potentially provide a route to gap closure will be discussed. The notional timeline for gap closure to support reference missions and impacts to overall schedule are also assessed where appropriate. Based on the capability gap analysis described above, the paper summarizes important technology maturation considerations for human exploration architectures, with a focus on the Mars TH. The previously published NASA habitation ground rules and assumptions document is used as the basis to classify gaps as enabling, enhancing, or “push” opportunities for a particular architecture. Stepwise technology maturation plans/considerations are presented for some selected critical gaps. Overall, the analysis in this paper is intended to help influence development priorities for habitation systems, where high-priority, critical gaps are those currently assessed as having a low probability of closure by the anticipated need date. Capability gap analysis also informs the risk register for exploration habitation systems and mitigation strategies to ensure readiness of key technologies to support future mission timelines. Linkage between capability gaps for Moon and Mars is noted, as closure of a gap at a Lunar destination may subsequently enable or enhance Mars TH architectures.

technology development↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Analysis of Exploration Capability Gaps for Future Habitation Systems to Inform Risk Assessment and Development Priorities

Within NASA, exploration capability gaps are defined as the difference between the current state-of-the-art in capabilities and the anticipated needs of future human spaceflight architectures. As NASA and its partners’ capabilities for human exploration of deep space continue to mature, it is necessary to understand the capability gaps that require closure to support future habitation systems, such as the Lunar Surface Habitat (SH) and Mars Transit Habitat (TH) currently in concept development. This paper will identify high-priority capability gaps for exploration habitation and show potential options for gap closure through investment in technology, development, and testing. High-priority capability gaps are divided into the following general taxonomy areas: human health/life support/habitation systems, flight computing and avionics, power and energy storage, communications and navigation, thermal management systems, human exploration destination systems, autonomous systems, sensors and instruments, GNC (guidance, navigation, and control), robotic systems, ground and uncrewed surface systems, and materials/structures/mechanical systems/manufacturing. In the gap identification process, teams of discipline experts from across NASA reviewed the latest habitation architecture needs against current capabilities to understand where gaps may exist. The results of the assessment established a basis for the current state-of-the-art within each gap and identified the capability needs of the proposed exploration missions the gap links to. An assessment of how each test platform (e.g., Ground, International Space Station (ISS), Commercial Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Destinations, Gateway) may be leveraged to mature capabilities and potentially provide a route to gap closure will be discussed. The notional timeline for gap closure to support reference missions and impacts to overall schedule are also assessed where appropriate. Based on the capability gap analysis described above, the paper summarizes important technology maturation considerations for human exploration architectures, with a focus on the Mars TH. The previously published NASA habitation ground rules and assumptions document is used as the basis to classify gaps as enabling, enhancing, or “push” opportunities for a particular architecture. Stepwise technology maturation plans/considerations are presented for some selected critical gaps. Overall, the analysis in this paper is intended to help influence development priorities for habitation systems, where high-priority, critical gaps are those currently assessed as having a low probability of closure by the anticipated need date. Capability gap analysis also informs the risk register for exploration habitation systems and mitigation strategies to ensure readiness of key technologies to support future mission timelines. Linkage between capability gaps for Moon and Mars is noted, as closure of a gap at a Lunar destination may subsequently enable or enhance Mars TH architectures.

technology development↗

NASA NTRS1981

Research priorities and history of advanced composite compression testing

Priorities for standard compression testing research in advanced laminated fibrous composite materials are presented along with a state of the art survey (completed in 1979) including history and commentary on industrial test methods. Historically apparent research priorities and consequent (lack of) progress are supporting evidence for newly derived priorities.

Baumann, K. J.↗

NASA NTRS1986

A Priority Protocol for Token-Ring Networks

New priority protocol controls access to token-ring local-area network (LAN) of digital-communication stations over widely ranging mix of low- and high-priority traffic. Protocol, called round-robin priority scheme (RRPS), introduces only small overhead and therefore degrades system performance only minimally. Key messages guaranteed access to local-area network during peak loads.

Liu, H. T.↗

NASA NTRS1992

Setting priorities for space research: Opportunities and imperatives

Discussed here is the first phase of a study by a task group convened by the Space Studies Board to ascertain whether it should attempt to develop a methodology for recommending priorities among the various initiatives in space research (that is, scientific activities concerned with phenomena in space or utilizing observations from space). It is argued that such priority statements by the space research community are both necessary and desirable and would contribute to the formulation and implementation of public policy. The establishment of priorities to enhance effective management of the nation's scientific research program in space is advocated. It is argued that scientific objectives and purposes should determine how and under what circumstances research should be done.

Source record↗