Figure 1. Conceptual difference [23]
Figure 2. Current and future trend in an embedded system [23] ….
Figure 3. Kalray’s MPPA network-on-chip (The MPPA2®−256 Bostan2 processor [52])
Figure 4. Simplified design flow and meta-scheduler (MeS) integration in SAFEPOWER [3]Figure 5. A search tree for time slot [17]
Figure 6. Conceptual physical model (PM)
Figure 7. General physical model (PM) schema
Figure 8. General application model (AM) schema
Figure 9. General context model (CM) schema
Figure 10. Meta-scheduler (MeS) data structure schema model
Figure 11. The basic model of meta-scheduling (MeS)
Figure 12. Conceptual AM
Figure 13. Quadratization technique via hops .
Figure 14.The effect of TSDF on tasks et(t) and core fault
Figure 15. Three-step scheduling for finding optimum solutions
Figure 16. a. Stack slack (SS) and b. Dynamic slack (DS) sample 1
Figure 17. Usage of dynamic slack (DS) to reduce makespan
Figure 18. Usage of SDF regarding dynamic slack (DS)
Figure 19. Usage of scenario-based meta-scheduling (SBMeS) on system-level design for SAFEPOWER multi-processor system-on-a-chip (MPSoC) [3]
Figure 20. Depth-first algorithm establishing schedule backwards with tabu-set for re-convergence (FAESB-TSR)
Figure 21. Conceptual of the meta-scheduler (MeS) tool
Figure 22. Scenario-based meta-scheduling (SBMeS) general model
Figure 23. States of 3 events and their effect of each SM
Figure 24. Events’ effects in task scheduling
Figure 25. Schedule Gantt map
Figure 26. Schedule tree include all data
Figure 27. Meta-visualization of an event
Figure 28. Events state in s schedule tree
Figure 29. Schedules share points regarding task changes and Figure 28
Figure 30. Decoding schedules from delta tree (DT)
Figure 31. Delta tree (DT) data model
Figure 32. Schema technique for standard data structure modelling
Figure 33. Overview of scheduling models
Figure 34. The simple architecture of meta-scheduling (MeS)
Figure 35. Standardized input XML sample
Figure 36. Example a textual data with three nodes
Figure 37. Static slack (SS) schedule model (SM) generated by meta-scheduling visualization tool (MeSViz)
Figure 38. Schedule tree with 94 schedules (created via meta-scheduling visualization tool (MeSViz) and GVEdit)
Figure 39. Gantt map of schedule ID 44
Figure 40. Incorrect results and information found in the complex schedule
Figure 41. Meta-schedule Gantt map generated from meta-scheduling (MeS) class
Figure 42. Schedule SM0 with static slack (SS)
Figure 43. Schedule SM1 with dynamic slack (DS)
Figure 44. Comparing two schedules SM0 (Figure 42) and SM1 (Figure 43) after slack
Figure 45. Graph output of node dependency
Figure 46. Few changes from ID2 to ID3
Figure 47. Minimum changes from SM37 to SM38 regarding T3 slack
Figure 48. Meta-visualization for Example 3 (schedules SM3 & SM4)
Figure 49. Comparison of three different scenarios for memory saving with delta scheduling technique (DTS)
Figure 50. The physical model (PM) of case study
Figure 51. The application model (AM) of case study
Figure 52. The application model (AM) of the case study [6]
Figure 53. The physical model (PM) of the case study 7.3.2
Figure 54. Energy consumption results for cores and routers FECsm ,FERsm , FEC,avg,dyn ,FER,avg,dyn
Figure 55. FEsm schedule models( SMs) results and average FEavg,dyn
Figure 56. Total energy reduction results for coresReFEC(SM) and routers ReFER(SM) and averageFEC,avg,dyn, FER,avg,dyn
Figure 57.Total FE reduction results for schedules ReEsm and average ReFE
Figure 58. The application model (AM) of the case study
Figure 59. The physical model (PM) of the case study
Figure 60. FECsm,FERsm results for cores and routers and average FEC,avg,dyn, FER,avg,dyn
Figure 61. FE(sm) results and average FEavg,dyn
Figure 62. FE results for cores ReFEC(SM) and routers ReFER(SM) compare to SM0 and average FEC,avg,dyn, FER,avg,dyn
Figure 63. Total ReFE(sm) in each schedule compare to SM0 and average FEavg,dyn
Figure 64. The physical model (PM) of the case study
Figure 65. The application model (AM) of case study
Figure 66. All nodes in a sample schedules tree
Figure 67. Real nodes in a sample schedules tree
Figure 68. Combination dynamic slack (DS) and core fault results in SM101 which generated by meta-scheduling visualization tool (MeSViz)
Figure 69. The total number of generated schedules Nsm for each scenario
Figure 70.Time of computation for scenarios
Figure 71. FE results for each scenario SSMx
Figure 72. Total ReFE(SMM) (percentage) results for each scenario of comparing dynamic schedules with a static schedule SMx
