A response bound exceeds the required deadline
A fictional controller has a task whose required response deadline is twenty milliseconds from release. The supplied conservative analysis model attributes six milliseconds to its own execution, up to eight milliseconds to blocking on a shared resource and nine milliseconds to higher-priority interference during the response window. These figures are assumed to cover the stated task model, and no additional overlap reduction is allowed in this exercise. A colleague reports an average observed response of twelve milliseconds and claims that the deadline is therefore guaranteed. Another proposes changing the task priority without checking other tasks or the blocking protocol. The written review must compare the supplied bound with the requirement and identify what further evidence a real change would need. No controller or live safety process is being altered.
1. Calculate the supplied bound and compare with the deadline.
Read the worked answer
6+8+9=23 ms, exceeding the 20 ms deadline by 3 ms. Under the stated additive model, the bound does not demonstrate compliance. An average 12 ms observation does not remove the modeled worst-case conflict.
2. What should be assessed before changing priority?
Read the worked answer
Investigate execution paths, resource blocking, interrupt work and interference, and analyze all affected deadlines under the real scheduler and locking protocol. A priority change can move interference elsewhere and need not eliminate blocking.