This document discusses challenges and approaches for achieving timing predictability in service-oriented architectures for automotive systems. It covers: - The difference between deterministic and real-time systems in the automotive context. Vehicles require a real-time but complex system approach. - How zone-based architectures can improve timing predictability by integrating functions into regional controllers, but challenges remain in guaranteeing end-to-end timing. - The need for timing-accurate models to analyze worst-case timing and verify predictability, but modeling complex systems is challenging. - Combining techniques like simulation, analysis, and testing is needed since no single method can analyze all scenarios. Observation of worst simulations can

1. Time-Predictable Communication in Service-Oriented Architecture -
What are the challenges?
Automotive Ethernet Congress 2023 | © Volvo - Cognifyer - UL
2023-03-21
Hoai Hoang Bengtsson
Volvo Cars Sweden
Nicolas Navet
Uni. Luxembourg & Cognifyer
Cognifyer is the
research lab of RTaW
Interested in this study? Please contact
nicolas.navet@cognifyer.ai

2. Agenda
2023-03-21 Timing Predictability in SOA - AEC2023 | Volvo - Cognifyer - UL
Determinism vs Predictability
Zone-Based Architectures
Timing Accurate Models
Takeaways on V&V
A look forward
2

3. Challenges in the design of timing
predictability architectures
2023-03-21 Timing Predictability in SOA - AEC2023 | Volvo - Cognifyer - UL 3

4. Deterministic vs. Real-time System
2023-03-21 Timing Predictability in SOA - AEC2023 | Volvo - Cognifyer - UL 4
Deterministic System
• is a system which, given the same set of inputs and
initial state, will always produce the same outputs.
• In the context of in-vehicle network, deterministic
communication is the capability of the network to
deliver a message at a specified time, not faster or
slower.
Real-time system
• Is a system in which correctness depends not only on
the output value but also the time at which results are
produced
• In real-time communication, network has capability of
deliver a message within a period, referred to as
bounded delay
Vehicle is a complex real-time system!

5. 2023-03-21 Timing Predictability in SOA - AEC2023 | Volvo - Cognifyer - UL
CAN/CAN FD
Lin
VCU
Right Front
Door ECU
Right Rear
Door ECU
Left Front
Door ECU Left Rear
Door ECU
Roof ECU
Tunnel ECU
UXC
Right
ZC
Tail
IOC
Left
ZC
Zonal Architecture
Integrating VIUs, power distribution and mechatronic ECUs into zone controllers
Ethernet
ADPM
A Zone Controller integrates most/many sensors and actuators
in a specific zone in the car, and provides gatewaying (if
necessary), power distribution and direct I/O control.
The DHU and AUD are
integrated into the UXC.
5

6. 2023-03-21 Timing Predictability in SOA - AEC2023 | Volvo - Cognifyer - UL
CAN/CAN FD
Lin
VCU
Right Front
Door ECU
Right Rear
Door ECU
Left Front
Door ECU Left Rear
Door ECU
Roof ECU
Tunnel ECU
UXC
Right
ZC
Tail
IOC
Left
ZC
Ethernet
ADPM
Most of the ASIL-D, hard real-time
applications are move to ZCs
High performance applications
are remain in the VCU
UXC has both hard and
soft real-time applications
From complete vehicle perspective, we want to guarantee bounded delay for hard
real-time application
6

7. Example use Case: brake system
2023-03-21 Timing Predictability in SOA - AEC2023 | Volvo - Cognifyer - UL 7
Brake ECU
Control
function
Control
function
CAN frames
Ethernet frames
Data from wheel
speed sensor
pooling every 1ms
Brake ECU send out CAN frame
periodically every 10ms
ZC gatewaying CAN to ETH
ZCR processes data and send to rear
actuators
ZCL processes data and send to
front actuators
End to end requirements is 15ms
Sens
or
Electric
Machine
Actua
tor
Actua
tor

8. Challenges in the design of timing predictable architectures
2023-03-21 Timing Predictability in SOA - AEC2023 | Volvo - Cognifyer - UL
Intrinsic complexity of systems and technologies
New business models based on SW
Besides TSN ?
Mixed criticality with TSN
• Predictability of complex
execution platforms (e.g.,
Autosar Adaptive) and
complex SoCs ?
• Which SOA? SOME IP,
DDS, Iceoryx, Ecal?
• Network engineering
• Fail-operational
requirements
• Verification & Validation
• # of functions, signals,
services, flows
• Technology selection &
configuration
• Mixed legacy / next-gen:
e.g., signals to services
• Multi-tier dev. process,
product lines, …
• Now and in the future,
How to future-proof an
E/E architecture ?
8

9. Timing predictability requires controlling interfering activities
2023-03-21 Timing Predictability in SOA - AEC2023 | Volvo - Cognifyer - UL
on a single resource, e.g.
an ETH link
across segments of a
timing chain
✓ Interferences from higher / lower / same-
priority traffic
✓ Apply TSN QoS mechanisms
― Priorities, preemption or TAS to protect from
lower-priority traffic
― TAS to contain uncontrolled traffic in dedicated
time slots
― CBS to limit the interference of a medium-priority
class with bursty streams
― …
✓ Interferences from one segment of a timing chain
to another: triggered transmissions, timeouts, ..
✓ Periodic transmissions
& executions .. at the
expenses of latencies
✓ Jitter-aware triggering
mechanisms possible
Sensor Actuator
Solution: temporal isolation, total or partial partitioning in the time domain
9
[
RTaW-Pegase
screenshot]

10. Guaranteeing timing
predictability requires
timing accurate models
2023-03-21 Timing Predictability in SOA - AEC2023 | Volvo - Cognifyer - UL 10
[RTaW-Pegase screenshot]

11. The need for timing accurate models of the system
2023-03-21 Timing Predictability in SOA - AEC2023 | Volvo - Cognifyer - UL
A
B
C
System must be timing predictable, and we need timing-
accurate models of it too
≠ kinds of models for ≠ perf. metrics
Models must be a) accurate enough and
b) require reasonable computational efforts
✓ Models of the worst-case or typical-case behavior
✓ Latencies, jitters, throughput, memory usage, reliability
✓ Formalisms: Network-Calculus, sched. analysis, discrete event simulation
a) E.g., no accurate models of the worst-case behavior of TCP streams
b) Simulation models may not be computationally efficient for rare events
11

12. Combining timing verification techniques along the dev. process
2023-03-21 Timing Predictability in SOA - AEC2023 | Volvo - Cognifyer - UL
✓ Worst-Case Execution Time
analysis
✓ Worst-Case Response
Time analysis: ECU, buses,
system level
✓ Reliability analysis
✓ Execution time
measurements
✓ Off-line trace analysis
✓ Runtime monitoring
✓ Integration tests
“Project” “Real”
“Early stage”
Technological
& Architectural choices
Configuration & Model-Based
Verification
Refine and validate
models & impact
of non-conformance
✓ Functional simulation
✓ Timing-accurate
simulation of ECU,
networks, system level
w/wo fault-injection
✓ Model / SW / CPU / HW
in-the-loop
Simulation Formal Verification Testing
Typical Case Behavior Worst Case Behavior & Rare Events Measurements
12

13. Combining timing verification techniques
Simulation Testing
Typical Case Behavior Worst Case Behavior
Measurements
Time to subscribe to a service with SOME/IP SD (ms)
Number
of
occurrences Max. simulation
=
6.49ms
Max. analysis
=
6.58ms
Formal Verification
2023-03-21 Timing Predictability in SOA - AEC2023 | Volvo - Cognifyer - UL 13
Fig. from N. Navet et al “Insights on the
Configuration and Performances of SOME/IP
Service Discovery”, SAE 2015.
Complementarity
of results & cross-
validation

14. Takeaways from timing verification
in automotive
2023-03-21 Timing Predictability in SOA - AEC2023 | Volvo - Cognifyer - UL 14

15. Observation #1: Worst-case temporal scenario is out of reach of
simulation, schedulability analysis is needed
2023-03-21 Timing Predictability in SOA - AEC2023 | Volvo - Cognifyer - UL
Flows sorted by increasing worst-case latencies
Average difference is
51% (up to 84%)
Worst-case latencies
(upper bound)
Simulation max
synchronous startup
Simulation max
random offsets
Finding the simulation
parameters leading to
pessimistic scenarios is
still an open problem
15
Delays
(ms)
Fig. from "Timing verification of real-time automotive
Ethernet networks: what can we expect from simulation?”

16. Observation #2: worst-case timing analysis will not cover all in-
vehicle communication technologies, e.g. TCP
2023-03-21 Timing Predictability in SOA - AEC2023 | Volvo - Cognifyer - UL
Simplified example automotive communication stack
Solution: build “temporal firewalls” to
control interference of non-analysable traffic
1. Isolate non-analysable traffic at lowest
priority, in dedicated TAS slots or CBS
classes & verify it with simulation
2. Worst-case schedulability analysis can be
applied on the rest of the traffic
Non analysable traffic Analysable traffic
Simulation, analysis and a “verification-aware” configuration strategy are needed –
could the same strategy be applicable for complex execution platforms on SoCs ?
16

17. Observation #3: Worst-case analysis gives limited insight about what
goes wrong .. analysing worst simulated scenario is helpful
2023-03-21 Timing Predictability in SOA - AEC2023 | Volvo - Cognifyer - UL
To reduce computing time,
worst-case analyses on
ETH make approximations
corresponding to no actual
scenario
Approximation
True arrival pattern
High-priority frame CC1
misses its deadline due to
lower priority frames
blocking it → preemption
or TAS would help here
Replaying the worst
scenario observed
during long simulations
17
[
RTaW-Pegase
screenshot]
first link
second link
third link

18. Observation #4: models (and their parameters) can be either
accurate or approximate, and will fulfil ≠ use-cases
2023-03-21 Timing Predictability in SOA - AEC2023 | Volvo - Cognifyer - UL
1. Fine-grained vs coarse-grained models: HW, protocols, MW, OS services, Apps, …
2. Precise vs approximate model parameters: traffic patterns, knowledge of all or part
of the traffic, …
Approximate models
✓ Not for verification!
✓ Support early-stage design choices
✓ Parameter settings corresponding
to ≠ scenarios can be considered
Accurate models and parameters
✓ Suited for verification
✓ But conservative load assumptions
not usable in automotive!
✓ Possible solution: refine parameters
with trace analysis
18
“Project” “Real”
“Early stage”
Configuration & Verification Refine models & impact
of non-conformance

19. Conclusion
2023-03-21 Timing Predictability in SOA - AEC2023 | Volvo - Cognifyer - UL
Design decisions should
be made with the
understanding of the
timing guarantees that
that can be obtained
and how
Timing predictability through
temporal firewalls between
transmissions subject to ≠
requirements → TSN offers
solutions with priorities, CBS,
TAS and preemption
Complexity of next-generation
execution platforms is a threat
to timing predictability → clear
V&V strategy throughout the
dev. process
Zone-based architecture explored
by Volvo & challenges to timing
predictability
19

20. Thank you for your attention!