Industrial Requirements on Evolution of an Embedded System Architecture 2013

2013 IEEE 37th Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference Workshops
Industrial Requirements on Evolution
of an Embedded System Architecture
Daniel Hallmans1,2
1
ABB AB
Ludvika, Sweden
[email protected]
Thomas Nolte2
MRTC/Mälardalen University
Västerås, Sweden
[email protected]
2
Abstract—Management of obsolete software- and hardwarecomponents along with the addition of new components and
functionalities in existing embedded systems can be a very
difficult or almost impossible task. If there at the same time is a
requirement put on the system that it should be in operation for
more than 30 years, then the evolution of the embedded system
architecture over such a long duration of time will be an even
more challenging problem to solve. A large number of different
industries, for example the process and power transmission
industries, are faced with this type of challenges on a daily basis.
The contribution of our research presented in this paper is a set
of questions and answers on how it is possible to replace and
update an old control system, with examples inherent in process
and power transmission applications. We also look at different
methods that can be used during the development of new systems
such that they will provide a natural support for evolvability,
targeting future control system applications.
Keywords— Evolution, obsolete components,
systems, life cycle, virtualization, architecture
I.
Figure 1: Simplified picture of a 30-40 year life cycle for a
product, highlighting update of functions and hardware
A typical case in many industries is that a customer
requires that the system should be in operation for at least 3040 years, as depicted in Figure 1. During this time the control
system, or parts of it, typically has to be replaced and/or
updated. The change of the control equipment can be due to,
for example, changes in requirements that are impossible to
implement in the original control system, and/or hardware
components that cannot anymore be supplied as spare parts.
One good example of this can be taken from the avionics
industry were the onboard computers hardware has to be
replaced as it becomes obsolete, [1].
embedded
INTRODUCTION
The process and power industries are more and more
depending on computer control to meet an increasing demand
in efficiency and effectiveness of their product portfolio. This
influences the evolution of their corresponding Embedded
Systems Architectures (ESAs), which is driven by the need for
an increasing computing power and networking bandwidth to
cope with larger and more advanced systems. Along with
more stringent requirements on safety, security, and faster
time to market, and powerful tools for engineering, this all put
together increases the need to have an understanding of the
effects of potential changes made in the system architecture.
In this context it is important to investigate different
technologies from an evolvability point of view, i.e., to which
extent that a particular technology can cope with potentially
increasing computing and networking demands, also including
technologies that have been developed outside the traditional
industrial field. The introduction of a new technology may
evolve the existing solutions, or influence the solutions such
that there is a change of paradigm altering the full architecture
of these solutions. To understand the impact of a particular
new technology, it is important to investigate this new
technology thoroughly, and to understand what opportunities
that this technology could give us for future developments. In
addition, it is also important to be able to maintain and support
the evolvement of existing (legacy) control systems that are
already in use in industrial systems today.
978-0-7695-4987-3/13 $26.00 © 2013 IEEE
DOI 10.1109/COMPSACW.2013.129
Stig Larsson2,3
Effective Change AB
Västerås, Sweden
[email protected]
3
In this paper we present our work on investigating the
evolvability of ESAs in an industrial environment where it is
increasingly important to have the ability to evolve the
systems and products in different ways. We are describing two
types of evolvability requirements: the first is the ability in an
organization to accommodate for technological changes and
evolve the architecture of a product or system. The second is
the capability to ensure that existing systems and products that
are in operation can utilize the new technology while
maintaining compatibility with the installed equipment.
Our hypothesis is that it is possible to make an initial
design of a control system that minimizes the cost of a
potential evolution if a number of parameters are considered
during the design phase. If these parameters can be identified
and described, then it will also be possible to design a method
that enables us to express to what degree a system, product,
architecture, or part of a system, is evolvable. However, this
will most likely require that we can foresee what types of
changes that will occur in a future evolution of the system.
The outline of this paper is as follows: Section II describes
the background to the problem of maintaining legacy systems
during a long period of time. Section III describes related
work in the area of life cycle analysis and management of
668
has to be replaced [1]. Changing the hardware also affects the
software running on the product and the corresponding tools
used by developers and users. If for example a DSP has to be
replaced on a board with a newer generation due to component
obsoleteness, then the new DSP can probably not run the same
code as the previously one. It would then require that the old
code is changed such that it can run on the new DSP and
tested such that it behaves correctly. If the code is not stored
directly on the device but instead loaded by the user it could
also from a user perspective require new tools and instructions
for loading the code. If the new board is used as a spare part in
a system that also includes 100 boards of the older generation
then the user has to have different instructions for the two
types of boards. It could for example be different instructions
for loading, setting up or debugging.
obsolete components in an embedded system. In Section IV
we discuss different possible solutions and in Section V we
summarize and discuss our work along with possible future
work.
II.
PROBLEM DEFINITION
In a large number of industries it is expected that the life
cycle of the corresponding products is relatively long. Typical
power plants, energy transmission systems, avionics systems
etc. have a life time of more than 30 years. This requires that
there is a control system that can support the station during
that full time. To handle this, one way could be to support the
same implementation all through the life-time of the
installation. An obvious problem with this approach is that the
manufacturer then has to be able to supply the customer with
spare parts during the entire life-time of the system. Any new
requirements as a result of an evolved system, e.g., new types
of communication interfaces to be used, security requirements
to be applied etc., must be possible to realize using the same
and original hardware and software components.
B. Functional /non-functional requirements
Legacy functions can stop to work when components are
changed in the system. For example, software that previously
worked in the original system can stop working when it is
recompiled for a new hardware. The reason for this may, for
example, be inherent due to a new memory interface, or new
library functions.
Another solution would be to upgrade the whole system, or
parts of it, at given times with, e.g., new hardware, new
functions, new communication technologies, tools, operating
systems etc. One example could be a system designed 10 or 15
years ago that runs distributed on different types of hardware
nodes with communication busses in between. Today the same
system would possibly be able to run completely on a more
powerful single or multi core CPU. The previously internal
busses between the hardware modules could be removed and
replaced by corresponding communication paths in the
software. Only the external communication interface would
still be kept the same. This type of update is only possible if
there are no system reasons for the previously distributed
design, e.g., redundancy, physical separation of control and
protection functionality, or safety functions. In these cases it
would not be possible to combine the different systems on one
shared hardware device, but instead they have to be located on
separate hardware modules. Another example could be a
system with requirements on frequent updates of security
patches, but the manufacturer of the operating system does not
maintain the used generation of the software anymore. In this
case a new operating system is needed or the system has to be
encapsulated in another secure system that can handle the
security requirements.
Non functional requirements, such as timing, can change
when updating the system with new and faster hardware. One
example can be if a DSP emulator is 100% code compatible
but differ in performance. Results could be delivered faster or
slower than earlier. Maybe the new hardware is optimized for
good average throughput whereas the software function
actually would benefit more from a low jitter, i.e., bounded
best and worst case execution times. For example, caches on a
multi-core chip may guarantee good average case execution
times, whereas the worst case execution time is unknown or
unbounded. The question is how this potentially new nonfunctional behavior of the hardware would affect the
performance of the system. The non-functional requirements
can be very hard to specify when working with a combination
of the new and the updated design. Below we highlight nonfunctional requirements related to performance, safety and
cyber security.
1) Performance
Changing the type of hardware can also change the
performance of the system. If an old DSP is changed to a new
one or the new configuration is running on one dedicated core
in a multi-core system, then it is not obvious that the
performance of the design will increase compared to the
original design. Typically with new hardware one would get
higher performance but looking at the overall system
performance one has to take the whole system into account:
communication bandwidth, clock frequency, cache utilization,
etc. When running systems on a multi-core then the cache will
play an important role for the performance of the software
running on that multi-core processor. Making changes to the
performance of one system can/will also affect the
surrounding systems and tools.
In the following, different areas that must be considered
when a system or a product is evolving are highlighted and
described. The selected areas (obsolete components,
functional/non-functional
requirements,
and
testing/
verification) are central to the evolution of the ESAs in focus.
The discussion covers both types of evolution, i.e., the
evolution of a current solution, and the adaption of existing
equipment to a new solution.
A. Obsolete components
In many cases when designing a control system it is
obvious that sooner or later one will run into problems with
obsolete components. One example, mentioned above, is from
the avionics industry were the onboard computers’ hardware
2) Safety
For safety critical systems that are certified on and for one
type of hardware along with a specific software it gets even
669
more complicated to make updates with respect to, e.g., new
hardware components due to obsolete parts. [2] from 1984
gives an early explanation on how to think about safety
features in software systems. [3] gives an overview on
designing a safety critical system. There exists several
examples of research ongoing in the area on how to update
only a part of a system. However, this will not be further
investigated in our work due to space limitations.
III.
RELATED WORK
There has been research ongoing for quite some time on
the topic of life cycle management and management of
obsolete components for embedded systems. One example of a
literature review of obsolescent management is presented in
[7]. The paper discuss obsolescence management plans that
not only takes electronics into account but also other aspects
such as mechanical components, software, materials, skills,
tooling and test equipment. Another paper that focus on
commercial available solutions to replace hardware used in a
production line is [8]. A similar replacement strategy is
presented in the context of the avionics industry in [1] and for
the nuclear industry in [9]. All these papers bring up the topic
of obsolete components and how to replace them with
different methods, for example emulating of firmware,
replacement of device drivers and virtual machines to run the
legacy code. There are also other papers that present
approaches based on new technology trends, for example [10]
targeting migration of real-time legacy code to multi-core
platforms, or [11] that presents results from testing
virtualization platforms to improve durability and portability
of industrial applications. Management of obsolete
components along with life cycle analysis is not only
important in the embedded industry but can also be found in a
number of different other areas such as information systems in
larger enterprises. [12] includes a survey of modernization
approaches, and [13] shows a method to package legacy code
into Web services. Several of these techniques could also be
reused in the context of embedded systems that have a
requirement on long life times.
3) Cyber Security
There is a large change in the requirements for the
customers today regarding cyber security. Previously the
control system was often seen as an isolated island without
any connection to the outside world. This has changed during
the last couple of years and there are more and more
requirements formulated such that the implementation should
be secure. One reason for the changes in such requirements
was the discovery of “Stuxnet”. Stuxnet was a computer worm
discovered in 2010 that target Siemens industrial control
systems. Different variants of the Stuxnet worm infected five
Iranian organizations, with the probable target suspected to be
uranium enrichment infrastructure, [4], [5]. Many existing
standard solutions on how to realize control system security
had to be rewritten after the Stuxnet incident, e.g., that a
control system is free from cyber attacks as long as it is not
directly connected to the Internet, and that technical details
about control systems are known only by experts of a
particular control system and its insiders [6].
When trying to reuse the original software code in a newer
system this could by accident become a cyber security
problem. There are several questions that developers have to
ask themselves in this situation: is the old operating system
safe and secure from a cyber security perspective? Can it
handle patch management? How is user management treated?
Can whitelistning be a method to allow the old code to run in a
secure way?
IV.
SOLUTIONS
It is possible to look at the problem from two ways; one is
to update/maintain an old control system that, e.g., has turned
obsolete, and the other is to make decisions for the future
when designing a new control system to from the beginning to
avoid getting into the same type of problems in the future for
the developed product with respect to evolvability.
C. Testing/Verification
When updating an older system with for example new
hardware and/or new functions, such as security functions, the
system still has to be able to perform the previous functions
without any losses in performance etc. In this case the
verification of the new system plays an important role. In
some cases the requirements for the original system may not
be well known. Instead there is a need to verify the functions
on a more general level such that the new functionality does
not affect the older implementation. The case can also be that
the application running in the legacy system consists of a large
number of variants that makes it very hard, or even practically
impossible, to test all of them.
A. Solution 1: Updating and old system
One example of an old system can be an embedded system
that was delivered to a customer 15 years ago, constructed of
state of the art components at that time, e.g., an industrial PC
based on PIC 1.0 with an Intel Pentium PRO processor and a
number of add-in boards communicating with the processor
through the PCI bus. The add-in boards could be equipped
with DSP/FPGA and/or communication, as depicted below in
Figure 2.
Also all types of tools that are interacting with the product
have to be tested. or more specifically the interfaces used by
the tools. If the interfaces are not well defined from the start,
for example the allowed communication speed, this could be
complicated or even impossible to verify. If also some of the
tools or software is developed by third party developers then it
gets even more complicated.
Figure 2: Simplified picture of a legacy system consisting
of a network interface card, a CPU and an add-in PCI
board equipped with DSP/FPGA with an input/output
interface
670
Updating the system would then require a replacement of
almost all components and only keep the interfaces to the
surrounding environment. Designing a new hardware is
probably easy in this case due to the fact that the performance
of CPUs today is much higher than it was 15 years ago. The
same reasoning is valid for communication, e.g., the 33MHZ
PCI, [14], gave a maximum performance of 133 MB/s
compared to the PCI-Express, [15], which is common today
that on one serial lane runs at 250MB/s. If this performance is
not good enough it is possible to use a number of lanes in
parallel. A similar discussion would also be valid for FPGAs,
where a typical FPGA 10-15 years ago was from the X4000
family provided by Xilinx. The largest model at that time, e.g.,
the XC4085XL, was equipped with up to 7448 logic cells and
100kbit of RAM, [16]. If this chip today is compared to a low
cost Spartan-6 FPGA that has 150k Logic cells and 4.8 Mbit
of RAM then one can fit up to almost 20 X4000 FPGA in one
Spartan FPGA alone. If this is not good enough one could use
one of the FPGAs in the high performance range, e.g., a
Virtex-7 with 2000k logic cells and 64Mbit of RAM.
Typically the new generation of FPGAs is also equipped with
much more functionality available directly in the hardware,
e.g., hardware support for PCI-Express. Compared to Xilinx
4000 that for PCI access needed external hardware that
handled the PCI communication. In Figure 3 we show an
example of how the upgrade could look like with a new FPGA
and a multi-core CPU running both the CPU and the DSP
application from the legacy system.
The conclusion is that a hardware update with equal or
better performance is no problem. Instead the problem, or
challenge, is to get the legacy software to run in the new
system. If one gets the software to run then the next problem
would be to test the software such that it performs in the same
way as in the old original system.
B. Solution 2: Making a new design that is future proof
If one is planning to create a new design that should last
for more than a couple of years then one would sooner or later
end up in the same discussion as being made for the
replacement case discussed above. The difference is that one
can try to prevent some of the problems from happening by
making some smart decisions when designing the system.
Looking at a possible design we can see two major
contributions to the opportunity for future evolution: one is a
well structured architecture that makes changes and
replacement of functions easy, and the other one is hardware
independent solutions, i.e., such that the system can run on
any hardware.
Interface
Network Interface
CPU
1) Design 1: Architectural structure
In “An introduction to software architecture”, [17], from
1994 it is stated that we can see significant advances in the
area of better understanding of the role of architecture in the
life-cycle process of a system/product that includes software.
Probably if systems that were designed 10, 20, 30 years back
had taken the life cycle aspect more in to account, both from a
software and hardware point of view, then it would be easier
today to upgrade and maintain some of the systems that we are
using.
A number of studies have been made, looking at the
possibilities to improve the evolvability of a system by using a
number of different architectural methods. Component based
software design [18] is one way forward that can solve some
of the problems with evolvability of an embedded system. In
[19] Breivold et al. discuss software evolvability as a quality
attribute that describes a software system’s ability to easily
accommodate future changes.
Figure 3: Moving from the legacy system (depicted in
Figure 2) to a system based on a multi-core solution
Looking at the higher range of FPGAs equipped with hard
CPUs it would actually to some extent be possible to replace
the whole original system with only one FPGA with one or
several hard CPU cores. The ZYNC platform from Xilinx is
one example, equipped with one dual core ARM-A9 processor
running at 1GHz on chip together with FPGA logic, as
depicted in Figure 4.
Architectural decisions are not only to make decisions on
how the software should be written, but, e.g., they can also be
a question on i) what type of hardware that is chosen to be
used, ii) is a well defined communication interface used, iii) is
there still performance left to be used for updating the
functionality of the software in the future?
2) Design 2: Hardware independence
A design that is completely hardware independent would
probably be impossible to create in all cases, e.g., there could
be specific requirements on types of I/O ports, and
performance issues when applying a number of hardware
independent layers. One solution that has been discussed a lot
in later years has been virtualization of hardware. The term
”virtualization” [20] [21] [22] was introduced in the early
1960s to refer to a virtual environment. The virtual
environment presents a simulated computer environment to
the guest software isolating it from the hardware. Typically a
number of guest software’s can run on one physical machine
without knowing anything about each other.
Network IP
FPGA logic blocks
Interface
CPU
Communication
FPGA
CPU
Network
Interface
SOC – System on a Chip
Figure 4: Moving from the legacy system (depicted in
Figure 2) to a system on a chip with similar functionality
671
to apply. In [26] we have made a deeper investigation on using
GPUs in the context of embedded systems.
Virtualization often suffer from performance penalties,
both with respect to resources that are required to run the
hypervisor, and with respect to reduced performance of the
virtual machine compared to running native on the physical
machine. Depending on the hardware or requirements of
performance from the application this could make it
impossible to virtualize such a system. In later releases of
hardware, e.g., Intel VT, [23], and AMD-V, different
hardware support has been added to improve the performance
of virtualization.
A solution for adding new functionality that does not
directly have to be located in the legacy software, for example
securing an Ethernet connection with the introduction of
Whitelisting, firewalls, user management etc, could be to use a
hypervisor along with adding of another secure operating
system and to route all of the communication through the
secure operating system before it reaches the legacy system.
The traditional use of virtualization has been by enterprise
industries aiming to make better use of general purpose multicore processors, for example by running more than one virtual
server on one hardware to more fully utilize the hardware
resources of the physical server. The same functionality could
be used in an embedded system to run a number of different
legacy systems on the same CPU or on the same multi-core
CPU and still have some kind of protection between the
systems. A discussion of security and virtualization issues can
be found in [22]. One typical thing that virtualization should
be able to handle is that a buffer overflow in one system
should not affect any of the other systems.
V.
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND FUTURE WORK
The management of obsolete components and the addition
of new components and functionalities in existing embedded
software systems can be a hard to almost impossible task. A
number of industries such as the process and power industries,
nuclear power, and avionics, are all facing the same problems
as their systems are expected to run and be in operation for
more than 30 years. At some point in time these systems have
to be evolved due to several reasons. In this paper we have
discussed two specific challenges:
1.
One of the major differences when using virtualization in
embedded systems, not in all, compared to a more traditional
server environment is the requirement for hard real-time
performance. This is a requirement that one typically would
not find in an enterprise system. A discussion on such systems
and related challenges can be found in [10] and [24].
Updating older systems that have been in operation for
10-15 years and are now facing obsolete hardware and
software components or new requirements that are not
possible to be met with the old hardware and software.
If we would upgrade the system to newer hardware, newer
software, and/or newer functions, then we would require that
the functionality of the upgraded system is verified such that
the functionality of the upgraded system is still respecting its
original behavior, including known and implicit
requirements.
Working with older legacy software and also with new
development a problem that one can run into is if the
virtualization environment does not support the hardware that
one is using or planning to use. For a legacy system it can for
example be a device driver that is not supported in the new
hardware. A solution to this can be to emulate the hardware
component inside the operating system or in the virtualization
environment to be able to reuse the old legacy code. An
example of this can be found in [11] where they discuss on
how to emulate a network driver interface used in a legacy
nuclear plant installation.
2.
Developing new systems that should be evolvable, i.e.,
easy to update and upgrade in the future.
In this case the architecture and the choices of hardware is
important. One solution is to already from the start of the
design of the system base the system design on a hypervisor to
make it more hardware independent. As a further step towards
being more independent from a specific hardware solution it
could be advisable to specify a number of interfaces between
components that can be replaced in the future.
Today there are a number of different alternatives for
virtualization of X86 processors. It gets more complicated if
one is trying to replace, e.g., a DSP. Typically the code for a
DSP has been written to run on bare metal, without any
operating system, and also with a very close connection to the
hardware. If the performance requirements would allow then it
could be interesting to test if it is possible to emulate the old
environment and then run the emulated hardware on for
example an X86 processor instead. Another interesting
alternative could be to use a more powerful computational
device such as the Graphical Processing Unit (GPU) for
general purpose computing. A high performance GPU can
today be equipped with over 3000 cores where all cores are
running at a clock speed of 1GHz (Nvidia GeForce GTX 690,
3072 cores, 1Ghz, 4GB of memory, [25]). The GPU is
designed to solve parallel problems and not typical problems
that one would find in a CPU/DSP. If we are only able to use
some of the cores for running our CPU/DSP code then it may
still give a high performance, making it an interesting solution
Our ongoing and future work is concerning evaluation of a
number of techniques and technologies that makes it possible
to handle both the problems discussed above. The key
question is how to enable the upgrade of an existing and old
embedded system. The next step in our research will be to
look at a system with obsolete components along with new
functions that have to be added in parallel with the old
functionality, for example new security features. The system
should in the end be verified such that the changes do not
interfere with the existing functions of the system.
To get a realistic understanding of the challenges and
possible solutions when updating and replacing components in
systems, we are currently investigating different technologies
that involve both hardware and software components. As a
first case we have looked at the possibility to use GPUs [26] in
embedded systems. We will continue the GPU investigation
672
with an evaluation of what type of functions that can be
executed in the GPU. Typically we are looking for the
possibility to run high performance DSP applications with
support by the GPU cores. The next case will be to look at
how to use virtualization to replace hardware in legacy
systems. We will look at X86 and different DSP architectures.
Based on the results from upgrading legacy systems we
aim at describing a method on how decisions should be taken
today when designing new systems such that they are more
evolvable to future changes in requirements or with respect to
updating and/or replacing of hardware and software
components.
[11]
A. Ribière, “Using virtualization to improve durability and
portability of industrial applications”, in IEEE Intl. Conf. on
Industrial Informatics (INDIN'08), pp. 1545-1550, 2008.
[12]
S. Comella-Dorda, K. Wallnau, R. C. Seacord, and J.
Robert, “A Survey of Legacy System Modernization
Approaches”, Tech. Note. CMU/SEI-2000-TN-003, 2000.
[13]
Z. Zhang, H. Yang, “Incubating Services in Legacy Systems
for Architectural Migration,” in 11th Asia-Pacific Software
Engineering Conference, pp. 196–203, 2004.
[14]
“Wikipedia, PCI bus.” [Online]. Available:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventional_PCI. [Accessed:
01-May-2013].
[15]
“Wikipedia, PCI-Express.” [Online]. Available:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCI_Express. [01-May-2013].
[16]
“Xilinx XC4000 data sheet.” [Online]. Available:
http://www.xilinx.com/support/documentation/data_sheets/4
000.pdf. [Accessed: 01-May-2013].
[17]
D. Garlan and M. Shaw, “An introduction to software
architecture,” Computer Science Department. Paper 724.
http://repository.cmu.edu/compsic/724, 1994.
[18]
F. Lüders, I. Crnkovic, and A. Sjögren, “Case Study :
Componentization of an Industrial Control System,” in 26th
Annual Intl. Computer Software and Applications
Conference (COMPSAC'02), pp. 67-74, 2002.
[19]
H. P. Breivold, I. Crnkovic, and M. Larsson, “Software
architecture evolution through evolvability analysis,”
Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 85, no. 11, pp. 25742592, 2012.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The research presented in this paper is supported by The
Knowledge Foundation (KKS) through ITS-EASY, an
Industrial Research School in Embedded Software and
Systems, affiliated with the school of Innovation, Design and
Engineering (IDT) at Mälardalen University (MDH), Sweden.
REFERENCES
[1]
J. Luke, J. W. Bittorie, W. J. Cannon, and D. G. Haldeman,
“Replacement Strategy for Aging Avionics Computers,”
IEEE AES Systems Magazine, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 7-11, 1999.
[2]
N. G. Leveson, “Software Safety in Computer-Controlled
Systems,” Computer, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 48-55, 1984.
[3]
D. William R., “Designing Safety Critical Computer
Systems,” Computer, vol. 36, no. 11, pp. 40–46, 2003.
[4]
“Wikipedia, Stuxnet.” [Online]. Available:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet. [01-May-2013].
[5]
R. Langner, “Stuxnet: Dissecting a Cyberwarfare Weapon,”
Security & Privacy, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 49-51, 2011.
[20]
“Wikipedia, Virtualization.” [Online]. Available:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtualization. [01-May-2013].
[6]
T. Miyachi, H. Narita, H. Yamada, and H. Furuta, “Myth
and Reality on Control System Security Revealed by
Stuxnet,” in IEEE SICE Annual Conference (SICE'11), pp.
1537-1540, 2011.
[21]
S. Campbell and M. Jeronimo, “An Introduction to
Virtualization.” Intel, pp. 1-15, 2006.
[22]
H. Douglas and C. Gehrmann, “Secure Virtualization and
Multicore Platforms State-of-the-art report”, SICS Technical
Report, Swedish Institute of Compute Sceince, 2009.
[23]
R. Uhlig, G. Neiger, D. Rodgers, A-.L. Santoni, F.C.M.
Martins, A.V. Anderson, S.M. Bennett, A. Kagi, F.H.
Leung, and L. Smith, “Intel virtualization technology”,
Computer, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 48-56, 2005.
T. Sarfi, “COTS VXI hardware combats obsolescence and
reduces cost,” in IEEE AUTOTESTCON, pp. 177-183, 2002.
[24]
A. Ribière, “Emulation of Obsolete Hardware in Open
Source Virtualization Software,” in IEEE Intl. Conf. on
Industrial Informatics (INDIN'10), pp 354-360, 2010.
A. Aguiar, and F. Hessel, “Embedded systems’
virtualization: The next challenge?,” in 21st IEEE Intl.
Symp. on Rapid System Prototyping (RSP'10), 2010.
[25]
“Hardware | GeForce.” [Online]. Available:
http://www.geforce.co.uk/hardware. [01-May-2013].
[26]
D. Hallmans, M. Åsberg, and T. Nolte, “Towards using the
Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) for embedded systems” in
IEEE Intl. Conf. on Emerging Technologies & Factory
Automation (ETFA'12), pp. 1–4, 2012.
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
F. J. Romero Rojo, R. Roy, and E. Shehab, “Obsolescence
Management for Long-life Contracts : State of the Art and
Future Trends”, The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, vol. 49, no. 9-12, pp. 12351250, 2010.
F. Nemati, J. Kraft, and T. Nolte, “Towards migrating
legacy real-time systems to multi-core platforms,” in IEEE
Intl. Conf. on Emerging Technologies and Factory
Automation (ETFA'08), pp. 717-720, 2008.
673