Rggy

EE249: Design of Embedded System (corrections) ASV/LL
Petri Nets
ee249 Fall 2000
Marco Sgroi
Most slides borrowed from

Luciano Lavagno’s lecture ee249 (1998)
1
Models Of Computation
for reactive systems
• Main MOCs:
– Communicating Finite State Machines
– Dataflow Process Networks
– Discrete Event
– Codesign Finite State Machines
– Petri Nets
• Main languages:
– StateCharts
– Esterel
– Dataflow networks 2
1
Outline
• Petri nets
– Introduction
– Examples
– Properties
– Analysis techniques
– Scheduling
Petri Nets (PNs)

• Model introduced by C.A. Petri in 1962
– Ph.D. Thesis: “Communication with Automata”
• Applications: distributed computing, manufacturing,
control, communication networks, transportation…
• PNs describe explicitly and graphically:
– sequencing/causality
– conflict/non-deterministic choice
– concurrency
• Asynchronous model (partial ordering)
• Main drawback: no hierarchy
4
2
Petri Net Graph

• Bipartite weighted directed graph:
– Places: circles
– Transitions: bars or boxes
– Arcs: arrows labeled with weights
• Tokens: black dots
p2
t2
p1 t1 2
p4
3
t3
5
p3
Petri Net
• A PN (N,M0) is a Petri Net Graph N
– places: represent distributed state by holding tokens
• marking (state) M is an n-vector (m1,m2,m3… ), where mi is the non-
negative number of tokens in place pi.
• initial marking (M0) is initial state
– transitions: represent actions/events
• enabled transition: enough tokens in predecessors
• firing transition: modifies marking
p2 t2
• … and an initial marking M0. t1 2
p1 p4
3
Places/Transition: conditions/events t3 6
p3
3
Transition firing rule

• A marking is changed according to the following rules:
– A transition is enabled if there are enough tokens in each
input place
– An enabled transition may or may not fire
– The firing of a transition modifies marking by consuming
tokens from the input places and producing tokens in the
output places
2 2
2
2
3
3 7
Concurrency, causality, choice

t1
t2
t5
t3 t4
8
t6
4
t1
Concurrency
t2
t5
t3 t4
9
t6

t1
t2
t5
Causality, sequencing
t3 t4
10
t6
5
t1
t2
t5
Choice,
t3 t4 conflict
11
t6

t1
t2
t5
Choice,
t3 t4 conflict
12
t6
6
Confusion
• t1 and t2 are concurrent but their firing order is not
irrelevant for conflict resolution (not local choice)
• From (1,1,0,0,0):
– solving a conflict (t1,t2) (0,0,0,0,1),(0,0,1,1,0)
– not solving a conflict (t2,t1) (0,0,1,1,0)
p1 t1 p3
t3 p5
p2 t2 p4
13
Communication Protocol
Send msg Receive msg
P1 P2
Send Ack
Receive Ack
14
7
P1 P2
Send Ack
Receive Ack
15
P1 P2
Send Ack
Receive Ack
16
8
P1 P2
Send Ack
Receive Ack
17
P1 P2
Send Ack
Receive Ack
18
9
P1 P2
Send Ack
Receive Ack
19
Producer-Consumer Problem
Produce
Buffer
Consume
20
10
Produce
Buffer
Consume
21
Produce
Buffer
Consume
22
11
Produce
Buffer
Consume
23
Produce
Buffer
Consume
24
12
Produce
Buffer
Consume
25
Produce
Buffer
Consume
26
13
Produce
Buffer
Consume
27
Produce
Buffer
Consume
28
14
Produce
Buffer
Consume
29
Produce
Buffer
Consume
30
15
Produce
Buffer
Consume
31
Produce
Buffer
Consume
32
16
Produce
Buffer
Consume
33
Produce
Buffer
Consume
34
17
Producer-Consumer with priority

A
Consumer B can
consume only if
buffer A is empty
Inhibitor arcs
35
PN properties
• Behavioral: depend on the initial marking (most
interesting)
– Reachability
– Boundedness
– Schedulability
– Liveness
– Conservation
• Structural: do not depend on the initial marking
(often too restrictive)
– Consistency
– Structural boundedness 36
18
Reachability
• Marking M is reachable from marking M0 if there
exists a sequence of firings σ = M0 t1 M1 t2 M2… M
that transforms M0 to M.
• The reachability problem is decidable.
p2
t2
p1 t1 p4
Μ 0 = (1,0,1,0)
t3
M1 = (1,0,0,1)
t3
p3 t2
Μ 0 = (1,0,1,0)
M = (1,1,0,0)
M = (1,1,0,0) 37
Liveness
• Liveness: from any marking any transition can
become fireable
– Liveness implies deadlock freedom, not viceversa
Not live
38
19
Liveness
become fireable
Not live
39
Liveness
become fireable
Deadlock-free
40
20
Liveness
become fireable
Deadlock-free
41
Boundedness
• Boundedness: the number of tokens in any place
cannot grow indefinitely
– (1-bounded also called safe)
– Application: places represent buffers and registers (check
there is no overflow)
Unbounded
42
21
Boundedness
Unbounded
43
Boundedness
Unbounded
44
22
Boundedness
Unbounded
45
Boundedness
Unbounded
46
23
Conservation
• Conservation: the total number of tokens in the
net is constant
Not conservative
47
Conservation
net is constant
Not conservative
48
24
Conservation
net is constant
Conservative
2
49
Analysis techniques
• Structural analysis techniques

– Incidence matrix
– T- and S- Invariants
• State Space Analysis techniques
– Coverability Tree
– Reachability Graph
50
25
Incidence Matrix
t2
p1 t1 p2 p3
t1 t2 t3
t3 -1 0 0 p1
A= 1 1 -1 p2
0 -1 1 p3
• Necessary condition for marking M to be reachable

from initial marking M0:
there exists firing vector v s.t.:
M = M0 + A v 51
State equations
• E.g. reachability of M =|0 0 1|T from M0 = |1 0 0|T
t2
p1 t1 p2 p3 -1 0 0
A= 1 1 -1
0 -1 1
t3
1 0 1 -1 0 0 1
v1 = 0 0 = 0 + 1 1 -1 0
1 1 0 0 -1 1 1
but also v2 = | 1 1 2 |T or any vk = | 1 (k) (k+1) |T52
26
Necessary Condition only

t2
t3
t1
2
2
Firing vector: (1,2,2) Deadlock!!
53
State equations and invariants

• Solutions of Ax = 0 (in M = M0 + Ax, M = M0)
T-invariants
– sequences of transitions that (if fireable) bring back to original marking
– periodic schedule in SDF
– e.g. x =| 0 1 1 |T
t2
p1 t1 p2 p3 -1 0 0
A= 1 1 -1
0 -1 1
t3 54
27
Application of T-invariants
• Scheduling
– Cyclic schedules: need to return to the initial state
i *k2 + o
*k1
T-invariant: (1,1,1,1,1)
Schedule: i *k2 *k1 + o
55
State equations and invariants
• Solutions of yA = 0
S-invariants
– sets of places whose weighted total token count does not
change after the firing of any transition (y M = y M’)
– e.g. y =| 1 1 1 |T
t2
p1 t1 p2 p3 -1 1 0
AT= 0 1 -1
0 -1 1
t3
56
28
Application of S-invariants
• Structural Boundedness: bounded for any

finite initial marking M0
• Existence of a positive S-invariant is CS for
structural boundedness
– initial marking is finite
– weighted token count does not change
57
Summary of algebraic methods
• Extremely efficient
(polynomial in the size of the net)
• Generally provide only necessary or sufficient
information
• Excellent for ruling out some deadlocks or
otherwise dangerous conditions
• Can be used to infer structural boundedness
58
29
Coverability Tree
• Build a (finite) tree representation of the markings
Karp-Miller algorithm
• Label initial marking M0 as the root of the tree and tag it as new
• While new markings exist do:
– select a new marking M
– if M is identical to a marking on the path from the root to M, then tag M as
old and go to another new marking
– if no transitions are enabled at M, tag M dead-end
– while there exist enabled transitions at M do:
• obtain the marking M’that results from firing t at M
• on the path from the root to M if there exists a marking M’’such that
M’(p)>=M’’(p) for each place p and M’ is different from M’’, then replace M’(p)
by ω for each p such that M’(p) >M’’(p)
• introduce M’as a node, draw an arc with label t from M to M’ and tag M’as
new. 59
Coverability Tree
• Boundedness is decidable
1000
with coverability tree
t2
p1 t1 p2 p3
p4
t3
60
30
Coverability Tree
1000
t1
t2 0100
p1 t1 p2 p3
p4
t3
61
Coverability Tree
1000
t1
0100
t2
p1 t1 p2 p3 t3
0011
p4
t3
62
31
Coverability Tree
1000
t1
t2 0100
p1 t1 p2 p3 t3
0011
t2
p4 0101
t3
63
Coverability Tree
1000
t1
0100
t2
p1 t1 p2 p3 t3
0011
t2
t3 p4 010ω
Cannot solve the reachability and liveness problems

64
32
Coverability Tree
1000
t1
t2 0100
p1 t1 p2 p3 t3
0011
t2
t3 p4 010ω
Cannot solve the reachability and liveness problems

65
Reachability graph
t2
p1 t1 p2 p3 100
t3
• For bounded nets the Coverability Tree is called

Reachability Tree since it contains all possible
reachable markings
66
33
Reachability graph
t2
p1 t1 p2 p3 100
t1
010
t3

reachable markings
67
Reachability graph
t2
p1 t1 p2 p3 100
t1
010
t3
t3
001

reachable markings
68
34
Reachability graph
t2
p1 t1 p2 p3 100
t1
010
t3
t2 t3
001

reachable markings
69
Subclasses of Petri nets

• Reachability analysis is too expensive
• State equations give only partial information
• Some properties are preserved by reduction rules
e.g. for liveness and safeness
• Even reduction rules only work in some cases

• Must restrict class in order to prove stronger results
70
35
Subclasses of Petri nets: SMs

• State machine: every transition has at most 1
predecessor and 1 successor
• Models only causality and conflict
– (no concurrency, no synchronization of parallel activities)
71
Subclasses of Petri nets: MGs

• Marked Graph: every place has at most 1 predecessor
and 1 successor
• Models only causality and concurrency (no conflict)
• Same as underlying graph of SDF

72
36
Subclasses of Petri nets: FC nets

• Free-Choice net: every transition after choice
has exactly 1 predecessor
73
Free-Choice Petri Nets (FCPN)
Free-Choice (FC)
t1
t2
Confusion (not-Free-Choice) Extended Free-Choice
Free-Choice: the outcome of a choice depends on the
value of a token (abstracted non-deterministically)
rather than on its arrival time.
Easy to analyze 74
37
Free-Choice nets
• Introduced by Hack (‘72)
• Extensively studied by Best (‘86) and Desel and
Esparza (‘95)
• Can express concurrency, causality and choice without
confusion
• Very strong structural theory
– necessary and sufficient conditions for liveness and safeness,
based on decomposition
– concurrency, causality and choice relations are mutually
exclusive
– exploits duality between MG and SM 75
MG (& SM) decomposition

• An Allocation is a control function that chooses which
transition fires among several conflicting ones ( A: P T).
• Eliminate the subnet that would be inactive if we were to use
the allocation...
• Reduction Algorithm
– Delete all unallocated transitions
– Delete all places that have all input transitions already
deleted
– Delete all transitions that have at least one input place
already deleted
• Obtain a Reduction (one for each allocation) that is a conflict
free subnet 76
38
MG reduction and cover

• Choose one successor for each conflicting place:
77

78
39

79

80
40

81
MG reductions
• The set of all reductions yields a cover of MG
components (T-invariants)
82
41
MG reductions
• The set of all reductions yields a cover of MG
components (T-invariants)
83
SM reduction and cover

• Choose one predecessor for each transition:
84
42

85

• The set of all reductions yields a cover of SM

components (S-invariants) 86
43
Hack’s theorem (‘72)
• Let N be a Free-Choice PN:

– N has a live and safe initial marking (well-formed)
if and only if
• every MG reduction is strongly connected and not empty, and
the set of all reductions covers the net
• every SM reduction is strongly connected and not empty, and
the set of all reductions covers the net
87
Hack’s theorem
• Example of non-live (but safe) FCN
88
44
Hack’s theorem
89
Hack’s theorem
90
45
Hack’s theorem
91
Hack’s theorem
92
46
Hack’s theorem
93
Hack’s theorem
94
47
Hack’s theorem
95
Hack’s theorem
96
48
Hack’s theorem
97
Hack’s theorem
98
49
Hack’s theorem
99
Hack’s theorem
100
50
Hack’s theorem
101
Hack’s theorem
102
51
Hack’s theorem
Not live
103
Other results for LSFC nets

• Let t1 and t2 be two transitions of a live and safe Free-
Choice net.
Then t1 and t2 are:
– sequential if
there exists a simple cycle to which both belong
– concurrent if
they are not ordered, and
there exists an MG component to which both belong
– conflicting otherwise
104
52
Summary of LSFC nets
• Largest class for which structural theory really

helps
• Structural component analysis may be
expensive
(exponential number of MG and SM components in
the worst case)
• But…
– number of MG components is generally small
– FC restriction simplifies characterization of
behavior
105
Petri Net extensions

• Add interpretation to tokens and transitions
– Colored nets (tokens have value)
• Add time
– Time/timed Petri Nets (deterministic delay)
• type (duration, delay)
• where (place, transition)
– Stochastic PNs (probabilistic delay)
– Generalized Stochastic PNs (timed and immediate
transitions)
• Add hierarchy
– Place Charts Nets
106
53
Summary of Petri Nets
• Graphical formalism
• Distributed state (including buffering)
• Concurrency, sequencing and choice made
explicit
• Structural and behavioral properties
• Analysis techniques based on
– linear algebra (only sufficient)
– structural analysis (necessary and sufficient only for
FC)
107
54

Rggy

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Rggy

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

EE249: Design of Embedded System (corrections) ASV/LL

Most slides borrowed from

Petri Nets (PNs)

Petri Net Graph

Transition firing rule

Concurrency, causality, choice

Concurrency, causality, choice

Concurrency, causality, choice

Concurrency, causality, choice

Concurrency, causality, choice

Send msg Receive msg

Send msg Receive msg

Send msg Receive msg

Send msg Receive msg

Send msg Receive msg

Send msg Receive msg

Producer-Consumer with priority

• Structural analysis techniques

• Necessary condition for marking M to be reachable

but also v2 = | 1 1 2 |T or any vk = | 1 (k) (k+1) |T52

Necessary Condition only

State equations and invariants

State equations and invariants

• Structural Boundedness: bounded for any

Summary of algebraic methods

Cannot solve the reachability and liveness problems

Cannot solve the reachability and liveness problems

• For bounded nets the Coverability Tree is called

• For bounded nets the Coverability Tree is called

• For bounded nets the Coverability Tree is called

• For bounded nets the Coverability Tree is called

Subclasses of Petri nets

• Even reduction rules only work in some cases

Subclasses of Petri nets: SMs

Subclasses of Petri nets: MGs

• Same as underlying graph of SDF

Subclasses of Petri nets: FC nets

Free-Choice Petri Nets (FCPN)

MG (& SM) decomposition

MG reduction and cover

MG reduction and cover

MG reduction and cover

MG reduction and cover

MG reduction and cover

SM reduction and cover

SM reduction and cover

SM reduction and cover

• The set of all reductions yields a cover of SM

Hack’s theorem (‘72)

• Let N be a Free-Choice PN:

• Example of non-live (but safe) FCN

• Example of non-live (but safe) FCN

• Example of non-live (but safe) FCN

• Example of non-live (but safe) FCN

• Example of non-live (but safe) FCN

• Example of non-live (but safe) FCN

• Example of non-live (but safe) FCN

• Example of non-live (but safe) FCN

• Example of non-live (but safe) FCN

• Example of non-live (but safe) FCN

• Example of non-live (but safe) FCN

• Example of non-live (but safe) FCN

• Example of non-live (but safe) FCN