4.7 Article

Distributed Intelligent MEMS: A Survey and a Real-Time Programming Framework

期刊

ACM COMPUTING SURVEYS
卷 49, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

ASSOC COMPUTING MACHINERY
DOI: 10.1145/2926964

关键词

Design; Algorithms; Languages; Distributed intelligent MEMS; autonomous devices; distributed collaboration; real-time programming language; programming framework

资金

  1. ANR/RGC Joint Research Scheme (RGC) [A-PolyU505/12]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61562005]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Guangxi Province [2015GXNSFAA139286]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In recent years, distributed intelligent microelectromechanical systems (DiMEMSs) have appeared as a new form of distributed embedded systems. DiMEMSs contain thousands or millions of removable autonomous devices, which will collaborate with each other to achieve the final target of the whole system. Programming such systems is becoming an extremely difficult problem. The difficulty is due not only to their inherent nature of distributed collaboration, mobility, large scale, and limited resources of their devices (e.g., in terms of energy, memory, communication, and computation) but also to the requirements of real-time control and tolerance for uncertainties such as inaccurate actuation and unreliable communications. As a result, existing programming languages for traditional distributed and embedded systems are not suitable for DiMEMSs. In this article, we first introduce the origin and characteristics of DiMEMSs and then survey typical implementations of DiMEMSs and related research hotspots. Finally, we propose a real-time programming framework that can be used to design new real-time programming languages for DiMEMSs. The framework is composed of three layers: a real-time programming model layer, a compilation layer, and a runtime system layer. The design challenges and requirements of these layers are investigated. The framework is then discussed in further detail and suggestions for future research are given.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据