An innovative traffic management scheme for deterministic/eventbased communications in automotive applications with a focus on Automated Driving Applications Giancarlo Vasta, Magneti Marelli, giancarlo.vasta@magnetimarelli.com Lucia Lo Bello, University of Catania, lobello@unict.it 2018 IEEE Standards Association Ethernet & IP @ Automotive Technology Day October 10, 2018
Presentation outline Event-driven traffic in automated vehicles Support offered to event-driven traffic in TSN standards A novel approach to deal with event-driven traffic Performance evaluation Automated Driving application Summary and conclusions 2018 IEEE Standards Association Ethernet & IP @ Automotive Technology Day October 10, 2018 2
The need for Event-driven Traffic Support Fact 1: The external world in which the cars move is non-deterministic Unpredictable events may occur and determine unforeseen situations. Fact 2: Autonomous vehicles need to properly react to such situations The communication system has to support event-driven transmissions with minimum delay. Question 1: How to handle event-driven traffic with real-time constraints? Question 2: How and under which conditions is it possible to guarantee a latency bound for event-driven flows? Let s have a look on the TSN standards 2018 IEEE Standards Association Ethernet & IP @ Automotive Technology Day October 10, 2018 3
TSN support for Event-driven Traffic Fact 3: TSN standards offer a limited support for event-driven real-time traffic Some shaping mechanisms have been defined, but they do not care much about the latency of event-driven traffic or they can be complex The easiest way to deal with event-driven traffic is to serve it in the Best-effort class, but no guarantees, even in the case the event-driven traffic has a known minimum inter-arrival time, can be provided. 2018 IEEE Standards Association Ethernet & IP @ Automotive Technology Day October 10, 2018 4
This presentation is about An innovative traffic management scheme for IEEE 802.1Q bridges and end nodes that introduces explicit support for the Event-Driven (ED) real-time traffic enables the transmission of ED traffic over TSN networks while maintaining the support for Scheduled Traffic providing delay guarantees to the Stream Reservation classes. The proposed approach: works at the MAC layer relies on the forwarding mechanisms defined in the IEEE 802.1Q-2018 standard, with suitable modifications 2018 IEEE Standards Association Ethernet & IP @ Automotive Technology Day October 10, 2018 5
System model Traffic type Scheduled traffic Stream Reservation Event-driven traffic Best-effort traffic Characteristics High priority real-time traffic transmitted according to a time schedule (time-driven) with no interference from other traffic. Periodic, guaranteed Aperiodic bursts, generated by events, with real-time constraints No guarantees, performance is statistical 2018 IEEE Standards Association Ethernet & IP @ Automotive Technology Day October 10, 2018 6
Advantages of the proposed solution Main features Scheduled Traffic is handled through the gate mechanism defined in the IEEE 802.1Qbv ED bursts are handled with a novel traffic management Low latency for ED flows is achieved If the minimum interarrival time for ED bursts and the maximum burst size are known, the maximum E2E latency for ED traffic is bounded and can be calculated. E2E latency for SR Class A and Class B are bounded and guaranteed. Feasibility: The proposed approach can be implemented on devices that support TSN standards. No special hardware modifications to the standard devices are required. 2018 IEEE Standards Association Ethernet & IP @ Automotive Technology Day October 10, 2018 7
Simulations Simulations were run using the OMNeT++ and the INET framework, modified so as to model the TSN protocols (i.e., IEEE 802.1Q-2018, etc.) Aims Evaluate the E2E performance of the proposed approach in realistic automotive scenarios E2E Latency performance with different data rates (i.e., 100Mbps, 1Gbps, 10Gbps). 2018 IEEE Standards Association Ethernet & IP @ Automotive Technology Day October 10, 2018 8
Simulations The proposed solution was compared with an alternative approach, that handles the ED traffic as best-effort, in the highest priority queue for that class. Alternative approach ED Traffic ST 2018 IEEE Standards Association Ethernet & IP @ Automotive Technology Day October 10, 2018 9
Simulation scenarios Node - Radars - Lidars - Ultrasonics - Cameras Each node transmits sensor data to the ECU 3 configurations: 100Mbps: 30 fps compressed video streams, relative deadline 33ms. 1Gbps: 60 fps compressed video streams, relative deadline 10ms. 10Gbps: 30 fps uncompressed video streams, relative deadline 10ms. ECU TSN Switch 2018 IEEE Standards Association Ethernet & IP @ Automotive Technology Day October 10, 2018 10
Scenarios Case A: 100 Mbps Scenario ADAS Flow Number of flows Total MAC Bandwidth Lidar 4 0.93 Mbps Ultrasonic 4 0.23 Mbps ADAS Sensors 4 Max 34 Mbps 30 fps compressed Video 4 ~52 Mbps Case B: 1 Gbps Scenario ADAS Flow Number of flows Total MAC Bandwidth Lidar 4 0.93 Mbps Ultrasonic 4 0.23 Mbps ADAS Sensors 4 Max 34 Mbps 60 fps compressed Video 4 ~103 Mbps 2018 IEEE Standards Association Ethernet & IP @ Automotive Technology Day October 10, 2018 11
Scenarios Case C: 10 Gbps Scenario Automated Driving Flow Number of flows Total MAC Bandwidth Lidar 4 0.93 Mbps Ultrasonic 4 0.23 Mbps ADAS Sensors 4 Max 34 Mbps 30 fps uncompressed Video 4 ~7 Gbps 2018 IEEE Standards Association Ethernet & IP @ Automotive Technology Day October 10, 2018 12
Flow Parameters and Mapping Flow Length Rel. Deadline Sampling Time Arrival pattern Lidar 250 B 10 ms 10 ms Periodic ST Ultrasonic 100 B 20 ms 20 ms Periodic ST Traffic Class ADAS Sensors ~10 KB 10 ms [10-100] ms Event-driven ED/BE 30fps Video - ADAS (100 Mbps) 60fps Video - ADAS (1 Gbps) Raw 30fps Video Automated Driving (10 Gbps) ~43 KB 33 ms 33 ms Periodic SR_A ~43 KB 10 ms 16 ms Periodic SR_A 6.9 MB 33 ms 33 ms Periodic SR_A Class A video frames are segmented in small Ethernet frames, each one transmitted by the application every 125us. Performance metrics: End-to-end latency, defined as: reception time generation time (measured at the application) 2018 IEEE Standards Association Ethernet & IP @ Automotive Technology Day October 10, 2018 13
Simulation Results Case A: 100 Mbps scenario Event-driven flows ED Flows: Message latency 6000 5000 4000 5119 Case A: Workload vs. bandwidth Unused 13% us 3000 2000 2332 1974 ST 2% SR 52% 1000 1104 ED 33% 0 Max E2E-Latency Avg E2E-Latency The proposed approach - halves the maximum E2E latency - reduces the average message latency by 870us 2018 IEEE Standards Association Ethernet & IP @ Automotive Technology Day October 10, 2018 14
Simulation Results Case A: 100 Mbps scenario Event-driven flows End-to-end latency distribution The ED traffic with the proposed approach obtains lower latency values lower latency variability 2018 IEEE Standards Association Ethernet & IP @ Automotive Technology Day October 10, 2018 15
Simulation Results Case B: 1 Gbps scenario Event-driven flows ED Flows: Message latency 250 200 218 192 Case B: Workload vs. bandwidth us 150 111 105 SR 11% ED 3% Other 0,20% 100 50 0 Max E2E-Latency Avg E2E-Latency Unused 86% The max latency of event-driven messages is almost the same in both configurations. Reason: Very low workload, the SR workload is 11% of the available bandwidth. 2018 IEEE Standards Association Ethernet & IP @ Automotive Technology Day October 10, 2018 16
Simulation Results Case B: 1 Gbps scenario Event-driven flows End-to-end latency distribution The ED traffic with the proposed approach obtains lower latency values lower latency variability 2018 IEEE Standards Association Ethernet & IP @ Automotive Technology Day October 10, 2018 17
Simulation Results Case C: 10 Gbps scenario Event-driven flows ED Flows: Message latency us 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 63 20 35 15 Case C: Workload vs. bandwidth Unused 31% Other 0,02% ED 0,33% SR 69% 0 Max E2E-Latency Avg E2E-Latency Under high SR workload (69% in this scenario) the proposed approach significantly reduces the latency of event-driven traffic. 2018 IEEE Standards Association Ethernet & IP @ Automotive Technology Day October 10, 2018 18
Simulation Results Case C: 10 Gbps scenario Event-driven flows End-to-end latency distribution The ED traffic with the proposed approach obtains: lower latency values lower latency variability 2018 IEEE Standards Association Ethernet & IP @ Automotive Technology Day October 10, 2018 19
Other traffic classes Case A: 100 Mbps scenario us 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 50 ST Flows 50 26 26 us Video Flows: Max latency per video frame 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 31332 32466 Rel. Deadline 33ms 0 Lidar Ultrasonic 0 AppMessage Max Scheduled traffic is unaltered. SR Class A traffic (i.e., video streams) meets the relative deadline of 33ms per video frame with both approaches. 2018 IEEE Standards Association Ethernet & IP @ Automotive Technology Day October 10, 2018 20
Other traffic classes Case A: 100 Mbps scenario Video flows (SR_A) End-to-end latency distribution The proposed approach obtains a longer tail, but the difference between the maximum values is around 3% and affects only 0.3% of the video frames. The relative deadline (33ms) is met in both cases. 2018 IEEE Standards Association Ethernet & IP @ Automotive Technology Day October 10, 2018 21
Other traffic classes Case B: 1 Gbps scenario us 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 9,68 ST Flows 9,68 7,28 7,28 us Video Flows: Max latency per video frame 10000 8000 6000 4000 7993 8132 Rel. Deadline 10 ms 4 2000 2 0 Lidar Ultrasonic 0 AppMessage Max Scheduled traffic is unaltered. SR Class A traffic (i.e., video streams) meets the relative deadline of 10ms per video frame in both approaches. 2018 IEEE Standards Association Ethernet & IP @ Automotive Technology Day October 10, 2018 22
Other traffic classes Case B: 1 Gbps scenario Video flows (SR_A) End-to-end latency distribution The proposed approach obtains slightly higher latency values and variability for SR flows, but the difference is minor. 2018 IEEE Standards Association Ethernet & IP @ Automotive Technology Day October 10, 2018 23
Other traffic classes Case C: 10 Gbps scenario 10 9 8 7 6 5,65 ST Flows 5,65 5,41 5,41 35000 30000 25000 Video Flows: Max latency per video frame 31005 31005 Rel. Deadline 33 ms us 5 4 3 2 1 us 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 Lidar Ultrasonic 0 AppMessage Max Scheduled traffic is unaltered. SR Class A traffic (i.e., video streams) meets the relative deadline of 33ms per video frame in both approaches. 2018 IEEE Standards Association Ethernet & IP @ Automotive Technology Day October 10, 2018 24
Other traffic classes Case C: 10 Gbps scenario Video Flows (SR_A) End-to-end latency distribution Plenty of bandwidth, so no difference between the two approaches. 2018 IEEE Standards Association Ethernet & IP @ Automotive Technology Day October 10, 2018 25
Summarizing The proposed approach provides event-driven traffic with very low maximum latency values very low latency variability. In addition, the proposed approach does not affect Scheduled traffic has a very limited impact on the E2E maximum latency for Stream Reservation traffic 2018 IEEE Standards Association Ethernet & IP @ Automotive Technology Day October 10, 2018 26
Application on Autonomous Driving: Smart Corner 2018 IEEE Standards Association Ethernet & IP @ Automotive Technology Day October 10, 2018 27
Automated Driving architecture Perception Think & Decision Actuation Understanding the context around the vehicle Environment Data Sensing / Receiving (Device specific driver and SW) Object Detection Sensor Fusion Mapping Data Fusion / Environment Model Function / SW Layer Decision Motion & Actuation Planning & Control Actuation Planning and executing motion Sensor specific ECU (?) * Component / HW Layer Sensors Lidar Radar Camera UltraSound Automated Driving Domain Controller Int and Ext. V2X Led Lights PWT ECU Steering ECU Brakes ECU Suspension ECU V2X Contr. Unit GNSS Receiver * Sensor specific ECUs used instead of Automated Driving Domain Controller for Individual ADAS functions 2018 IEEE Standards Association Ethernet & IP @ Automotive Technology Day October 10, 2018 28
Magneti Marelli Autonomous Vehicles Autonomous Vehicle for Highway scenario (level 3) Autonomous Vehicle for Parking scenario (level 4) Autonomous Vehicle Autonomous Vehicle for Urban scenario (level 4) 2018 IEEE Standards Association Ethernet & IP @ Automotive Technology Day October 10, 2018 29