Petri Nets - Ptolemy ProjectPetri Nets (PNs) • Model introduced by C.A. Petri in 1962 – Ph.D. Thesis: “Communication with Automata” • Applications: distributed computing,

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

1

1

Petri Netsee249 Fall 2000

Marco Sgroi

Most slides borrowed from Luciano Lavagno’s lecture ee249 (1998)

2

Models Of Computationfor 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

3

Outline

• Petri nets– Introduction– Examples– Properties– Analysis techniques– Scheduling

4

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


3

5

Petri Net Graph• Bipartite weighted directed graph:

– Places: circles– Transitions: bars or boxes– Arcs: arrows labeled with weights

• Tokens: black dots

t1p1

p2

t2

p4

t3

p3

2

3

6

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

• … and an initial marking M0. t1p1

p2 t2

p4

t3p3

2

3Places/Transition: conditions/events


4

7

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

3

2 2

3

8

Concurrency, causality, choice

t1

t2

t3 t4

t5

t6


5

9


Concurrency

t1

t2

t3 t4

t5

t6

10


Causality, sequencing

t1

t2

t3 t4

t5

t6


6

11


Choice,conflict

t1

t2

t3 t4

t5

t6

12


Choice,conflict

t1

t2

t3 t4

t5

t6


7

13

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)

t1

t2

t3p1 p3

p2 p4

p5

14

Communication Protocol

P1

Send msg

Receive Ack

Send Ack

Receive msg

P2


8

15


P1

Send msg

Receive Ack

Send Ack

Receive msg

P2

16


P1

Send msg

Receive Ack

Send Ack

Receive msg

P2


9

17


P1

Send msg

Receive Ack

Send Ack

Receive msg

P2

18


P1

Send msg

Receive Ack

Send Ack

Receive msg

P2


10

19


P1

Send msg

Receive Ack

Send Ack

Receive msg

P2

20

Producer-Consumer Problem

Produce

Consume

Buffer


11

21


Produce

Consume

Buffer

22


Produce

Consume

Buffer


12

23


Produce

Consume

Buffer

24


Produce

Consume

Buffer


13

25


Produce

Consume

Buffer

26


Produce

Consume

Buffer


14

27


Produce

Consume

Buffer

28


Produce

Consume

Buffer


15

29


Produce

Consume

Buffer

30


Produce

Consume

Buffer


16

31


Produce

Consume

Buffer

32


Produce

Consume

Buffer


17

33


Produce

Consume

Buffer

34


Produce

Consume

Buffer


18

35

Producer-Consumer with priority

Consumer B can consume only if buffer A is empty

Inhibitor arcs

A

B

36

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


19

37

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.

t1p1

p2t2

p4

t3p3

Μ 0 = (1,0,1,0)M = (1,1,0,0)

Μ 0 = (1,0,1,0)t3

M1 = (1,0,0,1)t2

M = (1,1,0,0)

38

• Liveness: from any marking any transition can become fireable– Liveness implies deadlock freedom, not viceversa

Liveness

Not live


20

39


Liveness

Not live

40


Liveness

Deadlock-free


21

41


Liveness

Deadlock-free

42

• 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)

Boundedness

Unbounded


22

43



Boundedness

Unbounded

44



Boundedness

Unbounded


23

45



Boundedness

Unbounded

46



Boundedness

Unbounded


24

47

Conservation

• Conservation: the total number of tokens in the net is constant

Not conservative

48

Conservation


Not conservative


25

49

Conservation


Conservative

2

2

50

Analysis techniques

• Structural analysis techniques– Incidence matrix– T- and S- Invariants

• State Space Analysis techniques– Coverability Tree– Reachability Graph


26

51

Incidence Matrix

• Necessary condition for marking M to be reachable from initial marking M0:there exists firing vector v s.t.:

M = M0 + A v

p1 p2 p3t1t2

t3A=A=

--11 00 0011 11 --1100 --11 11

t1 t2 t3p1p2p3

52

State equations

p1 p2 p3t1

t3

A=A=--11 00 0011 11 --1100 --11 11

• E.g. reachability of M =|0 0 1|T from M0 = |1 0 0|T

but also vbut also v2 2 = | 1 1 2 |= | 1 1 2 |TT or anyor any vvkk = | 1 (k) (k+1) |= | 1 (k) (k+1) |TT

t2

110000

++--11 00 0011 11 --1100 --11 11

000011

==110011

vv1 1 ==110011


27

53

Necessary Condition only

2 2

Firing vector: (1,2,2)

t1

t2

t3

Deadlock!!

54

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

p1 p2 p3t1

t3

A=A=--11 00 0011 11 --1100 --11 11

t2


28

55

Application of T-invariants

• Scheduling– Cyclic schedules: need to return to the initial state

i *k2 +

*k1

Schedule: i *k2 *k1 + oT-invariant: (1,1,1,1,1)

o

56

State equations and invariants

• Solutions of yA = 0S-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

p1 p2 p3t1

t3

AATT==--11 11 0000 11 --1100 --11 11

t2


29

57

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

58

Summary of algebraic methods

• Extremely efficient (polynomial in the size of the net)

• Generally provide only necessary or sufficientinformation

• Excellent for ruling out some deadlocks or otherwise dangerous conditions

• Can be used to infer structural boundedness


30

59

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.

60

Coverability Tree• Boundedness is decidable

with coverability tree

p1 p2 p3

p4

t1t2

t3

1000


31

61



p1 p2 p3

p4

t1t2

t3

1000

0100t1

62



p1 p2 p3

p4

t1t2

t3

1000

0100

0011

t1

t3


32

63



p1 p2 p3

p4

t1t2

t3

1000

0100

0011

t1

t3

0101t2

64



Cannot solve the reachability and liveness problems

p1 p2 p3

p4

t1t2

t3

1000

0100

0011

t1

t3

t2010ω


33

65



Cannot solve the reachability and liveness problems

p1 p2 p3

p4

t1t2

t3

1000

0100

0011

t1

t3

t2010ω

66

Reachability graph

p1 p2 p3t1t2

t3

100

• For bounded nets the Coverability Tree is called Reachability Tree since it contains all possible reachable markings


34

67

Reachability graph

p1 p2 p3t1t2

t3

100

010t1


68

Reachability graph

p1 p2 p3t1t2

t3

100

010

001

t1

t3



35

69

Reachability graph

p1 p2 p3t1t2

t3

100

010

001

t1

t3t2


70

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


36

71

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)

72

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


37

73

Subclasses of Petri nets: FC nets

• Free-Choice net: every transition after choice has exactly 1 predecessor

74

Free-Choice Petri Nets (FCPN)

Free-Choice (FC)

Extended Free-Choice Confusion (not-Free-Choice)

t1

t2

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


38

75

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

76

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


39

77

• Choose one successor for each conflicting place:

MG reduction and cover

78




40

79



80




41

81



82

MG reductions• The set of all reductions yields a cover of MG

components (T-invariants)


42

83

MG reductions• The set of all reductions yields a cover of MG

components (T-invariants)

84

SM reduction and cover

• Choose one predecessor for each transition:


43

85



86



• The set of all reductions yields a cover of SM components (S-invariants)


44

87

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

88

Hack’s theorem

• Example of non-live (but safe) FCN


45

89

Hack’s theorem


90

Hack’s theorem



46

91

Hack’s theorem


92

Hack’s theorem



47

93

Hack’s theorem


94

Hack’s theorem



48

95

Hack’s theorem


96

Hack’s theorem



49

97

Hack’s theorem


98

Hack’s theorem



50

99

Hack’s theorem


100

Hack’s theorem



51

101

Hack’s theorem


102

Hack’s theorem



52

103

Hack’s theorem


Not live

104

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


53

105

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

106

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


54

107

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)

Documents

Petri Nets - Ptolemy ProjectPetri Nets (PNs) • Model introduced by C.A. Petri in 1962 – Ph.D. Thesis: “Communication with Automata” • Applications: distributed computing,