This paper presents a new exact schedulability test for tasks with (m,k -firm constraints.
□ Figure 5 Possible arrival times of τ j with (2,5 -firm constraints.
Tasks could have its (m,k -firm constraints violated, occurring the so-called dynam,k -firmre.
One of the nodes is the coordinator and five others were configured to send GTS allocation requests to the coordinator, containing (m,k -firm constraints.
This model offers guarantees for applications with (m,k -firm constraints with two im,k -firmrestriconstraints tasks must have both the same period and the same k value.
The work[18] presents an exact schedulability test for applications with (m,k -firm constraints, com,k -firmt eaconstraintsriod the system state with the previous hyper-period states.
For example, according to[17], a task with (1,3 -firm constraints produces a (m,k)-firm pattern ' 1,3 -firmre the first job of the task is constraintsas mandatory and the two subsequent jobs are classified as oproduces
The PAN coordinator runs an admission control algorithm based on the (m,k -firm inform,k -firmd the amount of avainformationurces, ensuring the (m,k)-firm constrandtheof the nodes.
Therefore, the problem addressed in this paper is how can the PAN coordinator allocate the maximum number of GTSs during the CFP, among N requesting sensor nodes, respecting the (m,k -firm constraints of each of the m,k -firmtreams.
The IDBP shows better results than DBP; although, it is important to note that both DBP and IDBP do not provide schedulability test, therefore tasks may have its (m,k -firm constraints violated.
