real-timeverificationhardware

How to Run WCET Analysis on Heterogeneous Systems (RISC‑V + GPU) for Real‑Time Applications

UUnknown

2026-02-23

10 min read

Practical, 2026‑era guide to estimating WCET for RISC‑V control cores + NVLink GPUs: hybrid analysis, tools, CI/CD recipes, and validation steps.

Hook — Why WCET on RISC‑V + GPU NVLink Platforms is a 2026 Priority

If your team is shipping real‑time features on RISC‑V control cores that offload computations to NVLink‑attached GPUs, you face a hard truth: traditional WCET methods break down at the domain boundary. Shared buses, DMA engines, coherent memory, and GPU scheduler nondeterminism create timing paths that violate assumptions made by classic single‑core, single‑ISA analysers. Missing those paths produces missed deadlines; over‑approximating them kills utilization.

Executive summary — what you need now (and why)

In 2026, we recommend a hybrid, compositional approach: combine static WCET for RISC‑V control software, measurement‑based probabilistic WCET (MBPTA) for GPU kernels, and compositional timing analysis that explicitly models NVLink latency, DMA contention, and GPU command queues. Integrate these checks into CI/CD and run hardware‑in‑the‑loop (HIL) regression to prevent timing regressions.

Key takeaways

Model each timing domain (RISC‑V core, GPU kernel, interconnect) with the method best suited to its determinism.
Compose conservatively but test aggressively: compute upper bounds analytically, then try to tighten with targeted measurements and EVT‑based MBPTA on hardware.
Automate WCET checks in CI: treat timing regressions like functional regressions and gate merges on them.
Use recent tooling integrations: leverage vendor moves in 2025–26 (Vector's RocqStat integration; SiFive's NVLink Fusion support) to build a unified verification pipeline.

The 2026 landscape — what changed and why it matters

Two 2026 developments shape best practice:

Vector Informatik's acquisition of StatInf's RocqStat (Jan 2026) signals consolidation of timing analysis into mainstream verification toolchains—expect tighter workflows for WCET and software verification inside CI systems.
SiFive's announced NVLink Fusion integration (Jan 2026) shows RISC‑V IP vendors are enabling tighter, lower‑latency coupling with NVIDIA GPUs. That increases performance but also couples timing domains more tightly, increasing cross‑domain interference that WCET analysis must cover.

Challenges unique to RISC‑V + NVLink GPU systems

Before prescribing tools, understand the blockers:

Coherent memory models: cache coherency across CPU and GPU (when present) creates remote memory access paths not visible to code‑centric static analyzers.
DMA and NVLink contention: DMA engines, peer‑to‑peer transfers, and NVLink switch buffering create queuing delays that vary with background traffic.
GPU scheduler nondeterminism: hardware queues, preemption granularity, and multiprogrammed GPUs produce variable kernel latencies.
Cross‑domain interrupts & synchronization: CUDA stream callbacks, doorbell interrupts, and memory fences produce dependencies across timing domains.

A pragmatic strategy: compositional + hybrid analysis

Compose the system into deterministic control (RISC‑V cores) and data‑parallel accelerators (GPU kernels & DMA). For each domain select the method that best balances soundness and tightness:

Static WCET (RISC‑V control flow): use abstract interpretation and control‑flow analysis to compute safe upper bounds for interrupt handlers, scheduler code, and device drivers. Static analysis gives sound bounds for control code where instruction timing can be modeled.
MBPTA / pWCET (GPU kernels & interconnect): use measurement‑based probabilistic techniques (extreme value theory) to estimate a pWCET for kernels and DMA transfers; GPUs are often too complex for sound static analysis today.
Compositional accounting (end‑to‑end): build formulas that combine RISC‑V WCET with GPU pWCETs and worst‑case transfer/queuing delays. Add conservatism where domains interact (e.g., memory fences, interrupts).
Validation with HIL and cycle‑accurate simulation: validate bounds on representative hardware and—where needed—use gem5 + GPU simulator stacks for early CI validation.

Compositional formula (practical)

Use a conservative additive model as a baseline, then reduce with measurements where safe. A simple end‑to‑end worst case looks like:

WCET_total = WCET_cpu_control + WCET_cpu_driver + T_transfer_request + WCET_gpu_kernel + T_transfer_response + WCET_sync_overhead + Q_max

Where Q_max is the worst‑case queuing delay on NVLink / DMA. Compute each term with the method best suited to the domain (static for WCET_cpu_*, MBPTA for GPU and transfers, analytical for queues).

Tooling recommendations (2026)

Combine commercial and open tooling. The landscape in 2026 favors integrated toolchains—Vector's moves and vendor IP support for NVLink help—but you still need to bridge multiple tools in CI.

Static WCET (RISC‑V cores)

RocqStat / VectorCAST: Vector's acquisition of RocqStat (Jan 2026) signals we'll soon see deep integration of timing analysis into mainstream verification environments. If you have a VectorCAST pipeline, plan to adopt the RocqStat features as they appear.
OTAWA (research & academic): good RISC‑V support and flexible front‑ends for experimental analysis. Use OTAWA for custom analyses and early prototyping.
Commercial static analyzers: check current 2026 RISC‑V support from vendors (AbsInt aiT and others)—use them for sound per‑task bounds where available.

GPU & NVLink timing (measurement & modelling)

MBPTA frameworks + EVT: implement measurement‑based WCET (MBPTA) for GPU kernels and DMA transfers. Use appropriate EVT libraries and fit extremes from hardware runs.
NVIDIA tools: Nsight Compute, CUPTI, and vendor performance counters give fine‑grained timing and event data. Use them to collect latency samples for EVT.
GPU simulators: GPGPU‑Sim, Multi2Sim, and gem5‑gpu provide simulation when hardware access is limited; combine with microbenchmarking to validate simulator fidelity.

Interconnect and queuing analysis

Analytical models: build service‑curve or queueing models (e.g., worst‑case service curve + token bucket) to conservatively bound NVLink queuing delays.
Empirical stress tests: use synthetic DMA/peer2peer workloads to exercise NVLink switches and measure worst‑case latencies under load.

CI/CD integration and regression

Containerized measurement jobs: encapsulate GPU profiling tools and MBPTA collectors in containers to run on dedicated test hardware farms.
Hardware racks + HIL lab: keep a small pool of reference boards with the same SoC + NVLink GPU topology for deterministic CI jobs.
Gate on timing: add WCET regression checks to merge gates—fail the pipeline on increase beyond allotted slack.

Practical workflow — step‑by‑step

System inventory & domain partitioning
List control tasks (RISC‑V), device drivers, DMA engines, GPU kernels, and NVLink topology. Identify synchronization points (fences, interrupts, stream callbacks).
Static analysis for control tasks
Run static WCET on isolated RISC‑V binaries (disable interrupts if you can bound them separately). Produce safe per‑function and per‑ISR bounds. Use link maps and symbol information for accuracy.
Microbenchmark GPU & interconnect
Build microbenchmarks for: kernel runtime under varying occupancy, DMA transfer latency under contention, round‑trip host→GPU→host measurement. Collect large samples (thousands+) for EVT fitting.
MBPTA on hardware
Apply EVT to the upper tail of the latency distributions to estimate pWCET for a chosen exceedance probability (e.g., 10^−9). Document the test harness, environmental controls (voltage, temperature), and repeatability metrics.
Compose and worst‑case scheduling analysis
Compute the end‑to‑end WCET using the formula above, then verify schedulability (rate monotonic, FP, or your specific RTOS scheduler). Budget queuing delays conservatively and attribute parts of GPU time to CPU deadlines where synchronization occurs.
Validation & safety margin tuning
Run HIL tests with worst‑case background traffic. If predictions are too pessimistic, iteratively tighten models by adding measurable constraints (e.g., explicit GPU time partitions, driver-level quotas).

Practical checks you must automate

Per‑commit static WCET runs for RISC‑V control code.
Nightly MBPTA collection on GPU farm; re‑fit EVT tails nightly.
Weekly HIL full‑system runs with synthetic background traffic.

CI example — a GitLab pipeline to run WCET jobs

Below is a practical, minimal example. The pipeline expects a hardware runner tagged gpu‑wcet and a container image with profiling tools and EVT scripts.

stages:
  - build
  - wcet_static
  - wcet_measure
  - compose

build:
  stage: build
  script:
    - make all
  artifacts:
    paths: [build/]

wcet_static:
  stage: wcet_static
  tags: ["riscv-wcet"]
  script:
    - dotpaw --analyze build/control.elf --output wcet_results/static.json
  artifacts:
    paths: [wcet_results/static.json]

wcet_measure:
  stage: wcet_measure
  tags: ["gpu-wcet"]
  script:
    - ./benchmarks/gpu_microbench --samples 20000 --out wcet_results/gpu_samples.csv
    - python3 tools/fit_evt.py wcet_results/gpu_samples.csv wcet_results/gpu_pWCET.json
  artifacts:
    paths: [wcet_results/gpu_pWCET.json]

compose:
  stage: compose
  script:
    - python3 tools/compose_wcet.py wcet_results/static.json wcet_results/gpu_pWCET.json --output wcet_results/total.json
    - cat wcet_results/total.json
  when: on_success

Case study (simplified): RISC‑V flight controller + GPU perception pipeline

Context: small UAV uses a RISC‑V core for control loop (1 kHz) and an NVLink‑attached GPU for running a 20 ms perception kernel. The critical control loop waits on a fence that the GPU signals when perception is ready.

Approach taken:

Static WCET for the 1 kHz control loop and interrupt handlers produced a 350 µs safe bound.
Microbenchmarked perception kernel on flight‑like data; MBPTA (10^−8 exceedance) gave a pWCET of 28 ms—worse than execution average due to occasional cache & DMA stalls.
NVLink queuing model measured peak additional latency of 2 ms under heavy peer traffic.
Composed result: 350 µs + driver overhead 1.5 ms + 2 ms NVLink + 28 ms gpu = ~31.85 ms. That exceeded the 20 ms budget, so the team introduced a GPU time partition (priority stream) and driver‑level quota, remeasured, and reduced measured pWCET to 12 ms. Final composed WCET < 15 ms with margin.

Advanced strategies and future directions

Deploy one or more of the following to reduce pessimism and increase utilization:

GPU partitioning and hard quotas: use hardware virtualization (MIG-like features), CUDA stream priorities, or driver task quotas to bound interference.
Real‑time GPU features: track vendor real‑time scheduling features (NVIDIA/others) as they evolve; RISC‑V + NVLink integration by SiFive will accelerate such support.
Formal compositional proofs: use assume‑guarantee models to prove upper bounds when subsystems provide contract guarantees (e.g., max transfer time, bounded preemption).
Continuous EVT revalidation: incorporate concept drift detection—re‑fit EVT tails when system configuration or firmware changes.

Verification checklist before a release

Static WCET artifacts checked into build artifacts and linked to release notes.
MBPTA datasets and EVT fit parameters archived and reproducible.
CI gates enforce per‑task and end‑to‑end deadlines with documented margins.
HIL regression with realistic background traffic completed and signed off.
Failover behaviours (if GPU unavailable) analysed and WCET for fallback paths computed.

Common pitfalls and how to avoid them

Pitfall: trusting average GPU timings. Fix: use MBPTA and EVT for upper tails, not averages.
Pitfall: ignoring NVLink queuing under peak load. Fix: stress test the interconnect and add queuing bounds to the composition formula.
Pitfall: uncontrolled OS/jitter on RISC‑V. Fix: run analysis on pinned cores, freeze frequency scaling in measurement configs, and separate RT tasks from best‑effort workloads.

How industry moves in 2026 change your roadmap

Vector's RocqStat integration trends mean timing analysis will be less isolated from verification and test workflows—expect faster adoption of WCET checks in mainstream CI suites. SiFive enabling NVLink Fusion for RISC‑V IP signals a wave of new platforms where accelerators are first‑class citizens; adopt compositional WCET early to avoid late architectural surprises.

Practical rule: treat accelerator attachments as first‑class timing resources—model them, measure them, and automate their checks.

Actionable next steps (start in the next 30 days)

Inventory your control tasks, kernels, and NVLink/DMA resources.
Place a hardware runner in CI for nightly MBPTA collection on representative boards.
Set up a static WCET job for RISC‑V control code and enforce results in code reviews.
Prototype a queuing model for NVLink and validate with microbenchmarks.
Document the full provenance of WCET results (tools, firmware, environment) and archive it with builds.

Conclusion & call to action

Running WCET analysis on heterogeneous RISC‑V + GPU (NVLink) systems is complex in 2026 but solvable with a disciplined, hybrid approach. Use static analysis for control code, MBPTA for GPUs, explicit queuing models for interconnects, and automate everything into CI/HIL pipelines. Leverage emerging vendor integrations (Vector/RocqStat, SiFive/NVLink Fusion) to streamline your verification lifecycle.

Ready to move from ad‑hoc timing checks to a production WCET pipeline? Contact newservice.cloud to design a CI‑integrated WCET workflow, set up an HIL lab, or run a short engagement to quantify end‑to‑end timing on your RISC‑V + NVLink platform.

Unknown

Contributor

Senior editor and content strategist. Writing about technology, design, and the future of digital media. Follow along for deep dives into the industry's moving parts.