article

Free access

A comparative study of parallel and sequential priority queue algorithms

Editor: Philip Heidelberger Authors:

Robert Rönngren,

Rassul AyaniAuthors Info & Claims

ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation (TOMACS), Volume 7, Issue 2

Pages 157 - 209

https://doi.org/10.1145/249204.249205

Published: 01 April 1997 Publication History

Abstract

Priority queues are used in many applications including real-time systems, operating systems, and simulations. Their implementation may have a profound effect on the performance of such applications. In this article, we study the performance of well-known sequential priority queue implementations and the recently proposed parallel access priority queues. To accurately assess the performance of a priority queue, the performance measurement methodology must be appropriate. We use the Classic Hold, the Markov Model, and an Up/Down access pattern to measure performance and look at both the average access time and the worst-case time that are of vital interest to real-tiem applicatons. Our results suggest that the best choice for priority queue algorithms depends heavily on the application. For queue sizes smaller than 1,000 elements, the Splay Tree, the Skew Heap, and Henriksen's algorithm show good average access times. For large queue sized of 5,000 elements or more, the Calendar Queue and the Lazy Queue offer good average access times but have very long worst-case access times. The Skew Heap and the splay Tree exhibit the best worst-case access times. Among the parallel access priority queues tested, the Parallel Access Skew Heap provides the best performance on small shares memory multiprocessors.

References

[1]

AHMED, H., RONNGREN, R., AND AYANI, R. 1994. Impact of event scheduling in time warp parallel simulations. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Vol II, 455-463.

[2]

AYANI, R. 1990. LR-algorithm: Concurrent operations on priority queues. In Proceedings of the Second IEEE Symposium on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 22-25.

[3]

BAYER, R. AND SCHKOLNIK, M. 1977. Concurrency of operations on B-trees. Acta Inf. 9, 1-22.

[4]

BENTLEY, J. 1985. Thanks, heaps. Commun. ACM 28, 3 (March), 245-250.

[5]

BISWAS, B. AND BROWNE, g.C. 1987. Simultaneous update of priority structures. In Proceedings of the 1987 International Conference on Parallel Processing, 17-21.

[6]

BROWN, R. 1988. Calendar queues: A fast O(1) priority queue implementation for the simulation event set problem. Commun. ACM 31, 10 (Oct.), 1220-1227.

[7]

BLACKSTONE, J. H. HOGG, G. L., AND PHILIPS, D. T. 1981. A two list synchronization procedure for discrete event simulation. Commun. ACM 24, 12 (Dec.), 825-829.

[8]

CAROTHERS, C. D., FUJIMOTO, R. M., LIN, Y.-B., AND ENGLAND, P. 1994. Distributed simulation of large-scale PCS networks. In Proceedings of the 1994 MASCOTS Conference.

[9]

CHUNG, Z., SANG, g., AND REGO, V. 1993. A performance comparison of event calendar algorithms: An empirical approach. Softw. Pract. Exper. 23, 10 (Oct.), 1107-1138.

[10]

COMFORT, J.C. 1984. The simulation of a master-slave event set processor. Simulation 42, 3 (March), 117-124.

[11]

DAVISON, G.A. 1989. Calendar p's and queues. Commun. ACM 32, 10 (Oct.), 1241-1243.

[12]

DAS, S., FUJIMOTO, R., PANESAR, K., ALLISON, D., AND HYBINETTE, M. 1994. GTW: A time warp system for shared memory multiprocessors. In Proceedings of the 1994 Winter Simulation Conference, 1332-1339.

[13]

ELLIS, C. S. 1980. Concurrent search and insertion in AVL trees. IEEE Trans. Comput. C-29, 9 (Sept.), 811-817.

[14]

FUJIMOTO, R. 1990. Parallel discrete event simulation. Commun. ACM 33, 10 (Oct.), 31-53.

[15]

GORDON, G. 1981. The development of the general purpose simulation system (GPSS). In History of Programming Languages, ACM Monograph Series, ACM, New York, 403-426.

[16]

HENRIKSEN, J. O. 1977. An improved events list algorithm. In Proceedings of the 1977 Winter Simulation Conference, 547-557.

[17]

JEFFERSSON, D. 1985. Virtual time. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 7, 3 (July), 404-425.

[18]

JONES, D.W. 1986. An empirical comparison of priority-queue and event-set implementations. Commun. ACM 29, 4 (April), 300-311.

[19]

JONES, D.W. 1989. Concurrent operations on priority queues. Commun. ACM 32, 1 (Jan.), 132-137.

[20]

JONES, D. W., HENRIKSEN, J. O., PEGDEN, C. D., SARGENT, R. G., O'KEEFE, R. M., AND UNGER, B. W. 1986. Implementations of time (panel). In Proceedings of the 1986 Winter Simulation Conference, 409-416.

[21]

KESIDIS, G. AND WALRAND, J. 1993. Quick simulation of ATM buffers with on-off multiclass Markov fluid sources. ACM Trans. Model. Comput. Simul. 3, 3 (July), 269-276.

[22]

KINGSTON, J. 1985. Analysis of tree algorithms for the simulation event set. Acta Inf. 22, 1 (April), 15-33.

[23]

KINGSTON, J. 1986. Analysis of Henriksen's algorithm for the simulation event set. SIAM J. Comput. 15, 3 (Aug.), 887-902.

[24]

LAMPORT, L. 1978. Concurrent operations on priority queues. Commun. ACM 32, 1 (Jan.), 132-137.

[25]

MCCORMACK, W. M. AND SARGENT, R.G. 1981. Analysis of future event set algorithms for discrete event simulation. Commun. ACM 24, 12 (Dec.), 801-812.

[26]

MEHL, H. AND HAMMES, S. 1993. Shared variables in distributed simulation. In Proceedings of the Seventh Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Simulation (PADS'93), 68-75.

[27]

MISRA, J. 1986. Distributed discrete-event simulation. Comput. Surv. 18, 1 (March), 39-65.

[28]

OBAL, W. D. AND SANDERS, W. H.1994. Importance sampling simulation in UltraSAN. Simulation 62, 2 (Feb.), 98-111.

[29]

PARK, S. K. AND MILLER, K.W. 1988. Random number generators: Good ones are hard to find. Commun. ACM 31, 10, 1192-1201.

[30]

PUGH, W. 1990. Skip lists: A probabilistic alternative to balanced trees. Commun. ACM 33, 6 (June), 668-676.

[31]

RAO, V. N. AND KUMAR, V. 1988. Concurrent access of priority queues. IEEE Trans. Comput. 37, 12 (Dec.), 1657-1665.

[32]

RIBOE, J. 1991. The camel distribution. Tech. Rep. TRITA-TCS-9104, Dept. of Teleinformatics, The Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.

[33]

RONNGREN, R., AYANI, R., FUJIMOTO, R. M., AND DAS, S.R. 1993b. Efficient implementation of event sets in time warp. In Proceedings of the Seventh Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Simulation (PADS'93), 101-108.

[34]

RONNGREN, R., RIBOE, J., AND AYANI, R. 1993a. Lazy queue: New approach to implementing the pending event set. Int. J. Comput. Simul. 3, 303-332.

[35]

SEQUENT 1989. Guide to Parallel Programming on Sequent Computer Systems. Prentice- Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

[36]

SLEATOR, D. D. AND TARJAN, R.E. 1985. Self-adjusting binary search trees. J. ACM 32, 3 (July), 652-686.

[37]

SLEATOR, D. D. AND TARJAN, R.E. 1986. Self-adjusting heaps. SIAM J. Comput. 15, 1 (Feb.), 52-69.

[38]

STEINMAN, J.S. 1992. SPEEDES: A unified approach to parallel simulation. In Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Simulation, Vol. 24, No. 3, 75-84.

[39]

STEINMAN, J.S. 1994. Discrete-event simulation and the event horizon. In Proceedings of the Eighth Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Simulation (PADS'94), 39-49.

[40]

TARJAN, R.E. 1985. Amortized computational complexity. SIAM J. Algebraic Discrete Meth. 6, 2 (April), 306-318.

[41]

UNGER, B. W., GOETZ, D. J., AND MARYKA, S.W. 1994. Simulation of SS7 common channel signaling. IEEE Commun. Mag. 32, 3 (March), 52-62.

[42]

VAUCHER, J. G. 1977. On the distribution of event times for the notices in a simulation event list. INFOR 15, 2 (June), 171-182.

[43]

VAUCHER, J. G. AND DUVAL, P. 1975. A comparison of simulation event lists. Commun. ACM 18, 4 (June), 223-230.

Cited By

Marotta RIanni MPellegrini AQuaglia F(2024)A Conflict-Resilient Lock-Free Linearizable Calendar QueueACM Transactions on Parallel Computing10.1145/363516311:1(1-32)Online publication date: 11-Mar-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3635163
Ramirez CSermet YDemir I(2024)HydroComputeEnvironmental Modelling & Software10.1016/j.envsoft.2024.106005175:COnline publication date: 1-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.envsoft.2024.106005
Rinberg AKeidar I(2023)Intermediate Value Linearizability: A Quantitative Correctness CriterionJournal of the ACM10.1145/358469970:2(1-21)Online publication date: 18-Apr-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3584699
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Recommendations

Geometric tail of queue length of low-priority customers in a nonpreemptive priority MAP/PH/1 queue

We consider a MAP/PH/1 queue with two priority classes and nonpreemptive discipline, focusing on the asymptotic behavior of the tail probability of queue length of low-priority customers. A sufficient condition under which this tail probability decays ...
A single server priority queue with server failures and queue flushing

We consider a singler server queue serving two classes of customers according to a preemptive resume head of the line priority discipline. The server is prone to failures and at the time that they occur, all customers are flushed out of the system. The ...
Equilibrium analysis of a partially observable priority queue
Abstract
This study considers a single-server Markovian queue with preemptive priority discipline. In front of a server, two queues are formed: a normal queue for ordinary customers and a priority queue for priority customers. When a customer arrives, ...
Highlights
- Considering a partially observable priority queue with strategic customers.
- Investigating the customers’ equilibrium strategies of threshold type.
- Investigating the evolutionary stability of equilibria.
- Examining the effect of ...

Reviews

Reviewer: Pradip K. Srimani

The priority queue is an important data structure that is essential to the design of many system programs, such as operating systems, as well as to the design of many applications, such as simulations. In fact, priority queues must be used whenever events are to be scheduled according to objective criteria. Consequently, the implementation details of a priority queue play an important role in determining the performance of the system where it is used. There are many sequential and parallel implementations of algorithms for building and accessing priority queues. The purpose of this paper is to present an exhaustive study of the different performance measuring methodologies and then to apply those measures in order to evaluate different implementation schemes. The authors look at both the average access times and the worst-case access times (the latter are useful for real-time applications). Their conclusions lead to guidelines for how to choose an implementation for a given application. They use different access patterns and a large number of distributions, and they present extensive experimental results. The paper is extremely well written. It is mostly self-contained and easy to read, and it provides all of the important results in one place. A fairly exhaustive bibliography enhances its usefulness. It is a must read for anybody who wants to use a priority queue in any application.

Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation

ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation Volume 7, Issue 2

April 1997

130 pages

ISSN:1049-3301

EISSN:1558-1195

DOI:10.1145/249204

Editor:
Philip Heidelberger
IBM Research Div., Yorktown Heights, NY

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 1997 ACM.

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 01 April 1997

Published in TOMACS Volume 7, Issue 2

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

81
Total Citations
View Citations
2,360
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)322
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)36

Reflects downloads up to 04 Oct 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Marotta RIanni MPellegrini AQuaglia F(2024)A Conflict-Resilient Lock-Free Linearizable Calendar QueueACM Transactions on Parallel Computing10.1145/363516311:1(1-32)Online publication date: 11-Mar-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3635163
Ramirez CSermet YDemir I(2024)HydroComputeEnvironmental Modelling & Software10.1016/j.envsoft.2024.106005175:COnline publication date: 1-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.envsoft.2024.106005
Rinberg AKeidar I(2023)Intermediate Value Linearizability: A Quantitative Correctness CriterionJournal of the ACM10.1145/358469970:2(1-21)Online publication date: 18-Apr-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3584699
Ryu JTrager SWilkinson M(2023)A Fast Alpha-Tree Algorithm for Extreme Dynamic Range Pixel DissimilaritiesIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence10.1109/TPAMI.2023.334172146:5(3199-3212)Online publication date: 12-Dec-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/TPAMI.2023.3341721
Weisz JMuller MRoss SMartinez FHoude SAgarwal MTalamadupula KRichards J(2022)Better Together? An Evaluation of AI-Supported Code TranslationProceedings of the 27th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces10.1145/3490099.3511157(369-391)Online publication date: 22-Mar-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3490099.3511157
Haldar NLi JAli MCai TChen YSellis TReynolds M(2022)Top-k Socio-Spatial Co-Engaged Location Selection for Social UsersIEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering10.1109/TKDE.2022.315109535:5(5325-5340)Online publication date: 14-Feb-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/TKDE.2022.3151095
Rab MMarotta RIanni MPellegrini AQuaglia FVoznak MCalafate CDe Rango F(2020)NUMA-aware non-blocking calendar queueProceedings of the IEEE/ACM 24th International Symposium on Distributed Simulation and Real Time Applications10.5555/3451906.3451915(59-67)Online publication date: 14-Sep-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3451906.3451915
Rab MMarotta RIanni MPellegrini AQuaglia F(2020)NUMA-Aware Non-Blocking Calendar Queue2020 IEEE/ACM 24th International Symposium on Distributed Simulation and Real Time Applications (DS-RT)10.1109/DS-RT50469.2020.9213639(1-9)Online publication date: Sep-2020
https://doi.org/10.1109/DS-RT50469.2020.9213639
Soto CDorronsoro BFraire HCruz-Reyes LGomez-Santillan CRangel N(2020)Solving the multi-objective flexible job shop scheduling problem with a novel parallel branch and bound algorithmSwarm and Evolutionary Computation10.1016/j.swevo.2019.10063253(100632)Online publication date: Mar-2020
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.swevo.2019.100632
Rahman SAbu-Ghazaleh NNajjar W(2019)PDES-AACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation10.1145/330225929:2(1-25)Online publication date: 18-Apr-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3302259
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Article

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents