Abstract
We consider an extremely broad class of M/G/1 scheduling policies called SOAP: Schedule Ordered by Age-based Priority. The SOAP policies include almost all scheduling policies in the literature as well as an infinite number of variants which have never been analyzed, or maybe not even conceived. SOAP policies range from classic policies, like first-come, first-serve (FCFS), foreground-background (FB), class-based priority, and shortest remaining processing time (SRPT); to much more complicated scheduling rules, such as the famously complex Gittins index policy and other policies in which a job's priority changes arbitrarily with its age. While the response time of policies in the former category is well understood, policies in the latter category have resisted response time analysis. We present a universal analysis of all SOAP policies, deriving the mean and Laplace-Stieltjes transform of response time.
- Samuli Aalto and Urtzi Ayesta. 2006. Mean delay analysis of multi level processor sharing disciplines. In INFOCOM 2006. 25th IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications. Proceedings. IEEE, 1--11.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Samuli Aalto, Urtzi Ayesta, Sem Borst, Vishal Misra, and Rudesindo Núñez-Queija. 2007. Beyond processor sharing. In ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, Vol. 34. ACM, 36--43. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Samuli Aalto, Urtzi Ayesta, and Rhonda Righter. 2009. On the Gittins index in the M/G/1 queue. Queueing Systems 63, 1 (2009), 437--458. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Samuli Aalto, Urtzi Ayesta, and Rhonda Righter. 2011. Properties of the Gittins index with application to optimal scheduling. Probability in the Engineering and Informational Sciences 25, 03 (2011), 269--288. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Konstantin Avrachenkov, Patrick Brown, and Natalia Osipova. 2009. Optimal choice of threshold in two level processor sharing. Annals of Operations Research 170, 1 (2009), 21--39.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Urtzi Ayesta, Onno J. Boxma, and Ina Maria Verloop. 2012. Sojourn times in a processor sharing queue with multiple vacations. Queueing Systems 71, 1 (2012), 53--78. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Sem Borst, Rudesindo Núñez-Queija, and Bert Zwart. 2006. Sojourn time asymptotics in processor-sharing queues. Queueing Systems 53, 1 (2006), 31--51. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Jacqueline Boyer, Fabrice Guillemin, Philippe Robert, and Bert Zwart. 2002. Heavy tailed M/G/1-PS queues with impatience and admission control in packet networks. In INFOCOM 2003. Twenty-Second Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications. IEEE Societies, Vol. 1. IEEE, 186--195.Google Scholar
- Hanhua Feng and Vishal Misra. 2003. Mixed scheduling disciplines for network flows. In ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, Vol. 31. ACM, 36--39. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Steve W. Fuhrmann and Robert B. Cooper. 1985. Stochastic decompositions in the M/G/1 queue with generalized vacations. Operations research 33, 5 (1985), 1117--1129. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- John Gittins, Kevin Glazebrook, and Richard Weber. 2011. Multi-armed Bandit Allocation Indices. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
- Mor Harchol-Balter. 2013. Performance Modeling and Design of Computer Systems: Queueing Theory in Action (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Esa Hyytiä, Samuli Aalto, and Aleksi Penttinen. 2012. Minimizing slowdown in heterogeneous size-aware dispatching systems. In ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, Vol. 40. ACM, 29--40. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- J. Keilson and L. D. Servi. 1988. A distributional form of Little?s law. Operations Research Letters 7, 5 (1988), 223--227. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- David G. Kendall. 1953. Stochastic processes occurring in the theory of queues and their analysis by the method of the imbedded Markov chain. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics (1953), 338--354.Google Scholar
- Leonard Kleinrock. 1967. Time-shared systems: A theoretical treatment. Journal of the ACM (JACM) 14, 2 (1967), 242--261. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Leonard Kleinrock. 1976. Queueing Systems, Volume 2: Computer Applications. Vol. 66. Wiley New York.Google Scholar
- Minghong Lin, Adam Wierman, and Bert Zwart. 2010. The average response time in a heavy-traffic SRPT queue. In ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, Vol. 38. ACM, 12--14. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Misja Nuyens, Adam Wierman, and Bert Zwart. 2008. Preventing large sojourn times using SMART scheduling. Operations Research 56, 1 (2008), 88--101. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Natalia Osipova, Urtzi Ayesta, and Konstantin Avrachenkov. 2009. Optimal policy for multi-class scheduling in a single server queue. In Teletraffic Congress, 2009. ITC 21 2009. 21st International. IEEE, 1--8.Google Scholar
- Linus E. Schrage. 1967. The queue M/G/1 with feedback to lower priority queues. Management Science 13, 7 (1967), 466--474.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Linus E Schrage and Louis W Miller. 1966. The queue M/G/1 with the shortest remaining processing time discipline. Operations Research 14, 4 (1966), 670--684. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Lajos Takács. 1963. Delay distributions for one line with Poisson input, general holding times, and various orders of service. Bell Labs Technical Journal 42, 2 (1963), 487--503.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Adam Wierman. 2007. Fairness and classifications. In ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, Vol. 34. ACM, 4--12. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Adam Wierman, Mor Harchol-Balter, and Takayuki Osogami. 2005. Nearly insensitive bounds on SMART scheduling. In ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, Vol. 33. ACM, 205--216. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Adam Wierman and Misja Nuyens. 2008. Scheduling despite inexact job-size information. In ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, Vol. 36. ACM, 25--36. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Ronald W. Wolff. 1982. Poisson arrivals see time averages. Operations Research 30, 2 (1982), 223--231.Google Scholar
Digital Library
Index Terms
SOAP: One Clean Analysis of All Age-Based Scheduling Policies
Recommendations
SOAP: One Clean Analysis of All Age-Based Scheduling Policies
SIGMETRICS '18We consider an extremely broad class of M/G/1 scheduling policies called SOAP: Schedule Ordered by Age-based Priority. The SOAP policies include almost all scheduling policies in the literature as well as an infinite number of variants which have never ...
SOAP: One Clean Analysis of All Age-Based Scheduling Policies
SIGMETRICS '18: Abstracts of the 2018 ACM International Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer SystemsWe consider an extremely broad class of M/G/1 scheduling policies called SOAP: Schedule Ordered by Age-based Priority. The SOAP policies include almost all scheduling policies in the literature as well as an infinite number of variants which have never ...
Optimal scheduling of jobs with a DHR tail in the M/G/1 queue
ValueTools '08: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Performance Evaluation Methodologies and ToolsWe consider the mean delay optimization in the M/G/1 queue for jobs with a service time distribution that has a tail with decreasing hazard rate (DHR). If the DHR property is valid for the whole distribution, then it is known that the Foreground-...






Comments