skip to main content
research-article
Public Access

SOAP: One Clean Analysis of All Age-Based Scheduling Policies

Published:03 April 2018Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

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.

References

  1. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Sem Borst, Rudesindo Núñez-Queija, and Bert Zwart. 2006. Sojourn time asymptotics in processor-sharing queues. Queueing Systems 53, 1 (2006), 31--51. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Hanhua Feng and Vishal Misra. 2003. Mixed scheduling disciplines for network flows. In ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, Vol. 31. ACM, 36--39. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. John Gittins, Kevin Glazebrook, and Richard Weber. 2011. Multi-armed Bandit Allocation Indices. John Wiley & Sons.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. J. Keilson and L. D. Servi. 1988. A distributional form of Little?s law. Operations Research Letters 7, 5 (1988), 223--227. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Leonard Kleinrock. 1967. Time-shared systems: A theoretical treatment. Journal of the ACM (JACM) 14, 2 (1967), 242--261. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Leonard Kleinrock. 1976. Queueing Systems, Volume 2: Computer Applications. Vol. 66. Wiley New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Misja Nuyens, Adam Wierman, and Bert Zwart. 2008. Preventing large sojourn times using SMART scheduling. Operations Research 56, 1 (2008), 88--101. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Linus E. Schrage. 1967. The queue M/G/1 with feedback to lower priority queues. Management Science 13, 7 (1967), 466--474.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Adam Wierman. 2007. Fairness and classifications. In ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, Vol. 34. ACM, 4--12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Adam Wierman and Misja Nuyens. 2008. Scheduling despite inexact job-size information. In ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, Vol. 36. ACM, 25--36. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Ronald W. Wolff. 1982. Poisson arrivals see time averages. Operations Research 30, 2 (1982), 223--231.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. SOAP: One Clean Analysis of All Age-Based Scheduling Policies

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

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

          Sign in

          Full Access

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader
          About Cookies On This Site

          We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

          Learn more

          Got it!