skip to main content
research-article
Open Access

Simple Near-Optimal Scheduling for the M/G/1

Published:27 May 2020Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We consider the problem of preemptively scheduling jobs to minimize mean response time of an M/G/1 queue. When we know each job's size, the shortest remaining processing time (SRPT) policy is optimal. Unfortunately, in many settings we do not have access to each job's size. Instead, we know only the job size distribution. In this setting the Gittins policy is known to minimize mean response time, but its complex priority structure can be computationally intractable. A much simpler alternative to Gittins is the shortest expected remaining processing time (SERPT) policy. While SERPT is a natural extension of SRPT to unknown job sizes, it is unknown whether or not SERPT is close to optimal for mean response time. We present a new variant of SERPT called monotonic SERPT (M-SERPT) which is as simple as SERPT but has provably near-optimal mean response time at all loads for any job size distribution. Specifically, we prove the mean response time ratio between M-SERPT and Gittins is at most 3 for load ρ łeq 8/9$ and at most 5 for any load. This makes M-SERPT the only non-Gittins scheduling policy known to have a constant-factor approximation ratio for mean response time.

References

  1. Samuli Aalto and Urtzi Ayesta. 2006 a. 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. S Aalto and U Ayesta. 2006 b. On the nonoptimality of the foreground-background discipline for IMRL service times. Journal of Applied Probability , Vol. 43, 2 (2006), 523--534.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Samuli Aalto, Urtzi Ayesta, Sem Borst, Vishal Misra, and Rudesindo Nú nez-Queija. 2007. Beyond processor sharing. In ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review , Vol. 34. ACM, 36--43.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Samuli Aalto, Urtzi Ayesta, and Eeva Nyberg-Oksanen. 2004. Two-level processor-sharing scheduling disciplines: mean delay analysis. In ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, Vol. 32. ACM, 97--105.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Samuli Aalto, Urtzi Ayesta, and Rhonda Righter. 2009. On the Gittins index in the M/G/1 queue. Queueing Systems , Vol. 63, 1 (2009), 437--458.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. 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 , Vol. 25, 03 (2011), 269--288.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Nikhil Bansal, Bart Kamphorst, and Bert Zwart. 2018. Achievable performance of blind policies in heavy traffic. Mathematics of Operations Research , Vol. 43, 3 (2018), 949--964.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Luca Becchetti and Stefano Leonardi. 2004. Nonclairvoyant scheduling to minimize the total flow time on single and parallel machines. Journal of the ACM (JACM) , Vol. 51, 4 (2004), 517--539.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Thomas Bonald and Alexandre Proutiere. 2002. Insensitivity in processor-sharing networks. Performance Evaluation , Vol. 49, 1--4 (2002), 193--209.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Jhelum Chakravorty and Aditya Mahajan. 2014. Multi-armed bandits, Gittins index, and its calculation. Methods and applications of statistics in clinical trials: Planning, analysis, and inferential methods , Vol. 2 (2014), 416--435.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Sing-Kong Cheung, Hans van den Berg, and Richard J Boucherie. 2006. Insensitive bounds for the moments of the sojourn time distribution in the M/G/1 processor-sharing queue. Queueing systems , Vol. 53, 1--2 (2006), 7--18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. John C. Gittins, Kevin D. Glazebrook, and Richard Weber. 2011. Multi-armed Bandit Allocation Indices .John Wiley & Sons.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Liang Guo and Ibrahim Matta. 2002. Scheduling flows with unknown sizes: Approximate analysis. In ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, Vol. 30. ACM, 276--277.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. 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
  16. Bala Kalyanasundaram and Kirk R Pruhs. 1997. Minimizing flow time nonclairvoyantly. In Proceedings 38th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE, 345--352.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Bart Kamphorst and Bert Zwart. 2017. Heavy-traffic analysis of sojourn time under the foreground-background scheduling policy. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.03853 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Leonard Kleinrock. 1967. Time-shared systems: A theoretical treatment. Journal of the ACM (JACM) , Vol. 14, 2 (1967), 242--261.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Leonard Kleinrock. 1976. Queueing Systems, Volume 2: Computer Applications. Vol. 66. Wiley New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Leonard Kleinrock and Richard R Muntz. 1972. Processor sharing queueing models of mixed scheduling disciplines for time shared system. Journal of the ACM (JACM) , Vol. 19, 3 (1972), 464--482.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Nicole Megow and Tjark Vredeveld. 2014. A Tight 2-Approximation for Preemptive Stochastic Scheduling. Mathematics of Operations Research , Vol. 39, 4 (2014), 1297--1310.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Rajeev Motwani, Steven Phillips, and Eric Torng. 1994. Nonclairvoyant scheduling. Theoretical Computer Science , Vol. 130, 1 (1994), 17--47.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Jayakrishnan Nair, Adam Wierman, and Bert Zwart. 2010. Tail-robust scheduling via limited processor sharing. Performance Evaluation , Vol. 67, 11 (2010), 978--995.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. David Raz, Hanoch Levy, and Benjamin Avi-Itzhak. 2004. A resource-allocation queueing fairness measure. ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review , Vol. 32, 1 (2004), 130--141.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Rhonda Righter and J George Shanthikumar. 1989. Scheduling multiclass single server queueing systems to stochastically maximize the number of successful departures. Probability in the Engineering and Informational Sciences , Vol. 3, 3 (1989), 323--333.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Rhonda Righter, J George Shanthikumar, and Genji Yamazaki. 1990. On extremal service disciplines in single-stage queueing systems. Journal of Applied Probability , Vol. 27, 2 (1990), 409--416.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Linus Schrage. 1968. A proof of the optimality of the shortest remaining processing time discipline. Operations Research , Vol. 16, 3 (1968), 687--690.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Ziv Scully, Mor Harchol-Balter, and Alan Scheller-Wolf. 2018. SOAP: One Clean Analysis of All Age-Based Scheduling Policies. Proc. ACM Meas. Anal. Comput. Syst. , Vol. 2, 1, Article 16 (April 2018), bibinfonumpages30 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3179419Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Adam Wierman. 2007. Fairness and classifications. In ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review , Vol. 34. ACM, 4--12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. 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
  31. Genji Yamazaki and Hirotaka Sakasegawa. 1987. An optimal design problem for limited processor sharing systems. Management Science , Vol. 33, 8 (1987), 1010--1019.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Simple Near-Optimal Scheduling for the M/G/1

            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!