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.
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 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 , Vol. 25, 03 (2011), 269--288.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- Thomas Bonald and Alexandre Proutiere. 2002. Insensitivity in processor-sharing networks. Performance Evaluation , Vol. 49, 1--4 (2002), 193--209.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 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
- John C. Gittins, Kevin D. Glazebrook, and Richard Weber. 2011. Multi-armed Bandit Allocation Indices .John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
- Leonard Kleinrock. 1967. Time-shared systems: A theoretical treatment. Journal of the ACM (JACM) , Vol. 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
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- Rajeev Motwani, Steven Phillips, and Eric Torng. 1994. Nonclairvoyant scheduling. Theoretical Computer Science , Vol. 130, 1 (1994), 17--47.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Jayakrishnan Nair, Adam Wierman, and Bert Zwart. 2010. Tail-robust scheduling via limited processor sharing. Performance Evaluation , Vol. 67, 11 (2010), 978--995.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- Linus Schrage. 1968. A proof of the optimality of the shortest remaining processing time discipline. Operations Research , Vol. 16, 3 (1968), 687--690.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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
- Genji Yamazaki and Hirotaka Sakasegawa. 1987. An optimal design problem for limited processor sharing systems. Management Science , Vol. 33, 8 (1987), 1010--1019.Google Scholar
Digital Library
Index Terms
Simple Near-Optimal Scheduling for the M/G/1
Recommendations
The Gittins Policy is Nearly Optimal in the M/G/k under Extremely General Conditions
POMACSThe Gittins scheduling policy minimizes the mean response in the single-server M/G/1 queue in a wide variety of settings. Most famously, Gittins is optimal when preemption is allowed and service requirements are unknown but drawn from a known ...
Simple Near-Optimal Scheduling for the M/G/1
SIGMETRICS '20: Abstracts of the 2020 SIGMETRICS/Performance Joint International Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer SystemsWe 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 ...
Characterizing Policies with Optimal Response Time Tails under Heavy-Tailed Job Sizes
SIGMETRICSWe consider the tail behavior of the response time distribution in an M/G/1 queue with heavy-tailed job sizes, specifically those with intermediately regularly varying tails. In this setting, the response time tail of many individual policies has been ...






Comments