skip to main content
research-article
Open Access

Characterizing Policies with Optimal Response Time Tails under Heavy-Tailed Job Sizes

Authors Info & Claims
Published:12 June 2020Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We 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 characterized, and it is known that policies such as Shortest Remaining Processing Time (SRPT) and Foreground-Background (FB) have response time tails of the same order as the job size tail, and thus such policies are tail-optimal. Our goal in this work is to move beyond individual policies and characterize the set of policies that are tail-optimal. Toward that end, we use the recently introduced SOAP framework to derive sufficient conditions on the form of prioritization used by a scheduling policy that ensure the policy is tail-optimal. These conditions are general and lead to new results for important policies that have previously resisted analysis, including the Gittins policy, which minimizes mean response time among policies that do not have access to job size information. As a by-product of our analysis, we derive a general upper bound for fractional moments of M/G/1 busy periods, which is of independent interest.

References

  1. S. Aalto, U. Ayesta, S. Borst, V. Misra, and R. Nú nez-Queija. 2007. Beyond processor sharing. ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review , Vol. 34 (2007), 36--43.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. S. Aalto, U. Ayesta, and R. Righter. 2009. On the Gittins index in the M/G/1 queue. Queueing Systems , Vol. 63 (2009), 437--458.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. E. Altman, K. Avrachenkov, and U. Ayesta. 2006. A survey on discriminatory processor sharing. Queueing Systems , Vol. 53 (2006), 53--63.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. N. Bansal, B. Kamphorst, and B. Zwart. 2018. Achievable performance of blind policies in heavy traffic. Mathematics of Operations Research , Vol. 43, 3 (2018), 949--964.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. L. Becchetti and S. 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
  6. N. Bingham, C. Goldie, and J. Teugels. 1987. Regular Variation .Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. S. Borst, O. Boxma, R. Nú nez Queija, and B. Zwart. 2003. The impact of the service discipline on delay asymptotics. Performance Evaluation , Vol. 54 (2003), 175--206.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. S.C. Borst, R. Nú n ez-Queija, and B. Zwart. 2006. Sojourn-time asymptotics in processor-sharing queues. Queueing Systems 53 (2006), 31--51.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. O. Boxma and D. Denisov. 2011. Sojourn time tails in the single server queue with heavy-tailed service times. Queueing Systems , Vol. 69, 2 (2011), 101--119.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. O. Boxma and B. Zwart. 2007. Tails in scheduling. ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review , Vol. 34, 4 (2007), 13--20.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. J. Cohen. 1973. Some results on regular variation for distributions in queueing and fluctuation theory. Journal of Applied Probability , Vol. 10, 2 (1973), 343--353.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. M. Crovella and A. Bestavros. 1996. Self-similarity in World Wide Web traffic: evidence and possible causes. Proceedings of ACM Sigmetrics '96 (1996), 160--169.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. S. Foss, D. Korshunov, and S. Zachary. 2013. An Introduction to Heavy-tailed and Subexponential Distributions .Springer, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. F. Guillemin, Ph. Robert, and B. Zwart. 2004. Tail asymptotics for processor-sharing queues. Advances in Applied Probability 36 (2004), 525--543.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. W. Johnson. 2002. The curious history of Faà di Bruno's formula. The American Mathematical Monthly , Vol. 109, 3 (2002), 217--234.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. B. Kalyanasundaram and K. R. Pruhs. 1997. Minimizing flow time nonclairvoyantly. In Proceedings 38th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE, 345--352.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. N. Morris, C. Stewart, L. Chen, R. Birke, and J. Kelley. 2018. Model-driven computational sprinting. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth EuroSys Conference . 1--13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. J. Nair, A. Wierman, and B. Zwart. 2010. Tail-robust scheduling via limited processor sharing. Performance Evaluation , Vol. 67, 11 (2010), 978--995.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. R. Nú n ez-Queija. 2002. Queues with equally heavy sojourn time and service requirement distributions. Annals of Operations Research , Vol. 113, 1 (01 Jul 2002), 101--117. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020905810996Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. M. Nuyens and A. Wierman. 2008. The foreground-background queue: a survey. Performance Evaluation , Vol. 65 (2008), 286--307.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. M. Nuyens, A. Wierman, and B. Zwart. 2008. Preventing large sojourn times using SMART scheduling. Operations Research , Vol. 56 (2008), 88--101.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. K. Park and W. Willinger. 2000. Self-similar Network Traffic and Performance Evaluation .Wiley.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. D. Peterson. 1996. Data center I/O patterns and power laws. CMG Proceedings (1996).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. A. Raghavan, Y. Luo, A. Chandawalla, M. Papaefthymiou, K. Pipe, T. Wenisch, and M. Martin. 2012. Computational sprinting. In Proceedings of the 18th Symposium on High Performance Computer Architecture. IEEE, 1--12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. M. Remerova, S. Foss, and B. Zwart. 2014. Random fluid limits of an overloaded polling model. Advances in Applied Probability 46 (2014), 76--101.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. L. Schrage and L. Miller. 1966. The queue M/G/1 with the shortest remaining processing time discipline. Operations Research , Vol. 14 (1966), 670--684.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Z. Scully and M. Harchol-Balter. 2018. SOAP Bubbles: Robust Scheduling Under Adversarial Noise. In 2018 56th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton) . 144--154. https://doi.org/10.1109/ALLERTON.2018.8635963Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Z. Scully, M. Harchol-Balter, and A. Scheller-Wolf. 2018. SOAP: one clean analysis of all age-based scheduling policies. Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems , Vol. 2, 1, Article 16 (April 2018), bibinfonumpages30 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3179419Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Z. Scully, M. Harchol-Balter, and A. Scheller-Wolf. 2020. Simple Near-Optimal Scheduling for the M/G/1. Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems , Vol. 4, 1, Article 11 (March 2020), bibinfonumpages29 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3379477Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. A. Stolyar and K. Ramanan. 2001. Largest weighted delay first scheduling: large deviations and optimality. Annals of Applied Probability , Vol. 11 (2001), 1--48.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. A. Wierman and B. Zwart. 2012. Is tail-optimal scheduling possible? Operations Research , Vol. 60, 5 (2012), 1249--1257.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. B. Zwart and O. Boxma. 2000. Sojourn time asymptotics in the M/G/1 processor sharing queue. Queueing Systems , Vol. 35, 1--4 (2000), 141--166.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Characterizing Policies with Optimal Response Time Tails under Heavy-Tailed Job Sizes

          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!