Recent sojourn time results for Multilevel Processor-Sharing scheduling disciplines
description
Transcript of Recent sojourn time results for Multilevel Processor-Sharing scheduling disciplines
![Page 1: Recent sojourn time results for Multilevel Processor-Sharing scheduling disciplines](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062409/568145ab550346895db2a4c8/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1aalto_inria1.ppt INRIA Sophia Antipolis, France, 24.3.2009
Recent sojourn time results forMultilevel Processor-Sharing
scheduling disciplines
Samuli Aalto (TKK)in cooperation with
Urtzi Ayesta (LAAS-CNRS)Eeva Nyberg-Oksanen
![Page 2: Recent sojourn time results for Multilevel Processor-Sharing scheduling disciplines](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062409/568145ab550346895db2a4c8/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
In the beginning was ...
• Eeva (Nyberg, currently Nyberg-Oksanen) ... • who went to Saint Petersburg in January 2002 and ... • met there Konstantin (Avrachenkov) ...• who invited her to Sophia Antipolis ...• where she met Urtzi (Ayesta).
• After a while, they asked:
Which one is better: PS or PS+PS?
![Page 3: Recent sojourn time results for Multilevel Processor-Sharing scheduling disciplines](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062409/568145ab550346895db2a4c8/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
Outline
• Introduction• DHR service times• IMRL service times• NBUE+DHR service times• Summary
![Page 4: Recent sojourn time results for Multilevel Processor-Sharing scheduling disciplines](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062409/568145ab550346895db2a4c8/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
Queueing context
• Model: M/G/1– Poisson arrivals– IID service times with a general distribution– single server
• Notation:
– At) = arrivals up to time t
– Si = service time of customer i
– Xit) = attained service (= age) of customer i at time t
– SiXit) = remaining service of customer i at time t
– Ti = sojourn time (= delay) of customer i
– Ri = Ti Si = slowdown ratio of customer i
![Page 5: Recent sojourn time results for Multilevel Processor-Sharing scheduling disciplines](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062409/568145ab550346895db2a4c8/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
NWUE
IMRL
DHR
NBUE
DMRL
IHR
Service time distribution classes
• IHR = Increasing Hazard Rate• DMRL = Decreasing Mean Residual Lifetime• NBUE = New Better than Used in Expectation
• DHR = Decreasing Hazard Rate• IMRL = Increasing Mean Residual Lifetime• NWUE = New Worse than Used in Expectation
![Page 6: Recent sojourn time results for Multilevel Processor-Sharing scheduling disciplines](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062409/568145ab550346895db2a4c8/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Scheduling/queueing/service disciplines
• Anticipating:– SRPT = Shortest-Remaining-Processing-Time
• strict priority according to the remaining service• Non-anticipating:
– FCFS = First-Come-First-Served• service in the arrival order
– PS = Processor-Sharing• fair sharing of the service capacity
– FB = Foreground-Background • strict priority according to the attained service• a.k.a. LAS = Least-Attained-Service
– MLPS = Multilevel Processor-Sharing• multilevel priority according to the attained service
![Page 7: Recent sojourn time results for Multilevel Processor-Sharing scheduling disciplines](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062409/568145ab550346895db2a4c8/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Optimality results for M/G/1
• Among all scheduling disciplines, – SRPT is optimal (minimizing the mean delay);
Schrage (1968)
• Among non-anticipating scheduling disciplines, – FCFS is optimal for NBUE service times;
Righter, Shanthikumar and Yamazaki (1990)– FB is optimal for DHR service times;
Yashkov (1987); Righter and Shanthikumar (1989)
NWUEIMRL
DHRDMRL
IHR
NBUE
![Page 8: Recent sojourn time results for Multilevel Processor-Sharing scheduling disciplines](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062409/568145ab550346895db2a4c8/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Multilevel Processor-Sharing (MLPS) disciplines
• Definition: Kleinrock (1976), vol. 2, Sect. 4.7– based on the attained service times
– N1 levels defined by N thresholds a1 … aN
– between levels, a strict priority is applied– within a level, an internal discipline is applied
(FB, PS, or FCFS)
a
FCFS+FB(a)Xi(t)
t
FB
FCFS
![Page 9: Recent sojourn time results for Multilevel Processor-Sharing scheduling disciplines](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062409/568145ab550346895db2a4c8/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
• We compare MLPS disciplines in terms of the mean delay:
– MLPS vs MLPS– MLPS vs PS– MLPS vs FB– Optimality of MLPS disciplines
• We consider the following service time distribution classes:
– DHR – IMRL– NBUE+DHR
Our objective
NWUEIMRL
DHR
NBUEDMRL
IHR
NBUE+DHR
![Page 10: Recent sojourn time results for Multilevel Processor-Sharing scheduling disciplines](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062409/568145ab550346895db2a4c8/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Outline
• Introduction• DHR service times• IMRL service times• NBUE+DHR service times• Summary
![Page 11: Recent sojourn time results for Multilevel Processor-Sharing scheduling disciplines](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062409/568145ab550346895db2a4c8/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Class: DHR service times
• Service time distribution:
• Density function:
• Hazard rate:
• Definition: – Service times are DHR if
h(x) is decreasing• Examples:
– Pareto (starting from 0) and hyperexponential
)(1)( },{)( xFxFxSPxF
}{)( dxSPxf
x dyyf
xfxFxfxh
)(
)()()()(
NWUEIMRL
DHR
NBUEDMRL
IHR
![Page 12: Recent sojourn time results for Multilevel Processor-Sharing scheduling disciplines](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062409/568145ab550346895db2a4c8/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Tool: Unfinished truncated work Ux(t)
• Customers with attained service less than x:
• Unfinished truncated work with truncation threshold x:
• Unfinished work:
}},min{)(|)({)( xStXtAitN iix
)( ))(},(min{)( tNi iix xtXxStU
)( ))(()()( tNi ii tXStUtU
![Page 13: Recent sojourn time results for Multilevel Processor-Sharing scheduling disciplines](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062409/568145ab550346895db2a4c8/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Example: Mean unfinished truncated work
bounded Pareto service time distribution
![Page 14: Recent sojourn time results for Multilevel Processor-Sharing scheduling disciplines](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062409/568145ab550346895db2a4c8/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
Optimality of FB w.r.t. Ux(t)
• Feng and Misra (2003); Aalto, Ayesta and Nyberg-Oksanen (2004):
– FB minimizes the unfinished truncated work Uxt) for
any x and t in each sample path
s
FCFSXi(t)
t
x
FB
t
Ux(t)
sx
![Page 15: Recent sojourn time results for Multilevel Processor-Sharing scheduling disciplines](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062409/568145ab550346895db2a4c8/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
Idea of the mean delay comparison
• Kleinrock (1976):
– For all non-anticipating service disciplines
– so that (by applying integration by parts)
• Thus,
• Consequence: – among non-anticipating service disciplines,
FB minimizes the mean delay for DHR service times
0
'1' )]([)( xhdUUTT xx
'' & DHR TTxUU xx
0
1 ][ )(
xUdxhT
![Page 16: Recent sojourn time results for Multilevel Processor-Sharing scheduling disciplines](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062409/568145ab550346895db2a4c8/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
MLPS vs PS
• Aalto, Ayesta and Nyberg-Oksanen (2004):– Two levels with FB and PS allowed as internal
disciplines
• Aalto, Ayesta and Nyberg-Oksanen (2005): – Any number of levels with FB and PS allowed as
internal disciplines
PSPSPSPSFBFB DHR TTTT
PSMLPSFB DHR TTT
FB/PS
FB/PS
FB/PS
PSFB
![Page 17: Recent sojourn time results for Multilevel Processor-Sharing scheduling disciplines](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062409/568145ab550346895db2a4c8/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
MLPS vs MLPS: changing internal disciplines
• Aalto and Ayesta (2006a):– Any number of levels with all internal disciplines
allowed– MLPS derived from MLPS’ by changing an internal
discipline from PS to FB (or from FCFS to PS)MLPS'MLPS DHR TT
FB/PS PS/FCFS
MLPS’MLPS
![Page 18: Recent sojourn time results for Multilevel Processor-Sharing scheduling disciplines](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062409/568145ab550346895db2a4c8/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
MLPS vs MLPS: splitting FCFS levels
• Aalto and Ayesta (2006a):– Any number of levels with all internal disciplines
allowed– MLPS derived from MLPS’ by splitting any FCFS level
and copying the internal disciplineMLPS'MLPS DHR TT
FCFSFCFS
MLPS’MLPS
FCFS
![Page 19: Recent sojourn time results for Multilevel Processor-Sharing scheduling disciplines](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062409/568145ab550346895db2a4c8/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
MLPS vs MLPS: splitting PS levels
• Aalto and Ayesta (2006a): – Any number of levels with all internal disciplines
allowed– The internal discipline of the lowest level is PS– MLPS derived from MLPS’ by splitting the lowest level
and copying the internal discipline
• Splitting any higher PS level is still an open problem!
MLPS'MLPS DHR TT
PSPS
MLPS’MLPS
PS
![Page 20: Recent sojourn time results for Multilevel Processor-Sharing scheduling disciplines](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062409/568145ab550346895db2a4c8/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
Idea of the mean slowdown ratio comparison
• Feng and Misra (2003):
– For all non-anticipating service disciplines
– so that
• Thus,
• Consequence: – Previous optimality (FB) and comparison (MLPS vs PS,
MLPS vs MLPS) results are also valid when the criterion is based on the mean slowdown ratio
0
)('1' ][)(xxh
xx dUURR
'' & DHR RRxUU xx
0
)(1 ][
xx
xh UdR
![Page 21: Recent sojourn time results for Multilevel Processor-Sharing scheduling disciplines](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062409/568145ab550346895db2a4c8/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
Outline
• Introduction• DHR service times• IMRL service times• NBUE+DHR service times• Summary
![Page 22: Recent sojourn time results for Multilevel Processor-Sharing scheduling disciplines](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062409/568145ab550346895db2a4c8/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
Class: IMRL service times
• Recall: Service time distribution:
• H-function:
• Mean residual lifetime (MRL):
• Definition: – Service times are IMRL if
H(x) is decreasing• Examples:
– all DHR service time distributions, Exp+Pareto
}{)( ),(1)( },{)( dxSPxfxFxFxSPxF
xx
x
dyyF
xF
dyyF
dyyfxH
)(
)(
)(
)()(
NWUEIMRL
DHR
NBUEDMRL
IHR
)(1
)(
)(]|[
xHxF
dyyFxxSxSE
![Page 23: Recent sojourn time results for Multilevel Processor-Sharing scheduling disciplines](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062409/568145ab550346895db2a4c8/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
Tool: Level-x workload Vx(t)
• Customers with attained service less than x:
• Unfinished truncated work with truncation threshold x:
• Level-x workload:
• Workload = unfinished work:
}},min{)(|)({)( xStXtAitN iix
)( ))(},(min{)( tNi iix xtXxStU
)())(()()( )( tUtXStVtV tNi ii
)( ))(()( tNi iix xtXStV
![Page 24: Recent sojourn time results for Multilevel Processor-Sharing scheduling disciplines](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062409/568145ab550346895db2a4c8/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
Example: Mean level-x workload
bounded Pareto service time distribution
![Page 25: Recent sojourn time results for Multilevel Processor-Sharing scheduling disciplines](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062409/568145ab550346895db2a4c8/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
Non-optimality of FB w.r.t. Vx(t)
• Aalto and Ayesta (2006b):
– FB does not minimize the level-x workload Vxt) (in any sense)
s
FCFSXi(t)
t
x
FB
t
Vx(t)
sx
FB notoptimal
![Page 26: Recent sojourn time results for Multilevel Processor-Sharing scheduling disciplines](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062409/568145ab550346895db2a4c8/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26
Idea of the mean delay comparison
• Righter, Shanthikumar and Yamazaki (1990): – For all non-anticipating service disciplines
– so that
• Thus,
0
'1' )]([)( xHdVVTT xx
'' & IMRL TTxVV xx
0
1 ][ )(
xVdxHT
![Page 27: Recent sojourn time results for Multilevel Processor-Sharing scheduling disciplines](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062409/568145ab550346895db2a4c8/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27
MLPS vs PS
• Aalto (2006): – Any number of levels with FB and PS allowed as
internal disciplines
• Consequence:
PSMLPS IMRL TT
FB/PS
FB/PS
FB/PS
PS
PSFB IMRL TT
![Page 28: Recent sojourn time results for Multilevel Processor-Sharing scheduling disciplines](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062409/568145ab550346895db2a4c8/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28
Non-optimality of FB
• Aalto and Ayesta (2006b):– FB does not necessarily minimize the mean delay for
IMRL service times• Counter-example:
– Exp+Pareto is IMRL but not DHR (for 1 c e):
– There is 0 such that
,
0 ,)(
cxx
cxcxF
c
x
FB)(FBFCFS TT c
FB
FCFSFB
![Page 29: Recent sojourn time results for Multilevel Processor-Sharing scheduling disciplines](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062409/568145ab550346895db2a4c8/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
29
Outline
• Introduction• DHR service times• IMRL service times• NBUE+DHR service times• Summary
![Page 30: Recent sojourn time results for Multilevel Processor-Sharing scheduling disciplines](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062409/568145ab550346895db2a4c8/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
30
Class: NBUE+DHR service times
• Recall: Hazard rate
• Recall: H-function:
• Definition:– Service times are NBUE+DHR(k) if
• H(x) H(0) for all xk and
• h(x) is decreasing for all xk • Examples:
– Pareto (starting from k 0), Exp+Pareto, Uniform+Pareto
xx
x
dyyF
xF
dyyF
dyyfxH
)(
)(
)(
)()(
x dyyf
xfxFxfxh
)(
)()()()(
NWUEIMRL
DHR
NBUEDMRL
IHR
NBUE+DHR
![Page 31: Recent sojourn time results for Multilevel Processor-Sharing scheduling disciplines](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062409/568145ab550346895db2a4c8/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
31
Tool: Gittins index
• Gittins (1989):– J-function:
– Gittins index for a customer with attained service a:
– Optimal quota:
)(),( ),()0,( ,),()(
)(aHaJahaJaJ
aa
aa
dyyF
dyyf
),(sup)( 0 aJaG
)}(),(|0sup{)(* aGaJa
![Page 32: Recent sojourn time results for Multilevel Processor-Sharing scheduling disciplines](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062409/568145ab550346895db2a4c8/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
32
Example: Gittins index and optimal quota
Pareto service time distribution
k *
![Page 33: Recent sojourn time results for Multilevel Processor-Sharing scheduling disciplines](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062409/568145ab550346895db2a4c8/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
33
Properties
• Aalto and Ayesta (2007), Aalto and Ayesta (2008):– If service times are DHR, then
• G(a) is decreasing for all a – If service times are NBUE, then
• G(a) G(0) for all a– If service times are NBUE+DHR(k), then
• *(0) k
• G(a) G(0) for all a*(0) and • G(a) is decreasing for all a k
• G(*(0)) G(0) (if *(0) )
NWUEIMRL
DHRDMRL
IHR
NBUE+DHRNBUE
![Page 34: Recent sojourn time results for Multilevel Processor-Sharing scheduling disciplines](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062409/568145ab550346895db2a4c8/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
34
Optimality of the Gittins discipline
• Definition:– Gittins discipline serves the customer with highest
index
• Gittins (1989); Yashkov (1992):– Gittins discipline minimizes the mean delay in M/G/1
(among the non-anticipating disciplines)
• Consequences: – FB is optimal for DHR service times
– FCFS is optimal for NBUE service times– FCFS+FB(*(0)) is optimal for NBUE+DHR service
times
NWUEIMRL
DHRDMRL
IHR
NBUE+DHRNBUE
![Page 35: Recent sojourn time results for Multilevel Processor-Sharing scheduling disciplines](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062409/568145ab550346895db2a4c8/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
35
Outline
• Introduction• DHR service times• IMRL service times• NBUE+DHR service times• Summary
![Page 36: Recent sojourn time results for Multilevel Processor-Sharing scheduling disciplines](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062409/568145ab550346895db2a4c8/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
36
• We compared MLPS disciplines in terms of the mean delay:
– MLPS vs MLPS– MLPS vs PS– MLPS vs FB– Optimality of MLPS disciplines
• We considered the following service time distribution classes:
– DHR – IMRL– NBUE+DHR
Summary
NWUEIMRL
DHR
NBUEDMRL
IHR
NBUE+DHR
![Page 37: Recent sojourn time results for Multilevel Processor-Sharing scheduling disciplines](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062409/568145ab550346895db2a4c8/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
37
Our references
• Avrachenkov, Ayesta, Brown and Nyberg (2004)– IEEE INFOCOM 2004
• Aalto, Ayesta and Nyberg-Oksanen (2004)– ACM SIGMETRICS –
PERFORMANCE 2004
• Aalto, Ayesta and Nyberg-Oksanen (2005)– Operations Research
Letters, vol. 33
• Aalto and Ayesta (2006a)– IEEE INFOCOM 2006
• Aalto and Ayesta (2006b)– Journal of Applied
Probability, vol. 43• Aalto (2006)
– Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, vol. 64
• Aalto and Ayesta (2007)– ACM SIGMETRICS 2007
• Aalto and Ayesta (2008)– ValueTools 2008
![Page 38: Recent sojourn time results for Multilevel Processor-Sharing scheduling disciplines](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062409/568145ab550346895db2a4c8/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
38
THE END