iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.
iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.



Link to original content: https://unpaywall.org/10.1007/BFB0022293
Using runtime measured workload characteristics in parallel processor scheduling | SpringerLink
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Using runtime measured workload characteristics in parallel processor scheduling

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Job Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing (JSSPP 1996)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 1162))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

We consider the use of runtime measured workload characteristics in parallel processor scheduling. Although many researchers have considered the use of application characteristics in this domain, most of this work has assumed that such information is available a priori. In contrast, we propose and evaluate experimentally dynamic processor allocation policies that rely on determining job characteristics at runtime; in particular, we focus on measuring and using job efficiency and speedup.

Our work is intended to be a first step towards the eventual development of production schedulers that use runtime measured workload characteristics in making their decisions. The experimental results we present validate the following observations:

  • Despite the inherent inaccuracies of runtime measurements and the added overhead of more frequent reallocations, schedulers that use runtime measurements of workload characteristics can significantly outperform schedulers that are oblivious to these characteristics.

  • Runtime measurements are sufficient for schedulers to achieve performance surprisingly close to that possible when a priori efficiency and speedup information is available.

  • The primary performance loss, relative to the use of a priori information, is due to the transient decisions of the schedulers as they acquire information on the running applications, rather than to measurement and reallocation overheads.

We consider both interactive environments, in which a response time directed scheduler is appropriate, and batch environments, in which maximizing useful instruction throughput is the primary goal. Our experiments are performed using prototype implementations running on a 50-node KSR-2 shared memory multiprocessor.

This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation (Grants CCR-9123308 and CCR-9200832) and the Washington Technology Center.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. T. E. Anderson, B. N. Bershad, E. D. Lazowska, and H. M. Levy. Scheduler Activations: Effective Kernel Support for the User-Level Management of Parallelism. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 10(1):53–79, Feb. 1992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. M. Berry, D. Chen, P. Koss, D. Kuck, S. Lo, Y. Pang, L. Pointer, R. Roloff, A. Sameh, E. Clementi, S. Chin, D. Schneider, G. Fox, P. Messina, D. Walker, C. Hsiung, J. Scharzmeier, K. Lue, S. Orszag, F. Seidl, O. Johnson, R. Goodrum, and J. Martin. The PERFECT Club Benchmarks: Effective Performance Evaluation of Supercomputers. The International Journal of Supercomputer Applications, 3(3):5–40, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  3. S.-H. Chiang, R. K. Mansharamani, and M. K. Vernon. Use of Application Characteristics and Limited Preemption for Run-To-Completion Parallel Processor Scheduling Policies. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMETRICS Conference, pages 33–44, May 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  4. E. C. Cooper and R. P. Draves. C Threads. Technical Report CMU-CS-88-154, Department of Computer Science, Carnegie-Mellon University, June 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  5. L. Dowdy. On the Partitioning of Multiprocessor Systems. Technical report, Vanderbilt University, June 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  6. D. L. Eager and J. Zahorjan. Chores: Enhanced Run-Time Support for Shared-Memory Parallel Computing. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 11(1):1–32, Feb. 1993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. D. G. Feitelson and B. Nitzberg. Job Characteristics of a Production Parallel Scientific Workload on the NASA Ames iPSC/860. In Proceedings of the IPPS'95 Workshop on Job Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing, pages 337–360, Apr. 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  8. D. G. Feitelson and L. Rudolph. Coscheduling Based on Runtime Identification of Activity Working Sets. International Journal of Parallel Programming, 23(2):135–160, Apr. 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  9. D. Ghosal, G. Serazzi, and S. Tripathi. The Processor Working Set and Its Use in Scheduling Multiprocessor Systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 17(5):443–453, May 1991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. K. Guha. Using Parallel Program Characteristics in Dynamic Processor Allocation Policies. Technical Report CS-95-03, Department of Computer Science, York University, May 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kendall Square Research Inc., 170 Tracer Lane, Waltham, MA 02154. KSR/Series Principles of Operation, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  12. S. T. Leutenegger and M. K. Vernon. The Performance of Multiprogrammed Multiprocessor Scheduling Policies. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMETRICS Conference, pages 226–236, May 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  13. S. Majumdar, D. L. Eager, and R. B. Bunt. Scheduling in Multiprogrammed Parallel Systems. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMETRICS Conference, pages 104–113, May 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  14. E. P. Markatos and T. J. LeBlanc. Using Processor Affinity in Loop Scheduling on Shared-Memory Multiprocessors. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, pages 379–400, Apr. 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  15. C. McCann, R. Vaswani, and J. Zahorjan. A Dynamic Processor Allocation Policy for Multiprogrammed Shared-Memory Multiprocessors. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 11(2):146–178, May 1993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. G. P. McCormick. Nonlinear Programming. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  17. T. D. Nguyen, R. Vaswani, and J. Zahorjan. Maximizing Speedup Through Self-Tuning of Processor Allocation. In Proceedings of the 10th International Parallel Processing Symposium, pages 463–468, Apr. 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  18. T. D. Nguyen, R. Vaswani, and J. Zahorjan. Parallel Application Characterization for Multiprocessor Scheduling Policy Design. In Proceedings of the IPPS'96 Workshop on Job Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing, Apr. 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  19. E. W. Parsons and K. C. Sevcik. Multiprocessor Scheduling for High-Variability Service Time Distribution. In Proceedings of the IPPS'95 Workshop on Job Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing, pages 127–145, Apr. 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  20. C. Polychronopoulos and D. Kuck. Guided Self-Scheduling: A Practical Scheduling Scheme for Parallel Supercomputers. IEEE Transactions on Computers, C-36(12):1425–1439, Dec. 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  21. E. Rosti, E. Smirni, L. W. Dowdy, G. Serazzi, and B. M. Carlson. Robust Partitioning Policies of Multiprocessor Systems. Performance Evaluation, 19:141–165, 1994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. K. C. Sevcik. Characterizations of Parallelism in Applications and their Use in Scheduling. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMETRICS Conference, pages 171–180, May 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  23. K. C. Sevcik. Application Scheduling and Processor Allocation in Multiprogrammed Parallel Processing Systems. Performance Evaluation, 19(2/3):107–140, Mar. 1994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. J. P. Singh, W.-D. Weber, and A. Gupta. SPLASH: Stanford Parallel Applications for Shared-Memory. Computer Architecture News, 20(1):5–44, 1992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. P. B. Sobalvarro and W. E. Weihl. Demand-based Coscheduling of Parallel Jobs on Multiprogrammed Multiprocessors. In Proceedings of the IPPS'95 Workshop on Job Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing, pages 106–126, Apr. 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  26. A. Tucker and A. Gupta. Process Control and Scheduling Issues for Multiprogrammed Shared-Memory Multiprocessors. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, pages 159–166, Dec. 1989.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Washington, Box 352350, 98195-2350, Seattle, WA, USA

    Thu D. Nguyen, Raj Vaswani & John Zahorjan

Authors
  1. Thu D. Nguyen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Raj Vaswani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John Zahorjan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Dror G. Feitelson Larry Rudolph

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1996 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Nguyen, T.D., Vaswani, R., Zahorjan, J. (1996). Using runtime measured workload characteristics in parallel processor scheduling. In: Feitelson, D.G., Rudolph, L. (eds) Job Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing. JSSPP 1996. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1162. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0022293

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0022293

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-61864-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-70710-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation