View
34
Download
1
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Greg Levin † Shelby Funk ‡ Caitlin Sadowski † Ian Pye † Scott Brandt † † University of California ‡ University of Georgia Santa Cruz Athens. DP-F AIR : A Simple Model for Understanding Optimal Multiprocessor Scheduling. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
DP-FAIR: A Simple Model for Understanding Optimal Multiprocessor Scheduling
Greg Levin† Shelby Funk‡ Caitlin Sadowski†
Ian Pye† Scott Brandt†
†University of California ‡University of GeorgiaSanta Cruz Athens
Backstory
NQ-Fairby Shelby Funk (Rejected from RTSS)
SNSby Greg, Caitlin,
Ian, and Scott (Rejected from RTSS)
DP-Fair
Multiprocessors
Most high-end computers today have multiple processors
In a busy computational environment, multiple processes compete for processor time More processors means more scheduling
complexity
4
Real-Time Multiprocessor Scheduling Real-time tasks have workload deadlines
Hard real-time = “Meet all deadlines!”
Problem: Scheduling periodic, hard real-time tasks on multiprocessor systems. This is difficult.
5
Real-Time Multiprocessor Scheduling
easy!!
Real-time tasks have workload deadlines
Hard real-time = “Meet all deadlines!”
Problem: Scheduling periodic, hard real-time tasks on multiprocessor systems. This is difficult.
Taxonomy of Multiprocessor Scheduling Algorithms
UniprocessorAlgorithms
LLFEDF
PartitionedAlgorithms
GlobalizedUniprocessor
Algorithms
GlobalEDF
DedicatedGlobal
Algorithms
PartitionedEDF
OptimalAlgorithms
EKG
LLREF
pfair
7
Partitioned Schedulers ≠ Optimal Example: 2 processors; 3 tasks, each with 2 units
of work required every 3 time units
8
Global Schedulers SucceedExample: 2 processors; 3 tasks, each with 2 units
of work required every 3 time units
Task 3 migrates between processors
9
Problem Model n tasks running on m processors
A periodic task T = (p, e) requires a workload e be completed within each period of length p
T's utilization u = e / p is the fraction of each period that the task must execute
job release
time = 0 p 2p 3p
job releasejob releasejob release
period p
workload e
time
workcompleted
job release deadline
Fluid Rate Curve
period p
workload e
fluid rate curveutilization u =slope = e/p
actual work curveslope = 0 or 1
10
job release deadline
Feasible Work Region
period p
workload e
zero
laxity
work completework
completed
time
11
CPU rate
= 1
12
Assumptions Processor Identity: All processors are equivalent
Task Independence: Tasks are independent
Task Unity: Tasks run on one processor at a time
Task Migration: Tasks may run on different processors at different times
No overhead: free context switches and migrations In practice: built into WCET estimates
13
The Big Goal (Version 1)
Design an optimal scheduling algorithm for periodic task sets on multiprocessors
A task set is feasible if there exists a schedule that meets all deadlines
A scheduling algorithm is optimal if it can
always schedule any feasible task set
14
Necessary and Sufficient Conditions Any set of tasks needing at most
1) 1 processor for each task ( for all i, ui ≤ 1 ) , and
2) m processors for all tasks ( ui ≤ m)
is feasible Proof: Small scheduling intervals can approximate a
task's fluid rate curve
Status: Solved pfair (1996) was the first optimal algorithm
15
The Big Goal (Version 2)
Design an optimal scheduling algorithm with fewer context switches and migrations ( Finding a feasible schedule with fewest
migrations is NP-Complete )
16
The Big Goal (Version 2)
Design an optimal scheduling algorithm with fewer context switches and migrations
Status: Solved BUT, the solutions are complex and confusing
Our Contributions: A simple, unifying theory for optimal global multiprocessor scheduling and a simple optimal algorithm
17
Greedy Algorithms Fail on Multiprocessors A Greedy Scheduling Algorithm will regularly
select the m “best” jobs and run those Earliest Deadline First (EDF) Least Laxity First (LLF)
EDF and LLF are optimal on a single processor ; neither is optimal on a multiprocessor Greedy approaches generally fail on multiprocessors
18
Example (n = 3 tasks, m = 2 processors) :
Why Greedy Algorithms FailOn Multiprocessors
19
Why Greedy Algorithms FailOn MultiprocessorsAt time t = 0, Tasks 1 and 2 are the obvious greedy choice
20
Why Greedy Algorithms FailOn MultiprocessorsEven at t = 8, Tasks 1 and 2 are the only “reasonable” greedy choice
21
Why Greedy Algorithms FailOn MultiprocessorsYet if Task 3 isn’t started by t = 8, the resultant idle time eventually causes a deadline miss
22
Why Greedy Algorithms FailOn Multiprocessors
How can we “see” this critical event at t = 8?
23
Proportioned AlgorithmsSucceed On Multiprocessors
Subdivide Task 3 with a period of 10
24
Proportioned AlgorithmsSucceed On Multiprocessors
Now Task 3 has a zero laxity event at time t = 8
25
Proportional Fairness
Insight: Scheduling is easier when all jobs have the same deadline
Application: Apply all deadlines to all jobs Assign workloads proportional to utilization Work complete matches fluid rate curve at
every system deadline
26
Proportional Fairness Is the Key
All known optimal algorithms enforce proportional fairness at all deadlines: pfair (1996) - Baruah, Cohen, Plaxton, and Varvel
( proportional fairness at all times )
BF (2003) - Zhu, Mossé, and Melhem LLREF (2006) - Cho, Ravindran, Jensen EKG (2006) - Andersson, Tovar
Why do they all use proportional fairness?
27
Scheduling Multiple Tasks is Complicated
time
workcompleted
28
Scheduling Multiple Tasks with Same Deadline is Easy
workcompleted
time
Actual Feasible Regions
29
workcompleted
time
job deadlines
Restricted Feasible Regions Under Deadline Partitioning
30
workcompleted
time
all system deadlines
31
The DP-Fair Scheduling Policy Partition time into slices based on all system deadlines
Allocate each job a per-slice workload equal to its utilization times the length of the slice
Schedule jobs within each slice in any way that obeys the following three rules:1. Always run a job with zero local laxity
2. Never run a job with no workload remaining in the slice
3. Do not voluntarily allow more idle processor time than
( m - ui ) x ( length of slice )
time
DP-Fair Work Allocation
time slice
Allocatedworkload
slope = utilization
32
workcompleted
DP-Fair Scheduling Rule #1
zero
local
laxity
line
When job hits zero local laxity, run to completion
33
time
workcompleted
time slice
DP-Fair Scheduling Rule #2
time slice
local workcomplete
line
When job finishes local workload, stop running
34
time
workcompleted
DP-Fair Scheduling Rule #3
time slice
Don’t voluntarily allow idle time in excess of this limit
slope = m - u i
slop
e =
m
Allowableidle time
35
time
idletime
36
DF-Fair Guarantees Optimality We say that a scheduling algorithm is
DP-Fair if it follows these three rules
Theorem: Any DP-Fair scheduling algorithm for periodic tasks is optimal
37
Proof of Theorem
38
DP-Fair Implications
( Partition time into slices ) + ( Assign proportional workloads )
Optimal scheduling is almost trivial
Minimally restrictive rules allow great latitude for algorithm design and adaptability
What is the simplest possible algorithm?
All time slices are equivalent (up to linear scaling), so normalize time slice length to 1 Jobs have workload = utilization
Schedule by “stacking and slicing” Line up job utilization blocks Slice at integer boundaries
39
The DP-Wrap Algorithm
40
The DP-Wrap Algorithm
Example: 3 processors, 7 tasks
41
The DP-Wrap Algorithm
Example: 3 processors, 7 tasks
42
The DP-Wrap Algorithm
Example: 3 processors, 7 tasks
43
The DP-Wrap Algorithm
44
DP-Wrap Performance
n−1 context switches and m−1 migrations per time slice
This is about 1/3 as many as LLREF, similar to BF, and somewhat more than EKG
DP-Wrap has very low (O(n)) computational complexity
45
Extending DP-Fair:Sporadic Arrivals, Arbitrary Deadlines
Sporadic arrivals: jobs from a task arrive at least p time units apart
Arbitrary deadlines: A job from T = (p, e, D) has a deadline D time units after arrival; D may be smaller or larger than p
DP-Fair and DP-Wrap are easily modified to handle these cases
46
DP-Fair Easily Extended
Extending optimal algorithms to sporadic tasks and arbitrary deadlines has previously been difficult pfair : 10 years LLREF : 3 years
DP-Fair & DP-Wrap: 3 weeks
Ongoing Work
Extend to uniform multiprocessors (CPUs running at different speeds)
Extend to random, unrelated job model Heuristic improvements to DP-Wrap
Work-conserving scheduling Slice merging
48
Summary
DP-Fair : Simple rules to make optimal real-time multiprocessor scheduling easy!!
DP-Wrap : Simplest known optimal multiprocessor scheduling algorithm
Extensible : DP-Fair and DP-Wrap easily handle sporadic tasks with arbitrary deadlines We plan to extend DP-Fair and DP-Wrap to more
general problem domains
49
Thanks for Listening Questions?
50
=== EXTRA SLIDES ===
1. Sporadic Tasks, Arbitrary Deadlines
51
Sporadic Arrivals, Arbitrary Deadlines We extend our task definition to Ti = (pi, ei, Di) ,
where each job of Ti has a deadline Di time units after its arrival; Di may be smaller or larger than pi. These are referred to as arbitrary deadlines.
Sporadic arrivals means that pi is now the minimum inter-arrival time for Ti's jobs, so that a new job will arrive at least pi time units after the previous arrival. Scheduling is on-line, i.e. we don't know ahead of time
when new jobs will arrive
52
Task Density
Our expression for utilization must be updated to the density of a task:
i = ei / min{ pi , Di } and are still
sufficient conditions for the feasibility of a task set, but they are no longer necessary. Example: T1 = (2, 1, 1) , T2 = (2, 1, 2) on m =
1 is feasible, although = 1.5.
53
Optimality Our updated DP-Fair rules for sporadic tasks with
arbitrary deadlines will allow an algorithm to schedule any task set with and
; in fact, we require that these conditions hold
Since feasible task sets exist where these conditions do not hold, DP-Fair algorithms are not optimal in this problem domain
This is an acceptable limitation, since it has recently been proven that no optimal scheduler can exist for sporadic tasks
54
Updated DP-Fair Scheduling
The rules for scheduling within time slices is nearly the same with sporadic tasks and arbitrary deadlines
The third rule is now:
"Do not voluntarily allow more than units of idle time to occur during the time slice before time t"
The Fj (t) term represents unused capacity between tasks' deadlines and next arrivals
55
Updated DP-Fair Allocation The rules for allocating workloads in time slices
become more complicated than simple proportionality
A task is active between its arrival and its deadline. When a task becomes active, it is allocated a workload proportional to its density and the length of its active segment in the slice
If a job arrives during a slice that will have a deadline within the slice, the remainder of the slice is partitioned into two new subslices, with a subslice boundary at the deadline, and remaining work for all tasks allocated proportionally to subslice lengths
Handling a Sporadic Arrival
time slice
Workloadallocatedupon arrival
Sporadic arrival in the middle of a slice
56
time
workcompleted
Managing Idle Time
time slice
Available idle time grows by utilization of unarrived sporadic job…
slope = m - u i
slop
e =
m
Original idle time pool
…until that job finally arrives
Additional idle time from late arrival
57
time
idletime
58
Theorem 3 Any DP-Fair scheduling algorithm for
sporadic tasks with arbitrary deadlines will successfully schedule any task set where
and
59
Modifying DP-Wrap
The DP-Wrap algorithm is easily modified to accommodate the DP-Fair scheduling rules for sporadic tasks with arbitrary deadlines
If a job arrives during a time slice, wrap it onto the end of the stack of blocks
If the arriving job has a deadline within the current slice, partition the remainder of the slice into two subslices, as per our previous rule, and apply the usual scheduling rules to both of these subslices
Recommended