Uniform Bounds for Scheduling with Job Size Estimates

Authors Ziv Scully , Isaac Grosof , Michael Mitzenmacher



PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

LIPIcs.ITCS.2022.114.pdf
  • Filesize: 0.88 MB
  • 30 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Ziv Scully
  • Computer Science Department, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Isaac Grosof
  • Computer Science Department, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Michael Mitzenmacher
  • School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA

Cite AsGet BibTex

Ziv Scully, Isaac Grosof, and Michael Mitzenmacher. Uniform Bounds for Scheduling with Job Size Estimates. In 13th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2022). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 215, pp. 114:1-114:30, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2022)
https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ITCS.2022.114

Abstract

We consider the problem of scheduling to minimize mean response time in M/G/1 queues where only estimated job sizes (processing times) are known to the scheduler, where a job of true size s has estimated size in the interval [β s, α s] for some α ≥ β > 0. We evaluate each scheduling policy by its approximation ratio, which we define to be the ratio between its mean response time and that of Shortest Remaining Processing Time (SRPT), the optimal policy when true sizes are known. Our question: is there a scheduling policy that (a) has approximation ratio near 1 when α and β are near 1, (b) has approximation ratio bounded by some function of α and β even when they are far from 1, and (c) can be implemented without knowledge of α and β? We first show that naively running SRPT using estimated sizes in place of true sizes is not such a policy: its approximation ratio can be arbitrarily large for any fixed β < 1. We then provide a simple variant of SRPT for estimated sizes that satisfies criteria (a), (b), and (c). In particular, we prove its approximation ratio approaches 1 uniformly as α and β approach 1. This is the first result showing this type of convergence for M/G/1 scheduling. We also study the Preemptive Shortest Job First (PSJF) policy, a cousin of SRPT. We show that, unlike SRPT, naively running PSJF using estimated sizes in place of true sizes satisfies criteria (b) and (c), as well as a weaker version of (a).

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Theory of computation → Scheduling algorithms
  • Mathematics of computing → Queueing theory
  • Theory of computation → Online algorithms
Keywords
  • Scheduling
  • queueing systems
  • algorithms with predictions
  • shortest remaining processing time (SRPT)
  • preemptive shortest job first (PSJF)
  • M/G/1 queue

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads

References

  1. Yossi Azar, Stefano Leonardi, and Noam Touitou. Distortion-oblivious algorithms for minimizing flow time, 2021. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2109.08424.
  2. Yossi Azar, Stefano Leonardi, and Noam Touitou. Flow time scheduling with uncertain processing time. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2021), pages 1070-1080, Rome, Italy, June 2021. ACM. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3406325.3451023.
  3. Nikhil Bansal, Bart Kamphorst, and Bert Zwart. Achievable performance of blind policies in heavy traffic. Mathematics of Operations Research, 43(3):949-964, August 2018. URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/moor.2017.0890.
  4. Luca Becchetti and Stefano Leonardi. Nonclairvoyant scheduling to minimize the total flow time on single and parallel machines. Journal of the ACM, 51(4):517-539, July 2004. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/1008731.1008732.
  5. Shelby L. Brumelle. On the relation between customer and time averages in queues. Journal of Applied Probability, 8(3):508-520, 1971. URL: https://doi.org/10.2307/3212174.
  6. Matteo Dell'Amico, Damiano Carra, and Pietro Michiardi. PSBS: Practical size-based scheduling. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 65(7):2199-2212, July 2016. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/TC.2015.2468225.
  7. John C. Gittins. Bandit processes and dynamic allocation indices. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 41(2):148-164, January 1979. URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1979.tb01068.x.
  8. Mor Harchol-Balter. Performance Modeling and Design of Computer Systems: Queueing Theory in Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2013. Google Scholar
  9. Daniel P. Heyman and Shaler Stidham. The relation between customer and time averages in queues. Operations Research, 28(4):983-994, August 1980. URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.28.4.983.
  10. Bala Kalyanasundaram and Kirk R. Pruhs. Minimizing flow time nonclairvoyantly. Journal of the ACM, 50(4):551-567, July 2003. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/792538.792545.
  11. Thodoris Lykouris and Sergei Vassilvitskii. Competitive caching with machine learned advice. J. ACM, 68(4):24:1-24:25, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3447579.
  12. Michael Mitzenmacher. Scheduling with predictions and the price of misprediction. In Thomas Vidick, editor, 11th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2020), volume 151 of Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Dagstuhl, Germany, January 2020. Schloss Dagstuhlendash Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik. URL: https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPICS.ITCS.2020.14.
  13. Michael Mitzenmacher. Queues with small advice. In Proceedings of the 2021 SIAM Conference on Applied and Computation al Discrete Algorithms (ACDA21), pages 1-12. SIAM, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611976830.1.
  14. Michael Mitzenmacher and Matteo Dell'Amico. The supermarket model with known and predicted service times. arXiv:1905.12155 [cs], October 2020. Google Scholar
  15. Michael Mitzenmacher and Sergei Vassilvitskii. Algorithms with predictions. In Tim Roughgarden, editor, Beyond the Worst-Case Analysis of Algorithms, pages 646-662. Cambridge University Press, 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108637435.037.
  16. Manish Purohit, Zoya Svitkina, and Ravi Kumar. Improving online algorithms via ML predictions. In S. Bengio, H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, K. Grauman, N. Cesa-Bianchi, and R. Garnett, editors, Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2018), volume 31, pages 9684-9693, Montréal, Canada, 2018. Curran Associates, Inc. URL: https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2018/file/73a427badebe0e32caa2e1fc7530b7f3-Paper.pdf.
  17. Linus E. Schrage. A proof of the optimality of the shortest remaining processing time discipline. Operations Research, 16(3):687-690, June 1968. URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.16.3.687.
  18. Linus E. Schrage and Louis W. Miller. The queue M/G/1 with the shortest remaining processing time discipline. Operations Research, 14(4):670-684, August 1966. URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.14.4.670.
  19. Ziv Scully, Isaac Grosof, and Mor Harchol-Balter. The Gittins policy is nearly optimal in the M/G/k under extremely general conditions. Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems, 4(3), November 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3428328.
  20. Ziv Scully, Isaac Grosof, and Mor Harchol-Balter. Optimal multiserver scheduling with unknown job sizes in heavy traffic. ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, 48(2):33-35, November 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3439602.3439615.
  21. Ziv Scully and Mor Harchol-Balter. SOAP bubbles: Robust scheduling under adversarial noise. In 56th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing, pages 144-154, Monticello, IL, October 2018. IEEE. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/ALLERTON.2018.8635963.
  22. Ziv Scully and Mor Harchol-Balter. The Gittins policy in the M/G/1 queue. In 18th International Symposium on Modeling and Optimization in Mobile, Ad Hoc, and Wireless Networks (WiOpt 2021), Philadelphia, PA, October 2021. IEEE. Google Scholar
  23. Ziv Scully, Mor Harchol-Balter, and Alan Scheller-Wolf. SOAP: One clean analysis of all age-based scheduling policies. Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems, 2(1), April 2018. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3179419.
  24. Adam Wierman, Mor Harchol-Balter, and Takayuki Osogami. Nearly insensitive bounds on SMART scheduling. In Proceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGMETRICS International Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems (SIGMETRICS 2005), page 12, Banff, Alberta, Canada, 2005. ACM. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/1064212.1064236.
  25. Adam Wierman and Misja Nuyens. Scheduling despite inexact job-size information. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGMETRICS International Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems (SIGMETRICS 2008), pages 25-36, Annapolis, MD, 2008. ACM. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/1375457.1375461.
  26. Ronald W. Wolff. Poisson arrivals see time averages. Operations Research, 30(2):223-231, 1982. Google Scholar
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail