Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
167 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
42 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Scheduling Jobs with Work-Inefficient Parallel Solutions (2405.11986v1)

Published 20 May 2024 in cs.DS

Abstract: This paper introduces the \emph{serial-parallel decision problem}. Consider an online scheduler that receives a series of tasks, where each task has both a parallel and a serial implementation. The parallel implementation has the advantage that it can make progress concurrently on multiple processors, but the disadvantage that it is (potentially) work-inefficient. As tasks arrive, the scheduler must decide for each task which implementation to use. We begin by studying \emph{total awake time}. We give a simple \emph{decide-on-arrival} scheduler that achieves a competitive ratio of $3$ for total awake time -- this scheduler makes serial/parallel decisions immediately when jobs arrive. Our second result is an \emph{parallel-work-oblivious} scheduler that achieves a competitive ratio of $6$ for total awake time -- this scheduler makes all of its decisions based only on the size of each serial job and without needing to know anything about the parallel implementations. Finally, we prove a lower bound showing that, if a scheduler wishes to achieve a competitive ratio of $O(1)$, it can have at most one of the two aforementioned properties (decide-on-arrival or parallel-work-oblivious). We also prove lower bounds of the form $1 + \Omega(1)$ on the optimal competitive ratio for any scheduler. Next, we turn our attention to optimizing \emph{mean response time}. Here, we show that it is possible to achieve an $O(1)$ competitive ratio with $O(1)$ speed augmentation. This is the most technically involved of our results. We also prove that, in this setting, it is not possible for a parallel-work-oblivious scheduler to do well. In addition to these results, we present tight bounds on the optimal competitive ratio if we allow for arrival dependencies between tasks (e.g., tasks are components of a single parallel program), and we give an in-depth discussion of the remaining open questions.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (19)
  1. Brenda S Baker and Jerald S Schwarz. 1983. Shelf algorithms for two-dimensional packing problems. SIAM J. Comput. 12, 3 (1983), 508–525.
  2. Better scalable algorithms for broadcast scheduling. In Automata, Languages and Programming: 37th International Colloquium, ICALP 2010, Bordeaux, France, July 6-10, 2010, Proceedings, Part I 37. Springer, 324–335.
  3. Cilk: An efficient multithreaded runtime system. ACM SigPlan Notices 30, 8 (1995), 207–216.
  4. Scheduling Parallel Tasks Approximation Algorithms. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Scheduling-Parallel-Tasks-Approximation-Algorithms-Dutot-Mouni%C3%A9/9131b282e1b2fac6bc4de358471b8dc14094f852
  5. Richard A. Dutton and Weizhen Mao. 2007. Online scheduling of malleable parallel jobs. In Proceedings of the 19th IASTED International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Computing and Systems (PDCS ’07). ACTA Press, USA, 136–141.
  6. Scheduling Parallel Jobs Online with Convex and Concave Parallelizability. Theory Comput Syst 62, 2 (Feb. 2018), 304–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00224-016-9722-0
  7. Jeff Edmonds. 2000. Scheduling in the dark. Theoretical Computer Science 235, 1 (March 2000), 109–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3975(99)00186-3
  8. Jeff Edmonds and Kirk Pruhs. 2009. Scalably Scheduling Processes with Arbitrary Speedup Curves. Vol. 8. https://doi.org/10.1145/1496770.1496845 Journal Abbreviation: ACM Transactions on Algorithms Pages: 692 Publication Title: ACM Transactions on Algorithms.
  9. R. L. Graham. 1969. Bounds on Multiprocessing Timing Anomalies. SIAM J. Appl. Math. 17, 2 (1969), 416–429. https://doi.org/10.1137/0117039 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1137/0117039
  10. Shouwei Guo and Liying Kang. 2010. Online scheduling of malleable parallel jobs with setup times on two identical machines. European Journal of Operational Research 206, 3 (Nov. 2010), 555–561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2010.03.005
  11. Johann L Hurink and Jacob Jan Paulus. 2008. Online algorithm for parallel job scheduling and strip packing. In Approximation and Online Algorithms: 5th International Workshop, WAOA 2007, Eilat, Israel, October 11-12, 2007. Revised Papers 5. Springer, 67–74.
  12. Walter Ludwig and Prasoon Tiwari. 1994. Scheduling malleable and nonmalleable parallel tasks. In Proceedings of the fifth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete algorithms. 167–176.
  13. On scheduling in map-reduce and flow-shops. In Proceedings of the twenty-third annual ACM symposium on Parallelism in algorithms and architectures. 289–298.
  14. Efficient approximation algorithms for scheduling malleable tasks. In Proceedings of the eleventh annual ACM symposium on Parallel algorithms and architectures (SPAA ’99). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1145/305619.305622
  15. Scheduling parallelizable tasks to minimize average response time. In Proceedings of the sixth annual ACM symposium on Parallel algorithms and architectures (SPAA ’94). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 200–209. https://doi.org/10.1145/181014.181331
  16. Scheduling parallel tasks to minimize average response time. In Proceedings of the fifth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete algorithms. 112–121.
  17. Approximate algorithms scheduling parallelizable tasks. In Proceedings of the fourth annual ACM symposium on Parallel algorithms and architectures. 323–332.
  18. Online scheduling of moldable parallel tasks. Journal of Scheduling 21, 6 (2018), 647–654. https://ideas.repec.org//a/spr/jsched/v21y2018i6d10.1007_s10951-018-0556-2.html Publisher: Springer.
  19. A note on online strip packing. Journal of Combinatorial Optimization 17, 4 (2009), 417–423.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.