This Article 
   
 Share 
   
 Bibliographic References 
   
 Add to: 
 
Digg
Furl
Spurl
Blink
Simpy
Google
Del.icio.us
Y!MyWeb
 
 Search 
   
Job Scheduling is More Important than Processor Allocation for Hypercube Computers
May 1994 (vol. 5 no. 5)
pp. 488-497

Managing computing resources in a hypercube entails two steps. First, a job must bechosen to execute from among those waiting (job scheduling). Next a particular subcubewithin the hypercube must be allocated to that job (processor allocation). Whereasprocessor allocation has been well studied, job scheduling has been largely neglected.The goal of this paper is to compare the roles of processor allocation and job schedulingin achieving good performance on hypercube computers. We show that job schedulinghas far more impact on performance than does processor allocation. We propose a newfamily of scheduling disciplines, called Scan, that have particular performanceadvantages. We show that performance problems that cannot be resolved throughcareful processor allocation can be solved by using Scan job-scheduling disciplines.Although the Scan disciplines carry far less overhead than is incurred by even thesimplest processor allocation strategies, they are far more able to improve performancethan even the most sophisticated strategies. Furthermore, when Scan disciplines areused, the abilities of sophisticated processor allocation strategies to further improveperformance are limited to negligible levels. Consequently, a simple O(n) allocationstrategy can be used in place of these complex strategies.

[1] G. I. Chen and T. H. Lai, "Preemptive scheduling of independent jobs on a hypercube,"Inform. Processing Lett., vol. 28, pp. 201-206, 1988.
[2] G. I. Chen and T. H. Lai, "Scheduling independent jobs on partitionable hypercubes,"J. Parallel Distrib. Computing, vol. 12, pp. 74-78, 1991.
[3] M. S. Chen and K. G. Shin, "Embedment of interacting task modules into a hypercube multiprocessor,"Proc. 2nd Hypercube Conf., 1986, pp. 121-129.
[4] M.-S. Chen and K. G. Shin, "Processor allocation in anN-cube multiprocessorusing Gray codes,"IEEE Trans. Comput., vol. C-36, no. 12, pp. 1396-1407, Dec. 1987.
[5] F. Douglis and J. Ousterhout, "Transparent Process Migration: Design Alternatives and the Sprite Implementation,"Software -- Practice and Experience, Vol. 21, No. 8, Aug. 1991, pp. 757-785.
[6] S. Dutt and J. P. Hayes, "Subcube allocation in hypercube computers,"IEEE Trans. Comput., vol 40, pp. 341-352, Mar. 1991.
[7] J. L. Gustafson, "Re-evaluating Amdahl's Law,"Commun. ACM, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 532-533, 1988.
[8] J. Kim, C. R. Das, and W. Lin, "A top-down processor allocation scheme for hypercube computers,"IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst., vol. 2, pp. 20-30, Jan. 1991.
[9] L. Kleinrock,Queueing Systems: Theory, Vol. 1. New York: Wiley, 1975.
[10] L. Kleinrock,Queueing Systems: Computer Applications, Vol. 2. New York: Wiley, 1976.
[11] K. C. Knowlton, "A fast storage allocator,"Commun. ACM, vol. 8, no. 10, pp. 623-625, Oct. 1965.
[12] D. E. Knuth,The Art of Computer Programming, Vol. 1. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1973.
[13] P. Krueger, "Distributed scheduling for a changing environment," Tech. Rep. 780, Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Wis.-Madison, 1988.
[14] S.S. Lavenberg,Computer Performance Modeling Handbook, Academic Press, New York, 1983.
[15] S.T. Leutenegger and M.K. Vernon, "The Performance of Multiprogrammed Multiprocessor Scheduling Policies,"Proc. 1990 ACM SIGMetrics Conf. Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems, ACM Press, New York, 1990, pp. 226-236.
[16] S. Majumdar, D.L. Eager, and R. Bunt, "Scheduling in multiprogrammed parallel systems,"ACM SIGMETRICS, pp. 104-113, 1988.
[17] Y. Saad and M. H. Schultz, "Topological properties of hypercube,"IEEE Trans. Comput., vol. 37, pp. 867-872, July 1988.
[18] A. Silberschatz, J. L. Peterson, and P. Galvin,Operating System Concepts, 3rd ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1991.
[19] T. Teorey and T. B. Pinkerton, "A comparative analysis of disk scheduling policies,"Commun. ACM, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 177-184, Mar. 1972.
[20] M. Theimer, K. Lantz, and D. Cheriton, "Preemptable Remote Execution Facilities for the V-System,"Proc. 10th Symp. Operating Syst. Principles, Dec. 1985, pp. 2-12.
[21] E. Zayas, "Attacking the Process Migration Bottleneck,"Proc. 11th Symp. Operating Syst. Principles, Nov. 1987, pp. 13-24.
[22] Y. Zhu and M. Ahuja, "Preemptive job scheduling on a hypercube,"Proc. 1990 Int. Conf. Parallel Processing, 1990, pp. 301-304.
[23] P. Krueger, T.-H. Lai, and V. A. Radiya, "Processor allocation vs. job scheduling on hypercube computers,"Proc. 11th Int. Conf. Distrib. Computing Syst., 1991, pp. 394-401.

Index Terms:
Index Termsscheduling; resource allocation; hypercube networks; processor allocation; hypercubecomputers; hypercube; job scheduling; scheduling; Scan; performance problems
Citation:
P. Krueger, T.H. Lai, V.A. Dixit-Radiya, "Job Scheduling is More Important than Processor Allocation for Hypercube Computers," IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 488-497, May 1994, doi:10.1109/71.282559
Usage of this product signifies your acceptance of the Terms of Use.