This Article 
   
 Share 
   
 Bibliographic References 
   
 Add to: 
 
Digg
Furl
Spurl
Blink
Simpy
Google
Del.icio.us
Y!MyWeb
 
 Search 
   
Paired Gang Scheduling
June 2003 (vol. 14 no. 6)
pp. 581-592

Abstract—Conventional gang scheduling has the disadvantage that when processes perform I/O or blocking communication, their processors remain idle because alternative processes cannot be run independently of their own gangs. To alleviate this problem, we suggest a slight relaxation of this rule: match gangs that make heavy use of the CPU with gangs that make light use of the CPU (presumably due to I/O or communication activity), and schedule such pairs together, allowing the local scheduler on each node to select either of the two processes at any instant. As I/O-intensive gangs make light use of the CPU, this only causes a minor degradation in the service to compute-bound jobs. This degradation is more than offset by the overall improvement in system performance due to the better utilization of the resources.

[1] A.C. Arpaci-Dusseau, Implicit Coscheduling: Coordinated Scheduling with Implicit Information in Distributed Systems ACM Trans. Computer Systems, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 283-331, Aug. 2001.
[2] Y. Etsion and D.G. Feitelson, User-Level Communication in a System with Gang Scheduling Proc. 15th Int'l Parallel and Distributed Processing Symp., Apr. 2001.
[3] D.G. Feitelson, Packing Schemes for Gang Scheduling Job Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing, pp. 89-110, 1996.
[4] D.G. Feitelson, A. Batat, G. Benhanokh, D. Er-El, Y. Etsion, A. Kavas, T. Klainer, U. Lublin, and M.A. Volovic, The ParPar System: A Software MPP High Performance Cluster Computing, Vol. 1: Architectures and Systems, Rajkumar Buyya, ed., pp. 754-770, 1999.
[5] D.G. Feitelson and M.A. Jette, Improved Utilization and Responsiveness with Gang Scheduling Job Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing, pp. 238-261, 1997.
[6] D.G. Feitelson and L. Rudolph, Gang Scheduling Performance Benefits for Fine-Grain Synchronization J. Parallel and Distributed Computing, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 306-318, 1992.
[7] E. Frachtenberg, D.G. Feitelson, F. Petrini, and J. Fernandez, Flexible CoScheduling: Mitigating Load Imbalance and Improving Utilization of Heterogeneous Resources Proc. 17th Int'l Parallel and Distributed Processing Symp., Apr. 2003.
[8] H. Franke, P. Pattnaik, and L. Rudolph, Gang Scheduling for Highly Efficient Distributed Multiprocessor Systems Proc. Sixth Symp. Frontiers Massively Parallel Computing, pp. 1-9, Oct. 1996.
[9] A. Hori, H. Tezuka, Y. Ishikawa, N. Soda, H. Konaka, and M. Maeda, Implementation of Gang-Scheduling on Workstation Cluster Job Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing, pp. 126-139, 1996.
[10] A. Kavas, D. Er-El, and D.G. Feitelson, Using Multicast to Pre-Load Jobs on the ParPar Cluster Parallel Computing, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 315-327, Feb. 2001.
[11] W. Lee, M. Frank, V. Lee, K. Mackenzie, and L. Rudolph, Implications of I/O for Gang Scheduled Workloads Job Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing, pp. 215-237, 1997.
[12] U. Lublin and D.G. Feitelson, The Workload on Parallel SuperComputers: Modeling the Characteristics of Rigid Jobs Technical Report 2001-12, School of Computer Science and Eng., The Hebrew Univ. of Jerusalem, Oct. 2001.
[13] A.W. Mu'alem and D.G. Feitelson, Utilization, Predictability, Workloads, and User Runtime Estimates in Scheduling the IBM SP2 with Backfilling IEEE Trans. Parallel and Distributed Systems, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 529-543, June 2001.
[14] J.K. Ousterhout, Scheduling Techniques for Concurrent Systems Proc. Third Int'l Conf. Distributed Computing Systems, pp. 22-30, Oct. 1982.
[15] E. Rosti, G. Serazzi, E. Smirni, and M.S. Squillante, Models of Parallel Applications with Large Computation and I/O Requirements IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 286-307, Mar. 2002.
[16] E. Rosti, G. Serazzi, E. Smirni, and M.S. Squillante, The Impact of I/O on Program Behavior and Parallel Scheduling Proc. SIGMETRICS Conf. Measurement and Modeling of Computing Systems, pp. 56-65, 1998.
[17] U. Schwiegelshohn and R. Yahyapour, Improving First-Come-First-Serve Job Scheduling by Gang Scheduling Job Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing, pp. 180-198, 1998.
[18] A. Silberschatz and P. Galvin, Operating System Concepts. Addison-Wesley, fifth ed., pp. 130-133, 1997.
[19] F.A.B. Silva and I.D. Scherson, Improving Parallel Job Scheduling Using Runtime Measurements Job Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing, pp. 18-38, 2000.
[20] E. Smirni and D.A. Reed, Workload Characterization of Input/Output Intensive Parallel Applications Proc. Ninth Int'l Conf. Computing Performance Evaluation, pp. 169-180, June 1997.
[21] A. Snavely, D.M. Tullsen, and G. Voelker, Symbiotic Jobscheduling with Priorities for a Simultaneous Multithreading Processor Proc. SIGMETRICS Conf. Measurement and Modeling of Computing Systems, pp. 66-76, June 2002.
[22] P.G. Sobalvarro, S. Pakin, W.E. Weihl, and A.A. Chien, Dynamic Coscheduling on Workstation Clusters Job Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing, pp. 231-256, 1998.
[23] Y. Wiseman and D.G. Feitelson, Paired Gang Scheduling Proc. Jerusalem Parallel Distributed Processing Symp., Nov. 2001.
[24] Y. Zhang, H. Franke, J. Moreira, and A. Sivasubramaniam, Improving Parallel Job Scheduling by Combining Gang Scheduling and Backfilling Techniques Proc. Int'l Parallel and Distributed Processing Symp., pp. 133-142, May 2000.

Index Terms:
Gang scheduling, job mix, flexible resource management.
Citation:
Yair Wiseman, Dror G. Feitelson, "Paired Gang Scheduling," IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 581-592, June 2003, doi:10.1109/TPDS.2003.1206505
Usage of this product signifies your acceptance of the Terms of Use.