From Preemptive to Non-preemptive Scheduling Using Rejections

  • Giorgio Lucarelli
  • Abhinav Srivastav
  • Denis Trystram
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9797)

Abstract

We study the classical problem of scheduling a set of independent jobs with release dates on a single machine. There exists a huge literature on the preemptive version of the problem, where the jobs can be interrupted at any moment. However, we focus here on the non-preemptive case, which is harder, but more relevant in practice. For instance, the jobs submitted to actual high performance platforms cannot be interrupted or migrated once they start their execution (due to prohibitive management overhead). We target on the minimization of the total stretch objective, defined as the ratio of the total time a job stays in the system (waiting time plus execution time), normalized by its processing time. Stretch captures the quality of service of a job and the minimum total stretch reflects the fairness between the jobs. So far, there have been only few studies about this problem, especially for the non-preemptive case. Our approach is based to the usage of the classical and efficient for the preemptive case shortest remaining processing time (SRPT) policy as a lower bound. We investigate the (offline) transformation of the SRPT schedule to a non-preemptive schedule subject to a recently introduced resource augmentation model, namely the rejection model according to which we are allowed to reject a small fraction of jobs. Specifically, we propose a \(\frac{2}{\epsilon }\)-approximation algorithm for the total stretch minimization problem if we allow to reject an \(\epsilon \)-fraction of the jobs, for any \(\epsilon >0\). This result shows that the rejection model is more powerful than the other resource augmentations models studied in the literature, like speed augmentation or machine augmentation, for which non-polynomial or non-scalable results are known. As a byproduct, we present a \(\frac{1}{\epsilon }\)-approximation algorithm for the total flow-time minimization problem which also rejects at most an \(\epsilon \)-fraction of jobs.

References

  1. 1.
    Baker, K.R.: Introduction to Sequencing and Scheduling. Wiley, New York (1974)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bansal, N., Chan, H.-L.: Weighted flow time does not admit \(o(1)\)-competitive algorithms. In: SODA, pp. 1238–1244 (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bansal, N., Chan, H.-L., Khandekar, R., Pruhs, K., Stein, C., Schieber, B.: Non-preemptive min-sum scheduling with resource augmentation. In: FOCS, pp. 614–624 (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bansal, N., Dhamdhere, K.: Minimizing weighted flow time. ACM Trans. Algorithms 3(4), 39 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bansal, N., Pruhs, K.: The geometry of scheduling. SIAM J. Comput. 43, 1684–1698 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Becchetti, L., Leonardi, S., Marchetti-Spaccamela, A., Pruhs, K.: Online weighted flow time and deadline scheduling. J. Discrete Algorithms 4, 339–352 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bender, M.A., Muthukrishnan, S., Rajaraman, R.: Approximation algorithms for average stretch scheduling. J. Sched. 7, 195–222 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bunde, D.P.: SPT is optimally competitive for uniprocessor flow. Inf. Process. Lett. 90, 233–238 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chekuri, C., Khanna, S., Zhu, A.: Algorithms for minimizing weighted flow time. In: STOC, pp. 84–93 (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Choudhury, A.R., Das, S., Garg, N., Kumar, A.: Rejecting jobs to minimize load and maximum flow-time. In: SODA, pp. 1114–1133 (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Choudhury, A.R., Das, S., Kumar, A.: Minimizing weighted lp-norm of flow-time in the rejection model. In: FSTTCS, pp. 25–37 (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Epstein, L., van Stee, R.: Optimal on-line flow time with resource augmentation. Discrete Appl. Math. 154, 611–621 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Im, S., Li, S., Moseley, B., Torng, E.: A dynamic programming framework for non-preemptive scheduling problems on multiple machines [extended abstract]. In: SODA, pp. 1070–1086 (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kalyanasundaram, B., Pruhs, K.: Speed is as powerful as clairvoyance. J. ACM 47, 617–643 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kellerer, H., Tautenhahn, T., Woeginger, G.J.: Approximability and nonapproximability results for minimizing total flow time on a single machine. SIAM J. Comput. 28, 1155–1166 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leonardi, S., Raz, D.: Approximating total flow time on parallel machines. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 73, 875–891 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Muthukrishnan, S., Rajaraman, R., Shaheen, A., Gehrke, J.E.: Online scheduling to minimize average stretch. SIAM J. Comput. 34, 433–452 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Phillips, C.A., Stein, C., Torng, E., Wein, J.: Optimal time-critical scheduling via resource augmentation. Algorithmica 32, 163–200 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schrage, L.: A proof of the optimality of the shortest remaining processing time discipline. Oper. Res. 16, 687–690 (1968)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tao, J., Liu, T.: WSPT’s competitive performance for minimizing the total weighted flow time: from single to parallel machines. Math. Probl. Eng. (2013). doi:10.1155/2013/343287

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giorgio Lucarelli
    • 1
  • Abhinav Srivastav
    • 1
    • 2
  • Denis Trystram
    • 1
  1. 1.LIGUniversité Grenoble-AlpesGrenobleFrance
  2. 2.VerimagUniversité Grenoble-AlpesGrenobleFrance

Personalised recommendations