Meeting Deadlines: How Much Speed Suffices?

  • S. Anand
  • Naveen Garg
  • Nicole Megow
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6755)


We consider the online problem of scheduling real-time jobs with hard deadlines on m parallel machines. Each job has a processing time and a deadline, and the objective is to schedule jobs so that they complete before their deadline. It is known that even when the instance is feasible it may not be possible to meet all deadlines when jobs arrive online over time. We therefore consider the setting when the algorithm has available machines with speed s > 1.

We present a new online algorithm that finds a feasible schedule on machines of speed e/(e − 1) ≈ 1.58 for any instance that is feasible on unit speed machines. This improves on the previously best known result which requires a speed of 2 − 2/(m + 1). Our algorithm only uses the relative order of job deadlines and is oblivious of the actual deadline values. It was shown earlier that the minimum speed required for such algorithms is e/(e − 1), and thus, our analysis is tight. We also show that our new algorithm outperforms two other well-known algorithms by giving the first lower bounds on their minimum speed requirement.


Time Slot Online Algorithm Feasible Schedule Earliest Deadline First Online Schedule 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Cho, S., Lee, S.K., Ahn, S., Lin, K.-J.: Efficient real-time scheduling algorithms for multiprocessor systems. IEICE Transactions on Communications E85-B(12), 2859–2867 (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dertouzos, M.L.: Control robotics: The procedural control of physical processes. In: IFIP Congress, pp. 807–813 (1974)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dertouzos, M.L., Mok, A.K.: Multiprocessor on-line scheduling of hard-real-time tasks. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 15(12), 1497–1506 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Horn, W.A.: Some simple scheduling algorithms. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly 21(1), 177–185 (1974)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kalyanasundaram, B., Pruhs, K.: Speed is as powerful as clairvoyance. Journal of the ACM 47(4), 617–643 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lam, T.W., To, K.-K.: Trade-offs between speed and processor in hard-deadline scheduling. In: Proc. of the 10th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pp. 623–632 (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Park, M., Han, S., Kim, H., Cho, S., Cho, Y.: Comparison of deadline-based scheduling algorithms for periodic real-time tasks on multiprocessor. IEICE Transactions 88-D(3), 658–661 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Phillips, C.A., Stein, C., Torng, E., Wein, J.: Optimal time-critical scheduling via resource augmentation. Algorithmica 32(2), 163–200 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Anand
    • 1
  • Naveen Garg
    • 1
  • Nicole Megow
    • 2
  1. 1.Indian Institute of Technology DelhiIndia
  2. 2.Max-Planck-Institut für InformatikSaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations