Job Scheduling Using Successive Linear Programming Approximations of a Sparse Model

  • Stephane Chretien
  • Jean-Marc Nicod
  • Laurent Philippe
  • Veronika Rehn-Sonigo
  • Lamiel Toch
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7484)

Abstract

In this paper we tackle the well-known problem of scheduling a collection of parallel jobs on a set of processors either in a cluster or in a multiprocessor computer. For the makespan objective, i.e., the completion time of the last job, this problem has been shown to be NP-Hard and several heuristics have already been proposed to minimize the execution time. We introduce a novel approach based on successive linear programming (LP) approximations of a sparse model. The idea is to relax an integer linear program and use ℓp norm-based operators to force the solver to find almost-integer solutions that can be assimilated to an integer solution. We consider the case where jobs are either rigid or moldable. A rigid parallel job is performed with a predefined number of processors while a moldable job can define the number of processors that it is using just before it starts its execution. We compare the scheduling approach with the classic Largest Task First list based algorithm and we show that our approach provides good results for small instances of the problem. The contributions of this paper are both the integration of mathematical methods in the scheduling world and the design of a promising approach which gives good results for scheduling problems with less than a hundred processors.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Afrati, F.N., Bampis, E., Fishkin, A.V., Jansen, K., Kenyon, C.: Scheduling to minimize the average completion time of dedicated tasks. In: Proceedings of the 20th Conference on Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science, FST TCS 2000, London, UK, pp. 454–464 (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amoura, A.K., Bampis, E., Kenyon, C., Manoussakis, Y.: Scheduling independent multiprocessor tasks. Algorithmica 32(2), 247–261 (2002)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Candes, E.J., Romberg, J., Tao, T.: Robust uncertainty principles: exact signal reconstruction from highly incomplete frequency information. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 52(2), 489–509 (2006)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Candes, E.J., Wakin, M.B., Boyd, S.P.: Enhancing Sparsity by Reweighted L1 Minimization. Journal of Fourier Analysis and Applications 14(5), 877–905 (2008)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Casanova, H., Legrand, A., Quinson, M.: Simgrid: A generic framework for large-scale distributed experiments. In: UKSIM 2008, pp. 126–131 (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chartrand, R., Yin, W.: Iteratively reweighted algorithms for compressive sensing. In: 33rd International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, ICASSP (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Donoho, D.L.: Compressed sensing. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 52, 1289–1306 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dutot, P.-F., Eyraud, L., Mounié, G., Trystram, D.: Bi-criteria algorithm for scheduling jobs on cluster platforms. In: Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual ACM Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures, SPAA 2004, New York, NY, USA, pp. 125–132 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dutot, P.-F., Trystram, D.: Scheduling on hierarchical clusters using malleable tasks. In: SPAA 2001, pp. 199–208 (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dutot, P.-F., Netto, M.A.S., Goldman, A., Kon, F.: Scheduling Moldable BSP Tasks. In: Feitelson, D.G., Frachtenberg, E., Rudolph, L., Schwiegelshohn, U. (eds.) JSSPP 2005. LNCS, vol. 3834, pp. 157–172. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Feitelson, D.G.: Job scheduling in multiprogrammed parallel systems. Research Report RC 19790 (87657). IBM T. J. Watson Research Center (1997)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Feitelson, D.G., Mualem, A.W.: On the definition of “on-line” in job scheduling problems. Technical report, SIGACT News (2000)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Garey, M.R., Johnson, D.S.: Computers and Intractability; A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. W. H. Freeman & Co., New York (1990)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goldstein, T., Osher, S.: The split bregman method for l1-regularized problems. SIAM J. Img. Sci. 2, 323–343 (2009)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Graham, R.L., et al.: Optimization and approximation in deterministic sequencing and scheduling: a survey. Ann. Discrete Math., 287–326 (1979)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lublin, U., Feitelson, D.G.: The workload on parallel supercomputers: Modeling the characteristics of rigid jobs. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing 63, 2003 (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nicod, J.-M., Philippe, L., Rehn-Sonigo, V., Toch, L.: Using virtualization and job folding for batch scheduling. In: ISPDC 2011, 10th Int. Symposium on Parallel and Distributed Computing, Cluj-Napoca, Romania, pp. 39–41. IEEE Computer Society Press (July 2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Turek, J., Wolf, J.L., Yu, P.S.: Approximate algorithms scheduling parallelizable tasks. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Annual ACM Symposium on Parallel Algorithms and Architectures, SPAA 1992, pp. 323–332. ACM, New York (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Valiant, L.G.: A bridging model for parallel computation. Commun. ACM 33, 103–111 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ye, D., Zhang, G.: On-line scheduling of parallel jobs in a list. J. of Scheduling 10, 407–413 (2007)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephane Chretien
    • 1
  • Jean-Marc Nicod
    • 2
  • Laurent Philippe
    • 2
  • Veronika Rehn-Sonigo
    • 2
  • Lamiel Toch
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of MathematicsUniversité de Franche-ComtéBesançonFrance
  2. 2.FEMTO-ST Institute, UMR CNRS / UFC / ENSMM / UTBMBesançonFrance

Personalised recommendations