Advertisement

Time space sharing scheduling: A simulation analysis

  • Atsushi Hori
  • Yutaka Ishikawa
  • Jörg Nolte
  • Hiroki Konaka
  • Munenori Maeda
  • Takashi Tomokiyo
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 966)

Abstract

We explain a new job scheduling class, called “Time Space Sharing Scheduling” (TSSS) for partitionable parallel machines. TSSS is a combination of time-sharing and space-sharing job scheduling techniques. Our proposed “Distributed Queue Tree” (DQT) is an instance of TSSS. We evaluate and analyze DQT behavior in more detail with a number of simulations. The result shows that DQT performs very well in low-load to high-load situations, almost independent of system size and task size distribution. We also compare our DQT and Scan Up batch scheduling, and we find that our DQT performs as well as Scan Up scheduling in processor utilization, but that both DQT and Scan Up have drawbacks in terms of scheduling fairness. Finally, we find that TSSS can inherently achieve higher processor utilization.

Keywords

Time Slot Parallel Machine Partition Size Batch Schedule Virtual Processor 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    P.-J. Chuang and N.-F. Tzeng. A Fast Recognition-Complete Processor Allocation Strategy for Hypercube Computers. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 41(4):467–479, 1992.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. G. Feitelson and L. Rudolph. Distributed Hierarchical Control for Parallel Processing. COMPUTER, pages 65–77, May 1990.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Hori, Y. Ishikawa, H. Konaka, M. Maeda, and T. Tomokiyo. A Scalable Time-Sharing Scheduling for Partitionable, Distributed Memory Parallel Machines. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, volume II, pages 173–182. IEEE Computer Society Press, January 1995.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Hori, T. Yokota, Y. Ishikawa, S. Sakai, H. Konaka, M. Maeda, T. Tomokiyo, J. Nolte, H. Matsuoka, K. Okamoto, and H. Hirono. Time Space Sharing Scheduling and Architectural Support. In D. G. Feitelson and L. Rudolph, editors, Job Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing, volume 949 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, April 1995.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    P. Krueger, T.-H. Lai, and V. A. Dixit-Radiya. Job Scheduling Is More Important than Processor Allocation for Hypercube Computers. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 5(5):488–497, 1994.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. L. Peterson and T. A. Norman. Buddy System. Communication of the ACM, 20(6):421–431, June 1977.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. Sakai, K. Okamoto, H. Matsuoka, H. Hirono, Y. Kodama, and M. Sato. Superthreading: Architectural and software mechanisms for optimizing parallel computation. In Proceedings of 1993 International Conference on Supercomputing, pages 251–260, 1993.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Thinking Machines Corporation. Connection Machine CM-5 Technical Summary, November 1992.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Y. Zhu. Efficient Processor Allocation Strategies for Mesh-Connected Parallel Computers. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, 16:328–337, 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Atsushi Hori
    • 1
  • Yutaka Ishikawa
    • 1
  • Jörg Nolte
    • 1
  • Hiroki Konaka
    • 1
  • Munenori Maeda
    • 1
  • Takashi Tomokiyo
    • 1
  1. 1.Tsukuba Research CenterReal World Computing PartnershipIbarakiJapan

Personalised recommendations