It is well known that on-line preemptive scheduling algorithms can achieve efficient performance. A classic example is the Shortest Remaining Processing Time (SRPT) algorithm which is optimal for flow time scheduling, assuming preemption is costless. In real systems, however, preemption has significant overhead. In this paper we suggest a new model where preemption is costly. This introduces new considerations for preemptive scheduling algorithms and inherently calls for new scheduling strategies. We present a simple on-line algorithm and present lower bounds for on-line as well as efficient off-line algorithms which show that our algorithm performs close to optimal.


Completion Time Parallel Machine Single Machine Competitive Ratio Identical Parallel Machine 
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.
    Baker, K.R.: Introduction to sequencing and scheduling. Wiley, New York (1974)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Becchetti, L., Leonardi, S., Marchetti-Spaccamela, A., Pruhs, K.: Semi-clairvoyant scheduling. In: Di Battista, G., Zwick, U. (eds.) ESA 2003. LNCS, vol. 2832, pp. 67–77. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Braun, O., Schmidt, G.: Parallel processor scheduling with limited number of preemptions. SIAM J. Comput. 32, 671–680 (2003)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dimpsey, R.T., Iyer, R.K.: Performance degradation due to multiprogramming and system overheads in real workloads: Case study on a shared memory multiprocessor. In: Intnl. Conf. Supercomputing, pp. 227–238 (1990)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Etsion, Y., Tsafrir, D., Feitelson, D.G.: Effects of clock resolution on the scheduling of interactive and soft real-time processes. In: SIGMETRICS Conf. Measurement & Modeling of Comput. Syst., pp. 172–183 (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Garey, M.R., Johnson, D.S.: Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the theory of NP-Completeness. Freeman and Company, San Francisco (1979)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tautenhahn, T., Kellerer, H., Woeginger, G.J.: Approximability and nonapproximability results for minimizing total flow time on a single machine. SIAM J. Comput. 28, 1155–1166 (1999)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leonardi, S., Raz, D.: Approximating total flow time on parallel machines. In: Proc. 29th Symp. Theory of Computing (STOC), pp. 110–119. ACM, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Motwani, R., Phillips, S., Torng, E.: Non-clairvoyant scheduling. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 130, 17–47 (1994)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Muthukrishnan, S., Rajaraman, R., Shaheen, A., Gehrke, J.E.: Online scheduling to minimize avarage strech. In: Proc. 40th Symp. Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pp. 433–443. IEEE, Los Alamitos (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Natarajan, C., Sharma, S., Iyer, R.K.: Measurement-based characterization of global memory and network contention, operating system and parallelization overheads: Case study on a shared-memory multiprocessor. In: Ann. Intl. Symp. Computer Architecture, vol. 21, pp. 71–80 (1994)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schwiegelshohn, U.: Preemptive weighted completion time scheduling of parallel jobs. In: Díaz, J. (ed.) ESA 1996. LNCS, vol. 1136, pp. 39–51. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yair Bartal
    • 1
  • Stefano Leonardi
    • 2
  • Gil Shallom
    • 1
  • Rene Sitters
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceHebrew UniversityJerusalemIsrael
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Informatica e SistemisticaUniversità di Roma La SapienzaRomeItaly
  3. 3.Max-Planck-Insitut für InformatikSaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations