Static Task Cluster Size Determination in Homogeneous Distributed Systems

  • Hidehiro Kanemitsu
  • Gilhyon Lee
  • Hidenori Nakazato
  • Takashige Hoshiai
  • Yoshiyori Urano


In a distributed system, which consists of an unknown number of processors, it is important to derive an appropriate number of processors by which the good schedule length is obtained by a task scheduling. Many task clustering heuristics have been proposed to determine the number of processors and to minimize the schedule length for scheduling a directed acyclic graph (DAG) application. However, those heuristics are not aware of the actual number of existing processors. As a result, the number of processors determined by an existing task clustering may exceed that of actually existing processors. Therefore, conventional approaches adopt merging of each cluster for reducing the number of clusters at the expense of decreasing degree of task parallelism. In this paper, we present a static cluster size determination method, which derives the lower bound of the cluster size with considering the DAG structure and the task size to data size ratio to suppress the schedule length with the small number of processors. Our experimental evaluations by simulations show that the lower bound of each cluster size determined by the proposed method has a good impact on both the schedule length and the processor utilization.

Cluster size DAG Task clustering Task scheduling 


  1. 1.
    Yang T, Gerasoulis A (1994) DSC: Scheduling parallel tasks on an unbounded number of processors. IEEE Trans Parallel Distr Syst 5(9):951–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Liou JC, Palis MA (1996) An efficient task clustering heuristic for scheduling DAGs on multiprocessors. In: Proceedings of the 8th Symposium on Parallel and Distributed Processing, October 1996Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yang T, Gerasoulis A (1993) List scheduling with and without communication delays. Parallel Comput 19(12):1321–1344MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sarkar V (1989) Partitioning and scheduling parallel programs for execution on multiprocessors. MIT, MAGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gerasoulis A, Yang T (1992) A comparison of clustering heuristics for scheduling directed acyclic graphs on multiprocessors. J Parallel Distr Comput 16:276–291MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yang T, Gerasoulis A (1992) PYRROS: Static scheduling and code generation for message passing multiprocessors. In: Proceedings of the 6th ACM International Conference on Supercomputing, pp 428–437, 1992Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liou JC, Palis MA (1997) A comparison of general approaches to multiprocessor scheduling. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Parallel Processing, pp 152–156, 1997Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gerasoulis A, Yang T (1993) On the granularity and clustering of directed acyclic task graphs. IEEE Trans Parallel Distr Syst 4(6):686–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wu MY, Gajski DD (1990) Hypertool: A programming aid for message-passing systems. IEEE Trans Parallel Distr Syst 1(3):330–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zomaya AY, Chan G (2004) Efficient clustering for parallel tasks execution in distributed systems. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS’04), pp 167–175, Santa Fe, NM, USA, April 2004Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sinnen O, Sousa LA (2005) Communication contention in task scheduling. IEEE Trans Parallel Distr Syst 16(6):503–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sinnen O (2007) Task scheduling for parallel systems. Wiley, NYCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kanemitsu H, Lu Y, Otani Y, Lee G, Nakazato H, Hoshiai T, Urano Y (2008) A task clustering minimizing worst schedule length in distributed processing environment. IEICE Technical Reports, vol 108, no 361, pp 13–18, December 2008Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Daoud MI, Kharma N (2008) A high performance algorithm for static task scheduling in heterogeneous distributed computing systems. J Parallel Distr Comput 68(4):399–409MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Topcuoglu H, Hariri SH, Wu HY (2002) Performance-effective and low-complexity task scheduling for heterogeneous computing. IEEE Trans Parallel Distr Syst 13(3):260–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cosnard M, Lorraine LI, Jeannot E, Yang T (1999) SLC: Symbolic scheduling for executing parameterized task graphs on multiprocessors. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Parallel Processing (ICPP’99), pp 413–421, 1999Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Amoura AK, Bampis E, Konig J-C (1998) Scheduling algorithms for parallel Gaussian elimination with communication costs. IEEE Trans Parallel Distr Syst 9(7):679–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chabridon S, Gelenbe E (1995) Dependable parallel computing with agents based on a task graph model. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Euromicro Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Processing, p 350, 1995Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer New York 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hidehiro Kanemitsu
    • 1
  • Gilhyon Lee
  • Hidenori Nakazato
  • Takashige Hoshiai
  • Yoshiyori Urano
  1. 1.Graduate School of Global Information and Telecommunication StudiesWaseda UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations