An Adaptive-Priority Queue

  • H. G. Badr
  • I. Mitrani
  • J. R. Spirn
Part of the Progress in Computer Science book series (PCS, volume 3)

Abstract

Priority scheduling is used frequently in computer systems; however, such schedules usually have a “fail-safe” provision to prevent high-priority requests from causing unlimited delay to low-priority ones. In this paper, a queue and server is considered which has two sources of Poisson-arrival customers, types a and b respectively. Non-preemptive priority is granted to type a customers, except that whenever the number of waiting type b customers exceeds a specified threshold, class b receives priority. Service times are assumed exponentially distributed with a common mean, but it is possible to greatly relax this restriction. The intent is to grant priority to class a most of the time, while bounding the mean waiting time of class b customers under heavy class a load. This particular fail-safe mechanism is shown to have the property that for system states in which class b is below the threshold, the occupancy probability is exactly the same as if class a always had high priority.

Keywords

Expense Summing 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Badr, H. G. and J. R. Spirn, “An Adaptive-Priority Queue,” The Pennsylvania State University Computer Science Technical Report CS-79-38.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Badr, H. G. and J. R. Spirn, “An M/G/1 Adaptive-Priority Queue,” to appear.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Chattergy, R. and W. W. Lichtenberger, “BCC 500: A Distributed Function Multiprocessor System,” University of Hawaii Electrical Engineering Technical Report, 1978.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Cobham, A., “Priority Assignment in Waiting Line Problems,” Oper. Res., Vol. 2, pp. 70–76, 1954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Cohen, J. W., The Single Serve Queue, North Holland (Amsterdam), 1969.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Coffman, E. G., and P. J. Denning, Operating Systems Theory, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1973.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Conway, R. L., W. L. Maxwell, and L. W. Miller, Theory of Scheduling, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1967.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Gross, D., and C. M. Harris, Fundamentals of Queueing Theory, Wiley-Applied Statistics, New York, 1974.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Kleinrock, L., Queueing Systems, Vol. I: Theory, Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1975.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Kleinrock, L., Queueing Systems, Vol. II: Computer Applications, Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1975.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Little, J. D. C., “A Proof of the Queueing Formula L = λW,” Oper. Res., Vol. 9, pp. 383–387, 1961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Endnotes

  1. 1.
    Although the characterization is not complete in as much as the class of customer currently in service is unknown, it is sufficient to permit an analysis to be undertaken.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Recall that P(I) is not included in transform P(y, z).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. G. Badr
    • 1
  • I. Mitrani
    • 2
  • J. R. Spirn
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceSUNY at Stony BrookStony BrookUSA
  2. 2.Computing LaboratoryThe University of NewcastleNewcastle upon TyneUnited Kingdom
  3. 3.Digital Equipment CorporationMaynardUSA

Personalised recommendations