Static scheduling using task replication for LogP and BSP models

  • Cristina Boeres
  • Vinod E. F. Rebello
  • David B. Skillicorn
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1470)


This paper investigates the effect of communication overhead on the scheduling problem. We present a scheduling algorithm, based on LogP-type models, for allocating task graphs to networks of processors. The makespans of schedules produced by our multi-stage scheduling approach (MSA) are compared with other well-known scheduling heuristics. The results indicate that new classes of scheduling heuristics are required to generate efficient schedules for realistic abstractions of today’s parallel computers. The scheduling strategy of MSA can also be used to generate BSP-structured programs from more abstract representations. The performance of such programs are compared with “conventional” versions.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    C. Boeres. Versatile Communication Cost Modelling for Multicomputer Task Scheduling Heuristics. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh, May 1997.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    C. Boeres and V. E. F. Rebello. Versatile task scheduling of binary trees for realistic machines. In M. Griebl C. Lengauer and S. Gorlatch, editors, Proceedings of the 3rd International Euro-Par Conference on Parallel Processing (Euro-Par’97), LNCS 1300, pages 913–921, Passau, Germany, August 1997. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. Boeres and V. E. F. Rebello. A versatile cost modelling approach for multicomputer task scheduling. Accepted for publication in Parallel Computing, 1998.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. P. Brent. The parallel evaluation of general arithmetic expressions. J. ACM, 21:201–206, 1974.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    G. Chochia, C. Boeres, M. Norman, and P. Thanisch. Analysis of multicomputer schedules in a cost and latency model of communication. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Abstract Machine Models for Parallel and Distributed Computing, Leeds, UK., April 1996. IOS press.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. Culler et al. LogP: Towards a realistic model of parallel computation. In Proceedings of the Fourth ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles and Practice of Parallel Programming, San Diego, CA, May 1993.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    B. Di Martino and G. Ianello. Parallelization on non-simultaneous iterative methods for systems of linear equations. In Parallel Processing (CONPAR’94-VAPP VI), LNCS 854, pages 254–264. Springer-Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. M. D. Hill, P. I. Crumpton, and D. A. Burgess. The theory, practice, and a tool for BSP performance prediction. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Euro-Par Conference on Parallel Processing (Euro-Par’96), volume 1124 of LNCS, pages 697–705. Springer-Verlag, August 1996.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. M. D. Hill, S. Donaldson, and D. B. Skillicorn. Stability of communication performance in practice: from the Cray T3E to networks of workstations. Technical Report PRG-TR-33-97, Oxford University Computing Laboratory, October 1997.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. M. D. Hill and D. B. Skillicorn. Lessons learned from implementing BSP. In High-Performance Computing and Networks, Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science Vol. 1225, pages 762–771, April 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    J-J. Hwang, Y-C. Chow, F. D. Anger, and C-Y. Lee. Scheduling precedence graphs in systems with interprocessor communication times. SIAM Journal of Computing, 18(2):244–257, 1989.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    H. Jung, L. Kirousis, and P. Spirakis. Lower bounds and efficient algorithms for multiprocessor scheduling of DAGs with communication delays. In Proc. ACM Symposium on Parallel Algorithms and Architectures, pages 254–264, 1989.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    W. Lowe, W. Zimmermann, and J. Eisenbiergler. Optimization of parallel programs on machines with expensive communication. In L. Bouge, P. Fraigniaud, A. Mignotte, and Y. Robert, editors, Proceedings of the 2nd International Euro-Par Conference on Parallel Processing (Euro-Par’96), LNCS 1124, pages 602–610, Lyon, France, August 1996. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. A. Palis, J-C. Liou, and D. S. L. Wei. Task clustering and scheduling for distributed memory parallel architectures. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 7(1):46–55, January 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    C. H. Papadimitriou and M. Yannakakis. Towards an architecture-independent analysis of parallel algorithms. SIAM Journal of Computing, 19:322–328, 1990.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    D. B. Skillicorn, J. M. D. Hill, and W. F. McColl. Questions and answers about BSP. Scientific Programming, 6(3):249–274, 1997.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    T. Yang and A. Gerasoulis. DSC: Scheduling parallel tasks on an unbounded number of processors. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 5(9):951–967, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cristina Boeres
    • 1
  • Vinod E. F. Rebello
    • 1
  • David B. Skillicorn
    • 2
  1. 1.Departamento de CiÊncia da ComputaÇÃoUniversidade Federal Fluminense (UFF)Niterói, RJBrazil
  2. 2.Computing and Information ScienceQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada

Personalised recommendations