SOAP: One Clean Analysis of All Age-Based Scheduling Policies

We consider an extremely broad class of M/G/1 scheduling policies called SOAP: Schedule Ordered by Age-based Priority. The SOAP policies include almost all scheduling policies in the literature as well as an infinite number of variants which have never been analyzed, or maybe not even conceived. SOAP policies range from classic policies, like first-come, first-serve (FCFS), foreground-background (FB), class-based priority, and shortest remaining processing time (SRPT); to much more complicated scheduling rules, such as the famously complex Gittins index policy and other policies in which a job's priority changes arbitrarily with its age. While the response time of policies in the former category is well understood, policies in the latter category have resisted response time analysis. We present a universal analysis of all SOAP policies, deriving the mean and Laplace-Stieltjes transform of response time.

[1]  Adam Wierman,et al.  Fairness and classifications , 2007, PERV.

[2]  Linus Schrage,et al.  The Queue M/G/1 with the Shortest Remaining Processing Time Discipline , 1966, Oper. Res..

[3]  Esa Hyytiä,et al.  Minimizing slowdown in heterogeneous size-aware dispatching systems , 2012, SIGMETRICS '12.

[4]  Alan Scheller-Wolf,et al.  SOAP: One Clean Analysis of All Age-Based Scheduling Policies , 2018, SIGMETRICS 2018.

[5]  Konstantin Avrachenkov,et al.  Optimal policy for multi-class scheduling in a single server queue , 2009, 2009 21st International Teletraffic Congress.

[6]  Vishal Misra,et al.  Mixed scheduling disciplines for network flows , 2003, PERV.

[7]  L. Takacs.  Delay distributions for one line with poisson input, general holding times, and various orders of service , 1963 .

[8]  Minghong Lin,et al.  The average response time in a heavy-traffic srpt queue , 2010, PERV.

[9]  Urtzi Ayesta,et al.  Sojourn times in a processor sharing queue with multiple vacations , 2012, Queueing Systems.

[10]  Urtzi Ayesta,et al.  PROPERTIES OF THE GITTINS INDEX WITH APPLICATION TO OPTIMAL SCHEDULING , 2011, Probability in the Engineering and Informational Sciences.

[11]  Leonard Kleinrock,et al.  Time-shared Systems: a theoretical treatment , 1967, JACM.

[12]  Adam Wierman,et al.  Scheduling despite inexact job-size information , 2008, SIGMETRICS '08.

[13]  Mor Harchol-Balter.  Performance Modeling and Design of Computer Systems: M/M/1 and PASTA , 2013 .

[14]  Konstantin Avrachenkov,et al.  Optimal choice of threshold in Two Level Processor Sharing , 2009, Ann. Oper. Res..

[15]  Ronald W. Wolff,et al.  Poisson Arrivals See Time Averages , 1982, Oper. Res..

[16]  D. Kendall.  Stochastic Processes Occurring in the Theory of Queues and their Analysis by the Method of the Imbedded Markov Chain , 1953 .

[17]  Philippe Robert,et al.  Heavy tailed M/G/1-PS queues with impatience and admission control in packet networks , 2003, IEEE INFOCOM 2003. Twenty-second Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies (IEEE Cat. No.03CH37428).

[18]  Urtzi Ayesta,et al.  Mean Delay Analysis of Multi Level Processor Sharing Disciplines , 2006, Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM 2006. 25TH IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications.

[19]  Sem C. Borst,et al.  Sojourn time asymptotics in processor-sharing queues , 2006, Queueing Syst. Theory Appl..

[20]  Sem C. Borst,et al.  Beyond processor sharing , 2007, PERV.

[21]  Leslie D. Servi,et al.  A Distributional Form of Little's Law , 2018 .

[22]  Urtzi Ayesta,et al.  On the Gittins index in the M/G/1 queue , 2009, Queueing Syst. Theory Appl..

[23]  Adam Wierman,et al.  Preventing Large Sojourn Times Using SMART Scheduling , 2008, Oper. Res..

[24]  Linus Schrage,et al.  The Queue M/G/1 With Feedback to Lower Priority Queues , 1967 .

[25]  Christian M. Ernst,et al.  Multi-armed Bandit Allocation Indices , 1989 .

[26]  Robert B. Cooper,et al.  Stochastic Decompositions in the M/G/1 Queue with Generalized Vacations , 1985, Oper. Res..

[27]  G. Jantzen.  1988 , 1988, The Winning Cars of the Indianapolis 500.

[28]  Adam Wierman,et al.  Nearly insensitive bounds on SMART scheduling , 2005, SIGMETRICS '05.