Static and Dynamic Processor Scheduling Disciplines in Heterogeneous Parallel Architectures

Most parallel jobs cannot be fully parallelized. In a homogeneous parallel machine-one in which all processors are identical-the serial fraction of the computation has to be executed at the speed of any of the identical processors, limiting the speedup that can be obtained due to parallelism. In a heterogeneous architecture, the sequential bottleneck can be greatly reduced by running the sequential part of the job or even the critical tasks in a faster processor. This paper uses Markov chain based models to analyze the performance of static and dynamic processor assignment policies for heterogeneous architectures. Parallel jobs are assumed to be described by acyclic directed task graphs. A new static processor assignment policy, called Largest Task First Minimum Finish Time (LTFMFT), is introduced. The analysis shows that this policy is very sensitive to the degree of heterogeneity of the architecture, and that it outperforms all other policies analyzed. Three dynamic assignment disciplines are compared and it is shown that, in heterogeneous environments, the disciplines that perform better are those that consider the structure of the task graph, and not only the service demands of the individual tasks. The performance of heterogeneous architectures is compared with cost-equivalent homogeneous ones taking into account different scheduling policies. Finally, static and dynamic processor assignment disciplines are compared in terms of performance.

[1]  David L. Black Scheduling support for concurrency and parallelism in the Mach operating system , 1990, Computer.

[2]  Virgílio A. F. Almeida,et al.  Cost-performance analysis of heterogeneity in supercomputer architectures , 1990, Proceedings SUPERCOMPUTING '90.

[3]  Constantine D. Polychronopoulos,et al.  The hierarchical task graph and its use in auto-scheduling , 1991, ICS '91.

[4]  Raj Vaswani,et al.  The implications of cache affinity on processor scheduling for multiprogrammed, shared memory multiprocessors , 1991, SOSP '91.

[5]  Anoop Gupta,et al.  The impact of operating system scheduling policies and synchronization methods of performance of parallel applications , 1991, SIGMETRICS '91.

[6]  Charles L. Seitz,et al.  Multicomputers: message-passing concurrent computers , 1988, Computer.

[7]  John Zahorjan,et al.  Zahorjan processor allocation policies for message-passing parallel computers , 1994, SIGMETRICS 1994.

[8]  Haim Mendelson,et al.  Economies of scale in computing: Grosch's law revisited , 1987, CACM.

[9]  Shikharesh Majumdar,et al.  Scheduling in multiprogrammed parallel systems , 1988, SIGMETRICS 1988.

[10]  Mark S. Squillante Issues in Shared-Memory Multipro-cessor Scheduling: A Performance Evaluation , 1990 .

[11]  Alexander Thomasian,et al.  Analytic Queueing Network Models for Parallel Processing of Task Systems , 1986, IEEE Transactions on Computers.

[12]  J D Littler,et al.  A PROOF OF THE QUEUING FORMULA , 1961 .

[13]  Daniel A. Menascé,et al.  A Methodology for Performance Evaluation of Parallel Applications on Multiprocessors , 1992, J. Parallel Distributed Comput..

[14]  K. Mani Chandy,et al.  A comparison of list schedules for parallel processing systems , 1974, Commun. ACM.

[15]  Ken Kennedy,et al.  Performance of parallel processors , 1989, Parallel Comput..

[16]  Constantine D. Polychronopoulos Multiprocessing versus Multiprogramming , 1989, ICPP.

[17]  Mark S. Squillante,et al.  Using Processor-Cache Affinity Information in Shared-Memory Multiprocessor Scheduling , 1993, IEEE Trans. Parallel Distributed Syst..

[18]  Mary K. Vernon,et al.  The performance of multiprogrammed multiprocessor scheduling algorithms , 1990, SIGMETRICS '90.

[19]  Peter J. Fleming,et al.  HETEROGENEOUS ARCHITECTURES FOR REAL-TIME CONTROL: DESIGN TOOLS AND SCHEDULING ISSUES , 1994 .

[20]  Shikharesh Majumdar Processor scheduling in multiprogrammed parallel systems , 1988 .

[21]  Kenneth C. Sevcik Characterizations of parallelism in applications and their use in scheduling , 1989, SIGMETRICS '89.

[22]  Alex Kapelnikov,et al.  A Modeling Methodology for the Analysis of Concurrent Systems and Computations , 1989, J. Parallel Distributed Comput..

[23]  Alan C. Shaw,et al.  Experiments with a program timing tool based on source-level timing schema , 1990, [1990] Proceedings 11th Real-Time Systems Symposium.

[24]  R. F. Freund,et al.  Optimal selection theory for superconcurrency , 1989, Proceedings of the 1989 ACM/IEEE Conference on Supercomputing (Supercomputing '89).

[25]  Lawrence W. Dowdy,et al.  Dynamic partitioning in a transputer environment , 1990, SIGMETRICS '90.

[26]  Milos D. Ercegovac,et al.  Heterogeneity in supercomputer architectures , 1988, Parallel Comput..

[27]  Virgílio A. F. Almeida,et al.  The Effect of Heterogeneity on the Performance of Multiprogrammed Parallel Systems , 1992, Proceedings. Workshop on Heterogeneous Processing.

[28]  Constantine D. Polychronopoulos Parallel Programming Issues , 1993, Int. J. High Speed Comput..

[29]  K.K. Leung,et al.  Module replication and assignment for real-time distributed processing systems , 1987, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[30]  JOHN B. ANDREWS,et al.  An Analytical Approach to Performance/Cost Modeling of Parallel Computers , 1991, J. Parallel Distributed Comput..

[31]  Richard F. Freund,et al.  Superconcurrency: A Form of Distributed Heterogeneous Supercomputing , 1991 .

[32]  Satish K. Tripathi,et al.  Static Heuristic Processor Assignment in Heterogeneous Multiprocessors , 1994, Int. J. High Speed Comput..

[33]  Kin K. Leung,et al.  Task Response Time For Real-Time Distributed Systems With Resource Contentions , 1991, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[34]  Hironori Kasahara,et al.  Practical Multiprocessor Scheduling Algorithms for Efficient Parallel Processing , 1984, IEEE Transactions on Computers.

[35]  R. F. Freund,et al.  Augmenting the Optimal Selection Theory for Superconcurrency , 1992, Proceedings. Workshop on Heterogeneous Processing.

[36]  Behrooz Shirazi,et al.  Analysis and Evaluation of Heuristic Methods for Static Task Scheduling , 1990, J. Parallel Distributed Comput..

[37]  G. Amdhal,et al.  Validity of the single processor approach to achieving large scale computing capabilities , 1967, AFIPS '67 (Spring).

[38]  M. K. Seager,et al.  Simulating the scheduling of parallel supercomputer applications , 1989 .

[39]  Raj Vaswani,et al.  A dynamic processor allocation policy for multiprogrammed shared-memory multiprocessors , 1993, TOCS.

[40]  Satish K. Tripathi,et al.  The Processor Working Set and Its Use in Scheduling Multiprocessor Systems , 1991, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..