Achieving end-to-end delay bounds by EDF scheduling without traffic shaping

Earliest deadline first scheduling with per-node traffic shaping (RC-EDF) has the largest schedulable region among all practical policies known today and has been considered a good solution for providing end-to-end packet delay bounds. In order to harness the traffic burstiness inside a network to satisfy the schedulability condition of EDF, per-node traffic shaping has been believed to be necessary. However, shaping introduces artificial packet delays. We show that by deadline assignments at each node that are strict time-shifting of the source packet arrival times, the functionality of shaping can be implicitly realized; the resulting schedulable region of the new scheduling policy is as large as that of RC-EDF. We name the new policy deadline-curve based EDF (DC-EDF). Not only working in a natural work-conserving way, when the global schedulability condition fails DC-EDF will also work in a "best-effort" way to allow packets excessively delayed at previous nodes to catch up and meet the end-to-end delay bounds. Therefore, DC-EDF is likely to provide "tight" statistical delay bounds. We also prove that a known EDF policy without traffic shaping also has a schedulable region as large as that of RC-EDF.

[1]  Dinesh C. Verma,et al.  A Scheme for Real-Time Channel Establishment in Wide-Area Networks , 1990, IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun..

[2]  George C. Polyzos,et al.  SCED: A Generalized Scheduling Policy for Guarantee* Quality-of-Service , 1999 .

[3]  Cheng-Shang Chang,et al.  Stability, queue length, and delay of deterministic and stochastic queueing networks , 1994, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control..

[4]  Hui Zhang,et al.  Per Hop Behaviors Based on Dynamic Packet State , 2002 .

[5]  Kang G. Shin,et al.  Real-time communication in multi-hop networks , 1991, [1991] Proceedings. 11th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems.

[6]  Roch Guérin,et al.  Quality-of-Service in Packet Networks: Basic Mechanisms and Directions , 1999, Comput. Networks.

[7]  Kang G. Shin,et al.  Real-Time Communication in Multihop Networks , 1994, IEEE Trans. Parallel Distributed Syst..

[8]  Anthony Ephremides,et al.  Optimal scheduling with strict deadlines , 1989 .

[9]  Roch Guérin,et al.  Efficient network QoS provisioning based on per node traffic shaping , 1996, TNET.

[10]  P. R. Kumar,et al.  Dynamic instabilities and stabilization methods in distributed real-time scheduling of manufacturing systems , 1990 .

[11]  Chung Laung Liu,et al.  Scheduling Algorithms for Multiprogramming in a Hard-Real-Time Environment , 1989, JACM.

[12]  Donald F. Towsley,et al.  Optimal scheduling policies for a class of queues with customer deadlines to the beginning of service , 1988, JACM.

[13]  Vijay Sivaraman,et al.  End-to-end delay service in high-speed packet networks using earliest deadline first scheduling , 2000 .

[14]  Abhay Parekh,et al.  Optimal multiplexing on a single link: delay and buffer requirements , 1994, Proceedings of INFOCOM '94 Conference on Computer Communications.

[15]  Donald F. Towsley,et al.  Efficient admission control of piecewise linear traffic envelopes at EDF schedulers , 1998, TNET.

[16]  Rene L. Cruz,et al.  A calculus for network delay, Part II: Network analysis , 1991, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[17]  Rene L. Cruz,et al.  Quality of Service Guarantees in Virtual Circuit Switched Networks , 1995, IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun..

[18]  Jörg Liebeherr,et al.  Workconserving vs. non-workconserving packet scheduling: an issue revisited , 1999, 1999 Seventh International Workshop on Quality of Service. IWQoS'99. (Cat. No.98EX354).

[19]  Hui Zhang,et al.  Service disciplines for guaranteed performance service in packet-switching networks , 1995, Proc. IEEE.

[20]  Domenico Ferrari,et al.  Exact admission control for networks with a bounded delay service , 1996, TNET.