340 likes | 480 Views
Minimizing Weighted Flow Time. Nikhil Bansal (CMU) Kedar Dhamdhere (CMU). Scheduling. What the heck is flowtime 1|r_j | pmtn | W_j F_j. Single Machine (with preemptions) Jobs arrive at different times Different sizes (service requirements). Keep users happy, some measure.
E N D
Minimizing Weighted Flow Time Nikhil Bansal (CMU) Kedar Dhamdhere (CMU)
Scheduling What the heck is flowtime 1|r_j | pmtn | W_j F_j • Single Machine (with preemptions) • Jobs arrive at different times • Different sizes (service requirements) Keep users happy, some measure Nikhil Bansal
Scheduling (contd) t=0 Flow Time of Job 1 Flow Time = Completion Time – Release Time = Time spent in system Measure: Total Weighted Flow Time ( 1| rj, pmtn | wj Fj) Competitive Ratio = Max. [Online Cost / Opt. Offline Cost] Nikhil Bansal
Results Unweighted: Optimal’ 56 , SRPT (Shortest Rem. Proc. Time) P = max. size / min. size W= max. wt / min. wt Nikhil Bansal
Results (Resource Augmentation) s-speed c-competitive algorithm [Kalyanasundaram, Pruhs’ 95] Onlines(I) · c . Opt Offline1(I) Nikhil Bansal
An alternate view Weighted Flow Time of a job = wj£ (Time in system) think of contributing “wj” at each time step Total Wt. Flow Time W(t) = t Total weight(t) Local c-Competitive: If W(t) · c Wopt(t) for all t Clearly sufficient to guarantee c-competitive Also Necessary!! Need to keep total weight close to Opt at all times Nikhil Bansal
A Balancing Act Also need to take care of BIG weights Need to keep total weight close to Opt at all times Density = Weight/ Remaining Service Greedy could be very BAD (W = 99, Size = 100) W=1, Size =1 What happens at time 100 ? Nikhil Bansal
The Algorithm 1. Let the weights be w1 < w2 < … < wk 2. Put same weight jobs in a bucket. Work on the bucket with highest total weight (breaking ties in favor of the larger index). 3. Do SRPT within each bucket. W2=4 W1=1 Nikhil Bansal
The Algorithm 1. Let the weights be w1 < w2 < … < wk 2. Put same weight jobs in a bucket. Work on the bucket with highest total weight (breaking ties in favor of the larger index). 3. Do SRPT within each bucket. W2=4 W1=1 Nikhil Bansal
The Algorithm 1. Let the weights be w1 < w2 < … < wk 2. Put same weight jobs in a bucket. Work on the bucket with highest total weight (breaking ties in favor of the larger index). 3. Do SRPT within each bucket. W2=4 W1=1 Nikhil Bansal
The Algorithm 1. Let the weights be w1 < w2 < … < wk 2. Put same weight jobs in a bucket. Work on the bucket with highest total weight (breaking ties in favor of the larger index). 3. Do SRPT within each bucket. W2=4 W1=1 Nikhil Bansal
Analysis Idea Maintain an Invariant: Show does not change with time Simpler Problem: Optimality of SRPT (Shortest remaining processing time) wrt # of jobs: At all times SRPT has min # of jobs[Schrage’ 68] Nikhil Bansal
Proof SRPT Other SRPT(2) Other(2) Let A(l)= Jobs in the first l levels under A Let |A(l)| = Total work contained in jobs 2 A(l) Invariant:|Srpt(l)| ¸ |Other(l)| , for all l = 1,2,3,… If true, it follows NSRPT (t) · NOther(t) Nikhil Bansal
Proof (No arrival Case) SRPT Other SRPT always works on last job Nikhil Bansal
Proof (No arrival Case) SRPT Other |Srpt(l)| decreases! Key Property: |Srpt(l)| decreases iff |Srpt(l)| = total work Nikhil Bansal
Proof (Arrivals) SRPT Other Nikhil Bansal
Proof (Arrivals, Case 1) SRPT Other Nikhil Bansal
Proof (Arrivals) SRPT Other New |SRPT(5)| = Old |SRPT(4) | + |new arrival| New |Other(5)| = Old |Other(4) | + |new arrival| Nikhil Bansal
Proof (Arrivals) SRPT Other Easy: SRPT’s prefix only increases Nikhil Bansal
Our Algorithm • Let the weights be w1 < w2 < … < wk • Work on bucket with highest total weight (break ties in favor of the larger weight index) • Do SRPT within each bucket W2=4 W1=1 Nikhil Bansal
Proof Idea Let (j,l) denote lth job with weight wj B(j,l) = (j,l) [ {jobs which cannot be executed before (j,l) } 1) Key Property : |B(j,l)| decreases iff |B(j,l)| = total work 2) Weight(B(j,l)) · k . l . Wj W2=4 W1=1 (2,1) (2,2) (1,2) (1,5) B(1,5) Nikhil Bansal
Proof Idea P(j,l): Any packing of jobs with total weight · l £ wj Invariant: For every (j,l) packing, |B(j,l)| ¸ |P(j,l)| W2=4 W1=1 Opt un P(1,5) B(1,5) Nikhil Bansal
Proof Idea P(j,l): Any packing of jobs with total weight · l £ wj Invariant: For every (j,l) packing, |B(j,l)| ¸ |P(j,l)| W2=4 W1=1 Opt P(1,5) un B(1,5) Could have holes Nikhil Bansal
Invariant => Result Consider all jobs in Opt at time t. Total wt = W and min. wt = wj Let l = W/wj , and consider B(j,l) By Invariant, |B(j,l)| ¸ |P(j,l)| = total work in system B(j,l) = All the jobs Weight(B(j,l)) · k wj l = k Weight(Opt) Thus, K competitive Nikhil Bansal
Proof Idea P(j,l): Any packing of jobs with total weight · l £ wj Invariant: For every (j,l) packing, |B(j,l)| ¸ |P(j,l)| Key Property: |B(j,l)| decreases iff |B(j,l)| = total work W2=4 W1=1 Opt P(1,5) un B(1,5) Nikhil Bansal
Proving the Invariant (Arrival) W1=1 W2=4 More capacity here More elaborate argument: Presence of holes Want to show: B(1,5) >= P(1,5) on arrival Nikhil Bansal
Proving the Invariant W1=1 W2=4 On arrival of red job P(1,5) increases, but B(1,5) does not Need to use that in fact B(1,4) > P(1,4) A couple more cases! Nikhil Bansal
Open Problems • O(1) competitive for weighted flow time ? • O(1) approx ? • QPTAS, (nO(log W¢log P/^3)) time [Chekuri,Khanna] • 3) Non-clairvoyant case, better than 1+1/ • competitive for 1+ speed up ? Nikhil Bansal
Thank You! Nikhil Bansal
Proof Idea P(j,l): Any packing of jobs with total weight · l £ wj Invariant: For every (j,l) packing, |B(j,l)| ¸ |P(j,l)| W2=4 W1=1 Opt un P(1,5) B(1,5) Nikhil Bansal
Proof (Arrivals, Case 2) SRPT Other Nikhil Bansal
Proof (Arrivals, Case 2) SRPT Other Nikhil Bansal
Proof (Arrivals, Case 2) SRPT Other |Other(2)| might increase but |Srpt(2)| does not But, in SRPT first 2 jobs bigger than new (red) , not so for Other! Nikhil Bansal