CPU Scheduling Algorithms and Criteria

Chapter 5: CPU Scheduling

Chapter 5: Objectives • Understand • Scheduling Criteria • Scheduling Algorithms • Multiple-Processor Scheduling

Basic Concepts • Maximum CPU utilization obtained with multiprogramming • CPU–I/O Burst Cycle • Process execution consists of a cycle of CPU execution and I/O wait • How long is the CPU burst?

Many short bursts Few long bursts CPU Burst Distribution • CPU bursts vary greatly from process to process and from computer to computer • But, in general, they tend to have the following distribution (expo)

CPU Scheduler • Selects one process from ready queue to run on CPU • Scheduling can be • Nonpreemptive • Once a process is allocated the CPU, it does not leave unless: • it has to wait, e.g., for I/O request or for a child to terminate • it terminates • Preemptive • OS can force (preempt) a process from CPU at anytime • Say, to allocate CPU to another higher-priority process • Which is harder to implement? and why? • Preemptive is harder: Need to maintain consistency of • data shared between processes, and more importantly, • kernel data structures (e.g., I/O queues) • Think of a preemption while kernel is executing a sys call on behalf of a process (many OSs, wait for sys call to finish)

Dispatcher • Scheduler: selects one process to run on CPU • Dispatcher: allocates CPU to the selected process, which involves: • switching context • switching to user mode • jumping to the proper location (in the selected process) and restarting it • Dispatch latency – time it takes for the dispatcher to stop one process and start another running • How does scheduler select a process to run?

Scheduling Criteria • CPU utilization – keep the CPU as busy as possible • Maximize • Throughput – # of processes that complete their execution per time unit • Maximize • Turnaround time – amount of time to execute a particular process (time from submission to termination) • Minimize • Waiting time – amount of time a process has been waiting in the ready queue • Minimize • Response time – amount of time it takes from when a request was submitted until the first response is produced, not output (for time-sharing environment) • Minimize

Scheduling Algorithms • First Come, First Served • Shortest Job First • Priority • Round Robin • Multilevel queues • Note: A process may have many CPU bursts, but in the examples we show only one for simplicity

P1 P2 P3 0 24 27 30 First-Come, First-Served (FCFS) Scheduling ProcessBurst Time P1 24 P2 3 P3 3 • Suppose that the processes arrive in the order: P1 , P2 , P3 The Gantt Chart for the schedule is: • Waiting time for P1 = 0; P2 = 24; P3 = 27 • Average waiting time: (0 + 24 + 27)/3 = 17

P2 P3 P1 0 3 6 30 FCFS Scheduling (Cont.) Suppose that the processes arrive in the order P2 , P3 , P1 3, 3, 24 • The Gantt chart for the schedule is: • Waiting time for P1 = 6;P2 = 0; P3 = 3 • Average waiting time: (6 + 0 + 3)/3 = 3 • Much better than previous case • Convoy effect: short process behind long process

Shortest-Job-First (SJF) Scheduling • Associate with each process the length of its next CPU burst. Use these lengths to schedule the process with the shortest time • Two schemes: • nonpreemptive – once CPU given to the process it cannot be preempted until completes its CPU burst • preemptive – if a new process arrives with CPU burst length less than remaining time of current executing process, preempt. This scheme is know as the Shortest-Remaining-Time-First (SRTF) • SJF is optimal – gives minimum average waiting time for a given set of processes

P1 P3 P2 P4 0 3 7 8 12 16 Example of Non-Preemptive SJF Process Arrival TimeBurst Time P1 0.0 7 P2 2.0 4 P3 4.0 1 P4 5.0 4 • SJF (non-preemptive) • Average waiting time = (0 + 6 + 3 + 7)/4 = 4

P1 P2 P3 P2 P4 P1 11 16 0 2 4 5 7 Example of Preemptive SJF Process Arrival TimeBurst Time P1 0.0 7 P2 2.0 4 P3 4.0 1 P4 5.0 4 • SJF (preemptive, SRJF) • Average waiting time = (9 + 1 + 0 +2)/4 = 3

Determining Length of Next CPU Burst • Can only estimate the length • Can be done by using the length of previous CPU bursts, using exponential averaging

Exponential Averaging • If we expand the formula, we get: n+1 =  tn +  (1 - ) tn -1+  (1 -  )2tn-2+ … + (1 -  )n +1 0 • Since both  and (1 - ) are less than or equal to 1, each successive term has less weight than its predecessor • Examples: •  = 0 ==> n+1 = n ==> Last CPU burst does not count (transient value) •  =1 ==> n+1 =  tn ==> Only last CPU burst counts (history is stale)

Prediction CPU Burst Lengths: Expo Average • Assume  = 0.5, 0 = 10

Priority Scheduling • A priority number (integer) is associated with each process • The CPU is allocated to the process with the highest priority (smallest integer  highest priority) • Preemptive • nonpreemptive • SJF is a priority scheduling where priority is the predicted next CPU burst time • Problem  Starvation – low priority processes may never execute • Solution  Aging – as time progresses increase the priority of the process • Aging: increase the priority of a process as it waits in the system

Round Robin (RR) • Each process gets a small unit of CPU time (time quantum), usually 10-100 milliseconds. After this time has elapsed, the process is preempted and added to the end of the ready queue. • If there are n processes in the ready queue and the time quantum is q, then each process gets 1/n of the CPU time in chunks of at most q time units at once. No process waits more than (n-1)q time units. • Performance • q large  FCFS • q small  q must be large with respect to context switch, otherwise overhead is too high

P1 P2 P3 P4 P1 P3 P4 P1 P3 P3 0 20 37 57 77 97 117 121 134 154 162 Example of RR with Time Quantum = 20 ProcessBurst Time P1 53 P2 17 P3 68 P4 24 • The Gantt chart is: • Typically, higher average turnaround than SJF, but betterresponse

Time Quantum and Context Switch Time • Smaller q  more responsive but more context switches (overhead)

Turnaround Time Varies With The Time Quantum • Turnaround time varies with quantum, then stabilizes • Rule of thumb for good performance: • 80% of CPU bursts should be shorter than time quantum

Multilevel Queue • Ready queue is partitioned into separate queues: • foreground (interactive) • background (batch) • Each queue has its own scheduling algorithm • foreground – RR • background – FCFS • Scheduling must be done between the queues • Fixed priority scheduling; (i.e., serve all from foreground then from background). Possibility of starvation. • Time slice – each queue gets a certain amount of CPU time which it can schedule amongst its processes; e.g., • 80% to foreground in RR • 20% to background in FCFS

Multilevel Queue Scheduling

Multilevel Feedback Queue • A process can move between various queues; aging can be implemented this way • Multilevel-feedback-queue scheduler defined by the following parameters: • number of queues • scheduling algorithms for each queue • method used to determine when to upgrade a process • method used to determine when to demote a process • method used to determine which queue a process will enter when that process needs service

Example of Multilevel Feedback Queue • Three queues: • Q0 – RR with time quantum 8 milliseconds • Q1 – RR time quantum 16 milliseconds • Q2 – FCFS • Scheduling • A new job enters queue Q0which is servedFCFS. When it gains CPU, job receives 8 milliseconds. If it does not finish in 8 milliseconds, job is moved to queue Q1. • At Q1 job is again served FCFS and receives 16 additional milliseconds. If it still does not complete, it is preempted and moved to queue Q2

Multilevel Feedback Queues • Notes: • Short processes get served faster (higher prio)  more responsive • Long processes (CPU bound) sink to bottom  served FCFS  more throughput

Multiple-Processor Scheduling • Multiple processors ==> divide load among them • More complex than single CPU scheduling • How to divide load? • Asymmetric multiprocessor • One master processor does the scheduling for others • Symmetric multiprocessor (SMP) • Each processor runs its own scheduler • One common ready queue for all processors, or one ready queue for each • Win XP, Linux, Solaris, Mac OS X support SMP

SMP Issues • Processor affinity • When a process runs on a processor, some data is cached in that processor’s cache • A process migrates to another processor ==> • Cache of new processor has to be re-populated • Cache of old processor has to be invalidated • ==> performance penalty • Load balancing • One processor has too much load and another is idle • Balance load using • Push migration: A specific task periodically checks load on all processors and evenly distributes it by moving (pushing) tasks • Pull migration: Idle processor pulls a waiting task from a busy processor • Some systems (e.g., Linux) implement both • Tradeoff between load balancing and processor affinity: what would you do? • May be, invoke load balancer when imbalance exceeds a threshold

Real-time Scheduling • Hard-real time systems • A task must be finished within a deadline • Ex: Control of spacecraft • Soft-real time systems • A task is given higher priority over others • Ex: Multimedia systems

Operating System Examples • Windows XP scheduling • Linux scheduling

Windows XP Scheduler • Priority-based, preemptive scheduler • The highest-priority thread will always run • 32 levels of priorities, each has a separate queue • Scheduler traverses queues from highest to lowest till it finds a thread that is ready to run • Priorities are divided into classes, each has several relative priorities

Windows XP Scheduler (cont’d) • Real-time class (fixed): Levels 16 to 31 • Other classes (variable): Levels 1 to 15 • Priority may change (decrease or increase) • Priority decreases • After thread’s quantum time runs out • but never goes below the base (normal) value of its class • Limit CPU consumption of CPU-bound threads • Priority increases • After a thread is released from a wait operation • Bigger increase if thread was waiting for mouse or keyboard • Moderate increase if it was waiting for disk • Also, active window gets a priority boost • Yield good response time

Linux Scheduler • Priority-based, preemptive scheduler with two separate ranges • Real-time: 0 to 99 • Nice: 100 to 140 (from -20 to 19) • Higher priority tasks get larger quanta (unlike Win XP, Solaris)

Linux Scheduler (cont’d) • A task is initially assigned a time slice (quantum) • Runqueue has two arrays: active and expired • A runnable task is eligible for CPU if it still has time left in its time slice • If the time slice runs out, the task is moved to the expired array • When there are no tasks in the active array, the expired array becomes the active array and vice versa (change of pointers)

Algorithm Evaluation • Deterministic modeling • Takes a particular predetermined workload and defines the performance of each algorithm for that workload • Not general • Queuing models • Use queuing theory to analyze algorithms • Many (unrealistic) assumptions to facilitate analysis • Simulation • Build a simulator and test with • synthetic workload (e.g., generated randomly), or • Traces collected from running systems • Implementation • Code it up and test!

Summary • Process execution: cycle of CPU bursts and I/O bursts • CPU bursts lengths: many short bursts, and few long ones • Scheduler selects one process from ready queue • Dispatcher performs the switching • Scheduling criteria (usually conflicting) • CPU utilization, waiting time, response time, throughput, … • Scheduling Algorithms • FCFS, SJF, Priority, RR, Multilevel Queues, … • Multiprocessor Scheduling • Processor affinity vs. load balancing • Evaluation of Algorithms • Modeling, simulation, implementation • Examples • Win XP, Linux

CPU Scheduling Algorithms and Criteria