1 / 48

Super-Fast Delay Tradeoffs for Utility Optimal Scheduling in Wireless Networks

Optimal scheduling in wireless networks balancing utility and delay with flow control, resource allocation, and routing strategies. Achieve utility-delay tradeoffs effectively.

Download Presentation

Super-Fast Delay Tradeoffs for Utility Optimal Scheduling in Wireless Networks

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Super-Fast Delay Tradeoffs for Utility Optimal Scheduling in Wireless Networks l e e e e Michael J. Neely University of Southern California http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~mjneely/ *Sponsored by NSF OCE Grant 0520324

  2. A multi-node network with N nodes and L links: l e e e e Slotted time t = 0, 1, 2, … t 0 1 2 3 … Traffic (An(c)(t)) and channel states S(t) i.i.d. over timeslots. Control for Optimal Utility-Delay Tradeoffs…

  3. 1) Flow Control: l e e e Ai(c) e Ri(c)(t) An(c)(t) = New Commodity c data during slot t (i.i.d) E[An(c)(t)] = ln(c) , (ln(c)) = Arrival Rate Matrix Rn(c)(t) = Flow Control Decision at (i,c): Rn(c)(t) < min[Ln(c)(t) + An(c)(t) , Rmax]

  4. 2) Resource Allocation: l e e e e Channel State Matrix:S(t) = (Sab(t)) Transmission Rate Matrix:m(t) = (mab(t)) WS(t) = Set of Feasible Rate Matrices for Channel State S. Resource allocation:choosem(t)WS(t)

  5. mab(c)(t) < mab(t) c mab(c)(t) = 0 if (a,b) Lc 3) Routing: Lc = Set of all links acceptable for commodity c traffic to traverse Examples… mab(c)(t) = Amount of commodity c data transmitted over link (a,b)

  6. mab(c)(t) < mab(t) c mab(c)(t) = 0 if (a,b) Lc 3) Routing: Example 1: Lc = All network links (commodity c = ) mab(c)(t) = Amount of commodity c data transmitted over link (a,b)

  7. mab(c)(t) < mab(t) c mab(c)(t) = 0 if (a,b) Lc 3) Routing: Example 2: Lc = a directed subset (commodity c = ) mab(c)(t) = Amount of commodity c data transmitted over link (a,b)

  8. mab(c)(t) < mab(t) c mab(c)(t) = 0 if (a,b) Lc 3) Routing: downlink uplink Example 3: Lc = Specifies a one-hop network (no routing decisions) mab(c)(t) = Amount of commodity c data transmitted over link (a,b)

  9. mab(c)(t) < mab(t) c mab(c)(t) = 0 if (a,b) Lc 3) Routing: one-hop ad-hoc network Example 4: Lc = Specifies a one-hop network (no routing decisions) mab(c)(t) = Amount of commodity c data transmitted over link (a,b)

  10. gn(c)(r) e e e r e Utility functions l L = Capacity region (considering all control algs.) rn(c) = Time average of Rn(c)(t) admission decisions. GOAL: (Joint flow control, resource allocation, and routing)

  11. Network Utility Optimization: Static Optimization:(Lagrange Multipliers and convex duality) Kelly, Maulloo, Tan [J. Op. Res. 1998] Xiao, Johansson, Boyd [Allerton 2001] Julian, Chiang, O’Neill, Boyd [Infocom 2002] P. Marbach [Infocom 2002] Steven Low [TON 2003] B. Krishnamachari, Ordonez [VTC 2003] M. Chiang [Infocom 2004] Stochastic Optimization: Lee, Mazumdar, Shroff [2005] (stochastic gradient) Eryilmaz, Srikant [Infocom 2005] (fluid transformations) Stolyar [Queueing Systems 2005] (fluid limits) Neely , Modiano [2003, 2005] (Lyapunov optimization)

  12. Network Utility Optimization: Static Optimization:(Lagrange Multipliers and convex duality) Kelly, Maulloo, Tan [J. Op. Res. 1998] Xiao, Johansson, Boyd [Allerton 2001] Julian, Chiang, O’Neill, Boyd [Infocom 2002] P. Marbach [Infocom 2002] Steven Low [TON 2003] B. Krishnamachari, Ordonez [VTC 2003] M. Chiang [Infocom 2004] Stochastic Optimization: Lee, Mazumdar, Shroff [2005] (stochastic gradient) Eryilmaz, Srikant [Infocom 2005] (fluid transformations) Stolyar [Queueing Systems 2005] (fluid limits) Neely , Modiano [2003, 2005] (Lyapunov optimization)

  13. Our Previous Work (Neely, Modiano, Li Infocom 2005): gn(c)(r) l r Utility functions Cross-Layer Control Algorithm (with control parameter V>0): Achieves: [O(1/V), O(V)] utility-delay tradeoff!

  14. Our Previous Work (Neely, Modiano, Li Infocom 2005): gn(c)(r) l r Utility functions Cross-Layer Control Algorithm (with control parameter V>0): Achieves: [O(1/V), O(V)] utility-delay tradeoff!

  15. Our Previous Work (Neely, Modiano, Li Infocom 2005): gn(c)(r) l r Utility functions Cross-Layer Control Algorithm (with control parameter V>0): Achieves: [O(1/V), O(V)] utility-delay tradeoff!

  16. Our Previous Work (Neely, Modiano, Li Infocom 2005): gn(c)(r) l r Utility functions Cross-Layer Control Algorithm (with control parameter V>0): Achieves: [O(1/V), O(V)] utility-delay tradeoff!

  17. Our Previous Work (Neely, Modiano, Li Infocom 2005): gn(c)(r) l r Utility functions Cross-Layer Control Algorithm (with control parameter V>0): Achieves: [O(1/V), O(V)] utility-delay tradeoff!

  18. Our Previous Work (Neely, Modiano, Li Infocom 2005): gn(c)(r) l r Utility functions Cross-Layer Control Algorithm (with control parameter V>0): Achieves: [O(1/V), O(V)] utility-delay tradeoff!

  19. Our Previous Work (Neely, Modiano, Li Infocom 2005): gn(c)(r) any rate vector! l r Utility functions Cross-Layer Control Algorithm (with control parameter V>0): Achieves: [O(1/V), O(V)] utility-delay tradeoff!

  20. Our Previous Work (Neely, Modiano, Li Infocom 2005): gn(c)(r) any rate vector! l r Utility functions Cross-Layer Control Algorithm (with control parameter V>0): Achieves: [O(1/V), O(V)] utility-delay tradeoff!

  21. Our Previous Work (Neely, Modiano, Li Infocom 2005): gn(c)(r) any rate vector! l r Utility functions Achieves: [O(1/V), O(V)] utility-delay tradeoff! Uses theory of Lyapunov Optimization [Neely, Modiano 2003, 2005] Generalizes classical Lyapunov Stability results of: -Tassiulas, Ephremides [Trans. Aut. Control 1992] -Kumar, Meyn [Trans. Aut. Control 1995] -McKeown, Anantharam, Walrand [Infocom 1996] -Leonardi et. al., [Infocom 2001]

  22. Question: Is [O(1/V), O(V)] the optimal utility-delay tradeoff? Results: For a large class of overloaded networks, we can do much better by achieving O(log(V)) average delay. l O(log(V)) Avg. Delay e e V

  23. Question: Is [O(1/V), O(V)] the optimal utility-delay tradeoff? Results: For a large class of overloaded networks, we can do much better by achieving O(log(V)) average delay. l O(log(V)) Avg. Delay e e V

  24. Question: Is [O(1/V), O(V)] the optimal utility-delay tradeoff? Results: For a large class of overloaded networks, we can do much better by achieving O(log(V)) average delay. l O(log(V)) Avg. Delay e e V

  25. Question: Is [O(1/V), O(V)] the optimal utility-delay tradeoff? Results: For a large class of overloaded networks, we can do much better by achieving O(log(V)) average delay. l O(log(V)) Avg. Delay e e V

  26. Question: Is [O(1/V), O(V)] the optimal utility-delay tradeoff? Results: For a large class of overloaded networks, we can do much better by achieving O(log(V)) average delay. l O(log(V)) Avg. Delay e e V

  27. Question: Is [O(1/V), O(V)] the optimal utility-delay tradeoff? Results: For a large class of overloaded networks, we can do much better by achieving O(log(V)) average delay. l O(log(V)) Avg. Delay e e V

  28. e < rn(c) < ln(c) - e Overloaded and Fully Active Assumptions: l e e e e Assumption 1 (Overloaded): Optimal operating point r* has all positive entries, and the input rate matrix l is outside of the capacity region and strictly dominates r*. That is, there exists an e>0 such that:

  29. Overloaded and Fully Active Assumptions: l e e e e *Assumption 2 (Fully Active): All queues Un(c)(t) that can be positive are also active sources of commodity c data. *Used implicitly in proofs of conference version (Infocom 2006) but not stated explicitly. Described in more detial in JSAC 2006 (on web).

  30. Overloaded and Fully Active Assumptions: downlink uplink l e e e e *Assumption 2 (Fully Active): All queues Un(c)(t) that can be positive are also active sources of commodity c data. *Natural assumption for overloaded one-hop networks. (Network is defined by all active links)

  31. Overloaded and Fully Active Assumptions: one-hop ad-hoc network l e e e e *Assumption 2 (Fully Active): All queues Un(c)(t) that can be positive are also active sources of commodity c data. *Natural assumption for overloaded one-hop networks. (Network is defined by all active links)

  32. Overloaded and Fully Active Assumptions: one-hop ad-hoc network l e e e e *Assumption 2 (Fully Active): All queues Un(c)(t) that can be positive are also active sources of commodity c data. Holds for a large class of multi-hop networks. Example: 1 or more commodities, all nodes are independent sources of each of these commodities (as in “all-to-all” traffic)

  33. Overloaded and Fully Active Assumptions: Fully Active assumption can be restrictive in general multi-hop networks with stochastic channels: Logarithmic Utility-Delay Tradeoffs Unknown: 1 2 l1 m1(t) m2(t) Logarithmic Utility-Delay Tradeoffs Achievable: l2 1 2 l1 m1(t) m2(t)

  34. Achieving Optimal Logarithmic Utility-Delay Tradeoffs:

  35. Achieving Optimal Logarithmic Utility-Delay Tradeoffs: Automatically satisfied if we stabilize the network.

  36. Achieving Optimal Logarithmic Utility-Delay Tradeoffs: Difficult to achieve “super-fast” logarithmic delay tradeoffs working Directly with this constraint.

  37. Achieving Optimal Logarithmic Utility-Delay Tradeoffs: However: For any queueing system (stable or not): Un(c)(t) (actual bits transmitted)

  38. Achieving Optimal Logarithmic Utility-Delay Tradeoffs: However: For any queueing system (stable or not): Un(c)(t) (actual bits transmitted)

  39. Achieving Optimal Logarithmic Utility-Delay Tradeoffs: Want to Solve: We Know: Also: IF EDGE EFFECTS SMALL: Un(c)(t)

  40. Achieving Optimal Logarithmic Utility-Delay Tradeoffs: Want to Solve: We Know: Also: IF EDGE EFFECTS SMALL: Introduce a virtual queue [Neely Infocom 2005]: Zn(c)(t)

  41. Designing “gravity” into the system: Un(c) Q The Tradeoff Optimal Control Algorithm: Define the aggregate “bi-modal” Lyapunov Function: [Buffer partitioning Concept similar to Berry-Gallager 2002] Minimize:

  42. Utility-Delay Optimal Algorithm (UDOA): (stated here in special case of zero transport layer storage) Flow Control (a): At node n, observe queue backlog Un(c)(t). Un(c)(t) Rn(c)(t) ln(c) Rest of Network If Un(c)(t) > Q then Rn(c)(t) = 0 (reject all new data) If Un(c)(t) < Q then Rn(c)(t) = An(c)(t) (admit all new data) (where V is a parameter that affects network delay)

  43. Utility-Delay Optimal Algorithm (UDOA): (stated here in special case of zero transport layer storage) Flow Control (b): At node n, observe virtual queue Zn(c)(t). Un(c)(t) Rn(c)(t) ln(c) Rest of Network Then Update the Virtual Queues Zn(c)(t).

  44. (2) Routing: Observe neighbor’s queue length Un(c)(t), compute: link (n,b) Node n cnb*(t) = Define Wnb*(t) = maxmizing weight over all c (where (n,c) Lc) Define cnb*(t) as the arg maximizer. (This is the best commodity to send over link (n,b) if Wnb*(t) >0. Else send nothing over link (n,b)).

  45. Note: Routing Algorithm is related to the Tassiulas-Ephremides Differential backlog policy [1992], but uses weights that switch Aggressively and discontinuously ON and OFF to yield optimal delay tradeoffs. (3) Resource Allocation: Observe Channel State S(t). Choose mab(c)(t) such that

  46. Theorem (UDOA Performance): If the overloaded And fully active assumptions are satisfied, then with Suitable choices of parameters Q, w (as functions of V), we have for any V>0: Theorem (Optimality of logarithmic delay): For one-hop networks with zero transport layer storage space (all admission/rejection decisions made upon packet arrival), then any average congestion tradeoff is necessarily logarithmic in V. (details in paper)

  47. Pr[ON] = p1 l1 l2 Pr[ON] = p2 Two Queue Downlink Simulation: Observation: The coefficient Q can be reduced by a factor of 30 without Effecting edge probability, leading to further (constant factor) reductions in average delay with no affect on utility. Shown below is Reduction by 30 (original Q would have delay multiplied by 30)). input rate Simulation Utility Optimal Throughput point Bound Thruput 2 V parameter Delay (slots) “Super-Fast” Flow Control. (Input Traffic exceeds network capacity). V parameter V (Log scale x-axis) Thruput 1

  48. Conclusions: input rate Simulation Utility Optimal Throughput point Bound V parameter Delay (slots) “Super-Fast” Flow Control. (Input Traffic exceeds network capacity). V parameter V (Log scale x-axis) Thruput 1 “Super-Fast” Logarithmic Delay Tradeoff Achievable via Dynamic Scheduling and Flow Control. 2) Logarithmic Delay is Optimal for one-hop Networks. Fundamental Utility-Delay Tradeoff: [O(1/V), O(log(V))] Novel Lyapunov Optimization Technique for Achieving Optimal Delay Tradeoffs.

More Related