Você está na página 1de 29

Operating Systems: S

cheduling

Scheduling

Processes can be in one of several states


5 state model :

short-term scheduling
organising transitions between states
on page-fault, waiting for or getting semaphores, I/O transfer completions etc.

deciding order in which ready processes should be run


priorities etc. and queue handling

Operating Systems: S
cheduling

7 state model with medium and long-term scheduling :

Operating Systems: S
cheduling
Medium-term scheduling
when main memory is full, processes need to be swapped out to disc
medium-term sched. decides which and when to swap out and back in
level of multiprogramming to achieve desired performance
to have processes ready and waiting to run when running process
blocks
separate swap area on disc commonly used
local disc to be effective
networked discs too slow
possible to use file storage sites instead of swap area
for files mapped into virtual space from disc storage site
accessing VM equivalent to accessing file storage site on disc
stacks and heaps etc. can also be mapped files
all VM space can be mapped files

often simpler than separate swap area


each page only has one corresponding disc site instead of possibly two
paging out a dirty page updates the file
clean pages need not be written out (if disc file sites initially cleared to zero)

Operating Systems: S
cheduling

drawbacks :
cannot page out across a network to a file serve
potential file inconsistency on system crash

EMAS system used mapped files


first version used a swap area on a dedicated drum (fixed head disc)
later versions just paged to and from disc file sites
worked because it was for a stand-alone mainframe with local discs

swap areas are usually fixed partitions on disc


drawbacks :
may not be large enough
may waste disc space if large enough for any eventuality

swap areas probably more efficient overall


all page transfers can be initiated together
probably to a contiguous disc area

disc driver will be more effective in optimising transfers


minimises head movement

Operating Systems: S
cheduling
Long-term scheduling
whether to allow new processes to enter a system
for a compute server or background job stream :
when to start next job
depends on job priority, CPU-time needs, memory needs etc.
also depends on existing load

for multiple user interactive system


how many users to allow on
each should get acceptable performance
or is it better to let all requestors on and let performance degrade?
CPU
Utulisation

knee

No. of Users

Operating Systems: S
cheduling

Short-term scheduling
Define the objectives and criteria to be met; then invent a scheme
Precise scheme will depend on type of system :
Compute server or background job stream processor
overall throughput most important
Single-user workstation
foreground interactive response most important
Multiple-user system
interactive time-sharing
transaction processing
travel agent enquiry and booking systems, banking terminals etc.

interactive response with fairness between users

Real-time systems
meeting hard deadlines
keeping up with processing data streams e.g. comms, audio and video etc.
industrial process control

Operating Systems: S
cheduling
System Manager objectives :
throughput - to maximise number of jobs completed per unit time
turn-around time for jobs
utilisation - to make best use of expensive resources
CPU - proportion of time spent executing user programs
memory usage
usage of peripherals
overall cost-effectiveness
a mix of CPU-bound and I/O bound tasks might be desirable for balance

to be fair
no favouring or starvation of some processes
ensuring priorities met
performance to degrade gracefully under load
to be reasonably predictable
wide variations in performance can be distracting
to be adaptable to varying circumstances without need for intervention

Operating Systems: S
cheduling
User objectives :
turn-around time for submitted jobs
adequate response time for interactive working
< 0.1 sec for immediate feedback
e.g. key depressions, menu highlighting etc.
may need special fast path through kernel to achieve
or peripheral processor - keyboard interface or video processor

< 1 sec needed to maintain user attention and interest for long
periods
> 1 sec : response can be very distracting - concentration will
falter
> 10 secs : intolerable for interaction
even talk conversations impossible
time to go for a coffee!

observed phenomenon :
thinking time drops as response time drops
an effect of short-term memory and attention span

Operating Systems: S
cheduling

Scheduling Criteria
Priority of process
basic priority usually decided outwith the scheduler - may be dynamic later
e.g. interactive v. background

CPU boundedness
does process always use its CPU quantum allocation without blocking?

I/O boundedness
does process frequently block for I/O ?

Page-fault frequency
a small PFF usually means the process has all the memory it needs and
can make good progress
a large PFF means the process will not use much CPU - always waiting for
the page to be brought in from disc

Operating Systems: S
cheduling
Urgency of required response
important for user interaction
may be vitally urgent for a real-time system
nearness to a deadline

CPU time already received


may decide to give CPU to a process that has not had much yet
or to him that hath shall be given ?

CPU time to completion


average waiting time minimised if process with least time to completion run
need to know how much time still needed - usually unknown

Regularity of requirements
CPU required at fixed time intervals - real-time systems
fairly straightforward to schedule given adequate system performance

10

Operating Systems: S
cheduling
Schedulers aim to optimise future performance
need to know future characteristics of processes
easiest to assume processes will continue to behave as previously
must be able to adapt when processes change characteristics

Pre-emptive scheduling
currently running process can be interrupted before finishing
put back onto the Run queue to get another go on the CPU later
typically the scheduler is re-entered on regular clock or timer interrupts
may also get re-entered whenever kernel entered
peripheral interrupts, semaphore operations etc.

Non Pre-emptive scheduling


running process continues until it has finished or blocks
low kernel overheads
scheduler usually needs more control than this
other processes may be seriously adversely affected

11

Operating Systems: S
cheduling

Priority Queues

Pre-emptive priority
processes in highest priority queue always get run first
those in lower priority queues always wait
starvation likely

12

Operating Systems: S
cheduling
Non-Pre-Emptive Priority
higher priority processes still favoured but not exclusively
every so often, take a process from a lower priority queue
a priority ratio table (used in EMAS medium-term scheduling)
1 2 1 3 1 2 1 4 1 2 1 3 1 2 1
make priorities dynamic
lower a processes priority after each time it has been run for a
quantum
used in Windows NT
process given an initial boost in priority, then gradual decay
favours short interactions

boost a processes priority if it has not had a go on the CPU lately

priority purchase ?
a user may wish to pay more to get better service
whether funny money i.e. computing time allocations, or real money

Higher and lower priority bands


kernel processes v. background job stream
real-time processes (NT)

13

Operating Systems: S
cheduling
First-Come-First-Served
processes queued on run queue in order of arrival
oldest process on queue always run next to completion - no pre-emption
simple to implement
primarily used for background and batch streams
performs much better for long jobs than for short ones
example: measure turnaround time normalised by service time : T q/Ts

favours CPU- bound processes over I/O bound processes


unacceptable for interactive systems - might be OK if combined with priority
queue system for known long run-time processes having lower priority

14

Operating Systems: S
cheduling

15

Operating Systems: S
cheduling

16

Operating Systems: S
cheduling
Round-Robin
each process gets a quantum of time (a time-slice) in turn
good for processes of equal priority
widely used for multi-user interactive systems
and single-user systems with multiple activities in progress
a pre-emptive policy
processes pre-empted by regular clock interrupts to kernel
scheduler
main issue is length of time-slice
to optimise interactive response, make quantum just slightly
longer than a typical interaction i.e. should complete within first
time-slice :

17

Operating Systems: S
cheduling

if quantum not large enough :

more than one quantum means additional round-robin delay

short time-slices :
all processes in round-robin queue get a go on the CPU quickly
short processes complete in one go
overheads will increase due to more frequent context changing

18

Operating Systems: S
cheduling

large time-slices :
round-robin time longer
some processes will always use their full time-slice
overheads lower
CPU-bound processes favoured over I/O bound or page-faulting processes
CPU-bound processes take full time-slice
I/O bound processes blocked before completing a time-slice
put blocked processes in a special queue
more equitable to give them higher priority when they unblock
or put them on front of round-robin queue to get CPU next

19

Operating Systems: S
cheduling
Shortest Process Next
process with shortest expected processing time run next - non-pre-emptive
intended to reduce bias towards long processes
achieves much better turnaround time than FCFS on average
some risk of starvation for longer processes (if new processes admitted on fly)
variability of turnaround time greater than FCFS
need a good estimate of expected processing time (extra overhead)
possible for batch and background streams, if user knows
can be estimated from previous behaviour for interactive processes :
Keep a running average of what was used in previous bursts of CPU use:
Sn+1 = ( Ti ) / n
or

Sn+1 = Tn/n + Sn*(n-1)/n

Better to use an exponential average function:


Sn+1 = Tn + (1-)*Sn

20

Operating Systems: S
cheduling

For 0 < < 1, all previous observations carry decreasing weight:


Sn+1 = Tn + (1-)Tn-1 + ... + (1-)..(1-)Tn-i + (1-)..(1-)S0
For = 0.8, virtually all weight given to previous four observations :
Sn+1 = 0.8Tn + 0.16Tn-1 + 0.032Tn-2 + 0.0064Tn-3 + . . .
For = 0.5, all weight given to previous eight observations.

Higher values of reflect changes more quickly - but jerkily

21

Operating Systems: S
cheduling
Shortest Time Remaining
process with least expected run-time to completion dispatched next
in effect a pre-emptive version of SPN
a new process entering the queue may pre-empt the running
process

need estimate of remaining run-time for each process


record previous elapsed times and use weighted average as in
SPN

can use regular clock interrupts to re-evaluate best next process


better turn-around time than SPN
no bias in favour of long processes
risk of starvation for longer processes
in the example, three shortest processes all receive immediate service

22

Operating Systems: S
cheduling
Highest Response Ratio Next
aim to minimise Tq/Ts for each process
can approximate an a priori measure :
Response ratio = (w + s)/s
where

w = waiting time
s = expected service time

expected service time must be estimated again


waiting time measured as time progresses

process with highest RR dispatched next


longer the wait, the higher the priority
short processes favoured but long processes not starved
good balance on the whole

non-pre-emptive as defined but could be made pre-emptive as STR


overheads in recomputing RR

23

Operating Systems: S
cheduling
Threads and Scheduling
Threads are each scheduled separately
Threaded applications may wish to assign relative priorities to threads
a background screen update thread - low priority
foreground interactive thread - high priority
check-point thread - low priority, but must not be starved

In a multi-user environment, CPU must be allocated equitably


spawning lots of threads must not gain the process unfair advantage
need to add up CPU used in all threads belonging to a process when reevaluating priorities or otherwise control allocation fairly

In a single-user environment
equitable CPU allocation less important

Windows NT introduced fibers to give users more precise control of


scheduling than threads
important for database and transaction processing systems

24

Operating Systems: S
cheduling
Scheduling Scheme Evaluation
Analytic methods v. Simulation
Queuing network models :
arrival rates and service times
multiple servers and queues
expected performance can be analysed mathematically for simple systems

Simulation :
model of scheduling scheme programmed
process characteristics, rate of interaction, service time needs, can be
modelled to match experience
traces of real sessions can be kept and used in simulations
On EMAS multi-access system, sessions were recorded on a PDP-11
re-run in simulation later
ERTE - Edinburgh Remote Terminal Emulator
produced useful data for tailoring scheduling schemes

25

Operating Systems: S
cheduling

Real-time System Scheduling


Soft and Hard deadlines for tasks
soft deadlines are desirable aims but not obligatory
hard deadlines must be met
may need to reserve resources ahead of time
schedule hard deadlines first, then fit soft deadlines in later

Continuous data streams or regular data packets a feature


much easier if timing characteristics and processing needs known in advance

Need to avoid Priority Inversion :


where a low priority task has a resource that is blocking a high priority task
possible solution : priority inheritance
low priority task inherits high priority of task needing the resource it
has

26

Operating Systems: S
cheduling
Cyclic Static scheduling :
for processing data appearing continuously or at regular times
pre-allocate a fixed amount of CPU at regular intervals
use timer interrupts to regain scheduling control from other tasks
can interlace multiple processing needs :
A

Dynamic scheduling : Most Urgent First


dispatch process with earliest deadline

Maximum Lateness First


lateness = processing time left for task - time left until deadline
task with largest lateness selected next

Rate Monotonic
assigns a priority to each task a priori proportional to the frequency of
occurrence of its triggering event.

27

Operating Systems: S
cheduling

task A : period 3ms, processing time 1.5ms


task B : period 2ms, processing time 0,2ms
task C : period 1ms, processing time 0.2ms

A Priori Analysis
mathematical and simulation techniques for predicting whether scheduling objectives
can be met and a schedule to meet them

28

Operating Systems: S
cheduling

Round Robin and other schemes also used in real-time systems


Hierarchical Scheduling :
form groups of tasks and apply different scheduling schemes to each group
Priority

Cyclic Static

T1

T2

Round Robin

T3

T4

T5

T6

Important that user able to select an appropriate scheduling scheme

29