Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
125 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
53 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
42 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Asymptotically Optimal Scheduling of Multiple Parallelizable Job Classes (2404.00346v1)

Published 30 Mar 2024 in cs.PF and cs.DC

Abstract: Many modern computing workloads are composed of parallelizable jobs. A single parallelizable job can be completed more quickly if it is run on additional servers, however each job is typically limited in the number of servers it can run on (its parallelizability level). A job's parallelizability level is determined by the type of computation the job performs and how it was implemented. As a result, a single workload of parallelizable jobs generally consists of multiple $\textit{job classes}$, where jobs from different classes may have different parallelizability levels. The inherent sizes of jobs from different classes may also be vastly different. This paper considers the important, practical problem of how to schedule an arbitrary number of classes of parallelizable jobs. Here, each class of jobs has an associated job size distribution and parallelizability level. Given a limited number of servers, $k$, we ask how to allocate the $k$ servers across a stream of arriving jobs in order to minimize the $\textit{mean response time}$ -- the average time from when a job arrives to the system until it is completed. The problem of optimal scheduling in multiserver systems is known to be difficult, even when jobs are not parallelizable. To solve the harder problem of scheduling multiple classes of parallelizable jobs, we turn to asymptotic scaling regimes. We find that in lighter-load regimes (i.e., Sub-Halfin-Whitt), the optimal allocation algorithm is Least-Parallelizable-First (LPF), a policy that prioritizes jobs from the least parallelizable job classes. By contrast, we also find that in the heavier-load regimes (i.e., Super-NDS), the optimal allocation algorithm prioritizes the jobs with the Shortest Expected Remaining Processing Time (SERPT). We also develop scheduling policies that perform optimally when the scaling regime is not known to the system a priori.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (36)
  1. Adaptive work-stealing with parallelism feedback. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems (TOCS), 26(3):1–32, 2008.
  2. Scheduling parallel DAG jobs online to minimize average flow time. In SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 176–189. SIAM, 2016.
  3. Scheduling in a single-server queue with state-dependent service rates. Probability in the Engineering and Informational Sciences, 34(4):507–521, 2020.
  4. Towards optimality in parallel scheduling. ACM POMACS, 1(2), 2018.
  5. Optimal resource allocation for elastic and inelastic jobs. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures, pages 75–87, 2020a.
  6. heSRPT: Parallel scheduling to minimize mean slowdown. Performance Evaluation, 144:102–147, 2020b.
  7. The case for phase-aware scheduling of parallelizable jobs. ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, 49(3):65–66, 2022.
  8. Scheduling multithreaded computations by work stealing. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 46(5):720–748, 1999.
  9. The memsql query optimizer: A modern optimizer for real-time analytics in a distributed database. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 9(13):1401–1412, 2016.
  10. Kairos: Preemptive data center scheduling without runtime estimates. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing, pages 135–148, 2018.
  11. On the whittle index of markov modulated restless bandits. Queueing Systems, 102(3-4):373–430, 2022.
  12. SRPT for multiserver systems. Performance Evaluation, 127:154–175, 2018.
  13. Stability for two-class multiserver-job systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.00631, 2020.
  14. Wcfs: A new framework for analyzing multiserver systems. Queueing Systems, 102(1-2):143–174, 2022a.
  15. Optimal scheduling in the multiserver-job model under heavy traffic. Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems, 6(3):1–32, 2022b.
  16. Towards realizing the potential of malleable jobs. In HiPC. IEEE, 2014.
  17. V. Gupta and N. Walton. Load balancing in the nondegenerate slowdown regime. Operations Research, 67(1):281–294, 2019.
  18. S. Halfin and W. Whitt. Heavy-traffic limits for queues with many exponential servers. Operations research, 29(3):567–588, 1981.
  19. M. Harchol-Balter. The multiserver job queueing model. Queueing Systems, 100(3):201–203, 2022.
  20. Amdahl’s law in the multicore era. Computer, 41:33–38, 2008.
  21. Y. Hong and W. Wang. Sharp waiting-time bounds for multiserver jobs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.05343, 2021.
  22. Sia: Heterogeneity-aware, goodput-optimized ml-cluster scheduling. In Proceedings of the 29th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, pages 642–657, 2023.
  23. L. Kleinrock. Queueing Systems, Volume I: Theory. Wiley New York, 1975.
  24. L. Kleinrock. Queueing systems, volume 2: Computer applications, volume 66. Wiley New York, 1976.
  25. Morsel-driven parallelism: A numa-aware query evaluation framework for the many-core age. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data, pages 743–754, 2014.
  26. A model-based approach to streamlining distributed training for asynchronous SGD. In MASCOTS. IEEE, 2018.
  27. Pollux: Co-adaptive cluster scheduling for goodput-optimized deep learning. In 15th U⁢S⁢E⁢N⁢I⁢X𝑈𝑆𝐸𝑁𝐼𝑋USENIXitalic_U italic_S italic_E italic_N italic_I italic_X Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (O⁢S⁢D⁢I𝑂𝑆𝐷𝐼OSDIitalic_O italic_S italic_D italic_I 21), 2021.
  28. The gittins policy is nearly optimal in the m/g/k under extremely general conditions. Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems, 4(3):1–29, 2020a.
  29. Optimal multiserver scheduling with unknown job sizes in heavy traffic. ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, 48(2):33–35, 2020b.
  30. Tetrisched: global rescheduling with adaptive plan-ahead in dynamic heterogeneous clusters. In Proceedings of the Eleventh European Conference on Computer Systems, pages 1–16, 2016.
  31. J. A. Van Mieghem. Dynamic scheduling with convex delay costs: The generalized c— mu rule. The Annals of Applied Probability, pages 809–833, 1995.
  32. Efficient parallel set-similarity joins using mapreduce. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of data, pages 495–506, 2010.
  33. Self-tuning query scheduling for analytical workloads. In Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Management of Data, pages 1879–1891, 2021.
  34. Heavy-traffic insensitive bounds for weighted proportionally fair bandwidth sharing policies. Mathematics of Operations Research, 47(4):2691–2720, 2022.
  35. W. Weng and W. Wang. Achieving zero asymptotic queueing delay for parallel jobs. Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems, 4(3):1–36, 2020.
  36. Minimizing makespan and total completion time in mapreduce-like systems. In INFOCOM, 2014 Proceedings IEEE, pages 2166–2174. IEEE, 2014.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com