Online Real-Time Preemptive Scheduling of Jobs with Deadlines

  • Bhaskar DasGupta
  • Michael A. Palis
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1913)


In this paper, we derive bounds on performance guarantees of online algorithms for real-time preemptive scheduling of jobs with deadlines on K machines when jobs are characterized in terms of their minimum stretchf actor α (or, equivalently, their maximum execution rate r = 1/α). We consider two well known preemptive models that are of interest from practical applications: the hard real-time scheduling model in which a job must be completed if it was admitted for execution by the online scheduler, and the firm real-time scheduling model in which the scheduler is allowed not to complete a job even if it was admitted for execution by the online scheduler. In both models, the objective is to maximize the sum of execution times of the jobs that were executed to completion, preemption is allowed, and the online scheduler must immediately decide, whenever a job arrives, whether to admit it for execution or reject it. We measure the competitive ratio of any online algorithm as the ratio of the value of the objective function obtained by this algorithm to that of the best possible offline algorithm. We show that no online algorithm can have a competitive ratio greater than 1-(1/α)+ε for hard real-time scheduling with K ≥ 1 machines and greater than 1- (3/(4[α]) + ε for firm real-time scheduling on a single machine, where ε > 0 may be arbitrarily small, even if the algorithm is allowed to know the value of á in advance. On the other hand, we exhibit a simple online scheduler that achieves a competitive ratio of at least 1-(1/α) in either of these models with K machines. The performance guarantee of our simple scheduler shows that it is in fact an optimal scheduler for hard real-time scheduling with K machines. We also describe an alternative scheduler for firm real-time scheduling on a single machine in which the competitive ratio does not go to zero as α approaches 1. Both of our schedulers do not know the value of α in advance.


Execution Time Schedule Algorithm Single Machine Competitive Ratio Online Algorithm 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Baruah, S., G. Koren, B. Mishra, A. Ragunathan, L. Rosier, and D. Sasha, On-line Scheduling in the Presence of Overload,Proc. 32nd IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 100–110, October 1991.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baruah S., G. Koren, D. Mao, B. Mishra, A. Raghunathan, L. Rosier, D. Shasha and F. Wang, On the competitiveness of on-line real-time scheduling, Real-Time Systems 4, 125–144, 1992.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bar-Noy, A., R. Bar-Yehuda, A. Freund, J.(S.) Naor and B. Schieber, A Unified Approach to Approximating Resource Allocation and Scheduling, Proc. 32nd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 735–744, May 2000.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bar-Noy, A., S. Guha, J. (S.) Naor and B. Schieber, Approximating the throughput of multiple machines in real-time scheduling, Proc. 31st Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 622–631, 1999.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berman P. and B. DasGupta, Improvements in Throughput Maximization for Real-Time Scheduling, Proc. 32nd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 680–687, May 2000.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Becchetti, L., S. Leonardi and S. Muthukrishnan, Scheduling to Minimize Average Stretch without Migration, Proc. 11thA nnual ACM-SIAM Symp. on Discrete Algorithms, 548–557, 2000.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bender, M., S. Chakrabarti and S. Muthukrishnan, Flowan d Stretch Metrics for Scheduling Continuous Job Streams, Proc. 10thA nnual ACM-SIAM Symp. on Discrete Algorithms, 1999.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brandt, S., G. Nutt, T. Berk, and M. Humphrey, Soft Real-Time Application Execution with Dynamic Quality of Service Assurance, 1998 International Workshop on Quality of Service, 154–163, May 1998.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Compton, C. and D. Tennenhouse, Collaborative Load Shedding, Proc. Workshop on the Role of Real-Time in Multimedia/Interactive Computing Systems, Dec. 1993Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dertouzos, M., Control Robotics: the Procedural Control of Physical Processors, Proc. IFIP Congress, 807–813, 1974.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fan, C., Realizing a Soft Real-Tim Framework for Supporting Distributed Multimedia Applications, Proc. 5th IEEE Workshop on the Future Trends of Distributed Computing Systems, 128–134, August 1995.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Humphrey, M., T. Berk, S. Brandt, and G. Nutt, Dynamic Quality of Service Resource Management for Multimedia Applications on General Purpose Operating Systems, IEEE Workshop in Middleware for Distributed Real-Time Systems and Services, 97–104, Dec. 1997.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jones, M., J. BarberaIII, and A. Forin, An Overviewo f the Rialto Real-Time Architecture, Proc. 7thA CM SIGOPS European Workshop, 249–256, Sept. 1996.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jones, M., D. Rosu, and M.-C. Rosu, CPU Reservations and Time Constraints: Efficient, Predictable Scheduling of Independent Activities, Proc. 16thA CM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, Oct. 1997.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kise H., T. Ibaraki and H. Mine, A solvable case of one machine scheduling problems with ready and due dates, Operations Research 26, 121–126, 1978.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Koren G. and D. Shasha, An optimal on-line scheduling algorithm for overloaded real-time systems, SIAMJ. on Computing 24, 318–339, 1995.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lawler, E. L., A dynamic programming approach for preemptive scheduling of a single machine to minimize the number of late jobs], Annals of Operations Research 26, 125–133, 19zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lipton, R. J. and A. Tomkins, Online interval scheduling, Proc. 5thA nnual ACMSIAM Symp. on Discrete Algorithms, 302–311, 1994.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liu, H. and M. E. Zarki, Adaptive source rate control for real-time wireless video transmission, Mobile Networks and Applications 3, 49–60, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mok, A., Fundamental Design Problems of Distributed Systems for the Hard Real-Time Environment, Doctoral Dissertation, M.I.T., 1983.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Muthukrishnan, S., R. Rajaraman, A. Shaheen abd J. E. Gehrke, Online Scheduling to Minimize Average Stretch, Proc. 40thAnn ual IEEE Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science, 433–443, 1999.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nieh, J. and M. Lam, The Design, Implementation and Evaluation of SMART: A Scheduler for Multimedia Applications, Proc. 16thA CM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, Oct. 1997.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nieh, J. and M. Lam, Integrated Processor Scheduling for Multimedia, Proc. 5th International Workshop on Network and Operating System Support for Digital Audio and Video, April 1995.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rajugopal, G. R. and R. H. M. Hafez, Adaptive rate controlled, robust video communication over packet wireless networks, Mobile Networks and Applications 3, 33–47, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sahni, S, Algorithms for scheduling independent tasks, JACM 23, 116–127, 1976.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Spieksma, F. C. R., On the approximability of an interval scheduling problem, Journal of Scheduling 2, 215–227, 1999 (preliminary version in the Proceedings of the APPROX’98 Conference, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1444, 169–180, 1998).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yau, D. K. Y. and S. S. Lam, Adaptive rate-controlled scheduling for multimedia applications, Proc. IS&T/SPIEMultimedia Computing and Networking Conf., San Jose, CA, January 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bhaskar DasGupta
    • 1
  • Michael A. Palis
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceRutgers UniversityNJUSA

Personalised recommendations