non-preemptive scheduling policy design for tasks with stochastic execution times* chris gill...
TRANSCRIPT
Non-Preemptive Scheduling Policy Design for Tasks with Stochastic
Execution Times*
Chris GillAssociate Professor
Department of Computer Science and EngineeringWashington University, St. Louis, MO, USA
The University of PennsylvaniaMonday November 23, 2009
*Research supported by NSF grants CNS-0716764 (Cybertrust) and CCF-0448562 (CAREER) and driven by numerous contributions from
doctoral students Robert Glaubius and Terry Tidwell; undergraduates Braden Sidoti, David Pilla, Justin Meden, and
Cameron Cross; and Prof. William D. Smart
2 - Gill et al. – 04/20/23
Washington University in St. Louis
3 - Gill et al. – 04/20/23
Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering
24 faculty members and 71 Ph.D. students working in:
real-time and embedded systems, robotics, graphics, HCI, AI, bioinformatics, networking, high-performance architectures, chip multi-processors, mobile computing, sensor networks, distributed systems, optimization
PhD students are fully funded, and we emphasize individual mentorship and interdisciplinary work
Recent graduates are on faculty at U. Mass, UT-Austin, Rochester, RIT, CMU, Michigan St., and UNC-Charlotte
Graduate study application deadline for Fall 2010 is January 15: http://www.cse.wustl.edu
4 - Gill et al. – 04/20/23
Motivation
Systems are increasingly being designed to interact with the physical world
This trend offers compelling new research challenges that motivate our work
Consider for example the domain of mobile robotics
my name is
LewisMedia and Machines Laboratory
Washington University in St. Louis
5 - Gill et al. – 04/20/23
Motivation
As in many other systems, resources must be shared among competing tasks
Fail-safe modes may reduce consequences of resource-induced timing failures, but precise scheduling matters
The physical properties of some resources motivate new models and techniques
my name is
LewisMedia and Machines Laboratory
Washington University in St. Louis
6 - Gill et al. – 04/20/23
Motivation
For example, sharing a camera between navigation and surveying tasks
(1) in general doesn’t allow efficient preemption
(2) involves stochastically distributed durations
Other scenarios also raise scalability questions, e.g., multi-robot heterogeneous real-time data transmission
LewisMedia and Machines Laboratory
Washington University in St. Louis
7 - Gill et al. – 04/20/23
System Model Assumptions To begin, time is modeled as being discrete
» E.g., some multiple of the Linux jiffy is the time quantum
Separate tasks require a shared resource» Access is mutually exclusive (a task binds the
resource)» Binding durations are independent and non-
preemptive» Each task’s distribution of durations can be known» Each task is always available to run
Goal: precise resource allocation among the tasks» E.g., 2:1 utilization share targets for tasks A vs B» Need a deterministic scheduling policy (decides
which task gets the resource when) that best fits that goal
8 - Gill et al. – 04/20/23
Towards Optimal Policies
A Markov decision process (MDP) is a 4-tuple (X,A,C,T) that matches our system model well:X: a finite set of states (e.g., utilizations of 8 vs. 17
quanta)A: the set of actions (giving resource to a particular task)C: cost function for taking an action in a stateT: transition function (probability of moving from one
state to another state based on the action chosen)
Solving the MDP gives a policy that maps each state to an action to minimize long term expected costs
However, to do that we need a finite set of states
9 - Gill et al. – 04/20/23
Share Aware Scheduling
A system state: cumulative resource usage of each task
Dispatching a task moves the system stochastically through the state space according to that task’s duration
(8,17)
10 - Gill et al. – 04/20/23
Share Aware Scheduling
Utilization target induces a ray {u:0} through the state space
Encode each state’s “goodness” (relative to the share) as a cost
Require that costs grow with distance from utilization ray
u
u=(1/3,2/3)
11 - Gill et al. – 04/20/23
Transition Structure
Transitions are state-independent
I.e., relative distribution over successor states is the same in each state
12 - Gill et al. – 04/20/23
Cost Structure
States along same line parallel to the utilization ray have equal cost
13 - Gill et al. – 04/20/23
Equivalence Classes
Transition and cost structure thus induce equivalence classes
Equivalent states have the same optimal long-term cost and policy!
14 - Gill et al. – 04/20/23
Periodicity
Periodic structure allows us to represent each equivalence class with a single exemplar
15 - Gill et al. – 04/20/23
Wrapping the State Model
Remove all but one exemplar from each equivalence class
Actions and costs remain unchanged
Remap any dangling transitions (to removed states) to the corresponding exemplar
(0,0)
16 - Gill et al. – 04/20/23
c(x)=
c(x)=
Truncating the State Model
Inexpensive states are nearer the utilization target
Good policies should keep costs small
Can truncate the state space by bounding sizes of costs considered
17 - Gill et al. – 04/20/23
Bounding the State Model
Map any dangling transitions produced by truncation, to a high-cost absorbing state
This guarantees that we will be able to find bounded-cost policies if they exist
Bounded costs also guarantee bounded deviation from the resource share (precision)
18 - Gill et al. – 04/20/23
A Scheduling Policy Design Approach
Iteratively increase the bounds and re-solve the resulting MDP
As the bounds increase, the bounded model solution converges towards the optimal wrapped model policy
19 - Gill et al. – 04/20/23
Automating Model Discovery
ESPI: Expanding State Policy Iteration
1. Start with a policy that only reaches finitely many states from (0,…,0).
E.g., always run the most underutilized task.
2. Enumerate enough states to evaluate and improve that policy
3. If policy can not be improved, stop4. Otherwise, repeat from (2) with newly improved
policy
20 - Gill et al. – 04/20/23
Policy Evaluation Envelope
Enumerate states reachable from the initial state
Explore state space breadth-first under the current policy, starting from the initial state(0,0)
21 - Gill et al. – 04/20/23
Policy Improvement Envelope
Consider alternative actions
Close under the current policy using breadth-first expansion
Evaluate and improve the policy within this envelope
22 - Gill et al. – 04/20/23
ESPI Termination
As long as the initial policy has finite closure, each ESPI iteration terminates (this is satisfied by starting with the heuristic policy that always runs the most underutilized task)
Policy strictly improves at each iteration
Anecdotally, ESPI terminates on all of the task scheduling MDPs to which we have applied it
23 - Gill et al. – 04/20/23
Comparing Design Methods
Policy performance is shown normalized and centered on the ESPI solution data
Larger bounded state models yield the ESPI solution
24 - Gill et al. – 04/20/23
What About Scalability?
MDP representation allows consistent approximation of the optimal scheduling policy
Empirically, bounded model and ESPI solutions appear to be near-optimal
However, approach scales exponentially in number of tasks so while it may be good for (e.g.) sharing an actuator, it won’t apply directly to larger task sets
25 - Gill et al. – 04/20/23
What our Policies Say about Scalability
To overcome limitations of MDP based approach, we focus attention on a restricted class of appropriate scheduling policies
Examining the policies produced by the MDP based approach gives insights into choosing (and into parameterizing) appropriate policies
26 - Gill et al. – 04/20/23
Two-task MDP Policy
Scheduling policies induce a partition on a 2-D state space with boundary parallel to the share target
Establish a decision offset d to identify the partition boundary
Sufficient in 2-D, but what about in higher dimensions?
27 - Gill et al. – 04/20/23
Time Horizons Suggest a Generalization
H0 H1 H2 H3 H4
Ht={x : x1+x2+…+xn=t}
H0
H1
H2
(0,0) (2,0,0)
(0,2,0)
(0,0,2)
u
u
28 - Gill et al. – 04/20/23
Three-task MDP Policy
Action partitions meet along a decision ray that is parallel to the utilization ray
Action partitions are roughly cone-shaped
t =10 t =20 t =30
29 - Gill et al. – 04/20/23
Parameterizing a Partition
Specify a decision offset at the intersection of partitions
Anchor action vectors at the decision offset to approximate partitions
A conic policy selects the action vector best aligned with the displacement between the query state and the decision offset
a1a2
a3
x
30 - Gill et al. – 04/20/23
Conic Policy Parameters
Decision offset dAction vectors a1,a2,…,an
Sufficient to partition each time horizon into n regions
Allows good policy parameters to be found through local search
31 - Gill et al. – 04/20/23
Comparing Policies
Policy found by ESPI (for small numbers of tasks)πESPI(x) – chooses action at state x per solved MDP
Simple heuristics (for all numbers of tasks)πunderused(x) – runs the most underutilized task
πgreedy(x) – minimizes immediate cost from state x
Conic approach (for all numbers of tasks)πconic(x) – selects action with best aligned action vector
32 - Gill et al. – 04/20/23
Policy Comparison on a 4 Task Problem
Task durations: random histograms over [2,32]100 iterations of Monte Carlo conic parameter
searchESPI outperforms, conic eventually approximates
well
33 - Gill et al. – 04/20/23
Policy Comparison on a Ten Task Problem
Repeated the same experiment for 10 tasksESPI is omitted (intractable here)Conic outperforms greedy & underutilized
heuristics
34 - Gill et al. – 04/20/23
Comparison with Varying #s of Tasks
100 independent problems for each # (avg, 95% conf)
ESPI only tractable through all 2 and 3 task casesConic approximates ESPI, then outperforms
others
35 - Gill et al. – 04/20/23
ConclusionsWe have developed new techniques for designing
non-preemptive scheduling policies for tasks with stochastic resource usage durations
MDP-based methods provide good approximations to optimal policies for 2 or 3 tasks
Conic policy performance is competitive with ESPI for smaller problems, and for larger problems improves on underutilized and greedy policies
Future work will focus on applying and evaluating our results in different cyber-physical systems, and on extending them further in design and verification
36 - Gill et al. – 04/20/23
For Further InformationR. Glaubius, T. Tidwell, C. Gill, and W.D. Smart, “Scheduling Policy Design for
Autonomic Systems”, International Journal on Autonomous and Adaptive Communications Systems, 2(3):276-296, 2009
R. Glaubius, T. Tidwell, C. Gill, and W.D. Smart, “Scheduling Design and Verification for Open Soft Real-Time Systems”, RTSS 2008
R. Glaubius, T. Tidwell, B. Sidoti, D. Pilla, J. Meden, C. Gill, and W.D. Smart, “Scalable Scheduling Policy Design for Open Soft Real-Time Systems”, Tech. Report WUCSE-2009-71, 2009 (Under Review for RTAS 2010)
R. Glaubius, T. Tidwell, C. Gill, and W.D. Smart, “Scheduling Design with Unknown Execution Time Distributions or Modes”. Tech. Report WUCSE-2009-15, 2009
T. Tidwell, R. Glaubius, C. Gill, and W.D. Smart, “Scheduling for Reliable Execution in Autonomic Systems”, ATC 2008
C. Gill, W.D. Smart, T. Tidwell, and R. Glaubius, “Scheduling as a Learned Art”, OSPERT, 2008
Project web site: http://www.cse.wustl.edu/~cdgill/Cybertrust/
Thank you! Chris GillAssociate Professor of
Computer Science and Engineering
38 - Gill et al. – 04/20/23
Appendix: Comparison to EDF Scheduling
Earliest-Deadline-First (EDF) scheduling:» Enforces timeliness by
meeting task deadlines.» Not share aware.
We introduce deadlines as a function of worst-case execution time.
Miss rate is a function of deadline tightness.
39 - Gill et al. – 04/20/23
Appendix: Varying Temporal Resolution
40 - Gill et al. – 04/20/23
Appendix: Stable Conic Policies
Guaranteed that stable conic policies exist.
For example, set each action vector to point opposite its corresponding vertex.
Induces a vector field that stochastically orbits the decision ray.
(0,0,t)
(t,0,0) (0,t,0)
41 - Gill et al. – 04/20/23
Appendix: Stable Conic Policies
Guaranteed that stable conic policies exist.
For example, set each action vector to point opposite its corresponding vertex.
Induces a vector field that stochastically orbits the decision ray.
(0,0,t)
(t,0,0) (0,t,0)
42 - Gill et al. – 04/20/23
Appendix: More Tasks Implies Higher Cost
Simple problem: Fair-share scheduling of n deterministic tasks with unit duration
Trajectories under round robin scheduling:2 tasks: E{c(x)} = 1/2.
Trajectory: (0,0)(1,0)(1,1)(0,0)Costs: c(0,0)=0; c(1,0)=1.
3 tasks: E{c(x)} = 8/9.Trajectory: (0,0,0)(1,0,0)(1,1,0)(1,1,1)(0,0,0)Costs: c(0,0,0)=0; c(1,0,0)=4/3; c(1,1,0)=4/3
n tasks: E{c(x)} = (n+1)(n-1)/(3n)
43 - Gill et al. – 04/20/23
Appendix: Share Complexity