ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Implicit coscheduling: coordinated scheduling with implicit information in distributed systems
Full text PdfPdf (1.83 MB)
Source ACM Transactions on Computer Systems (TOCS) archive
Volume 19 ,  Issue 3  (August 2001) table of contents
Pages: 283 - 331  
Year of Publication: 2001
ISSN:0734-2071
Author
Andrea Carol Arpaci-Dusseau  University of Wisconsin--Madison
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 8,   Downloads (12 Months): 81,   Citation Count: 15
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/380749.380764
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

In modern distributed systems, coordinated time-sharing is required for communicating processes to leverage the performance of switch-based networks and low-overhead protocols. Coordinated time-sharing has traditionally been achieved with gang scheduling or explicit coscheduling, implementations of which often suffer from many deficiencies: multiple points of failure, high context-switch overheads, and poor interaction with client-server, interactive, and I/O -intensive workloads. Implicit coscheduling dynamically coordinates communicating processes across distributed machines without these structural deficiencies. In implicit coscheduling, no communication is required across operating systems schedulers; instead, cooperating processes achieve coordination by reacting to implicit information carried by communication existing within the parallel application. The implementation of this approach is simple and allows participating nodes to act autonomously. We introduce two key mechanisms in implicit coscheduling. The first is conditional two-phase waiting, a generalization of traditional two-phase waiting in which spin-time may be increased depending upon events occuring while the process waits. The second is an extension to stride scheduling that provides preemption and is fair to processes that block. To demonstrate that implicit coscheduling performs well, we show results from an extensive set of simulation and implementation experiments. To exercise the conditional two-phase waiting algorithm, we examine three workloads: bulk-synchronous and continuous-communication synthetic applications and application kernels written in the Split-C language. To exercise the local scheduler, we examine competing jobs with different communication characteristics. We demonstrate that our implementation scales well with the number of jobs and workstations and is robust to process placement. Our experiments show that implicit coscheduling is effective and fair for a wide range of workloads; most perform within 30% of an idealized model of gang scheduling.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

1
 
2
3
4
 
5
ARPACI-DUSSEAU,A.AND CULLER, D. 1997. Extending Proportional-Share Scheduling to a Network of Workstations. In International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Processing Techniques and Applications (PDPTA) (Las Vegas, Nevada, June 1997).
 
6
7
 
8
BIAGIONI, E., COOPER, E., AND SANSOM, R. 1993. Designing a Practical ATMLAN. IEEE Network 7,2 (March), 32-39.
 
9
 
10
 
11
BUCHANAN,M.AND CHIEN, A. 1997. Coordinated Thread Scheduling for Workstation Clusters Under Windows NT. In Proceedings of USENIX Windows NT Workshop (Aug. 1997).
 
12
 
13
 
14
CULLER, D., ARPACI-DUSSEAU, A., ARPACI-DUSSEAU, R., CHUN, B., LUMETTA, S., MAINWARING, A., MARTIN, R., YOSHIKAWA,C.,AND WONG, F. 1997. Parallel Computing on the Berkeley NOW. In Ninth Joint Symposium on Parallel Processing (Kobe, Japan, May 1997).
15
16
17
18
 
19
DOWDY, L. 1988. On the Partitioning of Multiprocessor Systems. Technical Report 88-06 (July), Department of Computer Science, Vanderbilt University.
20
 
21
 
22
EYKHOLT, J. R., KLEIMAN, S. R., BARTON, S., VOLL, J., FAULKNER, R., SHIVALINGIAH, A., SMITH, M., STEIN, D., WEEKS, M., AND WILLIAMS, D. 1992. Beyond Multiprocessing: Multithreading the SunOS Kernel. In Proceedings of the Summer 1992 USENIX Technical Conference and Exhibition (San Antontio, TX, USA, June 1992), pp. 11-18.
 
23
FEITELSON, D. G. 1995. A Survey of Scheduling in Multiprogrammed Parallel Systems. Research Report RC 19790 (87657) (February), IBM T. J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, NY. Second Revision, August 1997.
 
24
 
25
 
26
FEITELSON,D.G.AND RUDOLPH, L. 1992. Gang Scheduling Performance Benefits for Fine- Grained Synchronization. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing 16, 4 (December), 306-18.
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30
31
 
32
33
 
34
KARLIN, A. R., MANASSE, M., MCGEOCH, L., AND OWICKI, S. 1994. Competitive Randomized Algorithms For Nonuniform Problems. Algorithmica 11, 6 (June), 542-71.
35
 
36
37
 
38
MAINWARING, A. M. 1995. Active Message Application Programming Interface and Communication Subsystem Organization. Master's thesis, University of California, Berkeley.
39
40
 
41
 
42
OUSTERHOUT, J. K. 1982. Scheduling Techniques for Concurrent Systems. In Third International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (May 1982), pp. 22-30.
43
44
 
45
 
46
 
47
48
49
50
 
51
 
52
 
53
 
54
WARREN,M.S.,BECKER,D.J.,GODA,M.P.,SALMON,J.K.,AND STERLING, T. 1997. Parallel Supercomputing with Commodity Components. In International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Processing Techniques and Applications (PDPTA) (Las Vegas, Nevada, June 1997), pp. 1372- 1381.
 
55

CITED BY  15

Collaborative Colleagues:
Andrea Carol Arpaci-Dusseau: colleagues