Operating Systems

Processor Sharing (PS, **, PS, PS)

Merge the ready and running states and permit all ready jobs to be run at once. However, the processor slows down so that when n jobs are running at once, each progresses at a speed 1/n as fast as it would if it were running alone.

• Clearly impossible as stated due to the overhead of process switching.
• Of theoretical interest (easy to analyze).
• Approximated by RR when the quantum is small. Make sure you understand this last point. For example, consider the last homework assignment (with zero context switch time) and consider q=1, q=.1, q=.01, etc.

Homework: 34.

Variants of Round Robin

• State dependent RR
  • Same as RR but q is varied dynamically depending on the state of the system.
  • Favor processes holding important resources.
    • For example, non-swappable memory.
    • Perhaps this should be considered medium term scheduling since you probably do not recalculate q each time.
• External priorities: RR but a user can pay more and get bigger q. That is one process can be given a higher priority than another. But this is not an absolute priority: the lower priority (i.e., less important) process does get to run, but not as much as the higher priority process.

Priority Scheduling

Each job is assigned a priority (externally, perhaps by charging more for higher priority) and the highest priority ready job is run.

• Similar to ``External priorities'' above
• If many processes have the highest priority, use RR among them.
• Can easily starve processes (see aging below for fix).
• Can have the priorities changed dynamically to favor processes holding important resources (similar to state dependent RR).
• Many policies can be thought of as priority scheduling in which we run the job with the highest priority (with different notions of priority for different policies).

Priority aging

As a job is waiting, raise its priority so eventually it will have the maximum priority.

• This prevents starvation (assuming all jobs terminate or the policy is preemptive).
• There may be many processes with the maximum priority.
• If so, can use FIFO among those with max priority (risks starvation if a job doesn't terminate) or can use RR.
• Can apply priority aging to many policies, in particular to priority scheduling described above.

Selfish RR (SRR, **, SRR, **)

• Preemptive.
• Perhaps it should be called ``snobbish RR''.
• ``Accepted processes'' run RR.
• Accepted process have their priority increase at rate b>=0.
• A new process starts at priority 0; its priority increases at rate a>=0.
• A new process becomes an accepted process when its priority reaches that of an accepted process (or when there are no accepted processes).
• Once a process is accepted it remains accepted until it terminates.
• Note that at any time all accepted processes have same priority.
• If b>=a, get FCFS.
• If b=0, get RR.
• If a>b>0, it is interesting.

Shortest Job First (SPN, SJF, SJF, SJF)

Sort jobs by total execution time needed and run the shortest first.

• Nonpreemptive
• First consider a static situation where all jobs are available in the beginning and we know how long each one takes to run. For simplicity lets consider ``run-to-completion'', also called ``uniprogrammed'' (i.e., we don't even switch to another process on I/O). In this situation, uniprogrammed SJF has the shortest average waiting time
  • Assume you have a schedule with a long job right before a short job.
  • Consider swapping the two jobs.
  • This decreases the wait for the short by the length of the long job and increases the wait of the long job by the length of the short job.
  • This decreases the total waiting time for these two.
  • Hence decreases the total waiting for all jobs and hence decreases the average waiting time as well.
  • Hence, whenever a long job is right before a short job, we can swap them and decrease the average waiting time.
  • Thus the lowest average waiting time occurs when there are no short jobs right before long jobs.
  • This is uniprogrammed SJF.
• In the more realistic case of true SJF where the scheduler switches to a new process when the currently running process blocks (say for I/O), we should call the policy shortest next-CPU-burst first.
• The difficulty is predicting the future (i.e., knowing in advance the time required for the job or next-CPU-burst).
• This is an example of priority scheduling.

Homework: 39, 40 (note that when he says RR with each process getting its fair share, he means PS).