Proportionate Progress
A Notion of Fairness in Resource Allocation
S K Baruah N K Cohen C G Plaxton D A Varvel
Departmen t of Computer Science
University of Texas at Austin
September
Abstract
Giv en a set of n tasks and m resources where each task x has a rational weight
x
w x e x p x w a is one that allocates a resource to a
task x
for exactly x e time units in each interval x p k x p
k for all k N
We de ne a notion of proportionate progress called P fairness and use it to design an
e cient algorithm which solves the periodic scheduling problem
Keywords Euclid s algorithm fairness network ow periodic scheduling re
source allocation
This research was supported by NSF Research Initiation Award CCR and Texas Advanced
Research Program TARP
puter Science University of
Award Contact author Prof Greg
Texas at Austin Taylor Hall Austin Texas
Plaxton Department of Com
Telephone
FAX Email plaxton cs utexas edu
Introduction
Sc heduling is the act of assigning resources to activities or tasks Scheduling problems
typically involve a set of constraints e g deadlines that must be met by any schedule
Often these constraints are designed to enforce
some notion of fairness for example a very
weak fairness constraint might be that any task
will eventually get to use the resource it has
requested For
any particular set of constraints there
are two problems to be addressed i
the 
decision problem i e determining whether or 
not a given instance is 
feasible and 

ii 
the scheduling problem i e actually constructing the schedule for a 
given 
feasible 

instance Many sets of constraints result in an intractable decision problem 

The p eriodic scheduling problem was rst discussed by Liu in Given a 
set of n 
tasks and m resources where each task
a periodic schedule is one that allocates
x has rational weight x w x e x p x w
a
resource to a task x for exactly x e time units or
slots 
in 
each interval x p k x p k 
for all 
k N 
Scheduling decisions may be made 
only 
at 
integral times and a task may use 
either 
zero or one resources at a time 
We might also consider a relaxed version
of the periodic scheduling problem in which
tasks are not restricted to using zero or one resources at a time Consider for example
allowing resource sharing that is in each unit of time a task may use a fraction f of a
resource f If n x w m the following straightforward resource sharing
x
algorithm may be used to solve this relaxed version
of the problem Allocate a fraction x w
of a resource to each task during each time unit A
second relaxed version requires integral
resource usage but allows a task to
with arbitrary concurrency In this
to single resource scheduling
use more than one resource at a time that is to run
version multiple resource scheduling is easily reduced
There are several optimal single resource scheduling algorithms for the periodic schedul
ing problem The Earliest Deadline
algorithm of Liu and Layland is one example None
of them extends directly to multiple
resources As Liu pointed out the simple fact that a
task can use only one resource even
when several resources are free at the same time
adds
a surprising amount of di culty to the scheduling of multiple resources
The decision problem has an
e cient solution Clearly systems in which n x w
x
m
cannot be scheduled If resource sharing is allowed those in which n x w m can be
x
scheduled by the resource sharing algorithm mentioned above Baruah Howell and Rosier
used this fact the network reduction of Horn and the Ford Fulkerson algorithm to
show that there are solutions to the periodic scheduling problem Thus the decision problem
for such a periodic task system reduces to
to that of Baruah Howell and Rosier will
checking that n
x
x w m A method similar
be used in Section
A more general form of the problem
characterizes each task x by four parameters x s
x e x d and x p commonly referred
to
as starting time execution requirement deadline
and period respectively Here a task
x must receive exactly x e units of the resource in the
time interval x s x p k x s x p k x d
for all k N Leung s application of the Least
Slack algorithm to this problem represents a recent improvement
on Earliest Deadline
for the case where scheduling decisions are not required to occur at integer time instants
Leung was able to show that Least Slack schedules all instances that can be scheduled by
Earliest Deadline as well as some instances that Earliest Deadline cannot schedule Both
are optimal for sc heduling a single resource but not for multiple resources in fact there is no
known optimal algorithm for this problem Our model may be viewed as a four parameter
model in which for all x x s and x d x p The general four parameter model will not
be addressed here
Given a feasible instance of the periodic scheduling problem a sche dule generation al
gorithm performs a possibly empty pre processing phase followed by an in nite execution
phase No output is produced during the pre processing phase During the execution 
phase 

the algorithm produces an 
in nite sequence of outputs h X i i i where X i is the 
subset 
of up to m tasks scheduled
i e assigned one copy of the resource in slot i Note that any
output free pre x of the computation may be designated as the pre processing phase
Let
t i denote the elapsed running time in
the usual RAM model between the beginning of the
execution phase and the time at which
output X i is produced i Also let t Then
for any schedule generation algorithm A we de ne the per slot time complexity of A as the
maximum over all feasible instances and over all i of t i t i We further de ne the pre
processing time complexity of A as the maximum running time of the pre processing phase
over all feasible instances A schedule generation algorithm is polynomial time if and only if
both the per slot time complexity and the pre processing time complexity are polynomial in
the input size Prior to this paper no polynomial time schedule generation algorithm was
known for the periodic scheduling problem
Because all
algorithms for
of the scheduling algorithms considered in this paper are
the sake of brevity we hereafter use the term scheduling
schedule generation
algorithm to mean
schedule generation algorithm Furthermore because the scheduling algorithm that we
consider has an empty pre processing phase i e
pre processing time complexity we will
focus our attention on slot time complexity Accordingly throughout the paper every time 

bound given for a scheduling algorithm should be assumed to be a bound on 
the slot time 

complexity 

We solve the periodic scheduling problem by imposing an even stronger 
fairness con 

straint Our approach is based on maintaining proportionate progress each task is sched
uled resources in proportion to its weight Speci cally at every time t a task x must have
been scheduled either bx w tc or dx w te times We call this proportionate fairness or
P fairness P fairness is a strictly stronger condition than periodic scheduling in that any
P fair schedule is periodic while the converse is not generally true P fairness is a natural
and
desirable notion in certain practical applications To the best of our knowledge none of the
scheduling algorithms currently known generate P fair schedules even in the case of a single
resource We prove that any periodic scheduling problem instance for which n
x
x w m
has a P fair schedule This proof makes use of certain results from network ow theory
We then describe and prove correct a polynomial time
a P fair schedule for any feasible instance Since every
algorithm solves the periodic scheduling problem
scheduling algorithm that generates
P fair
schedule is also periodic this
We consider the research described here to be signi cant for several reasons First we
introduce a new and potentially important notion of fairness in resource sharing prove that
this notion of fairness is actually achievable and demonstrate its practical applicability
Second as a corollary to our main results we
solve the periodic scheduling problem
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows Section de nes P fairness and
some related concepts and gives examples of practical applications of P fairness Section
establishes that P fair schedules exist for the periodic scheduling problem The algorithm
corresponding to the proof has exponential time complexity however Section 
proves the 
correctness of a simple algorithm for producing such P fair schedules The naive 
implemen 
tation of that algorithm
an example execution of
schedules each slot
our algorithm on a
in pseudo polynomial time Section presents
particular input instance Section proves the
correctness of a polynomial time implementation Section o ers some concluding remarks
P Fairness
This section de nes P fairness and some related concepts We start with some conventions
Scheduling decisions occur at integral values of time numbered from The real
interval between time
as slot t t N
t and time t including t excluding t will be referred to
For integers a and b let a b fa b g Furthermore let a b a b
a b a b and a b a b

We will consider an instance 

of the fair resource sharing problem with m resources 

and n tasks Speci c tasks will be denoted 
by identi ers x and y which range over 

the set of all tasks 


Each task x has an integer period x p x p 
an integer execution requirement x e 
x e x p and a
loss of generality we
rational weight x w x e x p Note that x w Without
con ne our attention
to the case where x x w m
Let i denote the ith symbol of string i
N
Now some de nitions
A schedule S for instance is a function from N to f g where x S x t m
t N Informally S x t if and only if task x is scheduled in slot t
A schedule S is periodic if and only if
i x i N x t x p i S x t x e i
The lag of a task x at time t with respect to schedule S denoted lag S x t is de ned
by
lag S x t x w t i t S x i
A
schedule S is P fair if and only if
x t x t N
lag S x t
A schedule S is P fair at time t if and only if there exists
a P fair schedule S such that
x x lag S x t lag S x t
Informally lag S x t measures the di erence between the number of resource allocations
that task x should have received in the set of slots t and the
received
Periodic schedules can also be
S is periodic if and only if
de ned in terms of lag constraints
number that it actually
In particular a schedule
i x i N x lag
S x x p i
from which it follows that every P fair schedule is periodic Note that in
the de nition of
lag the term x w t is independent of S and the term i t S x i is an integer
P fairness
is a very strict requirement It demands that the
absolute value of the di erence
between the expected allocation and the actual allocation to every task always be strictly
less than In other words a task never gets an entire slot ahead or behind In general it
is not 
possible to guarantee a smaller variation in lag Consider n identical tasks sharing a 
single 
resource where the weight of each task is n For n su ciently large we can make 
the lag of the rst resp last task scheduled come arbitrarily close to resp
P fairness is the natural notion of fairness
are two examples
for many resource allocation problems Here
Example An airline has m airplanes and n ight crews n m all of which are based in
the same city Assume that exactly m ight 
crews are scheduled to work on 
any given day 
Due to seniority job performance or other 
factors it may be desirable to 
schedule some 
ight crews more often than others For each ight crew x set x w to the desired fraction
of all days that x should work while ensuring that x x w m
A P fair scheduler will
produce a schedule in which every ight crew works at a steady rate after t days ight crew
x will have worked either bx w tc or dx w te days
Example Consider a node in a real time communications
network with a number of
incoming and outgoing edges The weight x w on an edge x corresponds to the relative
amount of tra c expected on that edge A P fairness requirement may be necessary to
maintain the real time nature
of the communications and to prevent exceptionally long
queueing delays from building up
along certain edges
To see how the concepts of lag
and P fairness arise within our as yet unde ned schedul
ing algorithm for the periodic scheduling problem the reader may now wish to brie y ex
amine Section before continuing with Section
Existence of a P Fair Schedule
In Sections and we will develop a polynomial time P fair scheduling algorithm The proof
of correctness of that algorithm relies on the existence of a P fair 
schedule 
for the resource 
sharing problem In this section we use a network ow argument 
to prove 
the existence of 
such a P fair schedule In principle the network reduction could itself serve as the basis
for a P fair scheduling algorithm Unfortunately the size of the network generated by our
reduction 
is exponential in the size of the given scheduling instance and so the network 
reduction 
argument does not by itself provide a polynomial time algorithm 
With respect to instance of the resource scheduling problem let ea rliest x j resp
latest x j denote the earliest resp latest slot during which task x may be scheduled 
for 

the j th time j N in any P fair schedule We can easily derive closed form expressions 
for 

earliest x j and latest x j Note that earliest x j min t t N x w 
t j 

and latest x j max t t N x w t j
Hence
earliest x j bj x w c and
latest x j d 
j 

x w e 

Note that earliest x j latest x j x j 

N Furthermore earliest x j latest x j 
is either or In other 
words there is at most one slot where either the j th or the j 
st 
scheduling of task x may occur 

The remainder of this section is devoted to proving the existence of a P fair schedule 
for 
any 
instance of the resource sharing problem Our proof strategy is as follows First we 

will 
describe a reduction from instance to a weighted digraph G with a designated source 

and 
sink such that certain ows in G correspond exactly in a manner that will be 
made 

precise to a P fair schedule for Then we will prove the existence of such a ow 
in 
G 
Throughout this section
L lcm x x p
let L denote the
Lemma Instance has
a P fair schedule
that
x t x t L
least common multiple of the task
periods
if and only if there exists a schedule S such
lag S x t
Proof An in nite P fair schedule S may be obtained from S by scheduling in slot t those
tasks scheduled by S in slot t mod L
Theorem Instance has a P fair
schedule
Before proving this theorem we will present some de nitions and an important lemma
Recall that x w x e x p We
describe below the
construction of a weighted digraph G
The vertex set V of G is the union
of disjoint sets of
of G is the union of disjoint sets of edges E E
vertices V V and the edge set E
where E i is a subset of V i V i N
i That is G is a layered graph with all edges
connecting vertices in adjacent
layers The sets of vertices are as follows
V fsourceg
V fh xi j x g
V fh x j i j x j x w L g
V fh x ti j x t L g
V fh ti j t L g and
V fsinkg
An edge is represented by a tuple For u v V and w N the tuple u v w E
represents an edge from u to
v of capacity w The sets of edges in G are as follows
E f source h xi x w L j x g
E f h xi h x j i j x j x w L g
E f h x j i h x ti j x
j x w L t earliest x j latest x j
g
E f h x ti h ti j x t L g and
E f h ti sink m j t L g
Lemma 
If there is an integral ow of size m L in G then there exists a P fair schedule 
for 
Proof By Lemma it su ces to prove that the existence of an integral ow of size
m L in G implies the existence of a schedule
S for such that
x t x t L lag S x t
Suppose there
is an integral ow of
size m L in G The total
capacity of E the set of
edges leading out of the source vertex is equal to x x w L m L Hence each edge
in E is lled to capacity and each vertex h xi receives exactly x w L units of ow Since
there are x w L vertices in V each connected by an edge of unit capacity to vertex h xi
and no two vertices in V are connected to the same vertex in V it follows that each vertex
in V receives a unit ow Accordingly each vertex in V sends a unit ow to some
V
We will construct the desired schedule S
from the given ow
according to the
vertex in
following
rule Allocate a resource to task x in slot t if and only if there is a unit ow from vertex
h x j i to vertex h x ti
Because the total ow into the sink vertex is m L each of the L edges of capacity m in
E
carries m units of ow Hence for all
from vertices in V Each vertex h x ti
t L vertex h ti receives exactly m unit ows
in V is connected by an edge of unit capacity
to
vertex h ti and is not connected to any other vertex in V Thus S schedules exactly m
tasks in each time slot t for
observe that for each task x
all t L To see that no
lag constraints are violated by S
and for all j x w L the j
th scheduling of task x occurs
at a slot in the interval earliest x j latest x j The j th scheduling corresponds to the
unique 
unit 
ow out of vertex h x j i 

We 
will now show the existence of an integral ow 
Proof of Theorem Since all edges of the graph have integral capacity if there is a
fractional ow of size m L in the graph then there is an integral ow of that size It
remains to be shown that such a fractional ow exists We use
the following ow assignments

Each 
edge source h xi x w L E carries a ow of 
x w L 


Each 
edge 

h 

xi h 
x j i E carries a unit ow 

Each 
edge 

h 

x ti 
h ti E carries a ow of size x w 
Eac h edge h t i sink m
The ows through edges
Each edge h x j i
E carries a ow of size m
in E are as follows
h x earliest x j i carries a ow of size
x w j
x w bj x wc
which is less than the capacity of
the edge
Each edge h x j i h x latest x j i such that latest x j earliest
carries a ow of size
j x w b j x w c
x j
which 
is also less than the capacity of the edge 

Every 
other edge h x j i h x ti 
E carries a ow of size x w 
We will now prove that the ow just de ned is a valid ow of size m L The capacity
constraints
have been met The ow out of the source vertex is
x x w L m L We
will now complete the proof
by showing that ow is conserved at every interior vertex
The ow into each vertex in V is x w L and there are
x w L edges leaving each carrying
a unit ow The ow into each vertex in V is Below we will prove that the ow out of
each vertex in V is
and that the ow into each vertex in
V is x w Each vertex in V has
only one 
outgoing edge carrying a ow of x w Each vertex 
in V has n incoming edges each 
carrying 
a ow of size x w since x x w m the ow in is 
m which equals the ow out 
on the one outgoing edge 

It remains to prove that i the ow out of each vertex in 
V is and ii the ow into 
each vertex in V is x w
For i consider an arbitrary
vertex h x j i in V There
are latest
x j earliest x j
or d j x w e bj x w c outgoing edges from h x j i If earliest x j latest x j
equivalently d j
x w e b
j x w c then the ow
out of h x j i is
x
w j x w
bj x w c x w d j x w e bj x w c
j x w b j x w c
which simpli es to Otherwise earliest x j latest x j equivalently d j
x w e b j x w c j x w and the ow out of h x j i is
x 
w j x w bj 
x w c x w d j 
x w e bj 
x w c 


which also simpli es to 

For ii consider an arbitrary vertex h x ti in 
V If t latest x j 
earliest x j 

for some j
N then there are two incoming
edges to h x ti namely h x j i h x ti
and h x j i h x ti These
edges carry ows of size j x w
b j x w c and
x w j x w b j x w c
respectively for a total incoming ow
of x w Otherwise
there is only one
incoming edge to h x ti and
it carries a ow of x w
A P Fair Scheduling Algorithm
In this section we present our scheduling algorithm Algorithm PF and prove that it pro
duces a P fair schedule Algorithm PF has the following high level structure At each time
t a dynamic priority is assigned to each task and the m highest priority tasks are
scheduled in slot t ties are broken arbitrarily An example execution of our scheduling
algorithm is presented in Section The reader may wish to brie y examine that example
before continuing with
the formal presentation that follows
First some de nitions
The char acteristic string of task x denoted x is an in nite string over f g
with
t x sign x w t bx w tc t N
The characteristic substring of task x at time t is the nite string
x t t x t x t x
where t min i i t i x
With respect to P fair schedule S at time t we say that task x is
ahead if and only if
lag S x t task x is behind if and only
only if it is neither ahead nor behind
if lag S x t task x is punctual if and
With respect to P fair schedule S at time t we say that task x is tnegru if and only
if x is ahead and t x task x is urgent if and only if x is behind and t x
task x is contending if and only if it is neither tnegru nor urgent
Lemmas to provide the logical machinery that we will need in order
about the terms introduced above
to reason
Lemma If task x is ahead at time t under P fair schedule S then
a If
b If
c If
d If
t
t
t
t
x 
then S x t 
and task x is ahead at time t 


x 


then S x t 
and task x is punctual at time t 


x 


and S 

x 
t 



then 
task 
x 
is 
ahead at time t 

x 

and S 

x t 

then 
task 
x 
is 
behind at time t 
Proof Assuming that task x is ahead at time t under P fair schedule S we have
i t S
i t S
x i
x i
dx w te where x w t N hence dx w te bx w tc and bx w tc
We now deal with each part in turn For Part a we have
t x i t S x i dx w te
x w t bx w tc i t S x i dx w te
x w t i t S x i
lag S x t S x t
Because sc hedule S is P fair lag S x t 

and the inequality lag S x t S x t 

implies 
that S x t Hence lag 
S x 
Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.
Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.
Отменить можно в любой момент.