Season Finale: Which one is better?

Transcription

1 CS Introduction to Operating System Spring 2016 Dr. Zhizhang Shen Season Finale: Which one is better? 1 Background In this lab, we will study, and compare, two processor scheduling policies via simulation. They are the FCFS(First-come-first-serve), and the more sophisticated RR(Round Robin) policies. The former is easy to understand, while the latter is perhaps the most widely used among all the scheduling algorithms. Below shows a general, but simplified model, of processor scheduling: More specifically, with the FCFS algorithm, every process, when it joins the Ready list for the first time, is given a time stamp. The dispatcher simply picks up the process with the earliest arrival time stamp. Also, this is an example of the non-preemptive algorithm in the sense that, once a process is picked up, it will stay in the processor until it is completed. On the other hand, with the RR algorithm, for a given n processes, p 0, p 1,..., p n 1, the dispatcher will assign the processor to each process a certain amount of time 1, referred to as time slice henceforth. When a new process arrives, it is added into the list with its arrival time as a time stamp, and when the time slice of the currently running process is used up, but itself is not completed yet, this process will be put back to the list with a new time stamp, i.e., the system time when this round is done. The dispatcher just picks the one that has stayed in the list the longest time, or the one with the smallest time stamp, as the next process to run. This is certainly an example of the preemptive algorithm in the sense that a process could be put back into the Ready list before it is completed. For a description of these two policies, please check out Chapter 9, Uniprocessor scheduling, of thetext book, and pages13 through 17 of the lecture notes. For discussion of a comprehensive example, please check through pages 26 through 31 in the lecture notes, as well as Figure 9.5 and Table 9.5 in in the book. The objective of such a scheduling policy is certainly to achieve a desirable compromise among minimal average waiting time, maximum throughput and processor utilization for the forthcoming processes. Since there is no way to know that beforehand, the study of such policies is often carried ot through simulation when the data are randomly generated. We want to gain such an experience through this project, when studying the impact of such a 1 It is an approximation since we also have to consider the cost of scheduling, and context switching time, referred to as context switching time in later discussion.

2 policy on the average normalized turnaround time of a collection of processes with randomly generated arrival time and service time. You can use either C or Java to complete this project. It is clear that the appropriate data structure to organize the Ready queue for the RR algorithm is the priority queue as we discussed in the algorithm class on Heapsort for CS3221), while that for the FCFS is just the usual queue. My lecture notes for the algorithm course are available via the following link: turing.plymouth.edu/~zshen/webfiles/cs3221spring2016.html. 2 Scheduling algorithms We can characterize a scheduling algorithm with the following: Given a process, p i, i [0, n), by T s (i), the service time associated with p i, we mean the amount of processing time it takes p i to complete, by T r (i), the turnaround time for p i, we mean the total amount of time that p i has to stay in the system, running, ready, blocked, etc., and, by the normalized turnaround time for p i, we mean T r (i)/t s (i). It certainly true that, for all i [0, n), T r (i)/t s (i) 1, and the closer this ratio to 1, the better. For example, we can characterize the two algorithms with a given load, as shown in Table 1, assuming that all of them arrive at t = 0. Table 1: An example of process load information Index (i) Service time (T s (i)) Notice that in the example that we went through in the class, i.e., Figure 9.5, the five processes arrive at different time. 2.1 For the FCFS algorithm The following figure shows the scheduled assignment to various processors, under the FCFS algorithm, assuming all of them arrive at t = p 0 p 1 p 2 p 3 p 4 It is easy to calculate both the turnaround time T r, for those processes as follows: T r (p 0 ) =

3 T r (p 1 ) = 475 (= ). T r (p 2 ) = 950 (= ). T r (p 3 ) = 1200 (= ). T r (p 1 ) = 1275 (= ). For example, process p 1, although arriving at t = 0, has to wait p 1 to finish at t = 350, then start to run, since it is the second in the queue. Hence the average turnaround time for each process is the sum of the above turnaround time divided by the number of the processes, i.e., 850. From the above two charts, we can also easily calculate the respective normalized turnaround time, T r /T s, as follows: T Trnd (p 0 ) = T r (p 0 )/T s (p 0 ) = 350/350 = 1. T Trnd (p 1 ) = T r (p 1 )/T s (p 1 ) = 475/125 = 3.8 T Trnd (p 2 ) = 2 T Trnd (p 3 ) = 4.8 T Trnd (p 1 ) = 17. As a result, the average normalized turnaround time is Moreover, the following Table 2 shows that this policy favors longer processes, consistent with our observation as made in Figure 9.14 in the book. Table 2: Turnaround time in terms of service time with FCFS Index (i) Service time (T s (i)) T N.Trnd (i) For the RR algorithm Again, we first give the following figure, showing the scheduled assignment to various processes, under the RR algorithm. We first ignore the context switching time, namely, the overhead the system has to kick in to do the process switching in and out. We also assume a time slice of 50 units p 0 p 1 p 2 p 3 p 4 p 0 p 1 p 2 p 3 p 4 p 0 p 1 p 2 p p 0 p 2 p 3 p 0 p 2 p 3 p 0 p 2 p 0 p 2 p 2 p 2 p 2 3

4 For example, p 0 starts at t = 0, and stops at t = 50, then p 1 starts, and stops at t = 100,..., p 4 will complete at 475, and half of that slice will be wasted, and p 0 starts at t = 500, which will eventually complete at t = 1150, when p 2 will start and continue until t = 1325, which also wraps up the whole show. Table 3: Turnaround time in terms of service time with RR(50) Index (i) Service time (T s (i)) T Trnd (i) T N.Trnd (i) Following exactly the same approach, we can calculate that the average turnaround time for all the processes is 905 = (4525/5), and the average normalized turnaround time is Thus, compared with the FCFS approach, the RR algorithm, with the above assumptions, leads to about the same average turnaround time, but a 26.6% less average normalized turnaround time for this set of data. Moreover, as shown in Table 3, this policy also favors longer processes, but the results are not as far apart as what we saw with the FCFS policy. This observation is also consistent with what is demonstrated in Figure How about the context switching time? A RR based dispatcher rotates among processes, thus process switching becomes an issue. If we assume that each process switching takes 10 units of time, then the initial segment of the process will look like the following: p 0 starts at t = 0, stops at t = 50, and p 1 starts at t = 60, after the system spends 10 units of time on switching context for these two processes, and stops at t = 110, when p 2 kicks off, and stops at t = 160, etc p 0 c p 1 c p 2 c p 3 c p 4 c p 0 c p 1 c 3 What to do in this project? Besides implementing the FCFS and RR algorithms, you will also compare their performances by studying the impact of the length of time slice, and that of the context switching time, on the average turnaround time, and the average wait time for all the processes, when dispatched by these two policies. 4

5 1. As the input data of the process loading information, you should randomly generate an input consisting of a large collection, e.g., n = 1000, of process load, similar to that given in Table 1. Each process is characterized with two pieces of information, besides it identifier: arrival time, and service time 2. For example, the first few lines might look as follows: This means that process p 0 comes at time 30 and requests seconds, i.e., 785 ms, of CPU time, etc.. Notice that the above lines are sorted on the arrival time, when you can delete those with duplicated arrival time, if there are any. 2. Find out the average turnaround time, and, more importantly, the average normalized turnaround time for the such a process load as dispatched by FCFS, and the RR policies, respectively. For the latter policy, consider switching time ranges among 0, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 ms; and time slice ranges among 50, 100, 250 and 500 ms. 3. Sort the 1,000 processes according to the length of their service time, and then classify them into 20 groups of 50 processes each. For each group, find out the average normalized turnaround time under both the FCFS policy and the RR policy when the length of the time slice equal 50, 250 and 500 ms; and switching time is 10 ms. Thus, the average normalized turnaround time for the first group will be that of the 50 shortest processes, and that of the last group will be the average normalized turnaround time for the 50 longest processes, under the respective policy. All in all, there should be four rows of data, 20 pieces for each row, giving the average normalized turnaround time of the 20 process groups according to their relative length. For example, the first row gives the average normalized turnaround time of the 20 process groups, arranged in term of their length, under the FCFS policy; the second row gives the average normalized turnaround time of the 20 process groups, arranged in term of their length, under the RR policy when the time slice is 50 microseconds, and the process switching time is 10 microseconds, etc.. 4. Besides tabulating the results, demonstrate the results graphically, with, e.g., Microsoft Excel, using Figure 9.14 as an example. 4 What to send in? me the source code, and a lab report, containing 1) a brief but complete description as how you have implemented the two scheduling algorithms, especially the Round Robin policy 2 You might use a random number generator with a scope of [0, 10000) to generate the arrival time, and use another random number generator with a scope of [0, 500) to generate the service time. 5

6 in terms of a priority queue, with and without taking consideration of the context switching time; 2) the process of collecting the data; 3) the tabulated data; 4) the comparative chart(s); and 5) your conclusion as which policy looks better in terms of average normalized turnaround time; and, in terms of RR policy, which combination of context switching time and time slice, thus most promising for this set of data. Below is a general guideline for grading: 3(+/ ): A serious effort, as demonstrated via your program and the lab report, is made to implement the aforementioned two scheduling algorithms, and address all the aforementioned five issues in your report. 4(+/ ): Based on the implemented policies and a randomly generated process load, various combinations of time slice and context switching time are investigated, and non-trivial results are obtained. 5: Tabulated data and comparative chart(s) on average (normalized) turnaround time are provided for the chosen samples, based on which a justified conclusion is reached. 6