١٦/٠١/١٤٣٨

Operating
Systems:
Internals
and Chapter 9
Design Uniprocessor
Principles
Scheduling
Eighth Edition
By William Stallings

Table 9.1

Types of Scheduling

Long-term scheduling The decision to add to the pool of processes to be

executed

Medium-term scheduling The decision to add to the number of processes that

are partially or fully in main memory

Short-term scheduling The decision as to which available process will be

executed by the processor

I/O scheduling The decision as to which process's pending I/O

request shall be handled by an available I/O device

١
١٦/٠١/١٤٣٨

Processor Scheduling
Aim is to assign processes to be executed by the
processor in a way that meets system objectives, such as
response time, throughput, and processor efficiency
Broken down into three separate functions:

medium
long term short term
term
scheduling scheduling
scheduling

New

Long-term
Long-term scheduling
scheduling

Ready/
Suspend
Ready Running Exit
Medium-term Short-term
scheduling scheduling

Blocked/
Blocked
Suspend
Medium-term
scheduling

Figure 9.1 Scheduling and Process State Transitions

٢
١٦/٠١/١٤٣٨

Running

Ready

Blocked

Short Term

Blocked,
Suspend

Ready,
Suspend

Medium Term

Long Term

New Exit

Figure 9.2 Levels of Scheduling

Long-term Time-out
scheduling

Batch Ready Queue Short-term

Release
jobs scheduling
Processor

Medium-term
scheduling
Interactive Ready, Suspend Queue
users

Medium-term
scheduling

Blocked, Suspend Queue

Blocked Queue
Event Event Wait
Occurs

Figure 9.3 Queuing Diagram for Scheduling

٣
١٦/٠١/١٤٣٨

Long--Term Scheduler
Long
Determines which Creates processes
programs are admitted to from the queue when
it can, but must
the system for processing decide:

Controls the degree of

multiprogramming
the more processes when the operating
that are created, the which jobs to accept
system can take on
and turn into
smaller the one or more
processes
additional processes
percentage of time
that each process can
be executed
may limit to provide
satisfactory service to first come, first
priority, expected
the current set of execution time, I/O
served
requirements
processes

Medium--Term Scheduling
Medium
Part of the swapping function
Swapping-in decisions are based on the need to manage
the degree of multiprogramming
considers the memory requirements of the
swapped-out processes

٤
١٦/٠١/١٤٣٨

Short--Term Scheduling
Short
Known as the dispatcher

Executes most frequently

Makes the fine-grained decision of which process to execute next

Invoked when an event occurs that may lead to the blocking of the
current process or that may provide an opportunity to preempt a
currently running process in favor of another
Examples:

• Clock interrupts
• I/O interrupts
• Operating system calls
• Signals (e.g., semaphores)

Short Term Scheduling Criteria

Main objective is
to allocate
processor time to
optimize certain
User-oriented criteria System-oriented
aspects of system
• relate to the behavior of criteria
behavior
the system as perceived • focus in on effective and
by the individual user or efficient utilization of the
A set of criteria is process (such as response processor (rate at which
needed to time in an interactive processes are completed)
evaluate the system) • generally of minor
• important on virtually all importance on single-
scheduling policy systems user systems

٥
١٦/٠١/١٤٣٨

Short--Term Scheduling Criteria:

Short
Performance
examples: example:
• response time Criteria can • predictability
• throughput be classified
into:

Non-performance
Performance-related
related

easily hard to
quantitative qualitative
measured measure

User Oriented, Performance Related

Turnaround time This is the interval of time between the

submission of a process and its completion. Includes actual execution
time plus time spent waiting for resources, including the processor.
This is an appropriate measure for a batch job.

Response time For an interactive process, this is the time from

the submission of a request until the response begins to be received.
Often a process can begin producing some output to the user while
Table 9.2
continuing to process the request. Thus, this is a better measure than
turnaround time from the user's point of view. The scheduling
discipline should attempt to achieve low response time and to maximize
the number of interactive users receiving acceptable response time.

Deadlines When process completion deadlines can be specified, the

scheduling discipline should subordinate other goals to that of
Scheduling Criteria
maximizing the percentage of deadlines met.

User Oriented, Other

Predictability A given job should run in about the same amount of

time and at about the same cost regardless of the load on the system.
A wide variation in response time or turnaround time is distracting to
users. It may signal a wide swing in system workloads or the need for
system tuning to cure instabilities.

System Oriented, Performance Related

Throughput The scheduling policy should attempt to maximize the

number of processes completed per unit of time. This is a measure of
how much work is being performed. This clearly depends on the average
length of a process but is also influenced by the scheduling policy,
which may affect utilization.

Processor utilization This is the percentage of time that the

processor is busy. For an expensive shared system, this is a
significant criterion. In single-user systems and in some other
systems, such as real-time systems, this criterion is less important
than some of the others.

System Oriented, Other

Fairness In the absence of guidance from the user or other system-

supplied guidance, processes should be treated the same, and no
process should suffer starvation.

Enforcing priorities When processes are assigned priorities, the

scheduling policy should favor higher-priority processes.

Balancing resources The scheduling policy should keep the

resources of the system busy. Processes that will underutilize
stressed resources should be favored. This criterion also involves (Table can be found on page 403 in textbook)
medium-term and long-term scheduling.

٦
١٦/٠١/١٤٣٨

RQ0 Release
Dispatch
Processor

RQ1

Admit

RQn

Preemption

Event Wait
Event
occurs Blocked Queue

Figure 9.4 Priority Queuing

Round
FCFS SPN SRT HRRN Feedback
robin
Selection w +s
max[w] constant min[s] min[s – e] max  (see text)
function  s

Decision
mode
Non- Preemptive
(at time
Non- Preemptive
(at arrival)
Non- Preemptive
(at time Table 9.3
preemptive quantum) preemptive preemptive quantum)
May be
Through- Not low if Not
Characteristic
quantum High High High s of Various
Put emphasized emphasized
is too
small Scheduling
May be Policies
high,
Provides Provides
especially if
good good Provides
there is a
Response response response good Provides good Not
large response
time time for time for response time emphasized
variance in time
short short
process
processes processes
execution
times
Overhead Minimum Minimum Can be high Can be high Can be high Can be high
Penalizes
short
Penalizes Penalizes May favor
Effect on processes; Fair
long long Good balance I/O bound
processes penalizes treatment
processes processes processes
I/O bound
processes (Table can be found
on page 405 in
Starvation No No Possible Possible No Possible textbook)

٧
١٦/٠١/١٤٣٨

Determines which process, among ready processes, is selected next for

execution

May be based on priority, resource requirements, or the execution

characteristics of the process

If based on execution characteristics, then important quantities are:

w = time spent in system so far, waiting
e = time spent in execution so far
s = total service time required by the process, including e; generally, this
quantity must be estimated or supplied by the user

Specifies the Two categories:

instants in time at Nonpreemptive
which the Preemptive
selection function
is exercised

٨
١٦/٠١/١٤٣٨

Nonpreemptive Preemptive
currently running process
may be interrupted and
once a process is in the
moved to ready state by
running state, it will
the OS
continue until it terminates
or blocks itself for I/O preemption may occur
when new process arrives,
on an interrupt, or
periodically

Table 9.4
Process Scheduling Example

٩
١٦/٠١/١٤٣٨

0 5 10 15 20

A
First-Come-First B
Served (FCFS) C
D
E

A
Round-Robin B
(RR), q = 1 C
D
E

A
Round-Robin B
(RR), q = 4 C
D
E

A
Shortest Process B
Next (SPN) C
D
E

A
Shortest Remaining B
Time (SRT) C
D
E

A
Highest Response B
Ratio Next (HRRN) C
D
E

A
Feedback B
q=1 C
D
E

A
Feedback B
q = 2i C
D
E

0 5 10 15 20
Figure 9.5 A Comparison of Scheduling Policies

Simplest scheduling policy Performs much better for long

processes than short ones
Also known as first-in-first-out
(FIFO) or a strict queuing Tends to favor processor-bound
scheme processes over I/O-bound
processes
When the current process ceases
to execute, the longest process in
the Ready queue is selected

١٠
١٦/٠١/١٤٣٨

Uses preemption based on a clock Particularly effective in a

general-purpose time-sharing
Also known as time slicing system or transaction processing
because each process is given a system
slice of time before being
preempted One drawback is its relative
treatment of processor-bound
Principal design issue is the length and I/O-bound processes
of the time quantum, or slice, to
be used

Time

Process allocated Interaction

time quantum complete

Response time q-s

s

Quantum
q

(a) Time quantum greater than typical interaction

Process allocated Process Process allocated Interaction

time quantum preempted time quantum complete

q Other processes run

(b) Time quantum less than typical interaction

Figure 9.6 Effect of Size of Preemption Time Quantum

١١
١٦/٠١/١٤٣٨

Process A B C D E
Arrival Time 0 2 4 6 8
Service Time (Ts) 3 6 4 5 2 Mean
FCFS
Finish Time 3 9 13 18 20
Turnaround Time (Tr) 3 7 9 12 12 8.60
Tr/Ts 1.00 1.17 2.25 2.40 6.00 2.56

Finish Time 4
RR q = 1
18 17 20 15
Table 9.5
Turnaround Time (Tr) 4 16 13 14 7 10.80
Tr/Ts 1.33 2.67 3.25 2.80 3.50 2.71

Finish Time 3
RR q = 4
17 11 20 19
A Comparison
Turnaround Time (Tr) 3 15 7 14 11 10.00
Tr/Ts 1.00 2.5 1.75 2.80 5.50 2.71 of Scheduling
SPN
Finish Time
Turnaround Time (Tr)
3
3
9
7
15
11
20
14
11
3 7.60
Policies
Tr/Ts 1.00 1.17 2.75 2.80 1.50 1.84
SRT
Finish Time 3 15 8 20 10
Turnaround Time (Tr) 3 13 4 14 2 7.20
Tr/Ts 1.00 2.17 1.00 2.80 1.00 1.59
HRRN
Finish Time 3 9 13 20 15
Turnaround Time (Tr) 3 7 9 14 7 8.00
Tr/Ts 1.00 1.17 2.25 2.80 3.5 2.14
FB q = 1
Finish Time 4 20 16 19 11
Turnaround Time (Tr) 4 18 12 13 3 10.00
Tr/Ts 1.33 3.00 3.00 2.60 1.5 2.29
FB q = 2i
Finish Time 4 17 18 20 14
Turnaround Time (Tr) 4 15 14 14 6 10.60 (Table is on page 408 in textbook)
Tr/Ts 1.33 2.50 3.50 2.80 3.00 2.63

Time-out

Ready Queue
Admit Dispatch Release
Processor

Auxiliary Queue

I/O 1 I/O 1 Wait

Occurs
I/O 1 Queue

I/O 2 I/O 2 Wait

Occurs
I/O 2 Queue

I/O n I/O n Wait

Occurs
I/O n Queue

Figure 9.7 Queuing Diagram for Virtual Round-Robin Scheduler

١٢
١٦/٠١/١٤٣٨

Nonpreemptive policy in which One difficulty is the need to

the process with the shortest know, or at least estimate, the
expected processing time is required processing time of each
selected next process
A short process will jump to the If the programmer’s estimate is
head of the queue substantially under the actual
running time, the system may
Possibility of starvation for longer
abort the job
processes

١٣
١٦/٠١/١٤٣٨

١٤
١٦/٠١/١٤٣٨

Preemptive version of SPN

Should give
Scheduler always chooses the superior
process that has the shortest turnaround time
expected remaining processing performance to
time SPN because a
short job is given
Risk of starvation of longer
immediate
processes
preference to a
running longer job

Chooses next process While shorter jobs are

with the greatest ratio favored, aging without
service increases the
Attractive because it ratio so that a longer
accounts for the age of process will eventually
the process get past competing
shorter jobs

١٥
١٦/٠١/١٤٣٨

RQ0 Release
Admit
Processor

RQ1 Release
Processor

RQn Release
Processor

Figure 9.10 Feedback Scheduling

Performance Comparison
Any scheduling discipline that chooses the next item to be served
independent of service time obeys the relationship:

١٦
١٦/٠١/١٤٣٨

Table 9.6

Formulas
for Single-
Server
Queues
with Two
Priority
Categories

١٧
١٦/٠١/١٤٣٨

١٨
١٦/٠١/١٤٣٨

100

FCFS
Normalized turnaround time

10
HRRN FB

RR (q = 1) SRT
RR (q = 1)

SPN
SPN
HRRN

FB FCFS

SRT
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentile of time required

Figure 9.14 Simulation Results for Normalized Turnaround Time

RR
10 (q = 1)
FB SPN
9

8
HRRN
7

6
Wait time

5
FCFS
4 FCFS

3
RR (q = 1)
2
HRRN
SPN
1
SRT
FB
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percentile of time required

Figure 9.15 Simulation Results for Waiting Time

١٩
١٦/٠١/١٤٣٨

Fair--Share Scheduling
Fair
Scheduling decisions based on the process sets
Each user is assigned a share of the processor
Objective is to monitor usage to give fewer
resources to users who have had more than their
fair share and more to those who have had less
than their fair share

٢٠
١٦/٠١/١٤٣٨

Traditional UNIX Scheduling

Used in both SVR3 and 4.3 BSD UNIX
these systems are primarily targeted at the time-sharing interactive
environment

Designed to provide good response time for interactive users while

ensuring that low-priority background jobs do not starve

Employs multilevel feedback using round robin within each of the

priority queues

Makes use of one-second preemption

Priority is based on process type and execution history

Scheduling Formula

٢١
١٦/٠١/١٤٣٨

Bands
Swapper
Used to optimize access
to block devices and to
allow the operating Block I/O
system to respond device control
quickly to system calls
File
In decreasing order of manipulation
priority, the bands are:
Character I/O
device control

User
processes

٢٢
١٦/٠١/١٤٣٨

Summary
Types of processor Scheduling algorithms
scheduling Short-term
Long-term scheduling criteria
scheduling The use of
Medium-term priorities
scheduling Alternative
Short-term scheduling policies
scheduling Performance
comparison
Traditional UNIX Fair-share
scheduling scheduling

٢٣