Chapter 5: CPU Scheduling

Operating System Concepts Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Chapter 5: Outline

■ Basic Concepts

■ Scheduling Criteria

■ Scheduling Algorithms

■ Thread Scheduling

■ Multi-Processor Scheduling

■ Real-Time CPU Scheduling

■ Operating Systems Examples

■ Algorithm Evaluation

Operating System Concepts 2 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Objectives

■ Describe various CPU scheduling algorithms

■ Assess CPU scheduling algorithms based on scheduling criteria

■ Explain the issues related to multiprocessor and multicore scheduling

■ Describe various real-time scheduling algorithms

■ Describe the scheduling algorithms used in the Windows, Linux, and

Solaris operating systems

■ Apply modeling and simulations to evaluate CPU scheduling

algorithms

■ Design a program that implements several different CPU scheduling

algorithms

Operating System Concepts 3 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Basic Concepts

■ Almost all computer resources

are scheduled before use

■ Maximum CPU utilization

obtained with multiprogramming

■ CPU–I/O Burst Cycle – Process

execution consists of a cycle of
CPU execution and I/O wait
● CPU burst followed by I/O burst

● CPU burst distribution is of main

concern

Operating System Concepts 4 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Histogram of CPU-burst Times

■ Generally, frequency curve shows

● Large number of short bursts

● Small number of longer bursts

Operating System Concepts 5 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 CPU Scheduler

■ The CPU scheduler selects one ■ Scheduling under 1 and 4 is

process from among the nonpreemptive
processes in ready queue, and
4 No choice in terms of
allocates the CPU core to it scheduling
4 Queue may be ordered in
■ All other scheduling is
various ways: FIFO, priority,
tree, linked list preemptive, and can result in
race conditions
■ CPU scheduling decisions may
● Consider access to shared
take place when a process:
data
1. switches from running to
● Consider preemption while in
waiting state
kernel mode
2. switches from running to
ready state ● Consider interrupts occurring
during crucial OS activities
3. switches from waiting to ready
4. terminates

Operating System Concepts 6 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Dispatcher

■ Dispatcher module gives control of the

CPU to the process selected by the short-
term scheduler; this involves:
● switching context

4 The number of context switches can be

obtained by using the #vmstat command or
the /proc file system for a given process

● switching to user mode

● jumping to the proper location in the user

program to resume that program

■ Dispatch latency – time it takes for the

dispatcher to stop one process and start
another running #vmstat

Operating System Concepts 7 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Scheduling Criteria

■ CPU utilization – keep the CPU as busy as possible

■ Throughput – number of processes that complete their execution per

time unit

■ Turnaround time – amount of time to execute a particular process

■ Waiting time – amount of time a process spends waiting in the ready

queue

■ Response time – amount of time it takes from when a request was

submitted until the first response is produced, not outputting the
response (for time-sharing environment or in an interactive system)

#top

Operating System Concepts 8 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Scheduling Algorithm Optimization Criteria

● Max CPU utilization

● Max Throughput
● Min Turnaround time
● Min Waiting time
● Min Response time

■ In most cases, it is necessary to optimize the average measure

■ For interactive systems (such as a PC desktop or laptop system), it is

more important to minimize the variance in the response time
Note: For next examples of the comparison of various CPU-scheduling
algorithms
4 Consider only one CPU burst (in milliseconds) per process

4 The measure of comparison: average waiting time

Operating System Concepts 9 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 First-Come, First-Served (FCFS) Scheduling

■ Motivation: for simplicity, consider FIFO-like policy

Process Burst Time (ms)

P1 24
P2 3
P3 3
■ Suppose that the processes arrive at time 0 in the order: P1 , P2 , P3

■ The Gantt Chart for the schedule is:

P1 P2 P3
0 24 27 30

● Waiting time for P1 = 0; P2 = 24; P3 = 27

● Average waiting time = (0 + 24 + 27)/3 = 17

Operating System Concepts 10 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 FCFS Scheduling (Cont.)

■ Suppose that the processes arrive in the order: P2 , P3 , P1

■ The Gantt chart for the schedule is:

P2 P3 P1
0 3 6 30

● Waiting time for P1 = 6; P2 = 0; P3 = 3

● Average waiting time = (6 + 0 + 3)/3 = 3

● Much better than previous case

■ Convoy effect – short processes behind a long process, all the other
processes wait for the one big process to get off the CPU
● Consider one CPU-bound and many I/O-bound processes

● Result in lower CPU and device utilization

Operating System Concepts 11 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Shortest-Job-First (SJF) Scheduling

■ Motivation: Moving a short process before a long one decreases the

waiting time of the short process more than it increases the waiting
time of the long process
● The shortest-next-CPU-burst algorithm

■ Associate with each process the length of its next CPU burst
● When the CPU is available, it is assigned to the process that has the
smallest next CPU burst
● FCFS scheduling is used if the next CPU bursts of two processes are the
same

■ SJF is provably optimal – gives minimum average waiting time for a

given set of processes
● The difficulty is how to know the length of the next CPU request
● Could ask the user
Operating System Concepts 12 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Example of SJF scheduling

Processiv Burst Time (ms)

P1 0.0 6
P2 2.0 8

P3 4.0 7
P4 5.0 3

■ SJF scheduling Gantt chart

P4 P1 P3 P2
0 3 9 16 24

● Average waiting time = (3 + 16 + 9 + 0) / 4 = 7

Operating System Concepts 13 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Determining Length of Next CPU Burst

■ Can only estimate the length – should be similar to the previous one

● Then pick process with shortest predicted next CPU burst

■ Can be done by using exponential averaging of the measured lengths

of previous CPU bursts as follows
𝛼 ∈ [0,1]
𝜏" : predicted value for the next CPU burst
t " : actual length of nth CPU burst

𝜏"#$ = 𝛼. t ) + (1 − 𝛼) 𝜏"

■ Commonly, α controls the relative weight of recent and past history in

the prediction and sets to ½
■ Preemptive version called Shortest-Remaining-Time-First (SRTF)

Operating System Concepts 14 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Prediction of the Length of the Next CPU Burst

■ An exponential average with ⍺ = 1/2 and τ0 = 10

Operating System Concepts 15 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Examples of Exponential Averaging

■ a=0

● tn+1 = tn
● Recent history does not count

■ a =1
■ Since both a and (1 - a) are
● tn+1 = tn less than or equal to 1, each
● Only the actual last CPU burst successive term has less
counts weight than its predecessor
■ If we expand the formula, we get:

tn+1 = a tn + (1 - a)a tn -1 + …
+ (1 - a )j a tn -j + …
+ (1 - a )n +1 t0.

Operating System Concepts 16 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Shortest-Remaining-Time-First (SRTF)

■ Motivation: now, we add the concepts of varying arrival times and

preemption to the analysis
Process Arrival Time Burst Time (ms)
P1 0 8
P2 1 4
P3 2 9
P4 3 5
■ Preemptive SJF Gantt Chart

P1 P2 P4 P1 P3
0 1 5 10 17 26

● Average waiting time = [(10-1)+(1-1)+(17-2)+(5-3)]/4 = 6.5

■ The value for nonpreemptive SJF scheduling?

Operating System Concepts 17 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Round Robin (RR) Scheduling

■ Motivation: try scheduling algorithm similar to FCFS scheduling, but

preemption is added to enable the system to switch between
processes
■ Each process gets a small unit of CPU time (time quantum q), usually
10-100 milliseconds. After this time has elapsed, the process is
preempted and added to the end of the ready queue
■ If there are n processes in the ready queue and the time quantum is
q, then each process gets 1/n of the CPU time in chunks of at most q
time units at once. No process waits more than (n-1)q time units
■ Timer interrupts every quantum to schedule next process
■ Performance
● q large Þ FIFO
● q small Þ q must be large with respect to context switch, otherwise
overhead is too high

Operating System Concepts 18 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Example of RR with Time Quantum q = 4

Process Burst Time

P1 24
P2 3
P3 3
■ The Gantt chart is:

P1 P2 P3 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1
0 4 7 10 14 18 22 26 30

● Average waiting time = ?

■ Typically, higher average turnaround than SJF, but better response

■ q should be large compared to context switch time

■ q usually 10ms to 100ms, context switch < 10𝜇sec

Operating System Concepts 19 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Time Quantum and Context Switch Time

Operating System Concepts 20 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Turnaround Time Varies With The Time
Quantum

■ 80% of CPU
bursts should be
shorter than q

Operating System Concepts 21 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Priority Scheduling

■ Motivation: A priority number (integer) is associated with each

process

■ The CPU is allocated to the process with the highest priority

(smallest integer º highest priority). Equal-priority processes are
scheduled in FCFS or RR
● Preemptive

● Nonpreemptive

■ SJF is priority scheduling where priority is the inverse of predicted

next CPU burst time
■ Problem º Starvation – low priority processes may never execute

● Solution º Aging – as time progresses, increase the priority of the

process

Operating System Concepts 22 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Example of Priority Scheduling

ProcessA ari Burst TimeT Priority

P1 10 3

P2 1 1

P3 2 4
P4 1 5

P5 5 2

■ Priority scheduling Gantt Chart

● Average waiting time = 8.2

Operating System Concepts 23 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Priority Scheduling w/ Round-Robin

ProcessA arri Burst TimeT Priority

P1 4 3
P2 5 2
P3 8 2
P4 7 1
P5 3 3
■ Run the process with the highest priority. Processes with the same
priority run Round-Robin

■ Gantt Chart with time quantum q = 2 ms

● Average waiting time = ?

Operating System Concepts 24 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Multilevel Queue

■ Motivation: with priority scheduling, have separate queues for each

priority

■ Schedule the process in the highest-priority queue!

Operating System Concepts 25 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Example of Multilevel Queue

■ Prioritization based upon process type

Operating System Concepts 26 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Multilevel Feedback Queue

■ Motivation: A process can move between the various queues; aging

can be implemented this way

■ Multilevel-feedback-queue scheduler defined by the following

parameters:
● number of queues
● scheduling algorithms for each queue
● method used to determine when to upgrade a process
● method used to determine when to demote a process
● method used to determine which queue a process will enter when that
process needs service

■ This scheme leaves I/O-bound and interactive processes — which

are typically characterized by short CPU bursts — in the higher-
priority queues and a process that waits too long in a lower-priority
queue may be moved to a higher-priority queue
Operating System Concepts 27 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Example of Multilevel Feedback Queue

■ Three queues: ■ Scheduling

4 Q0 – RR with time quantum 8 ● A new job enters queue Q0
milliseconds which is served FCFS
4 Q1 – RR with time quantum 16 4 When it gains CPU, job
milliseconds receives 8 milliseconds
4 Q2 – FCFS 4 If it does not finish in 8
milliseconds, job is moved to
queue Q1
● At Q1 job is again served
FCFS and receives 16
additional milliseconds
4 If it still does not complete, it is
preempted and moved to
queue Q2

Operating System Concepts 28 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Thread Scheduling

■ Distinction between user-level and kernel-level threads

■ When threads supported, threads scheduled, not processes

■ Many-to-one and many-to-many models, thread library schedules

user-level threads to run on Light-Weight Process (LWP)
● Known as Process-Contention Scope (PCS) since scheduling
competition is within the process

● Typically done via priority set by programmer

■ Kernel thread scheduled onto available CPU is System-Contention

Scope (SCS) – competition among all threads in system

Operating System Concepts 29 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 POSIX Pthread Scheduling

■ API allows specifying either PCS or SCS during thread creation

● PTHREAD_SCOPE_PROCESS schedules threads using PCS

scheduling

● PTHREAD_SCOPE_SYSTEM schedules threads using SCS scheduling

■ Can be limited by OS – Linux and macOS only allow

PTHREAD_SCOPE_SYSTEM

■ Pthread IPC (Inter-process Communication) provides two functions

for setting
● pthread attr setscope(pthread attr t *attr, int scope)

● pthread attr getscope(pthread attr t *attr, int

*scope)

Operating System Concepts 30 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Pthread Scheduling API

#include <pthread.h> int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {

#include <stdio.h> int i, scope;

pthread_t tid[NUM THREADS];
#define NUM_THREADS 5
pthread_attr_t attr;

/* get the default attributes */

pthread_attr_init(&attr);

/* first inquire on the current scope */

if (pthread_attr_getscope(&attr, &scope) != 0)

fprintf(stderr, "Unable to get scheduling scope\n");

else {

if (scope == PTHREAD_SCOPE_PROCESS)

printf("PTHREAD_SCOPE_PROCESS");

else if (scope == PTHREAD_SCOPE_SYSTEM)

printf("PTHREAD_SCOPE_SYSTEM");

else
fprintf(stderr, "Illegal scope value.\n");

}
Operating System Concepts 31 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Pthread Scheduling API (Cont.)

/* set the scheduling algorithm to PCS or SCS */

pthread_attr_setscope(&attr, PTHREAD_SCOPE_SYSTEM);

/* create the threads */

for (i = 0; i < NUM_THREADS; i++)

pthread_create(&tid[i],&attr,runner,NULL);

/* now join on each thread */

for (i = 0; i < NUM_THREADS; i++)

pthread_join(tid[i], NULL);

/* Each thread will begin control in this function */

void *runner(void *param)

{

/* do some work ... */

pthread_exit(0);

Operating System Concepts 32 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Multiple-Processor Scheduling

■ CPU scheduling more complex when multiple CPUs are available

■ Multiprocessor may be any one of the following architectures:

● Multicore CPUs

● Multithreaded cores

● NUMA systems

● Heterogeneous multiprocessing

■ Multiprocessor scheduling

● There is no one best solution

Operating System Concepts 33 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Multiple-Processor Scheduling (Cont.)

■ Symmetric multiprocessing (SMP) is where each processor is self-

scheduling

■ Two possible strategies

● All threads may be in a common ready queue (Fig. a)

● Each processor may have its own private queue of threads (Fig. b)

Operating System Concepts 34 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Multicore Processors

■ Recent trend to place multiple processor cores on same physical chip

● Faster and consumes less power

■ Multiple threads per core also growing

● Takes advantage of memory stall to make progress on another thread

while memory retrieve happens

Operating System Concepts 35 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Multithreaded Multicore System

■ Each core has > 1 hardware threads.

■ If one thread has a memory stall, switch to another thread!

Operating System Concepts 36 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Multithreaded Multicore System

■ Chip-multithreading (CMT)
assigns each core multiple
hardware threads (Intel
refers to this as
hyperthreading)

■ Each hardware thread

maintains its architectural
state, such as instruction
pointer and register set

■ On a quad-core system
with 2 hardware threads
per core (e.g., Intel i7), the
operating system sees 8
logical processors

Operating System Concepts 37 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Multithreaded Multicore System

■ Two levels of
scheduling:

1. The operating
system deciding
which software
thread to run on a
logical CPU

2. How each core

decides which
hardware thread to
run on the physical
core.

Operating System Concepts 38 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Multiple-Processor Scheduling – Load Balancing

■ If SMP, need to keep all CPUs loaded for efficiency

■ Load balancing attempts to keep workload evenly distributed

■ Push migration – periodic task checks load on each processor, and if

found, pushes task from overloaded CPU to other CPUs

■ Pull migration – idle processors pulls waiting task from busy

processor

Operating System Concepts 39 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Multiple-Processor Scheduling – Processor Affinity

■ When a thread has been running on one processor, the cache

contents of that processor stores the memory accesses by that
thread.

■ We refer to this as a thread having affinity for a processor (i.e.

“processor affinity”)
■ Load balancing may affect processor affinity as a thread may be
moved from one processor to another to balance loads, yet that
thread loses the contents of what it had in the cache of the processor
it was moved off of.

■ Soft affinity – the operating system attempts to keep a thread running

on the same processor, but no guarantees.
■ Hard affinity – allows a process to specify a set of processors it may
run on.

Operating System Concepts 40 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Real-Time CPU Scheduling

■ Can present obvious challenges

■ Soft real-time systems – Critical real-time tasks have the highest

priority, but no guarantee as to when tasks will be scheduled

■ Hard real-time systems – task must be serviced by its deadline

Operating System Concepts 41 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Types of Latencies

■ Event latency – the amount of time that elapses from when an event
occurs to when it is serviced.

■ Two types of latencies affect performance

1. Interrupt latency – time from arrival of interrupt to start of routine that

services interrupt

2. Dispatch latency – time for schedule to take current process off CPU and
switch to another

Operating System Concepts 42 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Interrupt Latency

Operating System Concepts 43 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Dispatch Latency

■ Conflict phase of
dispatch latency:
1. Preemption of any
process running in
kernel mode

2. Release by low-
priority process of
resources needed
by high-priority
processes

Operating System Concepts 44 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Priority-based Scheduling

■ For real-time scheduling, scheduler must support preemptive, priority-

based scheduling
● But only guarantees soft real-time

■ For hard real-time, it must also provide ability to meet deadlines

■ Processes have new characteristics: periodic ones require CPU at
constant intervals
● Has processing time t, deadline d, period p
● 0≤t≤d≤p
● Rate of periodic task is 1/p

Operating System Concepts 45 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Rate Monotonic Scheduling

■ A priority is assigned based on the inverse of its period

■ Shorter periods = higher priority;

■ Longer periods = lower priority

■ P1 is assigned a higher priority than P2.

Operating System Concepts 46 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Missed Deadlines with Rate Monotonic Scheduling

■ Process P2 misses finishing its deadline at time 80

Operating System Concepts 47 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Earliest Deadline First Scheduling (EDF)

■ Priorities are assigned according to deadlines:

● the earlier the deadline, the higher the priority;

● the later the deadline, the lower the priority

Operating System Concepts 48 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Proportional Share Scheduling

■ T shares are allocated among all processes in the system

■ An application receives N shares where N < T

■ This ensures each application will receive N / T of the total processor

time

Operating System Concepts 49 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 POSIX Real-Time Scheduling

■ The POSIX.1b standard

■ API provides functions for managing real-time threads

■ Defines two scheduling classes for real-time threads:

● SCHED_FIFO – threads are scheduled using a FCFS strategy with a

FIFO queue. There is no time-slicing for threads of equal priority

● SCHED_RR – similar to SCHED_FIFO except time-slicing occurs for

threads of equal priority

■ Defines two functions for getting and setting scheduling policy:

● pthread_attr_getsched_policy(pthread_attr_t *attr, int

*policy)

● pthread_attr_setsched_policy(pthread_attr_t *attr, int

policy)

Operating System Concepts 50 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 POSIX Real-Time Scheduling API

#include <pthread.h> int main(int argc, char *argv[])

#include <stdio.h> {

#define NUM_THREADS 5 int i, policy;

pthread_t_tid[NUM_THREADS];

pthread_attr_t attr;

/* get the default attributes */

pthread_attr_init(&attr);

/* get the current scheduling policy */

if (pthread_attr_getschedpolicy(&attr, &policy) != 0)

fprintf(stderr, "Unable to get policy.\n");

else {

if (policy == SCHED_OTHER) printf("SCHED_OTHER\n");

else if (policy == SCHED_RR) printf("SCHED_RR\n");

else if (policy == SCHED_FIFO) printf("SCHED_FIFO\n");

Operating System Concepts 51 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 POSIX Real-Time Scheduling API (Cont.)

/* set the scheduling policy - FIFO, RR, or OTHER */

if (pthread_attr_setschedpolicy(&attr, SCHED_FIFO) != 0)

fprintf(stderr, "Unable to set policy.\n");

/* create the threads */

for (i = 0; i < NUM_THREADS; i++)

pthread_create(&tid[i],&attr,runner,NULL);

/* now join on each thread */

for (i = 0; i < NUM_THREADS; i++)

pthread_join(tid[i], NULL);

/* Each thread will begin control in this function */

void *runner(void *param)

{

/* do some work ... */

pthread_exit(0);

Operating System Concepts 52 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Operating System Examples

■ Linux scheduling

■ Windows scheduling

Operating System Concepts 53 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Linux Scheduling Through Version 2.5

■ Prior to kernel version 2.5, ran variation of standard UNIX scheduling

algorithm
■ Version 2.5 moved to constant order O(1) scheduling time
● Preemptive, priority based
● Two priority ranges: time-sharing and real-time
● Real-time range from 0 to 99 and nice value from 100 to 140
● Map into global priority with numerically lower values indicating higher priority
● Higher priority gets larger q
● Task runnable as long as time left in time slice (active)
● If no time left (expired), not runnable until all other tasks use their slices
● All runnable tasks tracked in per-CPU run-queue data structure
4 Two priority arrays (active, expired)
4 Tasks indexed by priority
4 When no more active, arrays are exchanged
● Worked well, but poor response times for interactive processes

Operating System Concepts 54 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Linux Scheduling in Version 2.6.23 +

■ Completely Fair Scheduler (CFS)

■ Scheduling classes

● Each has specific priority

● Scheduler picks highest priority task in highest scheduling class

● Rather than quantum based on fixed time allotments, based on

proportion of CPU time

● 2 scheduling classes included, others can be added

4 default

4 real-time

Operating System Concepts 55 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Linux Scheduling in Version 2.6.23 +

■ Quantum calculated based on nice value from -20 to +19

● Lower value is higher priority

● Calculates target latency – interval of time during which task should run
at least once

● Target latency can increase if say number of active tasks increases

■ CFS scheduler maintains per task virtual run time in variable

vruntime

● Associated with decay factor based on priority of task – lower priority is

higher decay rate

● Normal default priority yields virtual run time = actual run time

■ To decide next task to run, scheduler picks task with lowest virtual
run time

Operating System Concepts 56 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 CFS Performance

Operating System Concepts 57 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Linux Real-time Scheduling

■ Real-time scheduling according to POSIX.1b

● Real-time tasks have static priorities

■ Real-time plus normal map into global priority scheme

■ Nice value of -20 maps to global priority 100

■ Nice value of +19 maps to priority 139

Operating System Concepts 58 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Linux Scheduling (Cont.)

■ Linux supports load balancing, but is also NUMA-aware

■ Scheduling domain is a set of CPU cores that can be balanced

against one another

■ Domains are organized by what they share (i.e., cache memory.)

Goal is to keep threads from migrating between domains

Operating System Concepts 59 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Windows Scheduling

■ Windows uses priority-based preemptive scheduling

■ Highest-priority thread runs next
■ Dispatcher is scheduler
■ Thread runs until (1) blocks, (2) uses time slice, (3) preempted by
higher-priority thread
■ Real-time threads can preempt non-real-time
■ 32-level priority scheme
■ Variable class is 1-15, real-time class is 16-31
■ Priority 0 is memory-management thread
■ Queue for each priority
■ If no run-able thread, runs idle thread

Operating System Concepts 60 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Windows Priority Classes

■ Win32 API identifies several priority classes to which a process can

belong
4 REALTIME_PRIORITY_CLASS, HIGH_PRIORITY_CLASS,
ABOVE_NORMAL_PRIORITY_CLASS, NORMAL_PRIORITY_CLASS,
BELOW_NORMAL_PRIORITY_CLASS, IDLE_PRIORITY_CLASS

4 All are variable except REALTIME

■ A thread within a given priority class has a relative priority

4 TIME_CRITICAL, HIGHEST, ABOVE_NORMAL, NORMAL,

BELOW_NORMAL, LOWEST, IDLE

■ Priority class and relative priority combine to give numeric priority

■ Base priority is NORMAL within the class

■ If quantum expires, priority lowered, but never below base

Operating System Concepts 61 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Windows Priority Classes (Cont.)

■ If wait occurs, priority boosted depending on what was waited for

■ Foreground window given 3x priority boost

■ Windows 7 added user-mode scheduling (UMS)

● Applications create and manage threads independent of kernel

● For large number of threads, much more efficient

● UMS schedulers come from programming language libraries like

C++ Concurrent Runtime (ConcRT) framework

Operating System Concepts 62 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Windows Priorities

Operating System Concepts 63 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Algorithm Evaluation

■ How to select CPU-scheduling algorithm for an OS?

■ Determine criteria, then evaluate algorithms

■ Deterministic modeling

● Type of analytic evaluation

● Takes a particular predetermined workload and defines the performance

of each algorithm for that workload

■ Consider 5 processes arriving at time 0:

Operating System Concepts 64 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Deterministic Evaluation

■ For each algorithm, calculate minimum average waiting time

■ Simple and fast, but requires exact numbers for input, applies only to
those inputs
● FCS is 28ms:

● Non-preemptive SFJ is 13ms:

● RR is 23ms:

Operating System Concepts 65 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Queueing Models

■ Describes the arrival of processes, and CPU and I/O bursts

probabilistically
● Commonly exponential, and described by mean

● Computes average throughput, utilization, waiting time, etc

■ Computer system described as network of servers, each with queue

of waiting processes
● Knowing arrival rates and service rates

● Computes utilization, average queue length, average wait time, etc

Operating System Concepts 66 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Little’s Formula

■ n = average queue length

■ W = average waiting time in queue

■ λ = average arrival rate into queue

■ Little’s law – in steady state, processes leaving queue must equal

processes arriving, thus:
n=λxW
● Valid for any scheduling algorithm and arrival distribution

■ For example, if on average 7 processes arrive per second, and

normally 14 processes in queue, then average wait time per process
= 2 seconds

Operating System Concepts 67 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Simulations

■ Queueing models limited

■ Simulations more accurate

● Programmed model of computer system

● Clock is a variable

● Gather statistics indicating algorithm performance

● Data to drive simulation gathered via

4 Random number generator according to probabilities

4 Distributions defined mathematically or empirically

4 Trace tapes record sequences of real events in real systems

Operating System Concepts 68 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Evaluation of CPU Schedulers by Simulation

Operating System Concepts 69 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Implementation

■ Even simulations have limited accuracy

■ Just implement new scheduler and test in real systems

■ High cost, high risk

■ Environments vary

■ Most flexible schedulers can be modified per-site or per-system

■ Or APIs to modify priorities

■ But again environments vary

Operating System Concepts 70 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Summary

■ CPU scheduling is the task of selecting a waiting process from the

ready queue and allocating the CPU to it. The CPU is allocated to the
selected process by the dispatcher.

■ Scheduling algorithms may be either preemptive (where the CPU can

be taken away from a process) or nonpreemptive (where a process
must voluntarily relinquish control of the CPU). Almost all modern
operating systems are preemptive.

■ Scheduling algorithms can be evaluated according to the following

five criteria: (1) CPU utilization, (2) throughput, (3) turnaround time,
(4) waiting time, and (5) response time.

■ First-come, first-served (FCFS) scheduling is the simplest scheduling

algorithm, but it can cause short processes to wait for very long
processes.

Operating System Concepts 71 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Summary (Cont.)

■ Shortest-job-first (SJF) scheduling is provably optimal, providing the

shortest average waiting time. Implementing SJF scheduling is
difficult, how- ever, because predicting the length of the next CPU
burst is difficult.

■ Round-robin (RR) scheduling allocates the CPU to each process for a

time quantum. If the process does not relinquish the CPU before its
time quantum expires, the process is preempted, and another
process is scheduled to run for a time quantum.

■ Priority scheduling assigns each process a priority, and the CPU is

allocated to the process with the highest priority. Processes with the
same priority can be scheduled in FCFS order or using RR
scheduling.

Operating System Concepts 72 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Summary (Cont.)

■ Multilevel queue scheduling partitions processes into several

separate queues arranged by priority, and the scheduler executes the
processes in the highest-priority queue. Different scheduling
algorithms may be used in each queue.

■ Multilevel feedback queues are similar to multilevel queues, except

that a process may migrate between different queues.
■ Multicore processors place one or more CPUs on the same physical
chip, and each CPU may have more than one hardware thread. From
the perspective of the operating system, each hardware thread
appears to be a logical CPU.

■ Load balancing on multicore systems equalizes loads between CPU

cores, although migrating threads between cores to balance loads
may invalidate cache contents and therefore may increase memory
access times.

Operating System Concepts 73 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Summary (Cont.)

■ Soft real-time scheduling gives priority to real-time tasks over non-

real- time tasks. Hard real-time scheduling provides timing
guarantees for real- time tasks,

■ Rate-monotonic real-time scheduling schedules periodic tasks using

a static priority policy with preemption.
■ Earliest-deadline-first (EDF) scheduling assigns priorities according to
deadline. The earlier the deadline, the higher the priority; the later the
deadline, the lower the priority.

■ Proportional share scheduling allocates T shares among all

applications. If an application is allocated N shares of time, it is
ensured of having N∕T of the total processor time.

Operating System Concepts 74 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 Summary (Cont.)

■ Linux uses the completely fair scheduler (CFS), which assigns a

proportion of CPU processing time to each task. The proportion is
based on the virtual runtime (vruntime) value associated with each
task.

■ Windows scheduling uses a preemptive, 32-level priority scheme to

determine the order of thread scheduling.
■ Modeling and simulations can be used to evaluate a CPU scheduling
algorithm.

Operating System Concepts 75 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

 End of Chapter 5

Operating System Concepts Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018