Chapter 5: CPU Scheduling

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Objectives

 To introduce CPU scheduling, which is the basis for multi-programmed

OS’s

 To describe various CPU scheduling algorithms

 To discuss evaluation criteria for selecting a CPU scheduling algorithm

for a particular system

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 5.2 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Basic Concepts

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 5.3 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Basic Concepts

 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 – 10th Edition 5.4 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Histogram of CPU-burst Times

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 5.5 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 CPU Scheduler

 Short-term (or CPU) scheduler selects from the processes in the

ready queue, and allocates the CPU to one of them
 Queue may be ordered in various ways

 Process scheduling decisions may take place when a process:

1. Switches from running to waiting state
2. Switches from running to ready state
3. Switches from waiting to ready
2
4. Terminates 4
new ready running terminat.

***

3 1
 Scheduling in 1 & 4 is non-preemptive
waiting
 All other scheduling is preemptive

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 5.6 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Scheduling and Optimization Criteria

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 5.7 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Scheduling Criteria

 CPU utilization – keep the CPU as busy as possible

 Throughput – # 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 has been waiting in the ready
queue

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

submitted until the first response is produced

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 5.8 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Optimization Criteria

 Maximize:
 CPU utilization
 Throughput

 Minimize:
 Turnaround time
 Waiting time
 Response time

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 5.9 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 CPU Scheduling Algorithms

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 5.10 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 CPU Scheduling Algorithms

 Non-preemptive:
 First-come, first-served (FCFS)
 Shortest job first (SJF)
 Priority

 Preemptive:
 Shortest remaining time first (SRTF)
 Priority
 Round robin

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 5.11 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 First-Come, First-Served (FCFS)

Process Burst Time

P1 24
P2 3
P3 3
 Suppose that the processes arrive 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
 Average turnaround time = ((24-0) + (27-0) + (30-0)) / 3 = …

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 5.12 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 FCFS (Cont.)

Suppose that the processes arrive in the order:

P 2 , P3 , P 1
 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
 Average turnaround time = ((30-0) + (3-0) + (6-0)) / 3
 Much better than previous case
 Convoy effect - short process behind long process
 Consider one CPU-bound and many I/O-bound processes

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 5.13 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Shortest Job First (SJF)

 Also called “Shortest Job Next (SJN)”

 Associate with each process the length of its next CPU burst
 Use these lengths to schedule the process with the shortest
time

 SJF is optimal – gives minimum average waiting time for a given

set of processes
 The difficulty is knowing the length of the next CPU request

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 5.14 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Example of SJF

ProcessArrival Time Burst Time

P1 0.0 6
P2 2.0 8
P3 4.0 7
P4 5.0 3

 SJF scheduling chart

P4 P1 P3 P2
0 3 9 16 24

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

 Average turnaround time = (9 + 24 + 16 + 3) / 4

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 5.15 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Example of SJF

ProcessArrival Time Burst Time Arrival Time

P1 0.0 6 2
P2 2.0 8 2
P3 4.0 7 3
P4 5.0 3 3

 SJF scheduling chart

 Average waiting time = ((2-2) + (18-2) + (11-3) + (8-3)) / 4 =

 Average turnaround time = ((8-2) + (26-2) + (18-3) + (11-3)) / 4

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 5.16 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Predicting the 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 the length of previous CPU bursts, using

exponential averaging

1. t n  actual length of n th CPU burst

2.  n 1  predicted value for the next CPU burst
3.  , 0    1
4. Define :  n 1   t n  1    n .

 Commonly, α set to ½

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 5.17 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Predicting the Next CPU Burst

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 5.18 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Shortest Remaining Time First (SRT)

 Now we add the concepts of varying arrival times and preemption to

the analysis
ProcessAarri Arrival TimeT Burst Time
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 = [((0-0)+(10-1))+(1-1)+(17-2)+(5-3)]/4 = 26/4 =

6.5
 Average turnaround time = [(17-0) + (5-1) + (26-2) + (10-3)] / 4 =

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 5.19 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Priority Scheduling

 A priority number (integer) is associated with each process

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

(smallest integer  highest priority)
 Preemptive
 Non-preemptive

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

next CPU burst time

 Problem  Starvation – low priority processes may never execute

 Solution  Aging – as time progresses increase the priority of the

process

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 5.20 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Example of Priority Scheduling

ProcessA arri 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 = [(6-0) + (0-0) + (16-0) + (18-0) + (1-0)] / 5

 Average turnaround time = [(16-0) + (1-0) + (18-0) + (19-0) + (6-0)] / 5

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 5.21 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Example of Preemptive Priority
Scheduling

Process AT Burst Time Priority

P1 1 10 3
P2 2 1 1
P3 7 2 3
P4 22 5 4
P5 23 5 2

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 5.22 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Example of Preemptive Priority
Scheduling

Process AT
P1 1
P2 2
P3 7
P4 22
P5 23

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 5.23 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Round Robin (RR)

 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  FIFO
 q small  q must be large with respect to context switch, otherwise
overhead is too high

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 5.24 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Example of RR with 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

 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 < 10 usec

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 5.25 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 “q” & Context Switch Time

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 5.26 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Turnaround Time Varies with “q”

80% of CPU bursts

should be shorter than q

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 5.27 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Multilevel Queue
 Ready queue is partitioned into separate queues, e.g.:
 foreground (interactive)
 background (batch)

 Each queue has its own scheduling algorithm, e.g.:

 foreground – RR
 background – FCFS

 Scheduling must be done between the queues:

 Fixed priority scheduling; (i.e., serve all from foreground then from
background). Possibility of starvation.
 Time slice – each queue gets a certain amount of CPU time which it
can schedule amongst its processes; e.g., 80% to foreground in RR
& 20% to background in FCFS

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 5.28 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Multilevel Queue

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 5.29 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Multilevel Feedback Queue

 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

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 5.30 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Example of Multilevel Feedback Queue

 Three queues:
 Q0 – RR with time quantum 8
milliseconds
 Q1 – RR time quantum 16 milliseconds
 Q2 – FCFS

 Scheduling
 A new job enters queue Q0 which is
served FCFS
 When it gains CPU, job receives 8
milliseconds
 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
 If it still does not complete, it is
preempted and moved to queue Q2

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 5.31 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 5.32 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Thread Scheduling

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 5.33 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Thread Scheduling

 Distinction between user-level and kernel-level threads

 Many-to-one and many-to-many models, thread library schedules user-

level threads to run on 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 – 10th Edition 5.34 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Multiple-Processor Scheduling

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 5.35 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Multiple-Processor (MP) Scheduling
 CPU scheduling is more complex when multiple CPUs are available
 Homogeneous processors within a multiprocessor
 Asymmetric multiprocessing – only one processor accesses the
system data structures, alleviating the need for data sharing
 Symmetric multiprocessing (SMP) – each processor is self-
scheduling, all processes in common ready queue, or each has its own
private queue of ready processes
 Currently, most common
 Processor affinity – process has affinity for processor on which it is
currently running
 soft affinity
 hard affinity
 Variations including processor sets

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 5.36 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 MP 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 – 10th Edition 5.37 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 – 10th Edition 5.38 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Multithreaded Multicore System

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 5.39 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Real-Time CPU Scheduling

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 5.40 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Real-Time CPU Scheduling

 Can present obvious

challenges
 Soft real-time systems – no
guarantee as to when critical
real-time process will be
scheduled
 Hard real-time systems –
task must be serviced by its
deadline
 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
scheduler to take current process
off CPU and switch to another

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 5.41 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Real-Time CPU Scheduling (Cont.)

 Rate-Montonic Scheduling

 A priority is assigned based on the inverse of the period

 Shorter periods = higher priority

 Longer periods = lower priority

 P1 is assigned a higher priority than P2

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 5.42 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Missed Deadlines with
Rate-Monotonic Scheduling

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 5.43 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Real-Time CPU Scheduling (Cont.)

 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 – 10th Edition 5.44 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Real-Time CPU Scheduling (Cont.)

 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 – 10th Edition 5.45 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Evaluation of Scheduling Algorithms

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 5.46 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 – 10th Edition 5.47 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Deterministic Evaluation

 For each algorithm, calculate minimum average waiting time

 Simple and fast, but requires exact numbers for input

 FCS is 28ms:

 Non-preemptive SFJ is 13ms:

 RR is 23ms:

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 5.48 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 – 10th Edition 5.49 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 – 10th Edition 5.50 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Simulations

 Queueing models are limited

 Simulations are more accurate

 Programmed model of computer system
 Clock is a variable
 Gather statistics indicating algorithm performance
 Data to drive simulation gathered via
 Random number generator according to probabilities
 Distributions defined mathematically or empirically
 Trace tapes record sequences of real events in real systems

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 5.51 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Simulations (Cont.)

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 5.52 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

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 5.53 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 End of Chapter 5

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018