skip to main content
10.1145/1583991.1584068acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesspaaConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Buffer management for colored packets with deadlines

Published: 11 August 2009 Publication History

Abstract

We consider buffer management of unit packets with deadlines for a multi-port device with reconfiguration overhead. The goal is to maximize the throughput of the device, i.e., the number of packets delivered by their deadline. For a single port or with free reconfiguration, the problem reduces to the well-known packets scheduling problem, where the celebrated earliest-deadline-first (EDF) strategy is optimal 1-competitive. However, EDF is not 1-competitive when there is a reconfiguration overhead. We design an online algorithm that achieves a competitive ratio of 1 - o(1) when the ratio between the minimum laxity of the packets and the number of ports tends to infinity. This is one of the rare cases where one can design an almost 1-competitive algorithm. One ingredient of our analysis, which may be interesting on its own right, is a perturbation theorem on EDF for the classical packets scheduling problem. Specifically, we show that a small perturbation in the release and deadline times cannot significantly degrade the optimal throughput. This implies that EDF is robust in the sense that its throughput is close to the optimum even when the deadlines are not precisely known.

References

[1]
W. Aiello, Y. Mansour, S. Rajagopolan, and A. Rosén. Competitive queue policies for differentiated services. J. Algorithms, 55(2):113--141, 2005.
[2]
N. Andelman and Y. Mansour. Competitive management of non-preemptive queues with multiple values. In Proceedings 17th International Conference on Distributed Computing, pages 166--180, 2003.
[3]
N. Andelman, Y. Mansour, and A. Zhu. Competitive queueing policies for qos switches. In Proceedings 14th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 761--770, 2003.
[4]
N. Bansal, L. Fleischer, T. Kimbrel, M. Mahdian, B. Schieber, and M. Sviridenko. Further improvements in competitive guarantees for qos buffering. In Proceedings 31st International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming, pages 196--207, 2004.
[5]
R. Bar-Yehuda and J. Laserson. Exploiting locality: Approximating sorting buffers. Journal of Discrete Algorithms, 5(4):729--738, 2007.
[6]
Y. Bartal, F. Y. L. Chin, M. Chrobak, S. P. Y. Fung, W. Jawor, R. Lavi, J. Sgall, and T. Tichý. Online competitive algorithms for maximizing weighted throughput of unit jobs. In Proceedings 21st Annual Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science, pages 187--198, 2004.
[7]
M. Bienkowski, M. Chrobak, C. Dürr, M. Hurand, A. Jez, L. Jez,and G. Stachowiak. Collecting weighted items from a dynamic queue. In Proceedings 20th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 1126--1135, 2009.
[8]
F. Y. L. Chin, M. Chrobak, S. P. Y. Fung, W. Jawor, J. Sgall, and T. Tichý. Online competitive algorithms for maximizing weighted throughput of unit jobs. J. Discrete Algorithms, 4(2):255--276, 2006.
[9]
F. Y. L. Chin and S. P. Y. Fung. Online scheduling with partial job values: Does timesharing or randomization help? Algorithmica, 37(3):149--164, 2003.
[10]
M. Chrobak, W. Jawor, J. Sgall, and T. Tichý. Improved online algorithms for buffer management in qos switches. ACM Transactions on Algorithms, 3(4), 2007.
[11]
M. Englert, H. Räcke, and M. Westermann. Reordering buffers for general metric spaces. In Proceedings 39th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 556--564, 2007.
[12]
M. Englert, H. Röglin, and M. Westermann. Evaluation of online strategies for reordering buffers. In Proceedings 5th International Workshop on Experimental Algorithms, pages 183--194, 2006.
[13]
M. Englert and M. Westermann. Reordering buffer management for non-uniform cost models. In Proceedings 32nd International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming, pages 627--638, 2005.
[14]
M. Englert and M. Westermann. Lower and upper bounds on fifo buffer management in qos switches. In Proceedings 14th Annual European Symposium on Algorithms, pages 352--363, 2006.
[15]
M. Englert and M. Westermann. Considering suppressed packets improves buffer management in qos switches. In Proceedings 18th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 209--218, 2007.
[16]
A. Fiat, Y. Mansour, and U. Nadav. Competitive queue management for latency sensitive packets. In Proceedings 19th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 228--237, 2008.
[17]
I. Gamzu and D. Segev. Improved online algorithms for the sorting buffer problem. In Proceedings 24th Annual Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science, pages 658--669, 2007.
[18]
M. R. Garey and D. S. Johnson. Complexity results for multiprocessor scheduling under resource constraints. SIAM J. Comput., 4(4):397--411, 1975.
[19]
M. R. Garey and D. S. Johnson. Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. W. H. Freeman, 1979.
[20]
B. Hajek. On the competitiveness of online scheduling of unit-length packets with hard deadlines in slotted time. In Proceedings Conference on Information Sciences and Systems, pages 434--438, 2001.
[21]
A. Kesselman, Z. Lotker, Y. Mansour, B. Patt-Shamir, B. Schieber,and M. Sviridenko. Buffer overflow management in qos switches. SIAM J. Comput., 33(3):563--583, 2004.
[22]
A. Kesselman, Y. Mansour, and R. van Stee. Improved competitive guarantees for qos buffering. Algorithmica, 43(1--2):63--80, 2005.
[23]
R. Khandekar and V. Pandit. Offline sorting buffers on line. In Proceedings 17th International Symposium on Algorithms and Computation, pages 81--89, 2006.
[24]
R. Khandekar and V. Pandit. Online sorting buffers on line. In Proceedings 23rd Annual Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science, pages 584--595, 2006.
[25]
J. S. Kohrt and K. Pruhs. A constant approximation algorithm for sorting buffers. In Proceedings 6th Latin American Symposium on Theoretical Informatics, pages 193--202, 2004.
[26]
C. J. Lee, O. Mutlu, V. Narasiman, and Y. N. Patt. Prefetch-aware DRAM controllers. In Proceedings 41st Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture, pages 200--209, 2008.
[27]
F. Li, J. Sethuraman, and C. Stein. An optimal online algorithm for packet scheduling with agreeable deadlines. In Proceedings 16th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 801--802, 2005.
[28]
F. Li, J. Sethuraman, and C. Stein. Better online buffer management. In Proceedings 18th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 199--208, 2007.
[29]
O. Mutlu and T. Moscibroda. Stall-time fair memory access scheduling for chip multiprocessors. In Proceedings 40th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture, pages 146--160, 2007.
[30]
H. Räcke, C. Sohler, and M. Westermann. Online scheduling for sorting buffers. In Proceedings 10th Annual European Symposium on Algorithms, pages 820--832, 2002.
[31]
S. Rixner, W. J. Dally, U. J. Kapasi, P. R. Mattson, and J. D.Owens. Memory access scheduling. In Proceedings 27th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture, pages 128--138, 2000.
[32]
M. Schmidt. Packet buffering: Randomization beats deterministic algorithms. In Proceedings 22nd Annual Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science, pages 293--304, 2005.

Cited By

View all

Index Terms

  1. Buffer management for colored packets with deadlines

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    SPAA '09: Proceedings of the twenty-first annual symposium on Parallelism in algorithms and architectures
    August 2009
    370 pages
    ISBN:9781605586069
    DOI:10.1145/1583991
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 11 August 2009

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. buffer management
    2. dram scheduling
    3. earliest deadline first
    4. online algorithms
    5. packets scheduling

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Conference

    SPAA 09

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate 447 of 1,461 submissions, 31%

    Upcoming Conference

    SPAA '25
    37th ACM Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures
    July 28 - August 1, 2025
    Portland , OR , USA

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)3
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
    Reflects downloads up to 05 Mar 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all

    View Options

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Figures

    Tables

    Media

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media