skip to main content
research-article

Scheduling Dynamic Parallel Workload of Mobile Devices with Access Guarantees

Published:08 December 2018Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We study a dynamic resource-allocation problem that arises in various parallel computing scenarios, such as mobile cloud computing, cloud computing systems, Internet of Things systems, and others. Generically, we model the architecture as client mobile devices and static base stations. Each client “arrives” to the system to upload data to base stations by radio transmissions and then “leaves.” The problem, called Station Assignment, is to assign clients to stations so that every client uploads their data under some restrictions, including a target subset of stations, a maximum delay between transmissions, a volume of data to upload, and a maximum bandwidth for each station. We study the solvability of Station Assignment under an adversary that controls the arrival and departure of clients, limited to maximum rate and burstiness of such arrivals. We show upper and lower bounds on the rate and burstiness for various client arrival schedules and protocol classes. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that Station Assignment is studied under adversarial arrivals and departures.

References

  1. Noga Alon, Yossi Azar, Gerhard J. Woeginger, and Tal Yadid. 1997. Approximation schemes for scheduling. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA’97). 493--500. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. L. Anantharamu, Bogdan S. Chlebus, and Mariusz A. Rokicki. 2009. Adversarial multiple access channel with individual injection rates. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Principles of Distributed Systems (OPODIS’09) (LNCS 5923). Springer-Verlag, 174--188. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Matthew Andrews, Baruch Awerbuch, Antonio Fernández, Frank Thomson Leighton, Zhiyong Liu, and Jon M. Kleinberg. 2001. Universal-stability results and performance bounds for greedy contention-resolution protocols. J. ACM 48, 1 (2001), 39--69. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Matthew Andrews and Lisa Zhang. 2005. Scheduling over a time-varying user-dependent channel with applications to high-speed wireless data. J. ACM 52, 5 (2005), 809--834. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. James Aspnes, Yossi Azar, Amos Fiat, Serge A. Plotkin, and Orli Waarts. 1993. On-line load balancing with applications to machine scheduling and virtual circuit routing. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC’93). 623--631. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Yossi Azar. 1996. On-line load balancing. In Online Algorithms: The State of the Art (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Amos Fiat and Gerhard J. Woeginger (Eds.), Vol. 1442. Springer, 178--195. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Yossi Azar, Andrei Z. Broder, and Anna R. Karlin. 1994. On-line load balancing. Theor. Comput. Sci. 130, 1 (1994), 73--84. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Yossi Azar, Bala Kalyanasundaram, Serge A. Plotkin, Kirk Pruhs, and Orli Waarts. 1997. On-line load balancing of temporary tasks. J. Algor. 22, 1 (1997), 93--110. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Amotz Bar-Noy and Richard E. Ladner. 2003. Windows-scheduling problems for broadcast systems. SIAM J. Comput. 32, 4 (2003), 1091--1113. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Amotz Bar-Noy, Richard E. Ladner, and Tami Tamir. 2007. Windows scheduling as a restricted version of bin packing. ACM Trans. Algor. 3, 3 (2007), 28. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Marcin Bienkowski, Tomasz Jurdzinski, Miroslaw Korzeniowski, and Dariusz R. Kowalski. 2012. Distributed online and stochastic queuing on a multiple access channel. In Proceedings of the 26th International Symposium on Distributed Computing (DISC’12). 121--135. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Maria J. Blesa, Daniel Calzada, Antonio Fernández, Luis López, Andrés L. Martínez, Agustín Santos, Maria J. Serna, and Christopher Thraves. 2009. Adversarial queueing model for continuous network dynamics. Theory Comput. Syst. 44, 3 (2009), 304--331. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Allan Borodin, Jon M. Kleinberg, Prabhakar Raghavan, Madhu Sudan, and David P. Williamson. 2001. Adversarial queuing theory. J. ACM 48, 1 (2001), 13--38. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Joseph Wun-Tat Chan, Tak Wah Lam, and Prudence W. H. Wong. 2008. Dynamic bin packing of unit fractions items. Theor. Comput. Sci. 409, 3 (2008), 172--206. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Bogdan S. Chlebus, Dariusz R. Kowalski, and Mariusz A. Rokicki. 2012. Adversarial queuing on the multiple access channel. ACM Trans. Algor. 8, 1, Article 5 (Jan. 2012), 31 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. R. L. Graham. 1966. Bounds on multiprocessing timing anomalies. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 45 (1966), 1563--1581.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. David R. Karger, Steven J. Phillips, and Eric Torng. 1996. A better algorithm for an ancient scheduling problem. J. Algor. 20 (1996), 400--430. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Thomas Kesselheim. 2012. Dynamic packet scheduling in wireless networks. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC’12). 281--290. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Kirk Pruhs, Jirí Sgall, and Eric Torng. 2004. Online scheduling. In Handbook of Scheduling—Algorithms, Models, and Performance Analysis., Joseph Y.-T. Leung (Ed.). Chapman and Hall/CRC, Chapter 15, pp. 15--1 to 15--41. Retrieved from http://www.crcnetbase.com/isbn/978-1-58488-397-5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Scheduling Dynamic Parallel Workload of Mobile Devices with Access Guarantees

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        • Published in

          cover image ACM Transactions on Parallel Computing
          ACM Transactions on Parallel Computing  Volume 5, Issue 2
          June 2018
          113 pages
          ISSN:2329-4949
          EISSN:2329-4957
          DOI:10.1145/3299751
          • Editor:
          • David Bader
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Copyright © 2018 ACM

          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]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 8 December 2018
          • Accepted: 1 July 2018
          • Revised: 1 April 2018
          • Received: 1 August 2016
          Published in topc Volume 5, Issue 2

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader