Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/502034.502046acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessospConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Anticipatory scheduling: a disk scheduling framework to overcome deceptive idleness in synchronous I/O

Published: 21 October 2001 Publication History
  • Get Citation Alerts
  • Abstract

    Disk schedulers in current operating systems are generally work-conserving, i.e., they schedule a request as soon as the previous request has finished. Such schedulers often require multiple outstanding requests from each process to meet system-level goals of performance and quality of service. Unfortunately, many common applications issue disk read requests in a synchronous manner, interspersing successive requests with short periods of computation. The scheduler chooses the next request too early; this induces deceptive idleness, a condition where the scheduler incorrectly assumes that the last request issuing process has no further requests, and becomes forced to switch to a request from another process.We propose the anticipatory disk scheduling framework to solve this problem in a simple, general and transparent way, based on the non-work-conserving scheduling discipline. Our FreeBSD implementation is observed to yield large benefits on a range of microbenchmarks and real workloads. The Apache webserver delivers between 29% and 71% more throughput on a disk-intensive workload. The Andrew filesystem benchmark runs faster by 8%, due to a speedup of 54% in its read-intensive phase. Variants of the TPC-B database benchmark exhibit improvements between 2% and 60%. Proportional-share schedulers are seen to achieve their contracts accurately and efficiently.

    References

    [1]
    J. Almeida, M. Dabu, A. Manikutty, and P. Gao. Providing differentiated quality of service in web hosting services. In WISP, June 1998.]]
    [2]
    M. Aron and P. Druschel. Soft timers: Efficient microsecond software timer support for network processing. In 17th ACM SOSP, Dec. 1999.]]
    [3]
    M. Aron, S. Iyer, and P. Druschel. A resource management framework for predictable quality of service in web servers, July 2001. Submitted. http://www.cs.rice.edu/-ssiyer/r/mbqos/.]]
    [4]
    G. Banga, P. Druschel, and J. C. Mogul. Resource containers: A new facility for resource management in server systems. In 3rd USENIX OSDI, Feb. 1999.]]
    [5]
    J. Bennett and H. Zhang. WF2Q: Worst-case fair weighted fair queueing. In IEEE Infocom, Mar. 1996.]]
    [6]
    HTTP log files at the University of California, Berkeley. http: //www.cs.berkeley.edu/logs/http /.]]
    [7]
    J. Bruno, J. Brustoloni, E. Gabber, B. Ozden, and A. Silberschatz. Disk scheduling with quality of service guarantees. In IEEE ICMCS, June 1999.]]
    [8]
    J. Bruno, E. Gabber, B. ()zden, and A. Silberschatz. The Eclipse operating system: Providing quality of service via reservation domains. In USENIX 1998 Annual Technical Conference, June 1998.]]
    [9]
    S. Chen, J. A. Stankovic, J. F. Kurose, and D. Towsley. Performance evaluation of two new disk scheduling algorithms for real-time systems. Journal of Real-Time Systems, 3(3):307-336, Sept. 1991.]]
    [10]
    L. Golubchik, J. C. S. Lui, E. de Souza e Silva, and H. R. Gail. Evaluation of tradeoffs in resource management techniques for multimedia storage servers. In IEEE ICMCS, June 1999.]]
    [11]
    P. Goyal, X. Guo, and H. Vin. A hierarchical CPU scheduler for multimedia operating systems. In 2nd USENIX OSDI, Oct. 1996.]]
    [12]
    J. Howard, M. Kazar, S. Menees, D. Nichols, M. Satyanarayanan, R. Sidebotham, and M. West. Scale and performance in a distributed file system. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 6(1):51-81, Feb. 1988.]]
    [13]
    L. Huang and T. Chiueh. Implementation of a rotation latency sensitive disk scheduler. Technical Report ECSL-TR81, SUNY, Stony Brook, Mar. 2000.]]
    [14]
    S. Iyer and P. DruscheL The effect of deceptive idleness on disk schedulers. Technical Report CSTR01-379, Rice University, June 2001.]]
    [15]
    D. Jacobson and J. Wilkes. Disk scheduling algorithms based on rotational position. Technical Report HPL-CSP-91-Trevl, Hewlett-Packard, Feb. 1991.]]
    [16]
    C. Lumb, J. Schindler, G. Ganger, D. Nagle, and E. Riedel. Towards higher disk head utilization: Extracting free bandwidth from busy disk drives. In 4th USENIX OSDI, Oct. 2000.]]
    [17]
    T. Mowry, A. Demke, and O. Krieger. Automatic compiler inserted I/O prefetching for out-of-core applications. In Pnd USENIX OSDI, Oct. 1996.]]
    [18]
    H. Patterson, G. Gibson, E. Ginting, D. Stodolsky, and J. Zelenka. Informed prefetching and caching. In 15th ACM SOSP, Dec. 1995.]]
    [19]
    D. Roselli, J. R. Lorch, and T. E. Anderson. A comparison of file system workloads. In USENIX Annual Technical Conference, June 2000.]]
    [20]
    E. Rosti, E. Smirni, G. Serazzi, and L. W. Dowdy. Analysis of non-work-conserving processor partitioning policies. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 949:165-181, 1995.]]
    [21]
    C. Ruemmler and J. Wilkes. An introduction to disk drive modeling. IEEE Computer, 27(3):17-28, 1994.]]
    [22]
    M. Seltzer, P. Chen, and J. Ousterhout. Disk scheduling revisited. In USENIX Winter Technical Conference, Jan. 1990.]]
    [23]
    P. Shenoy and H. Via. Cello: A disk scheduling framework for next generation operating systems. In ACM Sigmetrics, June 1998.]]
    [24]
    E. Shriver, C. Small, and K. Smith. Why does file system prefetching work? In USENIX Annual Technical Conference, June 1999.]]
    [25]
    J. B. Siegal, Jan. 2000. http://www.cs.rice.edu/~ssiyer/r/antsched/linux.html.]]
    [26]
    D. Sullivan and M. Seltzer. Isolation with flexibility: A resource management framework for central servers. In USENIX Annual Technical Conference, June 2000.]]
    [27]
    Transaction Processing Performance Council. TPC-B standard specification, revision 2.0, 1994.]]
    [28]
    R. Vaswani and J. Zahorjan. The implications of cache affinity on processor scheduling for shared memory multiprocessors. In 13th ACM SOSP, Oct. 1991.]]
    [29]
    B. Verghese, A. Gupta, and M. Rosenblum. Performance isolation: Sharing and isolation in shared memory multiprocessors. In ASPLOS, Oct. 1998.]]
    [30]
    W. Vogels. File system usage in Windows NT 4.0. In 17th ACM SOSP, June 2000.]]
    [31]
    C. Waldspurger and W. Weihl. Lottery scheduling: Flexible proportional-share resource management. In 1st USENIX OSDI, Nov. 1994.]]
    [32]
    C. Waldspurger and W. Weihl. Stride scheduling: Deterministic proportional resource management. Technical report, MIT/LCS/TM-528, June 1995.]]
    [33]
    F. Waters. AIX performance tuning guide, chapter 8. Prentice Hall, 1994.]]
    [34]
    B. Worthington, G. Ganger, and Y. Part. Scheduling algorithms for modern disk drives. In ACM Sigmetrics, 1994.]]
    [35]
    X. Yu, B. Gum, Y. Chen, R. Wang, K. Li, A. Krishnamurthy, and T. Anderson. Trading capacity for performance in a disk array. In 4th USENIX OSDI, Oct. 2000.]]
    [36]
    H. Zhang. Providing end-to-end performance guarantees using non-work-conserving disciplines. Computer Communications, 18(10), Oct. 1995.]]

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2023)Anticipatory Resource Allocation for ML TrainingProceedings of the 2023 ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing10.1145/3620678.3624669(410-426)Online publication date: 30-Oct-2023
    • (2021)GimbalProceedings of the 2021 ACM SIGCOMM 2021 Conference10.1145/3452296.3472940(106-122)Online publication date: 9-Aug-2021
    • (2021)Internal Task-Aware Command Scheduling to Improve Read Performance of Embedded Flash Storage SystemsIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2021.30795209(71638-71650)Online publication date: 2021
    • Show More Cited By

    Index Terms

    1. Anticipatory scheduling: a disk scheduling framework to overcome deceptive idleness in synchronous I/O

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    SOSP '01: Proceedings of the eighteenth ACM symposium on Operating systems principles
    October 2001
    254 pages
    ISBN:1581133898
    DOI:10.1145/502034
    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: 21 October 2001

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • Article

    Conference

    SOSP01
    Sponsor:
    SOSP01: 18th Symposium on Operating System Principles
    October 21 - 24, 2001
    Alberta, Banff, Canada

    Acceptance Rates

    SOSP '01 Paper Acceptance Rate 17 of 85 submissions, 20%;
    Overall Acceptance Rate 131 of 716 submissions, 18%

    Upcoming Conference

    SOSP '24

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)32
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
    Reflects downloads up to 10 Aug 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2023)Anticipatory Resource Allocation for ML TrainingProceedings of the 2023 ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing10.1145/3620678.3624669(410-426)Online publication date: 30-Oct-2023
    • (2021)GimbalProceedings of the 2021 ACM SIGCOMM 2021 Conference10.1145/3452296.3472940(106-122)Online publication date: 9-Aug-2021
    • (2021)Internal Task-Aware Command Scheduling to Improve Read Performance of Embedded Flash Storage SystemsIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2021.30795209(71638-71650)Online publication date: 2021
    • (2020)I/O Schedulers for Proportionality and Stability on Flash-Based SSDs in Multi-Tenant EnvironmentsIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2019.29630818(4451-4465)Online publication date: 2020
    • (2019)TxFSACM Transactions on Storage10.1145/331815915:2(1-20)Online publication date: 8-May-2019
    • (2019)Preemptive Multi-Queue Fair QueuingProceedings of the 28th International Symposium on High-Performance Parallel and Distributed Computing10.1145/3307681.3326605(147-158)Online publication date: 17-Jun-2019
    • (2018)Empirical Evaluation and Enhancement of Enterprise Storage System Request SchedulingACM Transactions on Storage10.1145/319374114:2(1-27)Online publication date: 27-Apr-2018
    • (2018)Disk Prefetching Mechanisms for Increasing HTTP Streaming Video Server ThroughputACM Transactions on Modeling and Performance Evaluation of Computing Systems10.1145/31645363:2(1-30)Online publication date: 22-Mar-2018
    • (2018)AmberProceedings of the 51st Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture10.1109/MICRO.2018.00045(469-481)Online publication date: 20-Oct-2018
    • (2018)FLINProceedings of the 45th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture10.1109/ISCA.2018.00041(397-410)Online publication date: 2-Jun-2018
    • Show More Cited By

    View Options

    Get Access

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media