Precedence Constrained Scheduling优先级约束调度.pptVIP

Intuition: Difficult Schedules Schedules with mixture of 2-slots and full slots. Extreme case 1: 2-slots at the beginning, full slots at the end. Extreme case 2: 2 slots and full slots alternate. Omitted. See paper. Concluding Remarks Analysis is complicated, but not much more than 2-2/p analysis of Lam-Sethi. Algorithm is simpler than Coffman-Graham. Technique will not work beyond 2 - 3/p. Even getting there is hard. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Precedence Constrained Scheduling Abhiram Ranade Dept. of CSE IIT Bombay Input Directed Acyclic Graph G, #processors p A B C D E F G H , 3 Vertex = unit time task edge (u,v) : Time(u) Time(v) Output: Schedule Time 1 2 3 4 Processor 1 A D E G Processor 2 B F H Processor 3 C Schedule Length, to be minimized Applications Project management. Vertex = lay foundation, build walls. Edges: what happens first to what happens later. Processors : Number of workmen. MS Project, others. Our problem: Simplified version. Other applications: Parallel computing. Summary of results Polytime algorithm when p=2. [Fuiji.. 69] NP-hard for variable p. [LenKan 78] NP-hardness not known for fixed p 2. Polytime algorithm for trees. [Hu 61] Summary of results - 2 Any greedy algorithm gives 2 - 1/p approximation. i.e. Schedule of length at most (2 - 1/p) times Optimal length. [Coffman-Graham 72, Lam-Sethi 77] give 2 - 2/p approximation algorithm. [Gangal-Ranade 08] give 2 – 7/(3p+1) approximation for p 3. Outline Elementary Lower Bound ideas Elementary algorithm and analysis Deadline Constraints [GarJoh 76] More complex problem, but generates new ideas. 2 processor optimality, also without deadlines Essentially gives 2 - 2/p approximation Ideas behind 2 - 7/(3p+1) approximation algorithm Elementary Lower Bounds To prove optimality of any algorithm, need to show why it cannot be improved, i.e. lower bound on schedule length. OPT ? H = Length of longest path in G. OPT ? [ N