H.J. Siegel Tony Maciejewski Purdue University Viktor Prasanna USC Richard Freund Noemix Adapting MSHN Scheduling Technology for HiPer-D.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Feedback Control Real-Time Scheduling: Framework, Modeling, and Algorithms Chenyang Lu, John A. Stankovic, Gang Tao, Sang H. Son Presented by Josh Carl.
Advertisements

QoS-based Management of Multiple Shared Resources in Dynamic Real-Time Systems Klaus Ecker, Frank Drews School of EECS, Ohio University, Athens, OH {ecker,
Energy-efficient Task Scheduling in Heterogeneous Environment 2013/10/25.
Hadi Goudarzi and Massoud Pedram
Scheduling in Distributed Systems Gurmeet Singh CS 599 Lecture.
1 An Adaptive GA for Multi Objective Flexible Manufacturing Systems A. Younes, H. Ghenniwa, S. Areibi uoguelph.ca.
RUN: Optimal Multiprocessor Real-Time Scheduling via Reduction to Uniprocessor Paul Regnier † George Lima † Ernesto Massa † Greg Levin ‡ Scott Brandt ‡
Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne  2002 Modified for CSCI 399, Royden, Operating System Concepts Operating Systems Lecture 19 Scheduling IV.
All Hands Meeting, 2006 Title: Grid Workflow Scheduling in WOSE (Workflow Optimisation Services for e- Science Applications) Authors: Yash Patel, Andrew.
Kuang-Hao Liu et al Presented by Xin Che 11/18/09.
Towards Feasibility Region Calculus: An End-to-end Schedulability Analysis of Real- Time Multistage Execution William Hawkins and Tarek Abdelzaher Presented.
Abhijit Davare 1, Qi Zhu 1, Marco Di Natale 2, Claudio Pinello 3, Sri Kanajan 2, Alberto Sangiovanni-Vincentelli 1 1 University of California, Berkeley.
Ashish Gupta Under Guidance of Prof. B.N. Jain Department of Computer Science and Engineering Advanced Networking Laboratory.
GridFlow: Workflow Management for Grid Computing Kavita Shinde.
CprE 458/558: Real-Time Systems
Linear programming Lecture (4) and lecture (5). Recall An optimization problem is a decision problem in which we are choosing among several decisions.
EECE **** Embedded System Design
Distributed Real-Time Systems for the Intelligent Power Grid Prof. Vincenzo Liberatore.
A Budget Constrained Scheduling of Workflow Applications on Utility Grids using Genetic Algorithms Jia Yu and Rajkumar Buyya Grid Computing and Distributed.
 Escalonamento e Migração de Recursos e Balanceamento de carga Carlos Ferrão Lopes nº M6935 Bruno Simões nº M6082 Celina Alexandre nº M6807.
Network Aware Resource Allocation in Distributed Clouds.
An Integration Framework for Sensor Networks and Data Stream Management Systems.
ROBUST RESOURCE ALLOCATION OF DAGS IN A HETEROGENEOUS MULTI-CORE SYSTEM Luis Diego Briceño, Jay Smith, H. J. Siegel, Anthony A. Maciejewski, Paul Maxwell,
Efficient and Scalable Computation of the Energy and Makespan Pareto Front for Heterogeneous Computing Systems Kyle M. Tarplee 1, Ryan Friese 1, Anthony.
June 21, 2007 Minimum Interference Channel Assignment in Multi-Radio Wireless Mesh Networks Anand Prabhu Subramanian, Himanshu Gupta.
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Rajagopal Iyengar Combinatorial Approaches to QoS Scheduling in Multichannel Wireless Systems Rajagopal Iyengar Rensselaer.
ANTs PI Meeting, Nov. 29, 2000W. Zhang, Washington University1 Flexible Methods for Multi-agent distributed resource Allocation by Exploiting Phase Transitions.
Introduction A GENERAL MODEL OF SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION.
Energy Aware Task Mapping Algorithm For Heterogeneous MPSoC Based Architectures Amr M. A. Hussien¹, Ahmed M. Eltawil¹, Rahul Amin 2 and Jim Martin 2 ¹Wireless.
Quality of Service Karrie Karahalios Spring 2007.
A Survey of Distributed Task Schedulers Kei Takahashi (M1)
Scheduling policies for real- time embedded systems.
Disclosure risk when responding to queries with deterministic guarantees Krish Muralidhar University of Kentucky Rathindra Sarathy Oklahoma State University.
LATA: A Latency and Throughput- Aware Packet Processing System Author: Jilong Kuang and Laxmi Bhuyan Publisher: DAC 2010 Presenter: Chun-Sheng Hsueh Date:
Minimax Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) Routing Algorithms in Networks Supporting the SMDS Service Frank Yeong-Sung Lin ( 林永松 ) Information Management.
A Node and Load Allocation Algorithm for Resilient CPSs under Energy-Exhaustion Attack Tam Chantem and Ryan M. Gerdes Electrical and Computer Engineering.
1 Short Term Scheduling. 2  Planning horizon is short  Multiple unique jobs (tasks) with varying processing times and due dates  Multiple unique jobs.
Resource Mapping and Scheduling for Heterogeneous Network Processor Systems Liang Yang, Tushar Gohad, Pavel Ghosh, Devesh Sinha, Arunabha Sen and Andrea.
Exact and heuristics algorithms
A Passive Approach to Sensor Network Localization Rahul Biswas and Sebastian Thrun International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems 2004 Presented.
1 SYNTHESIS of PIPELINED SYSTEMS for the CONTEMPORANEOUS EXECUTION of PERIODIC and APERIODIC TASKS with HARD REAL-TIME CONSTRAINTS Paolo Palazzari Luca.
6. A PPLICATION MAPPING 6.3 HW/SW partitioning 6.4 Mapping to heterogeneous multi-processors 1 6. Application mapping (part 2)
A Utility-based Approach to Scheduling Multimedia Streams in P2P Systems Fang Chen Computer Science Dept. University of California, Riverside
Chapter 6 CASE Tools Software Engineering Chapter 6-- CASE TOOLS
Real-Time Support for Mobile Robotics K. Ramamritham (+ Li Huan, Prashant Shenoy, Rod Grupen)
1 Iterative Integer Programming Formulation for Robust Resource Allocation in Dynamic Real-Time Systems Sethavidh Gertphol and Viktor K. Prasanna University.
MROrder: Flexible Job Ordering Optimization for Online MapReduce Workloads School of Computer Engineering Nanyang Technological University 30 th Aug 2013.
Network-Aware Scheduling for Data-Parallel Jobs: Plan When You Can
Adaptive Resource Management Architecture for DRE Systems Nishanth Shankaran
OPERATING SYSTEMS CS 3530 Summer 2014 Systems and Models Chapter 03.
Static Process Scheduling
Introduction to Real-Time Systems
A stochastic scheduling algorithm for precedence constrained tasks on Grid Future Generation Computer Systems (2011) Xiaoyong Tang, Kenli Li, Guiping Liao,
Load Balancing : The Goal Given a collection of tasks comprising a computation and a set of computers on which these tasks may be executed, find the mapping.
Chapter 4 CPU Scheduling. 2 Basic Concepts Scheduling Criteria Scheduling Algorithms Multiple-Processor Scheduling Real-Time Scheduling Algorithm Evaluation.
1 Chapter 6 Reformulation-Linearization Technique and Applications.
1 Chapter 5 Branch-and-bound Framework and Its Applications.
Linear programming Lecture (4) and lecture (5). Recall An optimization problem is a decision problem in which we are choosing among several decisions.
Aircraft Landing Problem
OPERATING SYSTEMS CS 3502 Fall 2017
OVERVIEW Impact of Modelling and simulation in Mechatronics system
Basic Project Scheduling
Basic Project Scheduling
Frank Yeong-Sung Lin (林永松) Information Management Department
CPU Scheduling G.Anuradha
Module 5: CPU Scheduling
Planning and Scheduling in Manufacturing and Services
Frank Yeong-Sung Lin (林永松) Information Management Department
Module 5: CPU Scheduling
Module 5: CPU Scheduling
Presentation transcript:

H.J. Siegel Tony Maciejewski Purdue University Viktor Prasanna USC Richard Freund Noemix Adapting MSHN Scheduling Technology for HiPer-D

H.J. Siegel Tony Maciejewski Purdue University Colorado State University Viktor Prasanna USC Richard Freund Noemix Adapting MSHN Scheduling Technology for HiPer-D

 MSHN: Management System for Heterogeneous Networks  apply the techniques, knowledge, and expertise we developed in MSHN for mapping applications to heterogeneous platforms to the HiPer-D environment  work in collaboration with DeSiDeRaTa and HiPer-D teams  DeSiDeRaTa dynamically modifies existing HiPer-D mappings to avoid QoS violations using real-time feedback  our focus: derive initial HiPer-D mapping  done off-line – more time than dynamic mapper  use estimated predictions about HiPer-D (no feedback) H.J. Siegel Tony Maciejewski Purdue University Colorado State University Viktor Prasanna USC Richard Freund Noemix Adapting MSHN Scheduling Technology for HiPer-D

4 One Example HiPer-D Subsystem CFF Broker Tacfire ALT Data Server OTH Data Server Gun Sim (SGI) (SUN) (NT) TCP Ensemble TCP NDDS CORBA (TAO) Ensemble Land Picture Air Track Picture Land Attack Engagement Server Deconflict Server Fire Sim 21 Display Components

5 HiPer-D System-Wide Attributes  continuously executing applications  QoS constraints for a system-wide mapping  for each subsystem  throughput  end-to-end latency  target platform  collection of heterogeneous COTS machines and networks  standard operating systems and network protocols

6 Our Proposed Goal for the Initial Mapping  find an initial mapping of all HiPer-D applications onto the machines in the hardware platform  to be used when HiPer-D is first booted up  based on estimated predicted computation and communication times  derived off-line (static mapping) – more time for derivation than a dynamic (on-line) mapping  maximize the allowable increase in workload (e.g., targets) until a dynamic reallocation of resources is required to avoid a QoS violation in any subsystem  finding an optimal solution to the problem is intractable  need heuristic approaches

7 Pluggable Algorithms (Heuristics)  select a pluggable algorithm (heuristic)  depends on  heterogeneous suite of machines  quality of mapping vs. off-line heuristic execution time  heuristics being investigated  local optimization: “2-phase greedy”  mixed integer programming based  global optimization:  genetic algorithm (GA)  simulated annealing (SA)

8 Research Tasks to Create Heuristics  characterized and modeled the continuously executing HiPer-D applications and the hardware platform (static information, no real-time feedback)  computation and communication time  particular machine selection  machine multi-tasking and network sharing  application workload  non-periodic (asynchronous) nature  context switching and background loads  limited profiling information available

9 Research Tasks to Create Heuristics (cont’d)  quantified the performance goal using the model  designing and developing heuristics for allocating the applications so as to optimize the performance goal  leverage heterogeneity  evaluating performance of heuristics using simulations  will integrate into HiPer-D

10 Hardware Platform Model Hi-Level Overview  collection of heterogeneous machines  each with full-duplex connection to a non-blocking switch  collection of sensors and actuators  each with a half-duplex connection to the switch  sensor features  data output rate - the # of data sets produced per time unit  tactical load - the # of “tracks” per data set

11 Application Model Concepts  a directed acyclic graph  nodes are applications, arcs are data transfers  continuously executing, pipelined applications actuator 1 sensor 3 sensor 1 sensor 2 actuator 2 sensor actuator application

12 Modeling Multiple Input Applications  discriminating applications - do not produce an output unless a particular input is present  Z is a discriminating application  generates output only if certain sensor data received from radar  combining applications - produce an output when all inputs arrive  S is a combining application  P, Q, and R solve pieces of a large computation, and S combines the pieces to form the final answer Z Y Y sends picture of battlefield to Z P Q R S

13 Paths Overview  group of applications that together perform one job  a “path” begins at a sensor  ends at an actuator or a discriminating application  paths are important because QoS constraints are defined on paths = discriminating app. path 1 path 2 path 3 path 4

14 Real-Time QoS Constraints for a Path  end-to-end latency - the time elapsed between the instant the sensor produces an input and the instant the path delivers its own output  must be no larger than a specified value  throughput - the number of data sets that the path can process in unit time  must be no smaller than a specified value  assumed equal to the sensor data rate end-to-end latency

15 Verifying Constraints  computation stage  a set of applications  communication stage  a set of data transfers  path  sequence of computation and communication stages  throughput constraint  execution time for any comp. stage  1/(sensor data rate)  execution time for any comm. stage  1/(sensor data rate)  the end-to-end latency constraint  the sum of execution times for ALL stages in a given path  that path’s maximum allowed end-to-end latency

16 Quantifying the Allowable Increase in Load  let the maximum allowable increase in the tactical load be abbreviated as “MAIT”  MAIT for a system = min( system wide MAIT for throughput constraint, system wide MAIT for latency constraint )  different procedures required to find the MAIT values for throughput and latency constraints  assume that a mapping is given

17 MAIT for the Latency Constraint  solve on a path-by-path basis  let  be the initial tactical load for the sensor for this path (load  was basis for the mapping)  solve for  in the next equation to find MAIT for the latency constraint for a path  set the maximum allowed path latency =  execution times for all comp. stages in the path given sensor tactical load  +  execution times for all comm. stages in the path given sensor tactical load   repeat the calculation above for all paths  system wide MAIT for latency = min of (  –  )/  over all paths

18 MAIT for the Throughput Constraint  solve on a path-by-path basis  recall  is the initial tactical load for the sensor for this path (load  was basis for the mapping)  solve for  in the next equation to find MAIT for the throughput constraint for a path  1/(max. output rate from the sensor) = max(max(computation time for any application in the path given sensor tactical load  ), max(communication time for any data transfer in the path given sensor tactical load  ) )  repeat the calculation above for all paths  system wide MAIT for throughput = min of (  –  )/  over all paths

19 Two-Phase Greedy Heuristic  origins in the Min-min heuristic  first discussed in Ibarra and Kim, J. of ACM, ’77  from prior MSHN work  performed comparably to GA and SA in some different environments  faster heuristic than GA and SA  experiment to determine its performance in the HiPer-D environment

20 Two-Phase Greedy: Simplified Overview  1 st phase: for each unmapped application individually, find machine that maximizes allowable increase in workload for throughput constraint (without allowing any QoS violations)  based on applications mapped so far  2 nd phase: select the single application/machine pair from 1 st phase that maximizes the allowable increase in workload for the latency constraint and map the application  based on applications mapped so far and average values for unmapped applications  repeat both phases for all unmapped applications

21 Variations on Two-Phase Greedy Approach  base: 1 st phase: throughput constraint, 2 nd phase: latency constraint  variations  1 st phase: latency, 2 nd phase: throughput  1 st phase: latency, 2 nd phase: latency  1 st phase: throughput, 2 nd phase: throughput  simulations: best is function of relative tightness of constraints  “lower” bounds - a single phase greedy  map applications in random order  either use just throughput or use just latency  upper bounds – use best machine, unlimited machines, no communications (unattainable)

22 Mixed Integer Programming (MIP) Approach  based on well-researched mathematical techniques for optimization  mathematical programming formulation based on models of the latency and throughput of applications  applicable to several objective functions  uses QoS requirements as constraints  directly solvable if the formulation is linear  use heuristics to convert non-linear problems into linear problems  solution  globally optimized  satisfies all constraints

23 MIP Approach Overview Subsystem Application model Target Platform Linearization Heuristics Paths MIP Formulation optimize subject to latency requirements throughput requirements mapping constraints objective function Solution MIP Solver

24 MIP Formulation  issue  direct formulation of the MIP problem is non-linear  product of two variables in a single term  solution  use heuristics to estimate one of the variables  linearize the formulation  for example  latency of an application impacted by the number of applications mapped on each machine (N)  estimating N  Capability Based Heuristic (CBH)  Uniformly Allocated Heuristic (UAH)

25 Preliminary Simulation Results  objective: CBH UAH number of machines avg % of optimal value (12 applications, 10 cases)

26 Status and Impact  status  the heuristics are being implemented and evaluated  integration as pluggable HiPer-D algorithms to occur  impact  provide effective initial allocation of resources to HiPer-D applications  simulation tool for “what if” studies of resources available versus manageable load  possible to compare off-line versus on-line resource allocation heuristics for the same HiPer-D system state

27 Proposed Post Quorum Work  applying our heuristics to the entire HiPer-D system and evaluating their performance  developing application task-profiling procedures  predict computation and communication times  predict impact of workload changes  refining our current models to have more accurate approximations of impact of  multitasking  bandwidth sharing  workload varying in different ways at different sensors

28 Proposed Post Quorum Work (cont’d)  understanding the performance of heuristics when the estimated computation and communication times differ from the actual times  evaluate robustness of current heuristics  design alternate heuristics for robustness  using our heuristics for determining the relative strengths and weaknesses of existing or proposed hardware environments

29 Summary of Notes for Quorum Assessment  Our Specific Program Goal  original MSHN: resource management system that exploits heterogeneity  MSHN for HiPer-D: initial resource allocation generated off-line  Technical Approach (How?)  original MSHN: Scheduling Advisor; Client Library; Resource Status Server: Resource Requirements Database  MSHN for HiPer-D: model computation and communication; heuristics for mapping continuous, communicating, aperiodic applications

30 Summary of Notes for Quorum Assessment (cont’d)  Scope of Solution (Metrics)  original MSHN: makespan; FISC – Flexible Integrated System Capability (priorities, deadlines, versions, security,…)  MSHN for HiPer-D: % allowable increase in workload w/o dynamic remapping  Open Problems/Extensions  original MSHN: build prototype into full working system  MSHN for HiPer-D: application profiling; impact of multitasking; heuristic robustness; use as system evaluator

31 t-1t-1 j =0  (p j )   ij   ij   ij   ij  4  ij   ij   ij   ij         max 0  i < I j FISC Measure – Collective Value of Applications  priorities:   (p j ) - weight  required descendant:  ij - output generated  completed by firm deadline: if yes  ij = 1, else  ij = 0  required security:  ij = 1 if minimum met, else  ij = 0  required application specific QoS:  ij = 1 if minimum met, else  ij = 0  versions:  ij - normalized worth (%)  deadlines:  ij - % (based on e ij d, s ij d, f ij d, m)  variable security:  ij - % satisfied  variable application specific QoS:  ij - % satisfied

32  relative importance among attributes for task j:  c  j (versions), c  j  (deadline), c  j (security), and c  j  (application specific QoS)  set by user, policy maker, or application developer  all coefficients  0, and c  j  c  j  c  j  c  j > 0   1  if  ij =  ij =  ij =  ij = 100%, fraction = 1  (p j )   ij   ij   ij   ij  t-1t-1 j =0 cj  cj  cj  cjcj  cj  cj  cj c  j   ij  c  j  ij  c  j   ij  c  j  ij         max 0  i < I j FISC with Weighted Coefficients cj  cj  cj  cjcj  cj  cj  cj c  j   ij  c  j  ij  c  j   ij  c  j  ij

33 Summary of Notes for Quorum Assessment (cont’d)  Scope of Solution (Metrics)  original MSHN: makespan; FISC – Flexible Integrated System Capability (priorities, deadlines, versions, security,…)  MSHN for HiPer-D: % allowable increase in workload w/o dynamic remapping  Open Problems/Extensions  original MSHN: build prototype into full working system  MSHN for HiPer-D: application profiling; impact of multitasking; heuristic robustness; use as system evaluator

34