Minimizing makespan and preemption costs on a system of uniform machines

H. Shachnai, T. Tamir, G.J. Woeginger

    Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contributionAcademicpeer-review

    7 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    It is well known that for preemptive scheduling on uniform machines there exist polynomial time exact algorithms,whereas for non- preemptive scheduling there are probably no such algorithms.However, it is not clear how many preemptions (in total,or per job)suffice in order to guarantee an optimal polynomial time algorithm.In this paper we investigate exactly this hardness gap, formalized as two variants of the classic preemptive scheduling problem. In generalized multiprocessor scheduling (GMS),we have job-wise or total bound on the number of pre- emptions throughout a feasible schedule.We need to find a schedule that satisfies the preemption constraints, such that the maxim m job completion time is minimized. In minimum preemptions scheduling (MPS), the only feasible schedules are preemptive schedules with smallest possible make span. The goal is to find a feasible schedule that minimizes the overall number of preemptions. Both problems are NP-hard, even for two machines and zero preemptions. For GMS, we develop polynomial time approximation schemes distinguishing between the cases where the number of machines is fixed or given as part of the input.For MPS, we derive matching lower and upper bounds on the number of preemptions required by any optimal schedule.
    Original languageEnglish
    Title of host publicationAlgorithms - ESA 2002 (Proceedings of the 10th Annual European Symposium, Rome, Italy, September 17-21, 2002)
    Place of PublicationBerlin
    PublisherSpringer
    Pages859-871
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2002

    Publication series

    NameLecture Notes in Computer Science
    Volume2461
    ISSN (Print)0302-9743

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Minimizing makespan and preemption costs on a system of uniform machines'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this