An Improved Priority Scheduling Algorithm Using
Time Slice to Minimize Response Time
Department of Computer Science
Ahana Roy
Department of Computer Science
College of Charleston
Charleston, SC, USA
roya@g.cofc.edu
Abstract—Operating system handles a variety of functions
such as process management, resource allocation, memory
management, networking, file management to name few. Out of
these tasks, resource allocation is of utmost importance. The
currently existing algorithms have some problems associated with
them. Some of them can lead to endless waiting or starvation and
some of them like round robin has problem of too many context
switches and high waiting time. The sole aim of this paper is to
develop an improvement to existing priority scheduling
algorithm used for scheduling in interactive systems. The
proposed algorithm not only reduces overhead of swapping
priorities but also response/waiting times.
Keywords—CPU scheduling, CPU utilization, Throughput,
Turnaround time, Waiting time, Response time, Context switch rate,
Priority scheduling algorithm, Starvation, CPU burst, Gantt chart
I. INTRODUCTION
Scheduling forms the basis of multi-programmed operating
systems. It is because scheduling determines which processes
run when there are multiple runnable processes.
Scheduling algorithm improves processor’s efficiency by
improving its utilization. First Come, First Serve (FCFS) [1],
Shortest Job First (SJF) [1] [2], Shortest Remaining Time First
(SRTF) [1], Round Robin (RR) [1] [3], Highest Response
Ratio Next (HRRN), Mid Average Round Robin (MARR) [4],
Adaptive Round Robin (Adaptive RR) [5], Improved Round
Robin Approach using Dynamic Time Quantum (IRRADTQ)
[6] and Varying Response Ratio Priority (VRRP) [7] are some
of the examples of scheduling algorithms. As performance of
the algorithm may vary under various situations [2], so the
possible criteria for selection of a proper algorithm can be
reduced context switch count, increased throughput, increased
processor use, reduced waiting time, reduced response time
and reduced turnaround time [8]. To choose the best and
appropriate algorithm we need to focus on following criteria
[1]:
− CPU Utilization: our main goal is to keep the CPU as
busy as possible
Aspen Olmsted
College of Charleston
Charleston, SC, USA
olmsteda@cofc.edu
− Throughput: number of processes that complete their
execution per time unit
− Turnaround time: interval from submission time of a
process to completion time
− Waiting time: amount of time a process has been
waiting in the ready queue
− Response time: amount of time it takes from when a
request was submitted until the first response is
produced
With a priority scheduler, the scheduler simply picks the
highest priority process to run. If the system uses preemptive
scheduling, a process is preempted whenever a higher priority
process is available in the run queue. Priorities may also be
static or dynamic. A process with a static priority keeps that
priority for the entire life of the process. A process with a
dynamic priority will have that priority changed by the
scheduler during its course of execution. The scheduler would
do this to achieve its scheduling goals. For example, the
scheduler may decide to decrease a process’ priority to give a
chance for lower-priority job to run. If a process is I/O bound
(spending most of its time waiting on I/O), the scheduler may
give it a higher priority so that it can get off the run queue
quickly and schedule another I/O operation. Static and
dynamic priorities can coexist. A scheduler would know that a
process with a static priority cannot have its priority adjusted
throughout the course of its execution. Ignoring dynamic
priorities, the priority scheduling algorithm is straightforward:
each process has a priority number assigned to it and the
scheduler simply picks the process with the highest priority
[1].
In this paper, we will be handling indefinite blocking (or
starvation), a major problem in priority scheduling algorithms.
A process that is ready to run but lacking the CPU can be
considered blocked-waiting for the CPU [1]. A priority
scheduling algorithm can leave some low-priority processes
waiting indefinitely for the CPU. One approach to this
problem of indefinite postponement is to use dynamic
priorities. At the expiration of each quantum, the scheduler
can decrease the priority of the current running process
(thereby penalizing it for taking that much CPU time).
Eventually its priority will fall below that of the next highest
process and that process will be allowed to run. Another
approach is to have the scheduler keep track of low priority
processes that do not get a chance to run and increase their
priority so that eventually the priority will be high enough so
that the processes will get scheduled to run. Once it runs for its
quantum, the priority can be brought back to the previous low
level. This periodic boosting of a process’ priority to ensure it
gets a chance to run is called process aging [1].
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section II
and III discusses relative work and our proposed algorithm
respectively. In Section IV and V, implementation and
corresponding results are shown. Finally, we conclude and
discuss future work in Section VI.
II. RELATED WORK
The major drawback associated with First Come, First
Serve (FCFS) [1] scheduling algorithm is that being a
non-preemptive approach it waits for a less important
time-consuming process to finish first. To overcome this
problem Shortest Job First (SJF) algorithm was proposed in
which the job with shorter burst time is executed first [1] [3].
But in this approach if short processes keep coming in
sequence, then any long process must wait endlessly for its
chance and may starve [9]. A new algorithm was proposed
Shortest Remaining Time First (SRTF) [1]. This is a
preemptive approach in which job with shorter remaining time
is executed first. Again, problem was the same, if new jobs
with shorter running time keep coming then an older job with
larger remaining time must wait endlessly creating a condition
of starvation.
To overcome starvation, a new algorithm Round Robin
(RR) was introduced [1] [3]. In this approach processor
handles each process in recurring order and for a fixed time
quantum. Hence each process gets the processor equally and
no process ever starves. But because of these frequent
switching RR is associated with many context switches and
high average waiting time [10]. To further reduce the average
waiting time, many improvements over round-robin algorithm
were proposed [11] [12] [13]. Like Proportional Share
scheduling algorithm, which was proposed by Helmy and
Dekdouk [14], this algorithm inherits features from
round-robin and is encouraging for shorter jobs. Shortest
Remaining Burst Round Robin (SRBRR) scheduling
algorithm assigns the processor to processes with shortest
remaining burst in round robin manner using the dynamic time
quantum [15]. Priority Based Dynamic Round Robin
(PBDRR) algorithm uses intelligent time slice and holds
features from Priority algorithm and Round Robin [16].
Researchers proposed another novel approach; a
preemptive priority base scheduling algorithm namely
Chronically Evaluated Highest Instantaneous Priority Next
(CEHIPN) [17]. This algorithm takes the instantaneous
remaining time and waiting time of the processes into
consideration to calculate their instantaneous priority. Then the
process with highest instantaneous priority is allocated to the
processor. From the results of the study, the authors inferred
that CEHIPN will never lead to starvation and has much better
results in terms of average waiting time, average response
time, when compared with FCFS, SJF, RR, Highest Response
Ratio Next, Varying Response Ratio Priority, Mid Average
Round-Robin and Adaptive Round Robin.
Lottery scheduling solves the problem of starvation [3].
Processes are each assigned some number of lottery tickets,
and the scheduler draws a random ticket to select the next
process to be executed. Giving each process at least one
lottery ticket guarantees that it has non-zero probability of
being selected at each scheduling operation. On average, CPU
time is proportional to the number of tickets given to each job.
To avoid starvation, every job gets at least one ticket. Thus,
lottery scheduling can be used to solve problems involving fair
share of CPU [18].
In Standard Deviation based CPU scheduling [19], a queue
is maintained in which processes are ordered based on the
burst time value proximity with the value of the standard
deviation. Process whose burst time is closest to the standard
deviation value will be executed first.
III. HYPOTHESIS
Our hypothesis is an improvement to existing enhanced
priority scheduling algorithm [20]. Our purpose is to achieve
the following objectives:
− maximized CPU utilization
− maximized throughput
− minimized (average) turnaround time
− minimized (average) waiting time
− minimized (average) response time
− minimized context switch rate
− fairness of resource allocation
We propose an algorithm which aids in minimizing
some of the above performance parameters such as
response time, waiting time for lower priority processes
ensuring each process is given a fair chance to access
resources.
Step 1: The tasks are sorted according to their priorities.
Lower numbers are used to represent higher priorities. The
process with the highest priority is allocated first and those
with the same priorities are scheduled by FCFS policy.
Step 2: Allocate all sorted process to CPU for a
predetermined time slice. Value of time slice = (process
with shortest burst time + process with largest burst
time)/2
Step 3: After all the processes have been executed once
using the given time slice, instead of symmetrical
 swapping of process priorities [20], allocate the incomplete Scheduling) (in
processes a new value of time slice = average of remaining sec)
burst times.
P5 0 0
Step 4: Repeat step 3 until the completion of execution of
all processes in the queue. P3 97 62.5

IV. IMPLEMENTATION P2 129 94.5

To aid illustrate our hypothesis, let’s demonstrate a specific P1 221 157
case. We have assumed arrival time of all processes is zero.
P4 312 219.5
Process Priority Burst time Table 3: Data to plot bar chart, a comparison of response times
P1 6 91 V. RESULTS
P2 4 92 According to Figure 1 and the outcome of our
P3 3 32 implementation, it is observed that:
− response time for individual process is greatly
P4 7 28
reduced (Table 3)
P5 1 97
− timely resource allocation is ensured to all
Table 1: Case study with five processes processes and hence the problem of indefinite
postponement is tackled
According to simple priority scheduling algorithm:
− fair treatment of all process is ensured due to the
Gantt chart: introduction of the concept of time slice along
P5 P3 P2 P1 P4 with priority
0 97 129 221 312 340 − waiting time for the lowest priority process is
minimized. P4 with lowest priority of 7 (Table 1)
According to our hypothesis:
has a much lesser waiting time of 219.5 seconds
Step 1: Time slice (in seconds) = (97+28)/2 = 62.5 sec when compared to 312 seconds (Figure 1)
Step 2: We run each process for a time slice of 62.5 sec − context switch rate is higher in our hypothesis
Cycle 1: when compared to simple priority scheduling
algorithm (Table 2)
P5 P3 P2 P1 P4
0 62.5 94.5 157 219.5 247.5

Status after step 2: P3, P4 completed

Step 3: Now we calculate the average of burst times of the
remaining processes P1, P2 and P5 or (91+92+97)/3 = floor
(93.33) = 93.
Cycle 1 (4 context switches) + 3 more context switches:
P5 P2 P1
0 93 185 276

Status after step 3: P2, P1 completed

Scheduling Algorithm Context Switch
Figure 1: Comparison of Response Time of Priority Scheduling
Priority 4 (PS) algorithm and proposed hypothesis

Hypothesis 7 VI. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK

Table 2: Comparison of context switch rate of simple priority and Our intent is primarily the same as that of the
proposed priority scheduling algorithm enhanced priority algorithm [20], however the difference is in
the approach. We propose an alternative to the step where
Process Response Time Response Time processes are swapped symmetrically in order to prevent low
(Priority (hypothesis) (in priority processes starving to death. Our proposed hypothesis
sec) of calculating the average of burst time for the time slice value
avoids the overhead of swapping (highest priority process with
that of lowest priority) making the scheduling process less
time consuming. Also, considering processes are assigned
static priorities, our approach retains the original priority order
of execution.
Though we were unable to achieve a reduced context
switch rate compared to priority scheduling algorithm, still we
achieved minimization of response time and degree of
starvation. Besides, fair treatment to all resources and timely
resource allocation (independent of the burst time) to
individual process, the proposed algorithm clearly shows
maximum CPU utilization and efficient handling of resources
provided the burst time of all other processes is less than the
mean of burst time of shortest and largest process.
In future, not only do we intend to extend this
research looking for ways to reduce context switch rate but
also study the effect of implementing the proposed algorithm
to improve the efficiency of time sharing and interactive
systems along with an assigned priority.
VII. REFERENCES
[1] A. Silberschatz, P. Galvin and G. Gagne, Operating System
Concepts (Vol. 6), Hoboken: Wiley, 2001.
[2] E. Oyetunji and A. Oluleye, "Performance Assessment of
Some CPU Scheduling Algorithms," Research Journal of
Information and Technology, vol. 1, pp. 22-26, 2009.
[3] A. S. Tanenbaum and H. Bos, Modern Operating Systems
Pearson Prentice-Hall, 2015.
[4] P. Banerjee, P. Banerjee and S. Dhal, "Comparative
Performance Analysis of Mid Average Round Robin
Scheduling (MARR) Using Dynamic Time Quantum with
Round Robin Scheduling Algorithm Having Static Time,"
International Journal of Electronics and Computer Science
Engineering, vol. 1, pp. 2026-2034, 2012.
[5] S. Hiranwal and K. Roy, "Adaptive Round Robin
Scheduling Using Shortest Burst Approach, Based on Smart
Time Slice," International Journal of Computer Science and
Communication, vol. 2, pp. 319-323, 2011.
[6] S. Negi, "An Improved Round Robin Approach Using
Dynamic Time Quantum for Improving Average Waiting
Time," International Journal of Computer Applications, no
69, pp. 12-16, 2013.
[7] P. Singh, A. Pandey and A. Mekonnen, "Varying Response
Ratio Priority: A Preemptive CPU Scheduling Algorithm
(VRRP)," Journal of Computer and Communications, vol
3, no. 40, 2015.
[8] I. Rajput and D. Gupta, "A Priority Based Round Robin
CPU Scheduling Algorithm for Real Time Systems,"
International Journal of Innovations in Engineering and
Technology, vol. 1, pp. 1-11, 2012.
[9] B. Shahzad and M. Afzal, "Optimized Solution to Shortest
Job First by Eliminating the Starvation," in Proceedings of
the 6th Jordanian Inr. Electrical and Electronics Eng.
Conference, Jordan, 2006.
[10] R. Yadav, A. Mishra, N. Prakash and H. Sharma, "An
Improved Round Robin Scheduling Algorithm for CPU
Scheduling," International Journal on Computer Science
and Engineering, vol. 2, pp. 1064-1066, 2010.
[11] A. Singh, P. Goyal and S. Batra, "An Optimized Round
Robin Scheduling Algorithm for CPU Scheduling,"
International Journal on Computer Science and
Engineering, vol. 2, pp. 2383-2385, 2010.
[12] A. Noon, A. Kalakech and S. Kadry, "A New Round Robin
Based Scheduling Algorithm for Operating Systems:
Dynamic Quantum Using the Mean Average," International
Journal of Computer Science Issues, no. 8, pp. 224-229,
2011.
[13] H. Behera, B. Swain, A. Parida and G. Sahu, "A New
Proposed Round Robin with Highest Response Ratio Next
(RRHRRN) Scheduling Algorithm for Soft Real Time
Systems," International Journal of Engineering and
Advanced Technology, no. 37, pp. 200-206, 2012.
[14] T. Helmy and A. Dekdouk, "Burst Round Robin as a
Proportional-Share Scheduling Algorithm," in Proceedings
of the 4th IEEE-GCC Conference on Towards
Techno-Industrial Innovations, Bahrain, 2007.
[15] R. B. H. P. K. a. D. M. Mohanty, "Design and Performance
Evaluation of a New Proposed Shortest Remaining Burst
Round Robin (SRBRR) Scheduling Algorithm," in
Proceedings of International Symposium on Computer
Engineering & Technology (ISCET), 2010.
[16] R. Mohanty, H. Behera, K. Patwari, M. Dash and M.
Prasanna, "Priority Based Dynamic Round Robin (PBDRR)
Algorithm with Intelligent Time Slice for Soft Real Time
Systems," International Journal of Advanced Computer
Science and Applications, no. 2, pp. 46-50, 2011.
[17] A. Pandey, P. Singh, N. Gebreegziabher and A. Kemal,
"Chronically Evaluated Highest Instantaneous Priority Next:
A Novel Algorithm for Processor Scheduling," Journal of
Computer and Communications, vol. 4, pp. 146-159, 2016.
[18] Y. Adekunle, Z. Ogunwobi, S. A. Jerry, B. Efuwape, S.
Ebiesuwa and J.-P. Ainam, "A Comparative Study of
Scheduling Algorithms for Multiprogramming in Real-Time
Systems," International Journal of Innovation and Scientific
Research, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 180-185, 2014.
[19] D. K. S. Kaswan and Amandeep, "A New Technique For
CPU Scheduling: Standard Deviation Based," International
Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Engineering &
Technology (IJARCET), vol. 6, no. 8, pp. 1278-1282, 2017.
[20] S. Tyagi, S. Choudhary and P. Akshant, "Enhanced Priority
Scheduling Algorithm to minimise Process Starvation"
International Journal of Emerging Technology and
Advanced Engineering, vol. 2, no. 10, pp. 288-294, 2012.
[21] W. Stallings, Operating Systems, New York: Pearson
Education, 2009.
[22] S. Negi and P. Kalra, "A Comparative Performance Analysis [24] M. Saliu and K. Salah, "Starvation Problem in CPU
of Various Variants of Round Robin Scheduling Algorithm," Scheduling For Multimedia Systems," 15 May 2014.
International Journal of Information & Computation [Online]. Available:
Technology, no. 4, pp. 765-772, 2014. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228703327.
[23] S. Jain and D. S. Jain, "A Review Study on the CPU [25] I. Abdullahi, "Process Scheduling In Longest Job First (LJF)
Scheduling Algorithms," International Journal of Advanced Algorithm: A Propose framework for starvation problem,"
Research in Computer and Communication Engineering January 2012. [Online]. Available:
vol. 5, no. 8, pp. 22-31, 2016. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278783147.