A SEMINAR ON EARLIEST DEALINE FIRST ALGORITHM

Presented by Miss. SNEHAL D. PATIL Final Year Computer Science And Engineering

Guided By Prof P.B.NIRANJANE Project & Seminar Guide Computer Science And Engineering 

CONTENT
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. INTRODUCTION EVOLUTION OF EDF DEADLINE FLOW OF EDF EXAMPLE ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES CONCLUSION REFERENCES 

INTRODUCTION 
Conventional 
FCFS-first

Algorithms

come first serve.  SCAN-arm moves in one direction.  C-SCAN-after servicing last transaction arm returns to start position.  SSTF-selects transaction closest to the current arm position . 

Diadvantage
‡ ‡

Strictly data consistent This results in poor performance of conventional algorithms in realtime systems. 

EVOLUTION OF EDF
EDF- Earliest Deadline First The idea of EDF was published in 1973 in an article of Liu and Layland. EDF is dynamic.  Deadline based scheduling algorithm. The priority of a job is inversely proportional to its deadline.  

DEADLINE 
DEADLINE is

a Time by which execution of the transaction should be completed,after the transaction is released.

Deadline= Arrival time+ slack factor*AET, Average execution time(AET)=1.5*block size Assumption Slack factor=2 Transmission factor : Read=0.6,Seek factor=0.3  

Flow of EDF
Step 1: Calculate deadline of each transaction present in a queue Step 2: Schedule deadline

Step 3: Serves transaction with earliest deadline 

EXAMPLE
Case 1:Deadlines of transactions are not close to each other. Table 1:
Transact arrival Block ion id time(At) location (ai) Block size(bs) Start End Average Deadlin block(Si) block(Li) executio e (Di) n time (AET) 0 2 11 8 5 13 0 4 12 11 7 17 0 4.5 3 6 4.5 7.5 0 10 6 15 12 20 Transfer time(TT)

T0 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 
EDF

0 1 0 3 3 5

0 2 11 8 5 13

0 3 2 4 3 5

0 1.8 1.2 2.4 1.8 3.0

scheduled the deadlines by giving priority to earliest deadline first. T0, T2, T1, T4, T3, T5 

Case 1(C0NTI.)

Servise table
Cj,i is execution time required to ith transaction ater servicing jth transaction.
Cj,i J=0 J=1 J=2 J=3 J=4 J=5 i=0 ------1.2 3.6 3.3 2.1 5.1 i=1 2.4 -------4.8 4.5 3.3 6.3 i=2 4.5 3.3 ------1.2 2.4 3.0 i=3 4.8 3.6 3.6 -------2.7 5.1 i=4 3.3 2.1 3.9 3.6 --------5.4 i=5 6.9 5.7 3.3 3.6 4.8 -------

Case 2: Deadlines of transactions in overloaded condition
Table 2:
transacti arrival Block on id time(At) location (Tid) (ai) Block size(Bs) Start end Average deadline Transfer block(Si) block(Li) executio (Di) time(TT) n time(AE T) 0 7 17 1 4 13 0 8 19 2 6 15 0 3 4.5 3 4.5 4.5 0 6 11 7 10 9 0 1.2 1.8 1.2 1.8 1.8

T0 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 
EDF

0 0 2 1 1 0

0 7 7 1 4 13

0 2 3 2 3 3

scheduled the deadlines by giving priority to earliest deadline first. T0, T1, T3, T5, T4, T2 

Case 2(conti.)

Service table:
Cj,i J=0 J=1 J=2 J=3 J=4 J=5 i=0 ------2.4 5.7 o.6 1.8 4.5 i=1 2.1 -------4.8 2.7 1.5 3.6 i=2 5.1 4.5 ------6.3 5.1 2.4 i=3 0.3 3.3 6.6 -------2.7 5.4 i=4 1.3 3 6.3 2.4 --------4.5 i=5 3.9 3.3 3.6 7.3 3.9 ------- 

EDF

gives poor performance in overloaded condition

Case 3: Deadlines of transactions are same
Table 3:
Transact arrival ion id time (At) Block location (ai) Block size(Bs) Start End Average deadline Transfer block(Si) block(Li) executio (Di) time(TT) n time (AET)

T0 T1 T2 T3 T4 
In

0 1 0 3 0

0 2 7 5 2

0 3 6 3 4

0 2 7 5 2

0 4 12 7 5

0 4.5 9 4.5 6

0 10 18 12 12

0 1.8 3.6 1.8 2.4

the above eg. Deadlines of transaction T3 and T4 are same, T0, T1 T3 T4 So deadlines will not be scheduled according to earliest deadline Here EDF fails.

Case 3(conti.) 
Service

table
i=0 ----------1.2 3.6 2.1 1.5 i=1 2.4 ----------4.8 3.3 2.7 i=2 5.7 4.5 -----------3.6 4.2 i=3 3.3 2.1 3.9 -------1.8 i=4 3 3 5.4 3.9 -------

Ci,j J=0 J=1 J=2 J=3 J=4

Advantages Disadvantages 

Advantages
‡

‡ ‡

The processor can be fully utilized and almost all deadlines can be met. Timing constraints are given consideration. Real Time transactions are easily scheduled as timing constraints are considered. Transactions having same deadline can not be scheduled. Disk head movement increases. No consideration where data is present on disk. The performance of Earliest Deadline steeply degrades in an overloaded system. 

Disadvantages
‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 

Conclusion
This paper presented the EDF scheduling technique, considering just the simple case of aperiodic transactions. In this some conventional algorithms , its disadvantage, the evolution of EDF and deadline was discussed . After this presented the flow of EDF algorithm, together with an example considering three cases and some results regarding the feasibility analysis . 

References
(1) J. Stankovic, M. Spuri, K. Ramamritham, and G. Buttazzo, Deadline Scheduling For Real-Time Systems: EDF and Related Algorithms, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 1998 (2) C. L. Liu and J. W. Layland. Scheduling Algorithms for Multiprogramming in a hard-real-time environment. Journal of the ACM, 20(1), 1973 (3)Buttazzo G, Spuri M, Sensini F. Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, Italy, Value vs. deadline scheduling in overload conditions, 16thIEEE realtime systems symposium (RTSS 95),1995 (4)Jain R, Hughes CJ, Adve SV. Soft real-time scheduling on simultaneous multithreaded processors. In: Proceedings of the 23rd IEEEinternational real-time systems symposium, 2002. (5)Jeffay K, Martel CU. On non-preemptive scheduling of periodic and sporadic tasks. Proceedings of the 12th IEEE real-time systems symposium. San Antonio, Texas: IEEE Computer Society Press; 1991

THANK YOU

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful