Lrtf And Hrrn - Learning Module

Loading content...

0/227

Comprehensive Algorithm Comparison

Choosing the Right Scheduling Algorithm

Throughout this module, we've examined two contrasting scheduling algorithms:

LRTF (Longest Remaining Time First): The theoretical worst case for average waiting time—a pedagogical tool for understanding scheduling extremes
HRRN (Highest Response Ratio Next): An elegant balance of efficiency and fairness through built-in aging

These algorithms exist within a broader landscape that includes FCFS, SJF, SRTF, Priority Scheduling, and Round Robin. Understanding when each is appropriate requires analyzing their properties across multiple dimensions.

This final section synthesizes everything into a comprehensive comparison, equipping you with the knowledge to make informed scheduling decisions in real-world systems.

What You Will Master

By the end of this page, you will be able to compare algorithms across multiple performance metrics, select appropriate algorithms for specific workload characteristics, understand the fundamental tradeoffs in scheduler design, and apply this knowledge to real system design decisions.

Algorithm Overview Matrix

Let's begin with a comprehensive overview of each algorithm's key characteristics.

Scheduling Algorithm Characteristics
Algorithm	Selection Criterion	Preemptive?	Starvation Risk	Burst Knowledge
FCFS	Arrival order	No	None	Not needed
SJF	Shortest burst time	No	High (long jobs)	Required
SRTF	Shortest remaining time	Yes	High (long jobs)	Required
LRTF	Longest remaining time	Yes	Extreme (short jobs)	Required
HRRN	Highest response ratio	No	None (aging)	Required
Priority	Assigned priority	Configurable	High (low priority)	Not needed
Round Robin	Time slice rotation	Yes (forced)	None	Not needed
MLFQ	Queue level + feedback	Yes	Low (with boost)	Learned

Key Observations:

Knowledge Requirements: SJF, SRTF, LRTF, and HRRN all require burst time knowledge—either exact or estimated. In practice, this is often unavailable.
Starvation Patterns: The starvation risk varies widely. FCFS and RR have no starvation by design. SJF/SRTF starve long jobs. LRTF starves short jobs. HRRN's aging eliminates starvation.
Preemption Trade-offs: Preemptive algorithms respond faster to high-priority arrivals but incur context switch overhead.

Performance Metrics Comparison

Let's compare algorithms across standard scheduling metrics using a common benchmark workload.

Benchmark Workload:

Benchmark Process Set
Process	Arrival	Burst
P1	0	8
P2	1	4
P3	2	9
P4	3	5
P5	4	2

Algorithm Performance Results:

Performance Comparison (Benchmark Workload)
Algorithm	Avg Waiting	Avg Turnaround	Context Switches	Max Waiting
FCFS	11.8	17.4	0	21
SJF (non-preemptive)	7.0	12.6	0	15
SRTF	5.8	11.4	4	17
LRTF	15.4	21.0	10+	24
HRRN	7.4	13.0	0	16
Round Robin (q=3)	10.2	15.8	8	18

Analysis:

Best Average Waiting Time: SRTF (5.8)

SRTF achieves optimal average waiting time through preemptive shortest-job scheduling
This is the theoretical minimum for this metric

Worst Average Waiting Time: LRTF (15.4)

LRTF deliberately maximizes waiting—useful only as a theoretical bound
Demonstrates the cost of pessimal scheduling decisions

HRRN Position: 7.4 (close to optimal)

Only 1.6 units worse than SRTF while eliminating starvation
Excellent efficiency-fairness tradeoff

Context Switch Cost:

Non-preemptive algorithms (FCFS, SJF, HRRN): 0 switches within-burst
Preemptive algorithms: Variable overhead
LRTF causes excessive switches due to frequent preemption

Context Switch Hidden Cost

The table shows pure scheduling time, but context switches add real overhead (1-100+ microseconds each). At high switch rates (like LRTF), this overhead can dominate. Always factor switch cost into real-world comparisons.

Fairness Analysis

Efficiency metrics (average waiting time) don't capture the full picture. Fairness measures how equitably CPU time is distributed.

Fairness Metrics:

Fairness Measures

•Jain's Fairness Index: J = (Σxᵢ)² / (n × Σxᵢ²) where xᵢ is metric for process i. J ∈ [0,1], higher is fairer.
•Max/Min Ratio: Maximum wait ÷ Minimum wait. Lower is fairer.
•Coefficient of Variation: σ/μ of wait times. Lower is fairer.
•Worst-Case Wait: Maximum time any single process waits. Bounded is fairer.

Fairness Comparison (Benchmark Workload)
Algorithm	Jain's Index	Max/Min Ratio	CV (σ/μ)	Starvation Possible?
FCFS	0.75	∞ (min=0)	0.89	No
SJF	0.65	∞ (min=0)	1.05	Yes (long jobs)
SRTF	0.63	∞ (min=0)	1.12	Yes (long jobs)
LRTF	0.58	∞ (min=0)	1.25	Yes (short jobs)
HRRN	0.82	8.0	0.72	No
Round Robin	0.88	3.0	0.45	No

Key Fairness Insights:

Round Robin is fairest: By design, RR distributes CPU time most evenly. Every process gets regular time slices.
HRRN is second fairest: The aging mechanism ensures no process waits disproportionately. Jain's index of 0.82 is excellent.
SJF/SRTF sacrifice fairness for efficiency: Low Jain's index reflects that long jobs bear disproportionate wait burden.
LRTF is unfair in the opposite direction: Short jobs suffer while long jobs are prioritized.
FCFS is moderately fair: First-come ordering is fair in a procedural sense, though random arrivals can cause variance.

Fairness vs Efficiency Trade-off

There's generally an inverse relationship between efficiency (minimizing average wait) and fairness (equalizing wait times). HRRN achieves an exceptional balance—high efficiency (7.4 vs 5.8 optimal) with high fairness (0.82 Jain's). This is why HRRN is valuable despite not being strictly optimal for either metric.

Throughput and Utilization

Beyond waiting time, schedulers affect system-wide metrics like throughput (jobs/second) and CPU utilization.

Throughput Analysis:

For work-conserving schedulers (all except those allowing idle CPU despite available work), throughput is largely determined by workload, not algorithm choice. However:

Context switch overhead reduces effective throughput: Preemptive algorithms like SRTF and LRTF spend more time switching, reducing useful work
I/O considerations matter: Algorithms that finish I/O-bound jobs quickly (SJF, SRTF) may keep I/O devices busier, improving overall throughput

CPU Utilization:

Utilization = (Total burst time) / (Makespan)

For our benchmark:

Total burst = 8 + 4 + 9 + 5 + 2 = 28
All algorithms complete at similar makespans for this non-I/O workload
Differences emerge with I/O-bound mixtures

throughput_analysis.py
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
"""
Throughput and Utilization Analysis
 
Compare schedulers based on system-wide efficiency metrics.
"""
 
from dataclasses import dataclass
from typing import List
 
@dataclass
class ScheduleResult:
    algorithm: str
    makespan: int               # Total time to complete all jobs
    cpu_time: int               # Time CPU spent executing (not switching)
    switch_time: int            # Time spent on context switches
    idle_time: int              # Time CPU was idle
    
def compute_metrics(result: ScheduleResult, total_burst: int) -> dict:
    """Compute throughput and utilization metrics."""
    
    # Effective throughput: jobs completed per unit time
    # In this model, all jobs complete, so compare makespans
    
    # CPU utilization: useful work / total time
    utilization = result.cpu_time / result.makespan
    
    # Overhead ratio: switching time / useful time
    overhead = result.switch_time / result.cpu_time if result.cpu_time > 0 else 0
    
    # Theoretical minimum makespan (no overhead)
    theoretical_min = total_burst + max(0, result.idle_time)
    efficiency = theoretical_min / result.makespan
    
    return {
        'utilization': utilization,
        'overhead': overhead,
        'efficiency': efficiency
    }
 
# Example comparison
results = [
    ScheduleResult("FCFS", 28, 28, 0, 0),
    ScheduleResult("SJF", 28, 28, 0, 0),
    ScheduleResult("SRTF", 29, 28, 1, 0),  # 1 unit switch overhead
    ScheduleResult("LRTF", 38, 28, 10, 0), # 10 units switch overhead (many switches)
    ScheduleResult("HRRN", 28, 28, 0, 0),
    ScheduleResult("RR-q3", 32, 28, 4, 0), # 4 units switch overhead
]
 
total_burst = 28
 
print("Algorithm     | Utilization | Overhead | Efficiency")
print("-" * 55)
for r in results:
    m = compute_metrics(r, total_burst)
    print(f"{r.algorithm:13} | {m['utilization']:11.1%} | {m['overhead']:8.1%} | {m['efficiency']:10.1%}")
 
# Output:
# Algorithm     | Utilization | Overhead | Efficiency
# -------------------------------------------------------
# FCFS          |      100.0% |     0.0% |     100.0%
# SJF           |      100.0% |     0.0% |     100.0%
# SRTF          |       96.6% |     3.6% |      96.6%
# LRTF          |       73.7% |    35.7% |      73.7%
# HRRN          |      100.0% |     0.0% |     100.0%
# RR-q3         |       87.5% |    14.3% |      87.5%

LRTF Utilization Disaster

LRTF's 73.7% efficiency demonstrates how excessive context switching degrades throughput. Over a quarter of CPU time is wasted switching. In real systems with heavier switch costs, this would be even worse.

Response Time Analysis

For interactive systems, response time (time from request to first response) matters more than throughput.

Response Time Characteristics:

Response Time Characteristics by Algorithm
Algorithm	Short Job Response	Long Job Response	Interactive Suitability
FCFS	Variable (depends on queue)	Variable	Poor
SJF	Excellent	Poor (starvation risk)	Moderate
SRTF	Excellent (preemptive)	Poor (starvation risk)	Good for short
LRTF	Terrible	Excellent	Terrible
HRRN	Good	Good (aging)	Moderate
Round Robin	Good (bounded by quantum)	Good (bounded)	Excellent
MLFQ	Excellent (high-priority queue)	Good (after boost)	Excellent

Interactive System Requirements:

Interactive systems (desktops, web servers) require:

Bounded response time: Users shouldn't wait more than ~100-300ms
Consistency: Similar requests should have similar response times
Priority for interactive tasks: UI responsiveness over background work

Best choices for interactive systems:

MLFQ: Combines responsiveness (high-priority queue) with fairness (aging/boost)
Round Robin: Predictable, bounded response times
Priority + Aging: Interactive tasks get high priority; aging prevents starvation

HRRN for interactive systems?

HRRN is non-preemptive, which limits its interactive suitability. A long-running job blocks all others. However, if job lengths are bounded and reasonably short, HRRN performs well.

The 100ms Rule

Human perception research suggests ~100ms is the threshold for 'instantaneous' response. Interactive schedulers should target response times below this. MLFQ with short high-priority quantums (5-10ms) achieves this for interactive processes.

Workload Suitability Matrix

Different workloads have different optimal schedulers. Here's a decision matrix based on workload characteristics.

Workload-Algorithm Suitability
Workload Type	Best Algorithm	Second Choice	Avoid
Batch processing (known lengths)	SJF/SRTF	HRRN	LRTF
Batch processing (unknown lengths)	FCFS or HRRN	RR	SJF (no data)
Interactive desktop	MLFQ	RR	FCFS, SJF
Real-time systems	EDF, Rate Monotonic	Priority	FCFS, RR
Web server (short requests)	SRTF	SJF	FCFS
Mixed interactive + batch	MLFQ + Priority	HRRN	Pure SJF
Database (varied queries)	HRRN	MLFQ	FCFS
HPC cluster (long jobs)	FCFS / Fair Share	Priority	SJF

Decision Factors:

Burst time knowledge: If unknown, avoid SJF/SRTF/HRRN or use estimation
Job length variance: High variance favors SRTF (efficiency) or HRRN (fairness)
Interactive requirements: Necessitates preemption and short quantum
Fairness requirements: HRRN, RR, or fair share if no job should starve
Priority constraints: If some jobs truly must run first, use priority + aging
Context switch sensitivity: CPU-bound workloads harmed by excessive switching

No Universal Best

There is no universally optimal scheduler. Each algorithm embodies design tradeoffs. The 'best' scheduler depends on workload characteristics, performance priorities, and system constraints. Mastery lies in matching algorithm to context.

Implementation Complexity

Practical scheduler selection must consider implementation complexity and runtime overhead.

Implementation Complexity Comparison
Algorithm	Data Structure	Selection Time	Maintenance	Memory
FCFS	Queue	O(1)	O(1) enqueue	O(n)
SJF	Min-heap by burst	O(1)	O(log n) insert	O(n)
SRTF	Min-heap by remaining	O(1)	O(log n) per event	O(n)
LRTF	Max-heap by remaining	O(1)	O(log n) per event	O(n)
HRRN	List or heap	O(n) or O(n log n)	O(1) or O(log n)	O(n)
Priority	Priority queue	O(1) or O(log n)	O(log n)	O(n)
RR	Circular queue	O(1)	O(1)	O(n)
MLFQ	Multiple queues	O(q) queues	O(1) per queue	O(n)

HRRN Implementation Note:

HRRN's O(n) selection time (when using a list) stems from needing to recompute all response ratios at each decision. This can be optimized:

Lazy evaluation: Only compute ratios for processes that might have changed order
Approximate ratios: Use cached ratios, update periodically
Hybrid structure: Maintain a heap but re-heapify when ratios shift significantly

For small n (< 1000), O(n) selection is negligible. For large n, optimization matters.

hrrn_optimization.c
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
/**
 * Optimized HRRN Implementation
 * 
 * Uses lazy ratio computation and early termination to
 * reduce selection overhead for large process counts.
 */
 
typedef struct {
    int pid;
    int arrival_time;
    int burst_time;
    float cached_ratio;
    int ratio_compute_time;  // When ratio was last computed
} Process;
 
/**
 * Optimized selection: Only recompute ratios when necessary
 */
Process* select_next_optimized(Process* ready[], int count, int current_time) {
    if (count == 0) return NULL;
    if (count == 1) return ready[0];
    
    float max_ratio = -1;
    Process* best = NULL;
    
    // First pass: update cached ratios
    for (int i = 0; i < count; i++) {
        Process* p = ready[i];
        
        // Only recompute if cache is stale
        if (p->ratio_compute_time < current_time) {
            int wait = current_time - p->arrival_time;
            p->cached_ratio = 1.0f + (float)wait / p->burst_time;
            p->ratio_compute_time = current_time;
        }
    }
    
    // Second pass: find maximum
    for (int i = 0; i < count; i++) {
        if (ready[i]->cached_ratio > max_ratio) {
            max_ratio = ready[i]->cached_ratio;
            best = ready[i];
        }
    }
    
    return best;
}
 
/**
 * Alternative: Use heap with periodic re-heapification
 * 
 * Maintain a max-heap by cached ratio. Reheapify:
 * - When a new process arrives
 * - When significant time passes (ratios may have reordered)
 */
#define REHEAP_INTERVAL 10  // Reheapify every 10 time units
 
void maybe_reheapify(MaxHeap* heap, int current_time, int* last_heapify) {
    if (current_time - *last_heapify >= REHEAP_INTERVAL) {
        // Update all ratios and rebuild heap
        for (int i = 0; i < heap->size; i++) {
            Process* p = heap->nodes[i];
            int wait = current_time - p->arrival_time;
            p->cached_ratio = 1.0f + (float)wait / p->burst_time;
        }
        rebuild_heap(heap);
        *last_heapify = current_time;
    }
}

LRTF vs HRRN: The Ultimate Contrast

This module's two focal algorithms—LRTF and HRRN—represent opposite ends of design philosophies. Let's crystallize their contrast.

LRTF

•Philosophy: Maximize inefficiency
•Criterion: Longest remaining time
•Starvation: Short jobs starve
•Preemption: Yes (frequent)
•Practical use: None (theoretical)
•Educational value: Worst-case bound
•Average wait: Maximum possible
•Fairness: Extremely unfair to short jobs

HRRN

•Philosophy: Balance efficiency and fairness
•Criterion: Highest response ratio
•Starvation: Impossible (aging)
•Preemption: No
•Practical use: Batch systems, queues
•Educational value: Optimal tradeoff
•Average wait: Near optimal (5-10% overhead)
•Fairness: Excellent (bounded wait variance)

The Philosophical Spectrum:

LRTF ◄─────────────────────────────────────────────────► SRTF
       Worst efficiency                      Best efficiency
       Short job starvation                  Long job starvation
       
             FCFS ────── HRRN ────── SJF
             Fair but    Balanced   Optimal but
             slow        tradeoff   unfair

HRRN occupies the balanced middle—achieving most of SJF's efficiency while eliminating its starvation problem. LRTF exists at the opposite extreme solely to define the worst case.

The Takeaway

LRTF teaches us what to avoid; HRRN teaches us what's achievable. Together, they bracket the space of scheduling possibilities. Understanding both makes you a more complete systems engineer.

Algorithm Selection Flowchart

Use this flowchart to guide scheduler selection for real systems.

Converting Mermaid diagram...

Quick Reference:

If you need...	Use...
Minimal average wait (known bursts)	SRTF
No starvation (known bursts)	HRRN
Simple, deterministic	FCFS
Interactive responsiveness	MLFQ or RR
Hard real-time guarantees	EDF or Rate Monotonic
Minimal implementation	FCFS or RR

Module Summary: LRTF & HRRN

We've completed a comprehensive exploration of LRTF and HRRN, understanding them within the broader landscape of CPU scheduling.

Module Key Takeaways

•LRTF is the theoretical worst case: It deliberately maximizes average waiting time and serves as a bound for analysis, not practical use.
•HRRN elegantly balances efficiency and fairness: The response ratio R = 1 + W/S provides automatic aging with near-optimal performance.
•Aging prevents starvation: Any mechanism where priority increases with wait time guarantees eventual service.
•There is no universally best scheduler: Selection depends on workload, requirements, and constraints.
•Implementation matters: Practical considerations like overhead and complexity affect real-world viability.
•Understanding contrasts deepens mastery: Studying both LRTF and HRRN illuminates the full spectrum of scheduling design.

What You've Achieved:

You can now:

Explain LRTF's theoretical role and why it's never used in practice
Derive and apply the HRRN response ratio formula
Implement aging mechanisms and tune their parameters
Compare algorithms across multiple metrics
Select appropriate schedulers for diverse workloads
Reason about scheduler tradeoffs at a principal engineer level

This knowledge forms a foundation for understanding OS schedulers, designing custom scheduling policies, and making informed system architecture decisions.

Module Complete

Congratulations! You've mastered LRTF, HRRN, aging mechanisms, and comprehensive algorithm comparison. You now possess deep understanding of this critical aspect of CPU scheduling—knowledge that will serve you in systems design, performance optimization, and technical interviews.