Data Structure
Networking
RDBMS
Operating System
Java
MS Excel
iOS
HTML
CSS
Android
Python
C Programming
C++
C#
MongoDB
MySQL
Javascript
PHP
Physics
Chemistry
Biology
Mathematics
English
Economics
Psychology
Social Studies
Fashion Studies
Legal Studies
- Selected Reading
- UPSC IAS Exams Notes
- Developer's Best Practices
- Questions and Answers
- Effective Resume Writing
- HR Interview Questions
- Computer Glossary
- Who is Who
Difference Between Table-driven and Cyclic Scheduling
Scheduling algorithms play a crucial role in managing the execution of tasks in operating systems and real-time systems. Two common scheduling approaches are table-driven scheduling and cyclic scheduling. These approaches have distinct characteristics and are suitable for different types of systems and scheduling requirements.
What is Table-driven Scheduling?
Table-driven scheduling, also known as static scheduling, involves creating a predefined table that specifies the execution order and time requirements for each task or process. The table contains a schedule for the entire duration of the system's operation. The scheduler follows the table to determine which task should execute at a given time.
Listed below are the key features of table-driven scheduling −
Predefined Schedule − Table-driven scheduling uses a predefined schedule generated offline, typically based on historical data or predetermined priorities. The schedule is static and does not change during runtime.
Deterministic Execution − Each task or process is assigned a fixed time slot or priority in the schedule, ensuring deterministic execution. Tasks are executed according to the specified order or priority without any runtime adjustments.
Limited Adaptability − Table-driven scheduling lacks adaptability as it cannot dynamically respond to changes in workload or system conditions. The schedule remains unchanged, even if new tasks are added or the system load varies.
Simple Implementation − Table-driven scheduling is relatively simple to implement since the schedule is predetermined and does not require complex algorithms for runtime decision-making.
Reduced Overhead − The absence of dynamic adjustments reduces the runtime overhead associated with making scheduling decisions. Once the schedule is generated, the system follows it without the need for frequent calculations or updates.
What is Cyclic Scheduling?
Cyclic scheduling, also referred to as round-robin scheduling, is a dynamic scheduling approach that allocates time slots or quantum to each task or process in a cyclic manner. Each task is allowed to execute for a fixed duration or until it completes, and then the scheduler switches to the next task in the sequence. The process repeats, giving each task an opportunity to execute in a cyclic fashion.
Here are the key features of cyclic scheduling −
Dynamic Schedule − Cyclic scheduling dynamically assigns time slices to tasks based on a predetermined time quantum or time slice. Each task is given a fixed amount of time to execute before being preempted and moved to the back of the scheduling queue.
Fairness and Sharing − Cyclic scheduling aims to provide fairness by giving each task an equal opportunity to execute. It shares the CPU time among all tasks in a round-robin fashion, preventing any single task from monopolizing the CPU for an extended period.
Runtime Adjustments − Cyclic scheduling allows for runtime adjustments as the scheduler can make decisions based on the current state of the system, such as task priorities, resource availability, or waiting times.
Responsiveness − Cyclic scheduling ensures reasonable responsiveness as each task gets a chance to execute within a fixed time slice. This allows for a timely response to user interactions or time-sensitive tasks.
Overhead and Complexity − Cyclic scheduling introduces overhead due to the need for frequent context switches between tasks. The scheduling algorithm requires more complex bookkeeping and management to handle task queues and preemption.
Difference Between Table-driven and Cyclic Scheduling
Here’s a table about the Difference between Table-driven and Cyclic Scheduling −
Feature |
Table-driven Scheduling |
Cyclic Scheduling |
|---|---|---|
Flexibility |
Less flexible as the schedule is predetermined and fixed. Changes in the schedule require modifying the table. |
More flexible as the schedule can be adjusted dynamically based on task requirements and system conditions. |
Preemption |
Typically, non-preemptive. Once a task starts executing, it continues until completion or until the next predefined event. |
Can be either preemptive or non-preemptive. Tasks can be interrupted and their execution suspended for other higher-priority tasks. |
Responsiveness |
May provide better responsiveness as tasks can be scheduled precisely and in advance according to their time requirements. |
May have slightly lower responsiveness due to fixed time slices assigned to each task, which can result in longer waiting times for some tasks. |
Adaptability |
Less adaptable to changing task priorities or system conditions during runtime. |
More adaptable as the schedule can be adjusted dynamically based on task priorities, deadlines, or system load. |
System Overhead |
Lower system overhead as the scheduling decisions are made in advance and stored in the table. |
Relatively higher system overhead due to the need for frequent context switches between tasks and time slice management. |
Deadline Enforcement |
Can enforce strict deadlines by considering task execution times in advance while creating the schedule. |
Deadlines may be more challenging to enforce, especially for tasks with varying execution times, as the fixed time slices may not be optimal for all tasks. |
Complexity |
Generally simpler to implement and understand, as the scheduling decisions are made offline and follow a predetermined plan. |
May be more complex to implement and manage, especially in dynamic systems with changing task priorities and time requirements. |
Suitable for |
Deterministic systems where task requirements and timing are known in advance. |
Real-time systems where fairness and predictable scheduling are important. Can also be used in general-purpose systems with time-sharing requirements. |
Conclusion
In conclusion, table-driven scheduling offers a predetermined schedule that lacks adaptability, while cyclic scheduling provides dynamic scheduling with fairness and responsiveness but introduces overhead and complexity. The choice between these approaches depends on the specific requirements and characteristics of the system being scheduled.
275 Views
