The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Static scheduling algorithms for allocating directed task graphs to multiprocessors
Open accessAbstract
Static scheduling of a program represented by a directed task graph on a multiprocessor system to minimize the program completion time is a well-known problem in parallel processing. Since finding an optimal schedule is an NP-complete problem in general, researchers have resorted to devising efficient heuristics. A plethora of heuristics have been proposed based on a wide spectrum of techniques, including branch-and-bound, integer-programming, searching, graph-theory, randomization, genetic algorithms, and evolutionary methods. The objective of this survey is to describe various scheduling algorithms and their functionalities in a contrasting fashion as well as examine their relative merits in terms of performance and time-complexity. Since these algorithms are based on diverse assumptions, they differ in their functionalities, and hence are difficult to describe in a unified context. We propose a taxonomy that classifies these algorithms into different categories. We consider 27 scheduling algorithms, with each algorithm explained through an easy-to-understand description followed by an illustrative example to demonstrate its operation. We also outline some of the novel and promising optimization approaches and current research trends in the area. Finally, we give an overview of the software tools that provide scheduling/mapping functionalities.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and machine learning
(1989) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.27-0936 · Cited by 49,010
Holland, J. H. (1992) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/1090.001.0001 · Cited by 47,002
(1979) · Cited by 43,841
Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1205
(1999) · Industrial Robot: An International Journal · doi:10.1108/ir.1999.04926fae.001 · Cited by 38,662
Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning
Goldberg, D. E., & Robson, D. (1988) · Cited by 18,391
Goldberg, D. E. (1989) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 10,109
Handbook of Genetic Algorithms
Davis, L. D. (1991) · Cumulative Index of Computer Aided Architectural Design · Cited by 7,330
Combinatorial Optimization: Algorithms and Complexity.
Johnson, D. S., Papadimitriou, C. H., & Steiglitz, K. (1984) · The American Mathematical Monthly · doi:10.2307/2322374 · Cited by 5,942
Optimization and Approximation in Deterministic Sequencing and Scheduling: a Survey
Graham, R. L., Lawler, E. L., Lenstra, J. K., & Kan, A. H. G. R. (1979) · Annals of Discrete Mathematics · doi:10.1016/s0167-5060(08)70356-x · Cited by 5,854
Motwani, R., & Raghavan, P. (1995) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511814075 · Cited by 5,123
Cited by
Pegasus, a workflow management system for science automation
Deelman, E., Vahi, K., Juve, G., Rynge, M., Callaghan, S., Maechling, P. J., Mayani, R., Chen, W., Ferreira da Silva, R., Livny, M., et al. (2015) · Future Generation Computer Systems · doi:10.1016/j.future.2014.10.008 · Cited by 861
Metadata
- Authors
- Kwok, Y.-K., & Ahmad, I.
- Venue
- ACM Computing Surveys
- Published
- 1999-12
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 406-471
- ISSN
- 0360-0300 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7341
- OpenAlex
- W2040466547
- Cited by
- 1,314
- References
- 45
- FWCI
- 14.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Static scheduling algorithms for allocating directed task graphs to multiprocessors. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/344588.344618
- The paper
- Kwok, Y.-K., & Ahmad, I. (1999). Static scheduling algorithms for allocating directed task graphs to multiprocessors. ACM Computing Surveys. https://doi.org/10.1145/344588.344618
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.