Solving Joint Network and Computing Resource Scheduling
Problem by Recursive Solution Partition and Elimination
I. I NTRODUCTION
In this paper the authors propose a novel strategy to solve
JRS problem using solution enumeration and elimination un-
der an integer linear programming formulation. The interest
of this method does not lie in the detailed techniques, but in a
higher level strategy of reformulation. The major contribution
of this paper is the methodology of using solution space
partition and elimination, which not only can be applied to
JRS problem but also to other similar applications.
II. TASK M ODEL AND P ROBLEM F ORMULATION
A. Task Model
In our JRS model, each real-time task τ : τa (x) → τb (m)
consists of two consecutive and dependent segments: network
segment τa , computing segment τb . We use x, m to represent
the execution time of the three segments, respectively. More
specifically, the execution time of the sensing and actuating
segments are their corresponding network transmission time.
In this paper, we assume that the unit size of network and
computing resource slices are the same. The wireless network
has only one channel and the CPU is a uniprocessor. These
assumptions will be further relaxed in the future work.
B. Problem Formulation
Joint Resource Scheduling (JRS) Problem: Given a set
of real-time tasks {τ1 , τ2 , ..., τn }. Each task τi is associated
with a release time ri , a deadline di , and two segments τi,a ,
τi,b . Ci,a and Ci,b denote the execution time involved in the
network segment and the computing segment. In this paper
we assume τi,b must be executed continuously while τi,a can
be separated into several intervals. Though the assumption is
specific, we claim that our algorithm can be applied to more
general scenarios with minor modification. The objective of
the JRS problem is to find a schedule minimizing the number
of dropped tasks.
We first formulate the JRS problem as an integer linear
programming (ILP) problem. It aims to construct the schedule
Snet = {fi,a,k } for the network segments and Scom = {fi,b }
for the computing segments, where fi,a,k , fi,b are the finish
time of the k th unit of segments τi,a and τi,b , respectively. Let
ui be the indicator if task τi is dropped. Formally,
Objective:
X the original objective. Next we try to enumerate all the feasible
Obj = Min (ui ) (1)
i
Release time and deadline constraints:
fi,a,1 ≥ ri + 1 − M ∗ ui
(2)
fi,b ≤ di + M ∗ ui
Segment order constraints:
fi,b ≥ fi,a,Ci,a + 1 − M ∗ ui
fi,a,l+1 ≥ fi,a,l + 1 − M ∗ ui , l ∈ {1, 2, ..., Ci,a − 1}
(3)
Network resource constraints:
fi,a,p 6= fj,a,q − 1 ∀i 6= j (4)
where p ∈ {1, 2, ..., Ci,a }, q ∈ {1, 2, ..., Cj,a }.
CPU resource constraints:
fi,b 6= fj,b − 1 ∀i 6= j (5)
C. Algorithm Overview
The insight of this algorithm is that if the computing
segments are fixed for all tasks, their corresponding network
segments are easy to be scheduled.
Theorem 1. Add a theorem here
Let the sub-problem(SP) to be the scheduling of computing
segments only. Given a solution F̂ of SP, F̂ can be viewed
as part of a solution F of the original problem. While there
are multiple F containing F̂ , the optima can be found in
polynomial time. Thus, we take advantage of this relationship
and perform branch and bound on the solution space of SP
instead of MP. Anyone who familiar with Dantzig Wolfe
Decomposition and Benders’ Decomposition will find it easy
to understand the strategy, however, the authors do not view
this algorithm as an application, nor modification of any
existing algorithms, because the solution space partition and
elimination, as will be descried bellow is essential.
D. Algorithm Description
Let the original JRS problem be M. Let F̂ be one feasible
schedule of the a set of computing segments F̂ = {fi,b }, and
denote M(F̂ ) the sub problem seeking for a feasible schedule
with the fixed computing segments. According to the theorem,
M(F̂ ) can be solved in polynomial time. Thus the original M
can be reformulated to find the scheduling F̂ that minimizes
F̂ .
Let the solution space of F̂ be F, for small instances, we
can count every single feasible solution in F and assign each
of them a binary label xi . Next we reformulate M in the
following way:
Objective: X
Obj = Min (ui ) (6)
i

Release time and deadline constraints:

fi,a,1 ≥ ri + 1 − M ∗ ui (7)

Segment order constraints:

fi,a,l+1 ≥ fi,a,l + 1 − M ∗ ui , l ∈ {1, 2, ..., Ci,a − 1}
(8)
Network resource constraints:
fi,a,p 6= fj,a,q − 1 ∀i 6= j (9)
where p ∈ {1, 2, ..., Ci,a }, q ∈ {1, 2, ..., Cj,a }.
Computing segment scheduling constraints:
X
xi = 1 (10)
i

Relationship constraints:
X
fi,a,Ci,a ≤ xj ż (11)
j

where fi,b = z in xj .
III. C ONCLUSIONS AND F UTURE W ORK
In this paper, we report our progress on the study of the
joint network and computing resource scheduling problem in
WNCSs.
R EFERENCES