A different approach to CPU scheduling is the *shortest-job-firs (SJF)* scheduling
algorithm. This algorithm associates with each process the length of the process's next
CPU burst. When the CPU is available, it is assigned to the process that has the smallest
next CPU burst. If the next CPU bursts of two processes are the same, FCFS scheduling is
used to break the tie. Note that a more appropriate term for this scheduling method
would be the *shortest-next-CPU-burst* algorithm, because scheduling depends on the
length of the next CPU burst of a process, rather than its total length. We use the term
SJF because most people and textbooks use this term to refer to this type of scheduling.

As an example of SJF scheduling, consider the following set of processes, with the length of the CPU burst given in milliseconds:

Process | Burst Time |

P1 | 6 |

P2 | 8 |

P3 | 7 |

P4 | 3 |

Using SJF scheduling, we would schedule these processes according to the following Gantt chart:

The waiting time is 3 milliseconds for process P1, 16 milliseconds for process P2, 9 milliseconds for process P3, and 0 milliseconds for process P4. Thus, the average waiting time is (3 + 16 + 9 + 0)/4 = 7 milliseconds. By comparison, if we were using the FCFS scheduling scheme, the average waiting time would be 10.25 milliseconds.

The SJF scheduling algorithm is probably optimal, in that it gives the minimum average waiting time for a given set of processes. Moving a short process before a long one decreases the waiting time of the short process more than it increases the waiting time of the long process. Consequently, the average waiting time decreases.

Although the SJF algorithm is optimal, it cannot be implemented at the level of CPU scheduling, as there is no way to know the length of the next CPU burst. One approach to this problem is to try to approximate SJF scheduling. We may not know the length of the next CPU burst, but we may be able to predict its value. We expect that the next CPU burst will be similar in length to the previous ones. By computing an approximation of the length of the next CPU burst, we can pick the process with the shortest predicted CPU burst.

The next CPU burst is generally predicted as an *exponential average* of
the measured lengths of previous CPU bursts. We can define the exponential
average with the following formula. Let t_{n} be the length of the nth
CPU burst, and let tau_{n+1} be our predicted value for the next CPU
burst. Then, for a, 0 <= a <= 1, define

tau_{n+1} = at_{n} + (1 - a)tau_{n}

The value of t_{n} contains our most recent information, while tau_{n}
stores the past history. The parameter a controls the relative weight of recent
and past history in our prediction. If a = 0, then tau_{n}+1 = tau_{n},
and recent history has no effect (current conditions are assumed to be transient).

If a = 1, then tau_{n+1} = tau_{n}, and only the most recent CPU
burst matters (history is assumed to be old and irrelevant). More commonly, a = 1/2,
so recent history and past history are equally weighted. The initial tau0 can be
defined as a constant or as an overall system average. Figure 5.4 shows an exponential
average with a = 1/2 and tau0 = 10.

To understand the behavior of the exponential average, we can expand the
formula for tau_{n+1} by substituting for τn to find

tau_{n+1} = at_{n} + (1-a)at_{n-1} +...+ (1-a)^{j}at_{n-j} +...+ (1-a)^{n+1}tau_{0}

Typically, a is less than 1. As a result, (1 − a) is also less than 1, and each successive term has less weight than its predecessor.

The SJF algorithm can be either preemptive or nonpreemptive. The choice arises when
a new process arrives at the ready queue while a previous process is still executing.
The next CPU burst of the newly arrived process may be shorter than what is left of
the currently executing process. A preemptive SJF algorithm will preempt the currently
executing process, whereas a nonpreemptive SJF algorithm will allow the currently
running process to finish its CPU burst. Preemptive SJF scheduling is sometimes called
*shortest-remainingtime-first* scheduling.

As an example, consider the following four processes, with the length of the CPU burst given in milliseconds:

Process | Arrival Time | Burst Time |

P1 | 0 | 8 |

P2 | 1 | 4 |

P3 | 2 | 9 |

P4 | 3 | 5 |

If the processes arrive at the ready queue at the times shown and need the indicated burst times, then the resulting preemptive SJF schedule is as depicted in the following Gantt chart:

Process P_{1} is started at time 0, since it is the only process in the queue.
Process P_{2} arrives at time 1. The remaining time for process P_{1}
(7 milliseconds) is larger than the time required by process P_{2} (4 milliseconds),
so process P_{1} is preempted, and process P_{2} is scheduled. The
average waiting time for this example is [(10 − 1) + (1 − 1) + (17 − 2) + (5 − 3)]/4
= 26/4 = 6.5 milliseconds. Nonpreemptive SJF scheduling would result in an average
waiting time of 7.75 milliseconds.

Other scheduling algorithms are: First-Come, First-Served; Priority; Round Robin; Multilevel Queue; Multilevel Feedback Queue. All are explained in Operating System Concepts.

**About the Authors**

Abraham Silberschatz is the Sidney J. Weinberg Professor of Computer Science at Yale University. Prior to joining Yale, he was the Vice President of the Information Sciences Research Center at Bell Laboratories. Prior to that, he held a chaired professorship in the Department of Computer Sciences at the University of Texas at Austin.

Professor Silberschatz is a Fellow of the Association of Computing Machinery (ACM), a Fellow of Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and a member of the Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering.

Greg Gagne is chair of the Computer Science department at Westminster College in Salt Lake City where he has been teaching since 1990. In addition to teaching operating systems, he also teaches computer networks, parallel programming, and software engineering.

The tenth edition of
Operating System Concepts

has been revised to keep it fresh and up-to-date with contemporary examples of how operating
systems function, as well as enhanced interactive elements to improve learning and the student's
experience with the material. It combines instruction on concepts with real-world applications
so that students can understand the practical usage of the content. End-of-chapter problems,
exercises, review questions, and programming exercises help to further reinforce important
concepts. New interactive self-assessment problems are provided throughout the text to help
students monitor their level of understanding and progress. A Linux virtual machine (including
C and Java source code and development tools) allows students to complete programming exercises
that help them engage further with the material.

A reader in the U.S. says, "This is what computer-related books should be like. It is thorough, in depth, information packed, authoritative, and exhaustive. You cannot get this kind of excellent information from the Internet - or many other computer books these days. It's a shame that quality computer books are declining so rapidly in number. I hope they continue to update and publish this book for many years to come.

**More Computer Architecture Articles:****• **Operating System Memory Protection in a Paged Environment**• **Factors in Choosing an Oscilloscope**• **Online Color Coded Resistor Calculator**• **The Use of SOI (Silicone on Insulator) Wafers in MEMS (Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems) Production**• **Operating System Processes**• **Computer Video Display**• **Logical Versus Physical Memory Addresses**• **Operating System Process Scheduling Queues**• **Digital Logic Levels and Transfer Characteristics**• **How Computer Chips are Made