Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Learning Interpretable Scheduling Algorithms for Data Processing Clusters

Zhibo Hu, Chen Wang, Helen, Paik, Yanfeng Shu, Liming Zhu

TL;DR

Scheduling DAG jobs in data-processing clusters is challenged by opaque DL policies and poor edge-case adaptability. The paper distills interpretable decision-tree schedulers from a DNN-based Decima model using trace-based learning, grouping candidate nodes to form an explainable predictor and pairing it with a fair executor-allocation strategy. The resulting Decision Tree Scheduler achieves high fidelity to the original DL decisions and often outperforms both the DL model and traditional heuristics, especially on larger or edge-case workloads, while remaining configurable and patchable. This approach offers a practical, transparent path to deployment in production clusters, enabling rapid adaptation to workload shifts through targeted tree tuning and multiple competing strategies. Overall, combining interpretable models with domain-informed heuristics yields strong performance gains and diagnostics for real-world data-parallel scheduling.

Abstract

Workloads in data processing clusters are often represented in the form of DAG (Directed Acyclic Graph) jobs. Scheduling DAG jobs is challenging. Simple heuristic scheduling algorithms are often adopted in practice in production data centres. There is much room for scheduling performance optimisation for cost saving. Recently, reinforcement learning approaches (like decima) have been attempted to optimise DAG job scheduling and demonstrate clear performance gain in comparison to traditional algorithms. However, reinforcement learning (RL) approaches face their own problems in real-world deployment. In particular, their black-box decision making processes and generalizability in unseen workloads may add a non-trivial burden to the cluster administrators. Moreover, adapting RL models on unseen workloads often requires significant amount of training data, which leaves edge cases run in a sub-optimal mode. To fill the gap, we propose a new method to distill a simple scheduling policy based on observations of the behaviours of a complex deep learning model. The simple model not only provides interpretability of scheduling decisions, but also adaptive to edge cases easily through tuning. We show that our method achieves high fidelity to the decisions made by deep learning models and outperforms these models when additional heuristics are taken into account.

Learning Interpretable Scheduling Algorithms for Data Processing Clusters

TL;DR

Scheduling DAG jobs in data-processing clusters is challenged by opaque DL policies and poor edge-case adaptability. The paper distills interpretable decision-tree schedulers from a DNN-based Decima model using trace-based learning, grouping candidate nodes to form an explainable predictor and pairing it with a fair executor-allocation strategy. The resulting Decision Tree Scheduler achieves high fidelity to the original DL decisions and often outperforms both the DL model and traditional heuristics, especially on larger or edge-case workloads, while remaining configurable and patchable. This approach offers a practical, transparent path to deployment in production clusters, enabling rapid adaptation to workload shifts through targeted tree tuning and multiple competing strategies. Overall, combining interpretable models with domain-informed heuristics yields strong performance gains and diagnostics for real-world data-parallel scheduling.

Abstract

Workloads in data processing clusters are often represented in the form of DAG (Directed Acyclic Graph) jobs. Scheduling DAG jobs is challenging. Simple heuristic scheduling algorithms are often adopted in practice in production data centres. There is much room for scheduling performance optimisation for cost saving. Recently, reinforcement learning approaches (like decima) have been attempted to optimise DAG job scheduling and demonstrate clear performance gain in comparison to traditional algorithms. However, reinforcement learning (RL) approaches face their own problems in real-world deployment. In particular, their black-box decision making processes and generalizability in unseen workloads may add a non-trivial burden to the cluster administrators. Moreover, adapting RL models on unseen workloads often requires significant amount of training data, which leaves edge cases run in a sub-optimal mode. To fill the gap, we propose a new method to distill a simple scheduling policy based on observations of the behaviours of a complex deep learning model. The simple model not only provides interpretability of scheduling decisions, but also adaptive to edge cases easily through tuning. We show that our method achieves high fidelity to the decisions made by deep learning models and outperforms these models when additional heuristics are taken into account.
Paper Structure (23 sections, 18 figures, 3 tables, 1 algorithm)

This paper contains 23 sections, 18 figures, 3 tables, 1 algorithm.

Figures (18)

  • Figure 1: Example on the scheduling quality of different schedulers: Decima and its corresponding decision tree scheduler have the same sub-optimal scheduling trace (top right), while the decision tree scheduler fine-tuned on additional traces such as edge cases has the improved scheduling trace for this job DAG (bottom right).
  • Figure 2: The process of extracting scheduling strategies from a DNN-based scheduler and constructing decision trees. In the decision tree construction example, nodes in the trace are assigned to groups and node features are constructed based on human knowledge. The winning nodes (nodes selected to schedule) are given by the DNN model's scheduling decisions in each stage.
  • Figure 3: Decision tree trajectory distribution of TPC-H jobs and Alibaba jobs. X-axis represents the path IDs and y-axis is the number of times a decision path is taken.
  • Figure 4: Most frequent decision tree paths.
  • Figure 5: Batched arrivals results on TPC-H: |g| = 2; decision tree-all uses all DAG types for training.
  • ...and 13 more figures