A Note on Scheduling Equal-Length Jobs to Maximize Throughput

Abstract

The main aim of this note is to show that a polynomial-time algorithm for the scheduling problem 1|r j ; p j = p| ∑ Uj given by Carlier in (1981) is incorrect. In this problem we are given n jobs with release times and deadlines. All jobs have the same processing time p. The objective is to find a non-preemptive schedule that maximizes the number of jobs completed by their deadlines. The feasibility version of this problem, where we ask whether all jobs can meet their deadlines, has been studied thoroughly. Polynomial-time algorithms for this version were first found, independently, by Simons (1978) and Carlier (1981). A faster algorithm, with running time O(n log n), was subsequently given by Garey et al. (1981). The elegant feasibility algorithm of Carlier (1981) is based on dynamic programming and it processes jobs from left to right on the time-axis. For each time t, it constructs a partial schedule with jobs that complete at or before time t. Carlier also attempted to apply the same technique to design a polynomial-time algorithm for the maximization version, 1|r j ; p j = p| ∑ Uj , and claimed an O(n3 log n)-time algorithm. His result is now widely cited in the literature. We show, however, that this algorithm is not correct, by giving an instance on which it produces a sub-optimal schedule. Our counter-example can be, in fact, extended to support a broader claim, namely that even the general approach from Carlier (1981) cannot yield a polynomial-time algorithm. By this general approach we mean a class of algorithms that processes the input from left to right and make decisions based on the deadline ordering, and not their exact values. The question remains as to how efficiently can we solve the scheduling problem 1|r j ; p j = p| ∑ Uj . Baptiste (1999) gave an O(n7)-time algorithm for the more general version of this problem where jobs have weights. We show how to modify his algorithm to obtain a faster, O(n5)-time algorithm for the non-weighted case. These last two results are discussed only briefly in this note. The complete proofs can be found in the full version of this paper, see Chrobak et al. (2004).