Modern operating system process schedulers typically enforce a static, ``one-policy-fits-all'' design, which inevitably compromises performance under the highly dynamic and mixed workloads of contemporary edge systems. Transitioning to dynamic adaptation faces two fundamental challenges: scenario specific static policies lack robust runtime adaptability, whereas computationally intensive AI-assisted policies introduce unacceptable execution overhead for resource-constrained devices. To structurally resolve this dilemma, we propose the Lightweight Adaptive Policy Switcher (LAPS), a framework that dynamically switches between predefined expert policies, thus decoupling high frequency context switching from low-frequency policy transitions and amortizing transitional overheads. To eliminate prohibitive online computations, LAPS pre-resolves all heavy dynamic tradeoffs via an offline preparation phase, constructing a strictly overhead-aware Policy Mapping Table. During runtime, it executes an agentic Observe-Infer-Switch cycle that limits machine learning inference strictly to workload classification. Consequently, LAPS executes efficient dynamic adaptation simply by mapping the inferred workload state to optimal expert policies via low-cost table lookups. Experiments show that LAPS achieves an average performance gain of 8.91% and reduces response latency by up to 91.7% in latency-sensitive tasks over the default Linux scheduler EEVDF. Our results demonstrate that LAPS outperforms the baseline in a wide range of test cases, offering a practical path toward more responsive and intelligent operating systems. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/lvmiao233/LAPS.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Core Framework of the Lightweight Adaptive Policy Switcher. The periodic loop progresses sequentially: (1) Observation Module collects system status to extract workload features; (2) Inference Module classifies the workload and maps it to a best-fit scheduler; and (3) Execution Module evaluates switching necessity and safely attaches the new policy.
Fig. 2: The Workflow of Offline Preparation stages.
ID
BaseCPU
Cores
Thrd.
Mem
Proto.
Virtual Machine Environments
VM1
i5-6500
4
4
8G
✓
VM2
i5-6500
4
4
16G
✓
VM3
i5-9400
6
6
12G
✗
VM4
i5-9400
6
6
16G
✗
VM5
i5-9400
4
4
8G
✗
TABLE I: Evaluation Platform Configuration
Game Play
Office File Editing
Web Browsing
Audio Remix
Archive Extraction
S1
S8
S15
S22
Blender Render
S2
S9
S16
S23
Kernel Compile
S3
S10
S17
S24
LLM Generate
S4
S11
S18
S25
Disk I/O
S5
S12
S19
S26
Network Transfer
S6
S13
S20
S27
TABLE II: Benchmark Scenarios Matrix
Fig. 3: Discrepancy between throughput-oriented synthetic benchmark (Hackbench [ 36 ] ) and real-world application interactivity metrics. Our normalized composite score enables objective comparability across diverse multi-task scenarios. Scores are scaled by 104 for readability.
Fig. 4: Performance comparison between LAPS and EEVDF (scenarios × devices)
Fig. 5: Parallel coordinates plot showing average improvement ratios across different devices. LAPS demonstrates the ability to approach Pareto optimality by exploiting the diverse strengths of existing schedulers based on the underlying hardware.
Fig. 6: Performance comparison between LAPS and other reference schedulers. The heatmap illustrates that LAPS outperforms or matches static policies across diverse scenarios and devices.
Fig. 7: Geometric mean performance improvement
Fig. 8: Sensitivity of Time-Weighted Probability Voting to window length
Fig. 9: Cumulative Performance Improvement vs. Scheduler Set Size. The curve flattens as the set expands, indicating diminishing marginal benefit. However, the diverse set is essential to cover the long tail of workload patterns effectively.
Latency Type
Average
P95
P99
Max
Inference Latency
0.251
0.308
0.320
0.322
Decision Latency
0.038
0.050
0.053
0.054
Total Latency
0.289
0.357
0.367
0.369
TABLE III: LAPS Latency Statistics (values in milliseconds)
Figure 14Figure 15Figure 16Figure 17Figure 18
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Hyperparameter
Value
Hyperparameter
Value
n_estimators
2000
max_depth
9
colsample_bytree
0.52
subsample
0.80
learning_rate
0.22
gamma
0.12
min_child_weight
3.24
reg_alpha
0.06
early_stopping_rounds
50
reg_lambda
8.30
Appendix
TABLE IV: Optimal Hyperparameters for XGBoost Classifier