Performance of distributed graph algorithms can benefit greatly by forming rapport between algorithmic abstraction and the underlying runtime system that is responsible for scheduling work and exchanging messages. However, due to their dynamic and irregular nature of computation, distributed graph algorithms written in different programming models impose varying degrees of workload pressure on the runtime. To cope with such vastly different workload characteristics, a runtime has to make several trade-offs. One such trade-off arises, for example, when the runtime scheduler has to choose among alternatives such as whether to execute algorithmic work, or progress the network by probing network buffers, or throttle sending messages (termed flow control). This trade-off decides between optimizing the throughput of a runtime scheduler by increasing the rate of execution of algorithmic work, and reducing the latency of the network messages. Another trade-off exists when a decision has to be made about when to send aggregated messages in buffers (message coalescing). This decision chooses between trading off latency for network bandwidth and vice versa. At any instant, such trade-offs emphasize either on improving the quantity of work being executed (by maximizing the scheduler throughput) or on improving the quality of work (by prioritizing better work). However, encoding static policies for different runtime features (such as flow control, coalescing) can prevent graph algorithms from achieving their full potentials, thus can under-mine the actual performance of a distributed graph algorithm . In this paper, we investigate runtime support for distributed graph algorithms in the context of two paradigms: variants of well-known Bulk-Synchronous Parallel model and asynchronous programming model. We explore generic runtime features such as message coalescing (aggregation) and flow control and show that execution policies of these features need to be adjusted over time to make a positive impact on the execution time of a distributed graph algorithm. Since synchronous and asynchronous graph algorithms have different workload characteristics, not all of such runtime features may be good candidates for adaptation. Each of these algorithmic paradigms may require different set of features to be adapted over time. We demonstrate which set of feature(s) can be useful in each case to achieve the right balance of work in the runtime layer. Existing implementation of different graph algorithms can benefit from adapting dynamic policies in the underlying runtime.