Transactional memory (TM) promises to simplify concurrent programming while providing scalability competitive to fine-grained locking. Language-based constructs allow programmers to denote atomic regions declaratively and to rely on the underlying system to provide transactional guarantees along with concurrency. In contrast with fine-grained locking, TM allows programmers to write simpler programs that are composable and deadlock-free.TM implementations operate by tracking loads and stores to memory and by detecting concurrent conflicting accesses by different transactions. By automating this process, they greatly reduce the programmer's burden, but they also are forced to be conservative. In certain cases, conflicting memory accesses may not actually violate the higher-level semantics of a program, and a programmer may wish to allow seemingly conflicting transactions to execute concurrently.Open nested transactions enable expert programmers to differentiate between physical conflicts, at the level of memory, and logical conflicts that actually violate application semantics. A TM system with open nesting can permit physical conflicts that are not logical conflicts, and thus increase concurrency among application threads.Here we present an implementation of open nested transactions in a Java-based software transactional memory (STM) system. We describe new language constructs to support open nesting in Java, and we discuss new abstract locking mechanisms that a programmer can use to prevent logical conflicts. We demonstrate how these constructs can be mapped efficiently to existing STM data structures. Finally, we evaluate our system on a set of Java applications and data structures, demonstrating how open nesting can enhance application scalability.

Since benchmarks drive computer science research and industry product development, which ones we use and how we evaluate them are key questions for the community. Despite complex runtime tradeoffs due to dynamic compilation and garbage collection required for Java programs, many evaluations still use methodologies developed for C, C++, and Fortran. SPEC, the dominant purveyor of benchmarks, compounded this problem by institutionalizing these methodologies for their Java benchmark suite. This paper recommends benchmarking selection and evaluation methodologies, and introduces the DaCapo benchmarks, a set of open source, client-side Java benchmarks. We demonstrate that the complex interactions of (1) architecture, (2) compiler, (3) virtual machine, (4) memory management, and (5) application require more extensive evaluation than C, C++, and Fortran which stress (4) much less, and do not require (3). We use and introduce new value, time-series, and statistical metrics for static and dynamic properties such as code complexity, code size, heap composition, and pointer mutations. No benchmark suite is definitive, but these metrics show that DaCapo improves over SPEC Java in a variety of ways, including more complex code, richer object behaviors, and more demanding memory system requirements. This paper takes a step towards improving methodologies for choosing and evaluating benchmarks to foster innovation in system design and implementation for Java and other managed languages.

No abstract

This paper describes the development and initial evaluation of a new course "Introduction to Computational Thinking" taken by science majors to fulfill a college computing requirement. The course was developed by computer science faculty in collaboration with science faculty and it focuses on the role of computing and computational principles in scientific inquiry. It uses Python and Python libraries to teach computational thinking via basic programming concepts, data management concepts, simulation, and visualization. Problems with a computational aspect are drawn from different scientific disciplines and are complemented with lectures from faculty in those areas. Our initial evaluation indicates that the problem-driven approach focused on scientific discovery and computational principles increases the student's interest in computing.

A future is a simple and elegant abstraction that allows concurrency to be expressed often through a relatively small rewrite of a sequential program. In the absence of side-effects, futures serve as benign annotations that mark potentially concurrent regions of code. Unfortunately, when computation relies heavily on mutation as is the case in Java, its meaning is less clear, and much of its intended simplicity lost.This paper explores the definition and implementation of safe futures for Java. One can think of safe futures as truly transparent annotations on method calls, which designate opportunities for concurrency. Serial programs can be made concurrent simply by replacing standard method calls with future invocations. Most significantly, even though some parts of the program are executed concurrently and may indeed operate on shared data, the semblance of serial execution is nonetheless preserved. Thus, program reasoning is simplified since data dependencies present in a sequential program are not violated in a version augmented with safe futures.Besides presenting a programming model and API for safe futures, we formalize the safety conditions that must be satisfied to ensure equivalence between a sequential Java program and its futureannotated counterpart. A detailed implementation study is also provided. Our implementation exploits techniques such as object versioning and task revocation to guarantee necessary safety conditions. We also present an extensive experimental evaluation of our implementation to quantify overheads and limitations. Our experiments indicate that for programs with modest mutation rates on shared data, applications can use futures to profitably exploit parallelism, without sacrificing safety.