Liveness in Transactional Memory

Bushkov, Victor; Guerraoui, Rachid

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-14720-8_2

Cited by 8 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As for wait-freedom we adopt the definition adapted for TM that was introduced by Attiya et al [4]: a TM is wait-free [19] if any transaction executed by a non-faulty process eventually commits in a finite number of steps despite the behavior of concurrent transactions 2 . We consider processes to be non-parasitic, i.e., they eventually request the commit of every transaction that they start unless they crash or the transaction is aborted by the TM [9]. Hereafter, we refer to a read-only transaction that guarantees wait-freedom as WFRO; also, if such a read-only transaction also provides invisible reads, then we name it WFIRO (i.e., the union of WFRO and IRO).…”

Section: Configurations Events and Executionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Disjoint-Access Parallelism

Peluso

Palmieri

Romano

et al. 2015

Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Disjoint-Access Parallelism (DAP) is considered one of the most desirable properties to maximize the scalability of Transactional Memory (TM). This paper investigates the possibility and inherent cost of implementing a DAP TM that ensures two properties that are regarded as important to maximize efficiency in read-dominated workloads, namely having invisible and wait-free read-only transactions. We first prove that relaxing Real-Time Order (RTO) is necessary to implement such a TM. This result motivates us to introduce Witnessable Real-Time Order (WRTO), a weaker variant of RTO that demands enforcing RTO only between directly conflicting transactions. Then we show that adopting WRTO makes it possible to design a strictly DAP TM with invisible and wait-free read-only transactions, while preserving strong progressiveness for write transactions and an isolation level known in literature as Extended Update Serializability. Finally, we shed light on the inherent inefficiency of DAP TM implementations that have invisible and wait-free read-only transactions, by establishing lower bounds on the time and space complexity of such TMs.

show abstract

Section: Configurations Events and Executionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For a formal definition of the strongest progress condition specifically defined for (S)TM, i.e., local progress, the reader can refer to the work in[9].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Disjoint-Access Parallelism

Peluso

Palmieri

Romano

et al. 2015

Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is modeled via the UNPUSH rule and typically implemented via inverse operations (such as remove on an element that had been added). The UNPUSH rule is also needed in open nested transactions [30] and for ensuring liveness [3].…”

Section: The Push/pull Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This choice carves out a design space for implementations to take advantage of the full spectrum of possibilities (e.g. dependent transactions [32], open nested transactions [30], liveness [3]) and is relatively unrestrictive in terms of TM correctness criteria. However, despite expressive power, the model also gives the appropriate criteria to ensure serializability [31].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Push/Pull model of transactions

Koskinen

Parkinson

2015

Proceedings of the 36th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a general theory of serializability, unifying a wide range of transactional algorithms, including some that are yet to come. To this end, we provide a compact semantics in which concurrent transactions PUSH their effects into the shared view (or UNPUSH to recall effects) and PULL the effects of potentially uncommitted concurrent transactions into their local view (or UNPULL to detangle). Each operation comes with simple criteria given in terms of commutativity (Lipton's left-movers and right-movers).The benefit of this model is that most of the elaborate reasoning (coinduction, simulation, subtle invariants, etc.) necessary for proving the serializability of a transactional algorithm is already proved within the semantic model. Thus, proving serializability (or opacity) amounts simply to mapping the algorithm on to our rules, and showing that it satisfies the rules' criteria.

show abstract

“…The vision of pioneers is finally being materialized in the form of novel TM-enabled multicores like Intel Haswell [5] and IBM Blue Gene [6]. The emergence of these brand new TM-enabled multicores has been preceded with an intensive theoretical research on TM correctness [3], [4], liveness [7], and programming language level semantics [8], [9], [10], which seems to be culminating in what would be a theoretical foundation of contemporary TM-based systems. Looking from current prospective it seems that the main reason for the TM success are the two main advantages of TM over traditional locks.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conflict types and probabilities in stochastic TM-programs

Popović

Basicevic

2014

2014 4th IEEE International Conference on Information Science and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transactional Memory (TM) is an attractive concurrency control mechanism that should deliver much better performance than locks in case when transaction conflicts are rare. But, if the probability of conflicts is high, TM program performance may be very poor. Therefore, when engineering mission critical systems, we need to be able to calculate conflict probabilities. In this paper we study a class of stochastic TM programs for processing groups of transactions on a set of shared t-variables, e.g. bank accounts. Individual transactions are selecting variables they are operating on uniformly at random. We identify and define various types of conflicts among transactions that may arise in such circumstances. We also show how to calculate probabilities of various types of conflicts on some simple examples of groups of transactions sharing one or two t-variables. Our work is still in progress, but the results shown here are affirmative for the approach we use, and they stimulate further research towards more general analysis of this class of TM programs.

show abstract

Liveness in Transactional Memory

Cited by 8 publications

References 26 publications

Disjoint-Access Parallelism

Disjoint-Access Parallelism

The Push/Pull model of transactions

Conflict types and probabilities in stochastic TM-programs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About