Long-lived, fast, waitfree renaming with optimal name space and high throughput

Eberly, Wayne; Highám, Lisa; Warpechowska-Gruca, Jolanta

doi:10.1007/bfb0056480

Cited by 20 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They presented a non-adaptive wait-free solution with a namespace of size n(1 + ) for > 0 constant, with expected O(M log 2 n) running time, where M is the size of the initial namespace. A second paper to analyze randomized renaming was by Eberly et al [Eberly et al 1998]. The authors obtain a strong non-adaptive renaming algorithm based on the randomized wait-free test-and-set implementation of Afek et al [Afek et al 1992].…”

Section: Renamingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[Attiya et al 1990], [Bar-Noy and Dolev 1989], [Burns and Peterson 1989], [Moir and Anderson 1995], [Herlihy and Shavit 1999], [Afek and Merritt 1999], [Attiya and Fouren 2001], [Eberly et al 1998], [Panconesi et al 1998], has studied the solvability and complexity of renaming in an asynchronous environment. In particular, tight, or strong deterministic renaming, where the size of the namespace is exactly n, is known to be impossible [Herlihy and Shavit 1999], [Castañeda and Rajsbaum 2010].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This impossibility result can be circumvented through the use of randomization: there exist randomized renaming algorithms that ensure a tight namespace of n names, guaranteeing name uniqueness in all executions and termination with probability 1, e.g. [Eberly et al 1998]. Despite considerable research effort on efficient renaming algorithms, e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite considerable research effort on efficient renaming algorithms, e.g. [Panconesi et al 1998], [Borowsky and Gafni 1993], [Moir and Anderson 1995], [Moir and Garay 1996], [Afek and Merritt 1999], [Attiya and Fouren 2001], [Eberly et al 1998], [Chlebus and Kowalski 2008], ], prior to our work there have been no time optimality results for shared-memory renaming, either for randomized or deterministic algorithms.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Tight Bounds for Asynchronous Renaming

Alistarh

Aspnes

Censor-Hillel

et al. 2014

J. ACM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents the first tight bounds on the time complexity of shared-memory renaming, a fundamental problem in distributed computing in which a set of processes need to pick distinct identifiers from a small namespace.We first prove an individual lower bound of Ω(k) process steps for deterministic renaming into any namespace of size sub-exponential in k, where k is the number of participants. The bound is tight: it draws an exponential separation between deterministic and randomized solutions, and implies new tight bounds for deterministic concurrent fetch-and-increment counters, queues and stacks. The proof is based on a new reduction from renaming to another fundamental problem in distributed computing: mutual exclusion. We complement this individual bound with a global lower bound of Ω(k log(k/c)) on the total step complexity of renaming into a namespace of size ck, for any c ≥ 1. This result applies to randomized algorithms against a strong adversary, and helps derive new global lower bounds for randomized approximate counter implementations, that are tight within logarithmic factors.On the algorithmic side, we give a protocol that transforms any sorting network into a randomized strong adaptive renaming algorithm, with expected cost equal to the depth of the sorting network. This gives a tight adaptive renaming algorithm with expected step complexity O(log k), where k is the contention in the current execution. This algorithm is the first to achieve sublinear time, and it is time-optimal as per our randomized lower bound. Finally, we use this renaming protocol to build monotone-consistent counters with logarithmic step complexity and linearizable fetch-and-increment registers with polylogarithmic cost.

show abstract

Section: Renamingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Tight Bounds for Asynchronous Renaming

Alistarh

Aspnes

Censor-Hillel

et al. 2014

J. ACM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our construction, [36], has been subsumed and referred to long since, for example in [3], [28], [15], [10], but other interests prevented us publishing a final version earlier. The construction is optimal or close to optimal.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Randomized two-process wait-free test-and-set

Tromp

Vitányi

2002

Distributed Computing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-We present the first explicit, and currently simplest, randomized algorithm for two-process wait-free testand-set. It is implemented with two 4-valued single writer single reader atomic variables. A test-and-set takes at most 11 expected elementary steps, while a reset takes exactly 1 elementary step. Based on a finite-state analysis, the proofs of correctness and expected length are compressed into one table.

show abstract

Naming Anonymous Processes Using an Optimal Number of Test-and-Set Registers

Aldawsari

2020

Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Long-lived, fast, waitfree renaming with optimal name space and high throughput

Cited by 20 publications

References 13 publications

Tight Bounds for Asynchronous Renaming

Tight Bounds for Asynchronous Renaming

Randomized two-process wait-free test-and-set

Naming Anonymous Processes Using an Optimal Number of Test-and-Set Registers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About