Permissiveness in Transactional Memories

Guerraoui, Rachid; Henzinger, Thomas A.; Singh, Vasu

doi:10.1007/978-3-540-87779-0_21

Cited by 54 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The authors compared different TMs according to their input acceptance patterns. Guerraoui et al [7] introduced the related notion of π-permissiveness. Informally, a TM satisfies π-permissiveness for a correctness criterion π, if every history that does not violate π is accepted by the TM.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, the notion of opacity-permissiveness does not make sense in the context of the former because no TM may generate opaque histories that have non-opaque prefixes. Indeed, the paper that defines permissiveness [7] uses an even stronger notion of opacity, which is in fact prefix-closed.…”

Section: Preliminaries and System Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since requiring an optimal commit-abort ratio is too restrictive, we consider a weaker notion that limits aborts only in runs where none are necessary: a TM provides permissiveness [7] if it accepts every history satisfying Γ-opacity. Gramoli et al showed that existing TM implementations do not accept all inputs they could have, and hence are not permissive.…”

Section: Permissivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous works introduced two related notions: commit-abort ratio [6] and permissiveness [7]. The latter stipulates that in runs that do not violate correctness, no aborts should happen.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

On Avoiding Spare Aborts in Transactional Memory

Keidar

Perelman

2015

Theory Comput Syst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper takes a step toward developing a theory for understanding aborts in transactional memory systems (TMs). Existing TMs may abort many transactions that could, in fact, commit without violating correctness. We call such unnecessary aborts spare aborts. We classify what kinds of spare aborts can be eliminated, and which cannot. We further study what kinds of spare aborts can be avoided efficiently. Specifically, we show that some unnecessary aborts cannot be avoided, and that there is an inherent tradeoff between the overhead of a TM and the extent to which it reduces the number of spare aborts. We also present an efficient example TM algorithm that avoids certain kinds of spare aborts, and analyze its properties and performance.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Preliminaries and System Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Permissivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous works introduced two related notions: commit-abort ratio [6] and permissiveness [7]. The latter stipulates that in runs that do not violate correctness, no aborts should happen.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

On Avoiding Spare Aborts in Transactional Memory

Keidar

Perelman

2015

Theory Comput Syst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We first present opacity-a correctness condition for TMs, which is indeed ensured by most TM implementations, e.g., DSTM [4], ASTM [5], SXM [20], JVSTM [6], TL2 [21], LSA-STM [11], RSTM [7], BartokSTM [8], McRT-STM [12], TinySTM [14], AVSTM [22], the STM in [23], and SwissTM [24]. We then define progress properties of the two main classes of existing TM implementations: obstruction-free [4] and lock-based ones.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transactional Memory: Glimmer of a Theory

Guerraoui

Kapalka

2009

Computer Aided Verification

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Achieving Starvation-Freedom in Multi-version Transactional Memory Systems

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Software Transactional Memory systems (STMs) have garnered significant interest as an elegant alternative for addressing synchronization and concurrency issues with multi-threaded programming in multi-core systems. For STMs to be efficient, they must guarantee some progress properties. This work explores the notion of one of the progress property, i.e., starvation-freedom, in STMs. An STM system is said to be starvation-free if every thread invoking a transaction gets the opportunity to take a step (due to the presence of a fair scheduler) such that the transaction eventually commits.A few starvation-free algorithms have been proposed in the literature in context of single-version STMs. These algorithms are priority based i.e. if two transactions are in conflict, then the transaction with lower priority will abort. A transaction running for a long time will eventually have the highest priority and hence commit. But the drawback with this approach is that if a set of high-priority transactions become slow, then they can cause several other transactions to abort. So, we propose multi-version starvation-free STM system which addresses this issue.Multi-version STMs maintain multiple-versions for each transactional object. By storing multiple versions, these systems can achieve greater concurrency. In this paper, we propose multi-version starvation-free STM, KSFTM, which as the name suggests achieves starvation-freedom while storing K-versions of each t-object. Here K is an input parameter fixed by the application programmer depending on the requirement. Our algorithm is dynamic which can support different values of K ranging from one to infinity. If K is infinite, then there is no limit on the number of versions. But a separate garbage-collection mechanism is required to collect unwanted versions. On the other hand, when K is one, it becomes the same as a single-version starvation-free STM system. We prove the correctness and starvation-freedom property of the KSFTM algorithm.To the best of our knowledge, this is the first multi-version STM system that satisfies starvation-freedom. We implement KSFTM and compare its performance with single-version starvation-free STM system (SV-SFTM) which works on the priority principle. Our experiments show that KSFTM gives an average speedup on the worst-case time to commit of a transaction by a factor of 1.22, 1.89, 23.26 and 13.12 times over PKTO, SV-SFTM, NOrec STM and ESTM respectively for counter application. KSFTM performs 1.5 and 1.44 times better than PKTO and SV-SFTM but 1.09 times worse than NOrec for low contention KMEANS application of STAMP benchmark whereas KSFTM performs 1.14, 1.4 and 2.63 times better than PKTO, SV-SFTM and NOrec for LABYRINTH application of STAMP benchmark which has high contention with long-running transactions. * A preliminary version of this work was accepted in AADDA 2017 as work in progress. † A part of this work was submitted towards the fulfillment of M.Tech thesis requirement by the author. ‡ Author sequence follows a lexical order of last...

show abstract

Permissiveness in Transactional Memories

Cited by 54 publications

References 11 publications

On Avoiding Spare Aborts in Transactional Memory

On Avoiding Spare Aborts in Transactional Memory

Transactional Memory: Glimmer of a Theory

Achieving Starvation-Freedom in Multi-version Transactional Memory Systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About