“…There is a rich body of research on minimizing these overheads. For example, while TCC, UTM, VTM, LogTM, PTM, XTM, RTM, Scalable-TCC, ObjectTM, FasTM, Reconfigurable-TM, SEL-TM and SUV-TM [Hammond et al 2004]; [Ananian et al 2005]; [Rajwar et al 2005]; [Moore et al 2006]; [Chuang et al 2006]; [Chung et al 2006b]; [Shriraman et al 2007]; [Chafi et al 2007]; [Khan et al 2008]; [Lupon et al 2008] [Lupon et al 2009]; [Armejach et al 2011]; [Zhao et al 2012]; [Yan et al 2012] focus on reducing static overheads on version management, OneTM, DATM, SBCRHTM, ProactiveTM, EasyTM, DynTM, SON-TM, BFGTS-TM, 42:6 Z. Yan et al and ZEBRA [Blundell et al 2007]; [Ramadan et al 2008]; [Titos et al 2009]; [Blake et al 2009]; [Tomic et al 2009]; [Lupon et al 2010]; [Aydonat and Abdelrahman 2010]; [Blake et al 2011]; propose different TM architectures to alleviate the dynamic overheads incurred by transactional conflicts.…”