Science China Information Sciences

, Volume 53, Issue 10, pp 1931–1946 | Cite as

Superscalar communication: A runtime optimization for distributed applications

  • HuiBa Li
  • ShengYun Liu
  • YuXing Peng
  • DongSheng Li
  • HangJun Zhou
  • XiCheng Lu
Research Papers


Building distributed applications is difficult mostly because of concurrency management. Existing approaches primarily include events and threads. Researchers and developers have been debating for decades to prove which is superior. Although the conclusion is far from obvious, this long debate clearly shows that neither of them is perfect. One of the problems is that they are both complex and error-prone. Both events and threads need the programmers to explicitly manage concurrencies, and we believe it is just the source of difficulties. In this paper, we propose a novel approach—superscalar communication, in which concurrencies are automatically managed by the runtime system. It dynamically analyzes the programs to discover potential concurrency opportunities; and it dynamically schedules the communication and the computation tasks, resulting in automatic concurrent execution. This approach is inspired by the idea of superscalar technology in modern microprocessors, which dynamically exploits instruction-level parallelism. However, hardware superscalar algorithms do not fit software in many aspects, thus we have to design a new scheme completely from scratch. Superscalar communication is a runtime extension with no modification to the language, compiler or byte code, so it is good at backward compatibility. Superscalar communication is likely to begin a brand new research area in systems software, which is characterized by dynamic optimization for networking programs.


network programming concurrency event thread superscalar 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Lu X, Wang H, Wang J. Internet-based virtual computing environment (iVCE): Concepts and architecture. Sci China Ser F-Inf Sci, 2006, 49: 681–701CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Li D, Lu X. A novel constant degree and constant congestion DHT scheme for peer-to-peer networks. Sci China Ser F-Inf Sci, 2005, 48: 421–436MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zhang Y M, Lu X C, Li D S. SKY: Efficient peer-to-peer networks based on distributed Kautz graphs. Sci China Ser F-Inf Sci, 2009, 52: 588–601MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lauer H C, Needham R M. On the duality of operating system structures. SIGOPS Oper Syst Rev, 1979, 13: 3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Adya A, Howell J, Theimer M, et al. Cooperative task management without manual stack management. In: ATEC’02: Proceedings of the General Track of the Annual Conference on USENIX Annual Technical Conference. Berkeley, CA, USA, 2002. 289–302Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    von Behren R, Condit J, Brewer E. Why events are a bad idea (for high-concurrency servers). In: HOTOS’03: Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Hot Topics in Operating Systems, Berkeley, CA, USA, 2003. 4–4Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ousterhout J K. Why threads are a bad idea (for most purposes). In: Presentation given at the 1996 Usenix Annual Technical Conference. Berkely: USENIX Association, 1996Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Halstead R H Jr. Multilisp: a language for concurrent symbolic computation. ACM Trans Program Lang Syst, 1985, 7: 501–538MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Krohn M, Kohler E, Kaashoek M F. Events can make sense. In: ATEC’07: Proceedings of the General Track of the Annual Conference on USENIX Annual Technical Conference. Berkely: USENIX Association, 2007Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fielding R T. Architectural styles and the design of network-based software architectures. PhD thesis, Chair-Taylor, Richard N. 2000Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    von Behren R, Condit J, Zhou F, et al. Capriccio: scalable threads for internet services. In: SOSP’ 03: Proceedings of the Nineteenth ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles. New York: ACM, 2003. 268–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mohr E, Kranz D A, Halstead R H Jr. Lazy task creation: a technique for increasing the granularity of parallel programs. In: LFP’90: Proceedings of the 1990 ACM Conference on LISP and Functional Programming. New York: ACM, 1990. 185–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Killian C E, Anderson J W, Braud R, et al. Mace: language support for building distributed systems. In: PLDI’07: Proceedings of the 2007 ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation. New York: ACM, 2007. 179–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cunningham R, Kohler E. Making events less slippery with eel. In: HOTOS’05: Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Hot Topics in Operating Systems. Berkeley: USENIX Association. 2005. 3–3Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chandrasekaran P, Conway C L, Joy J M, et al. Programming asynchronous layers with clarity. In: ESEC-FSE’ 07: Proceedings of the 6th Joint Meeting of the European Software Engineering Conference and the ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering. New York: ACM, 2007. 65–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Welsh M, Culler D, Brewer E. Seda: an architecture for well-conditioned, scalable internet services. SIGOPS Oper Syst Rev, 2001, 35: 230–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dabek F, Zeldovich N, Kaashoek F, et al. Event-driven programming for robust software. In: EW10: Proceedings of the 10th Workshop on ACM SIGOPS European Workshop. New York: ACM, 2002. 186–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schmidt D C, Huston S D. C++ Network Programming: Systematic Reuse with ACE and Frameworks. Boston: Addison-Wesley Professional, 2003Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Li P, Zdancewic S. Combining events and threads for scalable network services implementation and evaluation of monadic, application-level concurrency primitives. SIGPLAN Not, 2007, 42: 189–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fischer J, Majumdar R, Millstein T. Tasks: language support for event-driven programming. In: PEPM’07: Proceedings of the 2007 ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Partial Evaluation and Semantics-based Program Manipulation. New York: ACM, 2007. 134–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nightingale E B, Veeraraghavan K, Chen P M, et al. Rethink the sync. In: OSDI’ 06: Proceedings of the 7th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation. Berkeley: USENIX Association, 2006. 1–1Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Science China Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • HuiBa Li
    • 1
  • ShengYun Liu
    • 1
  • YuXing Peng
    • 1
  • DongSheng Li
    • 1
  • HangJun Zhou
    • 1
  • XiCheng Lu
    • 1
  1. 1.National Laboratory for Parallel and Distributed ProcessingNational University of Defense TechnologyChangshaChina

Personalised recommendations