Deadlock Detection in the Face of Transaction and Data Dependencies

  • E. Bertino
  • G. Chiola
  • L. V. Mancini
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1420)


Deadlock detection, which is fairly well-understood for the traditional transaction model used for concurrency control to databases, needs to be revisited when dealing with advanced transaction models. This is because a transaction in these models is organized as a collection of tasks; specific decisions (such as commit or abort) about a task may be based on the outcome or status of other tasks in the same transaction. Although this gives flexibility to the application programmer, a set of concurrent transactions may contain two types of dependencies: data and transaction dependencies. Commit and abort dependencies specifying constraints on transaction termination order are well-known examples of transaction dependencies. Data dependencies arise when transactions concurrently access common data items under conflicting modes. In this paper, we show that in the face of these dependencies, deadlocks may arise that the conventional deadlock detection algorithms are not able to detect. We show that transaction waiting states are characterized by AND-OR graphs and propose an algorithm for detecting deadlocks in these graphs. This algorithm has a computational complexity linear in the number of nodes and edges of the AND-OR graphs. We prove the correctness of our algorithm by characterizing deadlocks in a subclass of Petri nets equivalent to AND-OR graphs.


Data Dependency Transaction Model Input Place Output Place Deadlock Detection 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    A. Biliris, S. Dar, N. Gehani, H. V. Jagadish, and K. Ramamritham. Asset: A system for supporting extended transactions. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, Minneapolis, Minnesota, May 1994.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. Jajodia et al., editor. Advanced Transaction Models and Architectures. Kluwer Academic Publ., 1997.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    D. Georgakopoulos, M.F. Hornick, and A.P. Sheth. An Overview of Workflow Management: from Process Modeling to Workflow Automation Infrastructure. Distributed and Parallel Databases, V.3, N.2, pp.119–153, April 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. Gray and A. Reuter. Transaction Processing: Concepts and Techniques. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. San Mateo (Calif.), 1993.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    T. Hermann, and K. Chandy. A distributed procedure to detect AND/OR dead-lock. TR LCS-8301, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Texas, Austin, 1983.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    E. Knapp. Deadlock Detection in Distributed Databases. ACM Computing Surveys, 19(4):303–328, December 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    L. Mancini, I. Ray, E. Bertino, and S. Jajodia. Flexible Commit Protocols for Advanced Transaction Processing. In Advanced Transaction Models and Architectures, S. Jajodia and L. Kerschberg, eds., Kluwer, 91–124, 1997.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Eliot B. Moss. Nested Transactions: An Approach to Reliable Distributed Programming. The MIT Press. Cambridge (Massachusetts), 1985.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    T. Murata. Petri nets: properties, analysis, and applications. Proceedings of the IEEE, 77(4):541–580, April 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. Obermarck. Distributed Deadlock Detection Algorithm. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 7(2):187–208, June 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    K. Ramamritham and P. K. Chrysanthis. A Taxonomy of Correctness Criteria in Database Applications. The VLDB Journal, 5(1):64–84, January 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Aidong Zhang, Marian Nodine, Bharat Bhargava, and Omran Bukhres. Ensuring Relaxed Atomicity for Flexible Transactions in Multidatabase Systems. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pages 67–78, May 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Bertino
    • 1
  • G. Chiola
    • 2
  • L. V. Mancini
    • 3
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Scienze dell’InformazioneUniversità di MilanoMilanoItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Informatica e Scienze dell’InformazioneUniversità di GenovaGenovaItaly
  3. 3.Dipartimento di Scienze dell’InformazioneUniversità di Roma “La Sapienza”RomaItaly

Personalised recommendations