Toward a Theory of Input Acceptance for Transactional Memories

  • Vincent Gramoli
  • Derin Harmanci
  • Pascal Felber
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5401)

Abstract

Transactional memory (TM) systems receive as an input a stream of events also known as a workload, reschedule it with respect to several constraints, and output a consistent history. In multicore architectures, the transactional code executed by a processor is a stream of events whose interruption would waste processor cycles. In this paper, we formalize the notion of TM workload into classes of input patterns, whose acceptance helps understanding the performance of a given TM.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Herlihy, M., Luchangco, V., Moir, M., Scherer III, W.N.: Software transactional memory for dynamic-sized data structures. In: PODC 2003, pp. 92–101 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Papadimitriou, C.H.: The serializability of concurrent database updates. J. ACM 26(4), 631–653 (1979)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guerraoui, R., Kapałka, M.: On the correctness of transactional memory. In: PPoPP 2008, pp. 175–184 (February 2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yannakakis, M.: Serializability by locking. J. ACM 31(2), 227–244 (1984)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Riegel, T., Fetzer, C., Sturzrehm, H., Felber, P.: From causal to z-linearizable transactional memory. In: PODC 2007, pp. 340–341 (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Napper, J., Alvisi, L.: Lock-free serializable transactions. Technical Report TR-05-04, Department of Computer Sciences, University of Texas at Austin (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aydonat, U., Abdelrahman, T.S.: Serializability of transactions in software transactional memory. In: TRANSACT 2008. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Felber, P., Riegel, T., Fetzer, C.: Dynamic performance tuning of word-based software transactional memory. In: PPoPP 2008 (February 2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gramoli, V., Harmanci, D., Felber, P.: Toward a theory of input acceptance for transactional memories. Technical Report LPD-REPORT-2008-009, EPFL (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harris, T., Fraser, K.: Language support for lightweight transactions. SIGPLAN Not 38(11), 388–402 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dice, D., Shalev, O., Shavit, N.: Transactional locking II. In: Dolev, S. (ed.) DISC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4167, pp. 194–208. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bernstein, P.A., Hadzilacos, V., Goodman, N.: Concurrency Control and Recovery in Database Systems. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1987)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vincent Gramoli
    • 1
    • 2
  • Derin Harmanci
    • 2
  • Pascal Felber
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Computer and Communication SciencesEPFLSwitzerland
  2. 2.University of NeuchâtelSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations