Advertisement

Efficient Fetch-and-Increment

  • Faith Ellen
  • Vijaya Ramachandran
  • Philipp Woelfel
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7611)

Abstract

A Fetch&Inc object stores a non-negative integer and supports a single operation, fi, that returns the value of the object and increments it. Such objects are used in many asynchronous shared memory algorithms, such as renaming, mutual exclusion, and barrier synchronization. We present an efficient implementation of a wait-free Fetch&Inc object from registers and load-linked/store-conditional (ll/sc) objects. In a system with p processes, every fi operation finishes in O(log2 p) steps, and only a polynomial number of registers and O(logp)-bit ll/sc objects are needed. The maximum number of fi operations that can be supported is limited only by the maximum integer that can be stored in a shared register. This is the first wait-free implementation of a Fetch&Inc object that achieves both poly-logarithmic step complexity and polynomial space complexity, but does not require unrealistically large ll/sc objects or registers.

Keywords

Status Unit Binary Search Tree Progress Tree Step Complexity Query Operation 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Afek, Y., Dauber, D., Touitou, D.: Wait-free made fast. In: Proc. of 27th ACM STOC, pp. 538–547 (1995)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Afek, Y., Weisberger, E., Weisman, H.: A completeness theorem for a class of synchronization objects. In: Proc. of 12th PODC, pp. 159–170 (1993)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alistarh, D., Aspnes, J., Censor-Hillel, K., Gilbert, S., Zadimoghaddam, M.: Optimal-time adaptive strong renaming, with applications to counting. In: Proc. of 30th PODC, pp. 239–248 (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anderson, R.J., Woll, H.: Algorithms for the certified write-all problem. SIAM J. Comput. 26(5), 1277–1283 (1997)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Anderson, T.: The performance of spin lock alternatives for shared-money multiprocessors. IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst. 1(1), 6–16 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aspnes, J., Herlihy, M., Shavit, N.: Counting networks. J. of the ACM 41(5), 1020–1048 (1994)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Buss, J.F., Kanellakis, P.C., Ragde, P., Shvartsman, A.A.: Parallel algorithms with processor failures and delays. J. Algorithms 20(1), 45–86 (1996)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clements, A.T., Kaashoek, M.F., Zeldovich, N.: Scalable address spaces using RCU balanced trees. In: 17th ASPLOS, pp. 199–210 (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cormen, T.H., Leiserson, C.E., Rivest, R.L., Stein, C.: Introduction to Algorithms. MIT Press (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Freudenthal, E., Gottlieb, A.: Process coordination with fetch-and-increment. In: Proc. of ASPLOS-IV, pp. 260–268 (1991)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goodman, J., Vernon, M., Woest, P.: Efficent synchronization primitives for large-scale cache-coherent multiprocessors. In: Proc. of ASPLOS-III, pp. 64–75 (1989)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gottlieb, A., Lubachevsky, B., Rudolph, L.: Basic techniques for the efficient coordination of very large numbers of cooperating sequential processors. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 5(2), 164–189 (1983)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Herlihy, M.: Wait-free synchronization. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 13(1), 124–149 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Herlihy, M.: A methodology for implementing highly concurrent objects. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 15(5), 745–770 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Herlihy, M., Shavit, N., Waarts, O.: Linearizable counting networks. Distr. Comp. 9(4), 193–203 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jayanti, P.: A time complexity lower bound for randomized implementations of some shared objects. In: Proc. of 17th PODC, pp. 201–210 (1998)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jayanti, P., Tan, K., Toueg, S.: Time and space lower bounds for nonblocking implementations. SIAM J. Comput. 30(2), 438–456 (2000)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Faith Ellen
    • 1
  • Vijaya Ramachandran
    • 2
  • Philipp Woelfel
    • 3
  1. 1.University of TorontoCanada
  2. 2.University of Texas at AustinUSA
  3. 3.University of CalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations