Advertisement

Abstract

Transactional events are a recent concurrency abstraction that combines first-class synchronous message-passing events with all-or-nothing transactions. While prior work gave a semantics and an implementation for transactional events, it provided no guarantees about which of the many non-deterministic executions might be exhibited by a program.

For concurrent systems, like transactional events, it is natural to expect certain fairness conditions to hold on executions. Intuitively, fairness guarantees that any system component that could (sufficiently often) make progress does, in fact, make progress. In this work, we investigate fairness for transactional events. We give a rigorous definition of fair program executions in transactional events, describe a refined operational semantics that guarantees fair executions, and discuss restrictions and assumptions necessary for the correctness of an implementation based on the refined semantics.

Keywords

Operational Semantic Sequential Evaluation Event Synchronization Program Trace Software Transactional Memory 
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.
    Amsden, E., Fluet, M.: Fainess for transactional events. Tech. rep., Rochester Institute of Technology (March 2012), https://ritdml.rit.edu/handle/1850/14852
  2. 2.
    Costa, G., Stirling, C.: Weak and strong fairness in CCS. Information and Computation 73(3), 207–244 (1987)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Donnelly, K., Fluet, M.: Transactional events. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Functional Programming (ICFP 2006), pp. 124–135. ACM Press (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Donnelly, K., Fluet, M.: Transactional events. The Journal of Functional Programming 18(5-6), 649–706 (2008)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Francez, N.: Fairness. Texts and Monographs in Computer Science. Springer, New York (1986)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harris, T., Marlow, S., Peyton Jones, S., Herlihy, M.: Composable memory transactions. In: Proceedings of the Tenth ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles and Practice of Parallel Programming (PPoPP 2005), pp. 48–60. ACM Press (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Herlihy, M., Luchangco, V., Moir, M., Scherer III, W.N.: Software transactional memory for dynamic-sized data structures. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC 2003), pp. 92–101. ACM Press (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kwiatkowska, M.: Survey of fairness notions. Information and Software Technology 31(7), 371–386 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Reppy, J.: Concurrent Programming in ML. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Scherer III, W.N., Scott, M.L.: Advanced contention management for dynamic software transactional memory. In: Proceedings of the 24th Annual Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC 2005), pp. 240–248. ACM Press (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shavit, N., Touitou, D.: Software transactional memory. Distributed Computing 10(2), 99–116 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Spear, M.F., Dalessandro, L., Marathe, V.J., Scott, M.L.: A comprehensive strategy for contention management in software transactional memory. In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles and Practice of Parallel Programming (PPoPP 2005), pp. 141–150. ACM Press (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edward Amsden
    • 1
  • Matthew Fluet
    • 1
  1. 1.Rochester Institute of TechnologyRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations