Analyzing the Performance of Lock-Free Data Structures: A Conflict-Based Model

  • Aras Atalar
  • Paul Renaud-Goud
  • Philippas Tsigas
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9363)


This paper considers the modeling and the analysis of the performance of lock-free concurrent data structures that can be represented as linear combinations of fixed size retry loops.

Our main contribution is a new way of modeling and analyzing a general class of lock-free algorithms, achieving predictions of throughput that are close to what we observe in practice. We emphasize two kinds of conflicts that shape the performance: (i) hardware conflicts, due to concurrent calls to atomic primitives; (ii) logical conflicts, caused by concurrent operations on the shared data structure.

We propose also a common framework that enables a fair comparison between lock-free implementations by covering the whole contention domain, and comes with a method for calculating a good back-off strategy.

Our experimental results, based on a set of widely used concurrent data structures and on abstract lock-free designs, show that our analysis follows closely the actual code behavior.


Cache Line Parallel Section Critical Work Parallel Work Concurrent 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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alemany, J., Felten, E.W.: Performance issues in non-blocking synchronization on shared-memory multiprocessors. In: Hutchinson, N.C. (ed.) Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PoDC), pp. 125–134. ACM (1992)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alistarh, D., Censor-Hillel, K., Shavit, N.: Are lock-free concurrent algorithms practically wait-free? In: Shmoys, D.B. (ed.) Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pp. 714–723. ACM, June 2014Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anderson, J.H., Ramamurthy, S., Jeffay, K.: Real-time computing with lock-free shared objects. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems (TOCS) 15(2), 134–165 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Atalar, A., Renaud-Goud, P.: Numerical simulation code. prenaud/disc15/
  5. 5.
    Atalar, A., Renaud-Goud, P., Tsigas, P.: Analyzing the performance of lock-free data structures: A conflict-based model. Tech. Rep. 2014:15, Chalmers University of Technology, January 2015.
  6. 6.
    David, T., Guerraoui, R., Trigonakis, V.: Everything you always wanted to know about synchronization but were afraid to ask. In: Kaminsky, M., Dahlin, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (SOSP), pp. 33–48. ACM, November 2013Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dice, D., Lev, Y., Moir, M.: Scalable statistics counters. In: Blelloch, G.E., Vöcking, B. (eds.) Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures (SPAA), pp. 43–52. ACM, July 2013Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dragicevic, K., Bauer, D.: A survey of concurrent priority queue algorithms. In: Proceedings of the International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS), pp. 1–6, April 2008Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goodman, J.R., Hum, H.H.J.: Mesif: A two-hop cache coherency protocol for point-to-point interconnects. Tech. rep., University of Auckland, November 2009.
  10. 10.
    Hendler, D., Shavit, N., Yerushalmi, L.: A scalable lock-free stack algorithm. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing (JPDC) 70(1), 1–12 (2010)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Intel: Lock scaling analysis on Intel\(^{\textregistered }\) Xeon\(^{\textregistered }\) processors. Tech. Rep. 328878–001, Intel, April 2013Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kogan, A., Herlihy, M.: The future(s) of shared data structures. In: Halldórsson, M.M., Dolev, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PoDC), pp. 30–39. ACM, July 2014Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lindén, J., Jonsson, B.: A skiplist-based concurrent priority queue with minimal memory contention. In: Baldoni, R., Nisse, N., van Steen, M. (eds.) OPODIS 2013. LNCS, vol. 8304, pp. 206–220. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Michael, M.M., Scott, M.L.: Simple, fast, and practical non-blocking and blocking concurrent queue algorithms. In: Burns, J.E., Moses, Y. (eds.) Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PoDC), pp. 267–275. ACM, May 1996Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shavit, N., Lotan, I.: Skiplist-based concurrent priority queues. In: Proceedings of the International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS), pp. 263–268, May 2000Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Treiber, R.K.: Systems programming: Coping with parallelism. Thomas J. Watson Research Center, International Business Machines Incorporated (1986)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Valois, J.D.: Implementing lock-free queues. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems (ICPADS), pp. 64–69, December 1994Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aras Atalar
    • 1
  • Paul Renaud-Goud
    • 1
  • Philippas Tsigas
    • 1
  1. 1.Chalmers University of TechnologyGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations