Advertisement

The Itinerant List Update Problem

  • Neil Olver
  • Kirk Pruhs
  • Kevin Schewior
  • René Sitters
  • Leen Stougie
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11312)

Abstract

We introduce the itinerant list update problem (ILU), which is a relaxation of the classic list update problem in which the pointer no longer has to return to a home location after each request. The motivation to introduce ILU arises from the fact that it naturally models the problem of track memory management in Domain Wall Memory. Both online and offline versions of ILU arise, depending on specifics of this application.

First, we show that ILU is essentially equivalent to a dynamic variation of the classical minimum linear arrangement problem (MLA), which we call DMLA. Both ILU and DMLA are very natural, but do not appear to have been studied before. In this work, we focus on the offline ILU and DMLA problems. We then give an \(O(\log ^2n)\)-approximation algorithm for these problems. While the approach is based on well-known divide-and-conquer approaches for the standard MLA problem, the dynamic nature of these problems introduces substantial new difficulties. We also show an \(\varOmega (\log n)\) lower bound on the competitive ratio for any randomized online algorithm for ILU. This shows that online ILU is harder than online LU, for which O(1)-competitive algorithms, like Move-To-Front, are known.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge Suzanne Den Hertog (née van der Ster) for many helpful discussions. Part of this work was done while several of the authors were participating in the Hausdorff Trimester on Discrete Mathematics in Fall 2015.

References

  1. 1.
    Albers, S., von Stengel, B., Werchner, R.: A combined BIT and TIMESTAMP algorithm for the list update problem. Inf. Process. Lett. 56(3), 135–139 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Albers, S., Westbrook, J.: Self-organizing data structures. In: Fiat, A., Woeginger, G.J. (eds.) Online Algorithms. LNCS, vol. 1442, pp. 13–51. Springer, Heidelberg (1998).  https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0029563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ambühl, C.: Offline list update is NP-hard. In: Paterson, M.S. (ed.) ESA 2000. LNCS, vol. 1879, pp. 42–51. Springer, Heidelberg (2000).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45253-2_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ambühl, C.: SIGACT news online algorithms column 31. SIGACT News 48(3), 68–82 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Arora, S., Rao, S., Vazirani, U.V.: Expander flows, geometric embeddings and graph partitioning. J. ACM 56(2), 5:1–5:37 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Avissar, O., Rajeev, R.B., Stewart, D.: An optimal memory allocation scheme for scratch-pad-based embedded systems. ACM Trans. Embed. Comput. Syst. 1(1), 6–26 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Banakar, R., Steinke, S., Lee, B.S., Balakrishnan, M., Marwedel, P.: Scratchpad memory: design alternative for cache on-chip memory in embedded systems. In: Symposium on Hardware/Software Codesign, pp. 73–78. ACM, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Borodin, A., El-Yaniv, R.: On randomization in online computation. In: IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC), pp. 226–238 (1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Feige, U., Lee, J.R.: An improved approximation ratio for the minimum linear arrangement problem. Inf. Process. Lett. 101(1), 26–29 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gu, S., Sha, E., Zhuge, Q., Chen, Y., Hu, J.: Area and performance co-optimization for domain wall memory in application-specific embedded systems. In: Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Design Automation Conference, pp. 20:1–20:6. ACM, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hansen, M.D.: Approximation algorithms for geometric embeddings in the plane with applications to parallel processing problems. In: IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pp. 604–609 (1989)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kamali, S., López-Ortiz, A.: A survey of algorithms and models for list update. In: Brodnik, A., López-Ortiz, A., Raman, V., Viola, A. (eds.) Space-Efficient Data Structures, Streams, and Algorithms. LNCS, vol. 8066, pp. 251–266. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40273-9_17CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kandemir, M., Ramanujam, J., Choudhary, A.: Exploiting shared scratch pad memory space in embedded multiprocessor systems. In: Design Automation Conference, pp. 219–224 (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kandemir, M., Ramanujam, J., Irwin, J., Vijaykrishnan, N., Kadayif, I., Parikh, A.: Dynamic management of scratch-pad memory space. In: Proceedings of the 38th Annual Design Automation Conference, pp. 690–695 (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Leighton, F.T., Rao, S.: Multicommodity max-flow min-cut theorems and their use in designing approximation algorithms. J. ACM 46(6), 787–832 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Panda, P.R., Dutt, N.D., Nicolau, A.: Efficient utilization of scratch-pad memory in embedded processor applications. In: European Design and Test Conference (1997)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rao, S., Richa, A.W.: New approximation techniques for some linear ordering problems. SIAM J. Comput. 34(2), 388–404 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reingold, N., Westbrook, J.: Off-line algorithms for the list update problem. Inf. Process. Lett. 60(2), 75–80 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sleator, D., Tarjan, R.E.: Amortized efficiency of list update and paging rules. CACM 28(2), 202–208 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Teia, B.: A lower bound for randomized list update algorithms. Inf. Process. Lett. 47, 5–9 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Williamson, D.P., Shmoys, D.B.: The Design of Approximation Algorithms. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Neil Olver
    • 1
    • 2
  • Kirk Pruhs
    • 3
  • Kevin Schewior
    • 4
    • 5
  • René Sitters
    • 1
    • 2
  • Leen Stougie
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Econometrics and Operations ResearchVrije Universiteit AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.CWIAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  4. 4.Institut für InformatikTechnische Universität MünchenMunichGermany
  5. 5.Département d’Informatique, École Normale Supérieure ParisPSL UniversityParisFrance
  6. 6.CWI & INRIA-ErableAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations