Abstract
Transactional memory (TM) allows concurrent processes to organize sequences of operations on shared data items into atomic transactions. A transaction may commit, in which case it appears to have executed sequentially or it may abort, in which case no data item is updated.
The TM programming paradigm emerged as an alternative to conventional fine-grained locking techniques, offering ease of programming and compositionality. Though typically themselves implemented using locks, TMs hide the inherent issues of lock-based synchronization behind a nice transactional programming interface.
In this paper, we explore inherent time and space complexity of lock-based TMs, with a focus of the most popular class of progressive lock-based TMs. We derive that a progressive TM might enforce a read-only transaction to perform a quadratic (in the number of the data items it reads) number of steps and access a linear number of distinct memory locations, closing the question of inherent cost of read validation in TMs. We then show that the total number of remote memory references (RMRs) that take place in an execution of a progressive TM in which n concurrent processes perform transactions on a single data item might reach \(\varOmega (n \log n)\), which appears to be the first RMR complexity lower bound for transactional memory.
Petr Kuznetsov—The author is supported by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche, ANR-14-CE35-0010-01, project DISCMAT.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Alistarh, D., Aspnes, J., Gilbert, S., Guerraoui, R.: The complexity of renaming. In: IEEE 52nd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2011, 22–25 October, 2011, pp. 718–727, Palm Springs, CA, USA (2011)
Anderson, T.E.: The performance of spin lock alternatives for shared-memory multiprocessors. IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst. 1(1), 6–16 (1990)
Attiya, H., Hendler, D., Woelfel, P.: Tight RMR lower bounds for mutual exclusion and other problems. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-seventh ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, PODC 2008, pp. 447–447, New York, NY, USA. ACM (2008)
Attiya, H., Hillel, E.: The cost of privatization in software transactional memory. IEEE Trans. Comput. 62(12), 2531–2543 (2013)
Attiya, H., Hillel, E., Milani, A.: Inherent limitations on disjoint-access parallel implementations of transactional memory. Theory Comput. Syst. 49(4), 698–719 (2011)
Dalessandro, L., Spear, M.F., Scott, M.L.: Norec: streamlining STM by abolishing ownership records. SIGPLAN Not. 45(5), 67–78 (2010)
Dice, D., Shalev, O., Shavit, N.N.: Transactional locking II. In: Dolev, S. (ed.) DISC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4167, pp. 194–208. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Dice, D., Shavit, N.: What really makes transactions fast? In: Transact (2006)
Dice, D., Shavit, N.: TLRW: return of the read-write lock. In: SPAA, pp. 284–293 (2010)
Ellen, F., Hendler, D., Shavit, N.: On the inherent sequentiality of concurrent objects. SIAM J. Comput. 41(3), 519–536 (2012)
Fraser, K.: Practical lock-freedom. Technical report, Cambridge University Computer Laborotory (2003)
Guerraoui, R., Kapalka, M.: The semantics of progress in lock-based transactional memory. SIGPLAN Not. 44(1), 404–415 (2009)
Guerraoui, R., Kapalka, M.: Principles of Transactional Memory. Synthesis Lectures on Distributed Computing Theory. Morgan and Claypool, San Rafael (2010)
Herlihy, M., Luchangco, V., Moir, M., Scherer III, W.N.: Software transactional memory for dynamic-sized data structures. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, PODC 2003, pp. 92–101, New York, NY, USA. ACM (2003)
Hyonho, L.: Local-spin mutual exclusion algorithms on the DSM model using fetch-and-store objects (2003). http://www.cs.toronto.edu/pub/hlee/thesis.ps
Israeli, A., Rappoport, L.: Disjoint-access-parallel implementations of strong shared memory primitives. In: PODC, pp. 151–160 (1994)
Kuznetsov, P., Ravi, S.: On the cost of concurrency in transactional memory. In: Fernàndez Anta, A., Lipari, G., Roy, M. (eds.) OPODIS 2011. LNCS, vol. 7109, pp. 112–127. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
Kuznetsov, P., Ravi, S.: On partial wait-freedom in transactional memory. In: Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Distributed Computing and Networking, ICDCN 2015, Goa, India, p. 10, 4–7 Jan 2015
Papadimitriou, C.H.: The serializability of concurrent database updates. J. ACM 26, 631–653 (1979)
Perelman, D., Fan, R., Keidar, I.: On maintaining multiple versions in STM. In: PODC, pp. 16–25 (2010)
Tabba, F., Moir, M., Goodman, J.R., Hay, A.W., Wang, C.: Nztm: nonblocking zero-indirection transactional memory. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-first Annual Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures, SPAA 2009, pp. 204–213, New York, NY, USA. ACM (2009)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Kuznetsov, P., Ravi, S. (2015). Progressive Transactional Memory in Time and Space. In: Malyshkin, V. (eds) Parallel Computing Technologies. PaCT 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9251. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21909-7_40
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21909-7_40
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-21908-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-21909-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)