Advertisement

Transactional Scheduling for Read-Dominated Workloads

  • Hagit Attiya
  • Alessia Milani
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5923)

Abstract

The transactional approach to contention management guarantees atomicity by aborting transactions that may violate consistency. A major challenge in this approach is to schedule transactions in a manner that reduces the total time to perform all transactions (the makespan), since transactions are often aborted and restarted. The performance of a transactional scheduler can be evaluated by the ratio between its makespan and the makespan of an optimal, clairvoyant scheduler that knows the list of resource accesses that will be performed by each transaction, as well as its release time and duration.

This paper studies transactional scheduling in the context of read-dominated workloads; these common workloads include read-only transactions, i.e., those that only observe data, and late-write transactions, i.e., those that update only towards the end of the transaction.

We present the Bimodal transactional scheduler, which is especially tailored to accommodate read-only transactions, without punishing transactions that write most of their duration, called early-write transactions. It is evaluated by comparison with an optimal clairvoyant scheduler; we prove that Bimodal achieves the best competitive ratio achievable by a non-clairvoyant schedule for workloads consisting of early-write and read-only transactions.

We also show that late-write transactions significantly deteriorate the competitive ratio of any non-clairvoyant scheduler, assuming it takes a conservative approach to conflicts.

Keywords

Data Item Competitive Ratio Transactional Memory Exclusive Access 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.
    Ansari, M., Lujn, M., Kotselidis, C., Jarvis, K., Kirkham, C.C., Watson, I.: Steal-on-abort: Improving transactional memory performance through dynamic transaction reordering. In: HiPEAC 2009, pp. 4–18 (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Attiya, H., Epstein, L., Shachnai, H., Tamir, T.: Transactional contention management as a non-clairvoyant scheduling problem. In: PODC 2006, pp. 308–315 (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dice, D., Shalev, O., Shavit, N.: Transactional locking ii. In: Dolev, S. (ed.) DISC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4167, pp. 194–208. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dolev, S., Hendler, D., Suissa, A.: CAR-STM: scheduling-based collision avoidance and resolution for software transactional memory. In: PODC 2008, pp. 125–134 (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dragojevic, A., Guerraoui, R., Kapalka, M.: Stretching transactional memory. In: PLDI, pp. 155–165 (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dragojevic, A., Guerraoui, R., Singh, A.V., Singh, V.: Preventing versus curing: Avoiding conflicts in transactional memories. In: PODC 2009, pp. 7–16 (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Garey, M.R., Graham, R.L.: Bound for multiprocessor scheduling with resource constraints. SIAM Journal Computing 4, 187–200 (1975)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guerraoui, R., Herlihy, M., Kapałka, M., Pochon, B.: Robust contention management in software transactional memory. In: OOPSLA 2005 Workshop on Synchronization and Concurrency in Object-Oriented Languages, SCOOL 2005 (October 2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guerraoui, R., Herlihy, M., Pochon, B.: Polymorphic contention management. In: Fraigniaud, P. (ed.) DISC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3724, pp. 303–323. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guerraoui, R., Herlihy, M., Pochon, B.: Toward a theory of transactional contention managers. In: PODC 2005, pp. 258–264 (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guerraoui, R., Kapalka, M.: On the correctness of transactional memory. In: PPoPP 2008, pp. 175–184 (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guerraoui, R., Kapalka, M., Vitek, J.: Stmbench7: a benchmark for software transactional memory. In: EuroSys 2007, pp. 315–324 (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Herlihy, M., Luchangco, V., Moir, M., Scherer III, W.N.: Software transactional memory for dynamic-sized data structures. In: PODC 2003, pp. 92–101 (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Maldonado, W., Marlier, P., Felber, P., Lawall, J., Muller, G.: Transaction activation: Scheduling support for transactional memory. Technical Report 6807, INRIA (January 2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Motwani, R., Phillips, S., Torng, E.: Non-clairvoyant scheduling. Theor. Comput. Sci. 130(1), 17–47 (1994)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Napper, J., Alvisi, L.: Lock-free serializable transactions. Technical Report TR-05-04, The University of Texas at Austin (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Papadimitriou, C.H.: The serializability of concurrent database updates. J. ACM 26(4), 631–653 (1979)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Perelman, D., Keidar, I.: On avoiding spare aborts in transactional memory. In: SPAA 2009, pp. 59–68 (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Scherer III, W.N., Scott, M.L.: Advanced contention management for dynamic software transactional memory. In: PODC 2005, pp. 240–248 (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yoo, R.M., Lee, H.-H.S.: Adaptive transaction scheduling for transactional memory systems. In: SPAA 2008, pp. 169–178 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hagit Attiya
    • 1
  • Alessia Milani
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceTechnionHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations