Efficiency Optimizations for Implementations of Deadlock Immunity

  • Horatiu Jula
  • Silviu Andrica
  • George Candea
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7186)

Abstract

Deadlock immunity is a property by which programs, once afflicted by a deadlock, develop resistance against future occurrences of that deadlock. Our deadlock immunity system, called Dimmunix, provides transparent immunization against deadlocks involving mutex locks.

In this paper, we focus on efficiently protecting systems against deadlocks regardless of the rate of synchronization operations performed. We describe five optimizations that reduce the runtime overhead imposed by Dimmunix on the host system: (1) offline deadlock detection and signature extraction, which avoids runtime tracking of lock-to-thread allocations; (2) selective program instrumentation, whereby only vulnerable synchronization statements are monitored; (3) inline matching of deadlock signatures, which avoids expensive call stack retrieval; (4) false positive reduction, which avoids unnecessary thread serialization; and (5) safe early resumption of threads, allowing suspended threads to resume their execution more quickly than in the original Dimmunix. Our optimizations enable Dimmunix to achieve a reduction of 2.8x-5.2x in the runtime overhead it introduces for real-world systems like Eclipse, Vuze, and MySQL JDBC.

Keywords

Runtime Overhead Deadlock Prevention Deadlock Detection Deadlock Avoidance Program Position 
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.
    Boronat, P., Cholvi, V.: A transformation to provide deadlock-free programs. In: Intl. Conf. on Computational Science (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fonseca, P., Li, C., Singhal, V., Rodrigues, R.: A study of the internal and external effects of concurrency bugs. In: Intl. Conf. on Dependable Systems and Networks (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jula, H., Tralamazza, D., Zamfir, C., Candea, G.: Deadlock immunity: Enabling systems to defend against deadlocks. In: Symp. on Operating Sys. Design and Implem. (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lu, S., Park, S., Seo, E., Zhou, Y.: Learning from mistakes – a comprehensive study on real world concurrency bug characteristics. In: Intl. Conf. on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nir-Buchbinder, Y., Tzoref, R., Ur, S.: Deadlocks: From Exhibiting to Healing. In: Leucker, M. (ed.) RV 2008. LNCS, vol. 5289, pp. 104–118. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pyla, H.K., Varadarajan, S.: Avoiding deadlock avoidance. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Parallel Architectures and Compilation Techniques, PACT (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Song, X., Chen, H., Zang, B.: Why software hangs and what can be done with it. In: Intl. Conf. on Dependable Systems and Networks (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wang, Y., Kelly, T., Kudlur, M., Lafortune, S., Mahlke, S.A.: Gadara: Dynamic deadlock avoidance for multithreaded programs. In: Symp. on Operating Sys. Design and Implem. (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zeng, F.: Pattern-driven deadlock avoidance. In: Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Systems: Testing, Analysis, and Debugging, PADTAD (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zeng, F., Martin, R.P.: Ghost locks: Deadlock prevention for Java. In: Mid-Atlantic Student Workshop on Programming Languages and Systems (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Horatiu Jula
    • 1
  • Silviu Andrica
    • 1
  • George Candea
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer and Communication ScienceÉcole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL)Switzerland

Personalised recommendations