Advertisement

Anomalies in the wait-free hierarchy

  • Ophir Rachman
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 857)

Abstract

We consider the hierarchy of wait-free shared objects, and show that this hierarchy does not express the computational power of shared objects. We prove that there are objects that are classified high in the hierarchy, yet, they can not implement objects that are classified much lower in the hierarchy. Our main result is: for any two levels k1k2 in the hierarchy, there are shared objects X1 and X2 that belong to k1 and k2, respectively, such that X1 can not implement X2. (We allow the specifications of the shared objects to be non deterministic.) This result implies not only that the current definition of the wait-free hierarchy does not express the computational power of shared objects, but also that there is no other hierarchy that does.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Y. Afek and G. Stupp, “Synchronization Power Depends on the Register Size,” the 34th Annual IEEE Conference on Foundations of Computer Science, November 1993.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Y. Afek, E. Weisberger and H. Weisman, “A Completeness Theorem for a Class of Synchronization Objects,” the 12th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, August 1993, pp. 159–170.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. Aspnes and M. P. Herlihy, “Wait-Free Data Structures in the Asynchronous PRAM Model,” proceedings of the 2nd Annual Symposium on Parallel Algorithms and Architectures, 1990, pp. 340–349.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    H. Attiya, N. A. Lynch and N. Shavit, “Are wait-free algorithms fast?” proceedings of the 31st IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science 1990, pp. 55–64.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. Borowsky, E. Gafni, “Generalized FLP Impossibility Result for t-resilient Asynchronous Computations,” Proceedings of the 25th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 1993.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    E. Borowsky, E. Gafni, Y. Afek “Consensus Power Makes (Some) Sense!,” to appear in the proceedings of the 13th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, 1994.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. Chaudhuri, “Agreement is Harder Than Consensus: Set Consensus Problems in Totally Asynchronous Systems,” proceedings of the 9th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, August 1990, pp. 311–324.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    B. Chor, A. Israeli, and M. Li, On processor coordination using asynchronous hardware, Proc. of the 6th ACM Symp. on Principles of Distributed Computing, August 1987, pp. 86–97.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. Cory, S. Moran, “Exotic Behavior of Consensus Numbers,” to appear in the proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Distributed Algorithms, 1994.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Fischer, N. A. Lynch and M. S. Peterson, Impossibility of distributed commit with one faulty process, Journal of ACM, 32(2), April 1985, pp. 374–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. P. Herlihy, “Wait-free synchronization,” ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Jan. 1991), pp. 124–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. P. Herlihy and N. Shavit, “The Asynchronous Computability Theorem for t-resilient Tasks,” Proceedings of the 25th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 1993.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    P. Jayanti, “On the Robustness of Herlihy's Hierarchy,” Proc. of the 12th ACM Symp. on Principles of Distributed Computing, August 1993, pp. 145–158.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. M. Kleinberg and S. Mullainathan, “Resource Bounds and Combinations of Consensus Objects,” Proc. of the 12th ACM Symp. on Principles of Distributed Computing, August 1993, pp. 133–144.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    G. Neiger, “Set-Linearizability and Obliviousness: Foundations of the Study of Asynchronous Computability,” to appear in the proceedings of the 13th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, 1994.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    G. L. Peterson, R. A. Bazzi, G. Neiger, “A Gap Theorem for Consensus Types,” to appear in the proceedings of the 13th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, 1994.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. Saks, F. Zaharoglou, “Wait-Free k-set Agreement is Impossible: The Topology of Public Knowledge,” Proceedings of the 25th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 1993.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ophir Rachman
    • 1
  1. 1.The TechnionHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations