Advertisement

Leaders election without conflict resolution rule

Fast and efficient randomized simulations among CRCW PRAMs
  • Joseph Gil
  • Yossi Matias
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 583)

Abstract

We study the problem of fast leaders election on Tolerant, a CRCW PRAM model which tolerates concurrent write but does not support symmetry breaking. The leaders election problem is related to the problem of simulating stronger CRCW models, which support leaders election by pre-defined conflict resolution rules. We give a randomized simulation of Maximum-a very strong CRCW PRAM-on Tolerant. The simulation is optimal, reliable, and runs in nearly doubly logarithmic time and linear space. This is the first simulation which is fast, optimal and space-efficient, and therefore grants true comparison of algorithms running on different CRCW PRAMs. Moreover, it implies that the memory to which concurrent read or concurrent write are assumed should never be more than linear-the rest of the memory can always be addressed under the EREW convention. The techniques presented in this paper tackle fundamental difficulties in the design of fast parallel algorithms.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    P. Beame and J. Håstad. Optimal bounds for decision problems on the CRCW PRAM. In STOC '87, pages 83–93, 1987.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    O. Berkman, D. Breslauer, Z. Galil, B. Schieber, and U. Vishkin. Highly parallelizable problems. In STOC '89, pages 309–319, 1989.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    O. Berkman and U. Vishkin. Recursive *-tree parallel data-structure. In FOCS '89, pages 196–202, 1989.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. C. Bhatt, K. Diks, T. Hagerup, V. C. Prasad, T. Radzik, and S. Saxena. Improved de-terministic parallel integer sorting. Technical Report 15/1989, Fachbereich 14, Universität des Saarlandes, Nov. 1989.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. B. Boppana. Optimal separations between concurrent-write parallel machines. In STOC '89, pages 320–326, 1989.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    B. S. Chlebus, K. Diks, T. Hagerup, and T. Radzik. Efficient simulations between concurrent-read concurrent-write PRAM models. In MFCS '88, pages 231–239, 1988.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    B. S. Chlebus, K. Diks, T. Hagerup, and T. Radzik. New simulations between CRCW PRAMs. In FCT '89, pages 95–104, 1989.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. A. Cook, C. Dwork, and R. Reischuk. Upper and lower time bounds for parallel random access machines without simultaneous writes. SIAM J, Comput., 15:87–97, 1986.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Dietzfelbinger, J. Gil, Y. Matias, and N. Pippenger. Polynomial hash functions are reliable. Submitted for publication, Nov. 1991.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    F. E. Fich, P. L. Ragde, and A. Wigderson. Relations between concurrent-write models of parallel computation. SIAM J. Comput., 17:606–627, June 1988.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    F. E. Fich, P. L. Ragde, and A. Wigderson. Simulations among concurrent-write PRAMs. Algorithmica, 3:43–51, 1988.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. L. Fredman, J. Komlós, and E. Szemerédi. Storing a sparse table with O(1) worst case access time. J. ACM, 31(3):538–544, July 1984.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Gil. Fast load balancing on PRAM, Manuscript, November 1990. Also in the Third IEEE Symposium on Parallel and Distributed Processing (SPDP '91).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. Gil. Lower Bounds and Algorithms for Hashing and Parallel Processing. PhD thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Givat Ram 91904, Jerusalem, Israel, Nov. 1990.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. Gil and Y. Matias. Fast and efficient simulations among CRCW models. Manuscript, 1990.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. Gil and Y. Matias. Fast hashing on a PRAM-designing by expectation. In SODA '91, pages 271–280, Jan. 1991.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J. Gil and Y. Matias. Leaders election without a conflict resolution rule-fast and efficient randomized simulations among CRCW PRAMs. Technical Report 91–147, Inst. for Adv. Comp. Sc., Univ. of Maryland, 1991. Submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. Gil and Y. Matias. Polynomial hash functions are reliable. Manuscript, Aug. 1991.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. Gil, Y. Matias, and U. Vishkin. Towards a theory of nearly constant time parallel algorithms. In FOCS '91, pages 698–710, Oct. 1991. (Revised version).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    J. Gil and L. Rudolph. Counting and packing in parallel. In ICPP '86, pages 1000–1002, 1986.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    V. Grolmusz and P. L. Ragde. Incomparability in parallel computation. In FOCS '87, pages 89–98, 1987.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    V. Grolmusz and P. L. Ragde. Incomparability in parallel computation. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 29:63–78, 1990.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    T. Hagerup and T. Radzik. Every robust CRCW PRAM can efficiently simulate a Priority PRAM. In SPAA '90, pages 117–124, 1990.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    C. P. Kruskal. Searching, merging, and sorting in parallel computation. IEEE Trans. on Comp, C-32:942–946, 1983.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    L. Kučera. Parallel computation and conflicts in memory access. Inf. Process. Lett., 14:93–96, 1982.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    P. D. MacKenzie and Q. F. Stout. Ultra-fast expected time parallel algorithms. In SODA '91, pages 414–423, 1991.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Y. Matias and U. Vishkin. On parallel hashing and integer sorting. In ICALP '90, pages 729–743, 1990.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Y. Matias and U. Vishkin. Converting high probability into nearly-constant time-with applications to parallel hashing. In STOC '91, pages 307–316, 1991. Also in UMIACS-TR-91–65, Inst. for Adv. Comp. Studies, Univ. of Maryland, April 1991.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Y. Matias and U. Vishkin. On parallel hashing and integer sorting. J. of Alg., 12(4):573–606, 1991.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    P. L. Ragde. The parallel simplicity of compaction and chaining. In ICALP '90, pages 744–751, 1990.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    P. L. Ragde, W. L. Steiger, E. Szemerédi, and A. Wigderson. The parallel complexity of element distinctness is Ω(√lg n). SIAM J. Disc. Math., 1(3):399–410, Aug. 1988.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    R. Reischuk. Probabilistic parallel algorithms for sorting and selection. SIAM J. Comput., 14(2):396–409, May 1985.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Y. Shiloach and U. Vishkin. Finding the maximum, merging, and sorting in a parallel computation model. J. of Alg., 2:88–102, 1981.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    L. G. Valiant. Parallelism in comparison problems. SIAM J. Comput., 4:348–355, 1975.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph Gil
    • 1
  • Yossi Matias
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceThe University of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Institute for Advanced Computer StudiesUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceTel Aviv UniversityIsrael

Personalised recommendations