On the power of multi-objects

  • Prasad Jayanti
  • Sanjay Khanna
Contributed Papers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1320)


In the standard “single-object” model of shared-memory computing, it is assumed that a process accesses at most one shared object in each of its steps. A (more powerful) variant is the “multi-object” model in which each process may access an arbitrary finite number of shared objects simultaneously in each atomic step. In this paper, we present results that relate the synchronization power of a type in the multi-object model to its synchronization power in the single-object model. Afek, Merritt, and Taubenfeld considered the case where one could access up to a given number of objects simultaneously as well as the case where one could access any finite number of objects simultaneously in a single atomic step. We consider only the case where one may access an arbitrary finite number of objects simultaneously.

Although the types fetch&add and swap have the same synchronization power in the single-object model, Afek, Merritt, and Taubenfeld showed that their synchronization powers differ in the multi-object model [AMT96]. We prove that this divergence phenomenon is exhibited only by types at levels 1 and 2; all higher level types have the same unbounded synchronization power in the multi-object model.

This paper identifies all possible relationships between a type's synchronization power in the single-object model and its synchronization power in the multi-object model, where as many objects of one type as required may be accessed in a single atomic step.


shared objects multi-objects waitfree implementation object hierarchy 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [AAD+93]
    Y. Afek, H. Attiya, D. Dolev, E. Gafni, M. Merritt, and N. Shavit. Atomic snapshots of shared memory. Journal of the ACM, 40(4):873–890, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [AMT96]
    Y. Afek, M. Merritt, and G. Taubenfeld. The power of multi-objects. In Proceedings of the 15th Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, May 1996.Google Scholar
  3. [And93]
    J. Anderson. Composite registers. Distributed Computing, 6(3):141–154, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [CIL94]
    B. Chor, A. Israeli, and M. Li. Wait-free consensus using asynchronous hardware. SIAM Journal on Computing, 23(4):701–712, August 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [DDS87]
    D. Dolev, C. Dwork, and L. Stockmeyer. On the minimal synchronism needed for distributed consensus. Journal of the ACM, 34(1):77–97, January 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [FLP85]
    M. Fischer, N. Lynch, and M. Paterson. Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process. JACM, 32(2):374–382, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [HW90]
    M.P. Herlihy and J.M. Wing. Linearizability: A Correctnes Condition for Concurrent Objects. ACM TOPLAS, 12(3):463–492, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [Her91]
    M.P. Herlihy. Wait-free synchronization. ACM TOPLAS, 13(1):124–149, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [LA87]
    M.C. Loui and H.H. Abu-Amara. Memory requirements for agreement among unreliable asynchronous processes. Advances in computing research, 4:163–183, 1987.Google Scholar
  10. [MT94]
    M. Merritt and G. Taubenfeld. Atomic m-register operations. Distributed Computing, 7:213–221, 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Prasad Jayanti
    • 1
  • Sanjay Khanna
    • 1
  1. 1.6211 Sudikof LaboratoryDartmouth CollegeHanoverUSA

Personalised recommendations