07361 Abstracts Collection -- Programming Models for Ubiquitous Parallelism

From 02.09. to 07.09.2007, the Dagstuhl Seminar 07361 ``Programming Models for Ubiquitous Parallelism\u27\u27 was held in the International Conference and Research Center (IBFI), Schloss Dagstuhl. During the seminar, several participants presented their current research, and ongoing work and open problems were discussed. Abstracts of the presentations given during the seminar as well as abstracts of seminar results and ideas are put together in this paper. The first section describes the seminar topics and goals in general. Links to extended abstracts or full papers are provided, if available

Unrestricted Transactional Memory: Supporting I/O and System Calls Within Transactions

Hardware transactional memory has great potential to simplify the creation of correct and efficient multithreaded programs, enabling programmers to exploit the soon-to-be-ubiquitous multi-core designs. Transactions are simply segments of code that are guaranteed to execute without interference from other concurrently-executing threads. The hardware executes transactions in parallel, ensuring non-interference via abort/rollback/restart when conflicts are detected. Transactions thus provide both a simple programming interface and a highly-concurrent implementation that serializes only on data conflicts. A progression of recent work has broadened the utility of transactional memory by lifting the bound on the size and duration of transactions, called unbounded transactions. Nevertheless, two key challenges remain: (i) I/O and system calls cannot appear in transactions and (ii) existing unbounded transactional memory proposals require complex implementations. We describe a system for fully unrestricted transactions (i.e., they can contain I/O and system calls in addition to being unbounded in size and duration). We achieve this via two modes of transaction execution: restricted (which limits transaction size, duration, and content but is highly concurrent) and unrestricted (which is unbounded and can contain I/O and system calls but has limited concurrency because there can be only one unrestricted transaction executing at a time). Transactions transition to unrestricted mode only when necessary. We introduce unoptimized and optimized implementations in order to balance performance and design complexity

Hardware transactional memory with software-defined conflicts

In this paper we propose conflict-defined blocks, a programming language construct that allows programmers to change the concept of conflict from one transaction to another, or even throughout the course of the same transaction. Defining conflicts in software makes possible the removal of dependencies which, though not necessary for the correct execution of the transactions, arise as a result of the coarse synchronization style encouraged by TM. Programmers take advantage of their knowledge about the problem and specify through confict-defined blocks what types of dependencies are superfluous in a certain part of the transaction, in order to extract more performance out of coarse-grained transactions without having to write minimally synchronized code. Our experiments with several transactional benchmarks reveal that using software-defined conflicts, the programmer achieves significant reductions in the number of aborted transactions and improve scalability.Peer ReviewedPostprint (author's final draft

Subtleties of Transactional Memory Atomicity Semantics

Transactional memory has great potential for simplifying multithreaded programming by allowing programmers to specify regions of the program that must appear to execute atomically. Transactional memory implementations then optimistically execute these transactions concurrently to obtain high performance. This work shows that the same atomic guarantees that give transactions their power also have unexpected and potentially serious negative effects on programs that were written assuming narrower scopes of atomicity. We make four contributions: (1) we show that a direct translation of lock-based critical sections into transactions can introduce deadlock into otherwise correct programs, (2) we introduce the terms strong atomicity and weak atomicity to describe the interaction of transactional and non-transactional code, (3) we show that code that is correct under weak atomicity can deadlock under strong atomicity, and (4) we demonstrate that sequentially composing transactional code can also introduce deadlocks. These observations invalidate the intuition that transactions are strictly safer than lock-based critical sections, that strong atomicity is strictly safer than weak atomicity, and that transactions are always composable

Towards lightweight and high-performance hardware transactional memory

Conventional lock-based synchronization serializes accesses to critical sections guarded by the same lock. Using multiple locks brings the possibility of a deadlock or a livelock in the program, making parallel programming a difficult task. Transactional Memory (TM) is a promising paradigm for parallel programming, offering an alternative to lock-based synchronization. TM eliminates the risk of deadlocks and livelocks, while it provides the desirable semantics of Atomicity, Consistency, and Isolation of critical sections. TM speculatively executes a series of memory accesses as a single, atomic, transaction. The speculative changes of a transaction are kept private until the transaction commits. If a transaction can break the atomicity or cause a deadlock or livelock, the TM system aborts the transaction and rolls back the speculative changes. To be effective, a TM implementation should provide high performance and scalability. While implementations of TM in pure software (STM) do not provide desirable performance, Hardware TM (HTM) implementations introduce much smaller overhead and have relatively good scalability, due to their better control of hardware resources. However, many HTM systems support only the transactions that fit limited hardware resources (for example, private caches), and fall back to software mechanisms if hardware limits are reached. These HTM systems, called best-effort HTMs, are not desirable since they force a programmer to think in terms of hardware limits, to use both HTM and STM, and to manage concurrent transactions in HTM and STM. In contrast with best-effort HTMs, unbounded HTM systems support overflowed transactions, that do not fit into private caches. Unbounded HTM systems often require complex protocols or expensive hardware mechanisms for conflict detection between overflowed transactions. In addition, an execution with overflowed transactions is often much slower than an execution that has only regular transactions. This is typically due to restrictive or approximative conflict management mechanism used for overflowed transactions. In this thesis, we study hardware implementations of transactional memory, and make three main contributions. First, we improve the general performance of HTM systems by proposing a scalable protocol for conflict management. The protocol has precise conflict detection, in contrast with often-employed inexact Bloom-filter-based conflict detection, which often falsely report conflicts between transactions. Second, we propose a best-effort HTM that utilizes the new scalable conflict detection protocol, termed EazyHTM. EazyHTM allows parallel commits for all non-conflicting transactions, and generally simplifies transaction commits. Finally, we propose an unbounded HTM that extends and improves the initial protocol for conflict management, and we name it EcoTM. EcoTM features precise conflict detection, and it efficiently supports large as well as small and short transactions. The key idea of EcoTM is to leverage an observation that very few locations are actually conflicting, even if applications have high contention. In EcoTM, each core locally detects if a cache line is non-conflicting, and conflict detection mechanism is invoked only for the few potentially conflicting cache lines.La Sincronización tradicional basada en los cerrojos de exclusión mutua (locks) serializa los accesos a las secciones críticas protegidas este cerrojo. La utilización de varios cerrojos en forma concurrente y/o paralela aumenta la posibilidad de entrar en abrazo mortal (deadlock) o en un bloqueo activo (livelock) en el programa, está es una de las razones por lo cual programar en forma paralela resulta ser mucho mas dificultoso que programar en forma secuencial. La memoria transaccional (TM) es un paradigma prometedor para la programación paralela, que ofrece una alternativa a los cerrojos. La memoria transaccional tiene muchas ventajas desde el punto de vista tanto práctico como teórico. TM elimina el riesgo de bloqueo mutuo y de bloqueo activo, mientras que proporciona una semántica de atomicidad, coherencia, aislamiento con características similares a las secciones críticas. TM ejecuta especulativamente una serie de accesos a la memoria como una transacción atómica. Los cambios especulativos de la transacción se mantienen privados hasta que se confirma la transacción. Si una transacción entra en conflicto con otra transacción o sea que alguna de ellas escribe en una dirección que la otra leyó o escribió, o se entra en un abrazo mortal o en un bloqueo activo, el sistema de TM aborta la transacción y revierte los cambios especulativos. Para ser eficaz, una implementación de TM debe proporcionar un alto rendimiento y escalabilidad. Las implementaciones de TM en el software (STM) no proporcionan este desempeño deseable, en cambio, las mplementaciones de TM en hardware (HTM) tienen mejor desempeño y una escalabilidad relativamente buena, debido a su mejor control de los recursos de hardware y que la resolución de los conflictos así el mantenimiento y gestión de los datos se hace en hardware. Sin embargo, muchos de los sistemas de HTM están limitados a los recursos de hardware disponibles, por ejemplo el tamaño de las caches privadas, y dependen de mecanismos de software para cuando esos límites son sobrepasados. Estos sistemas HTM, llamados best-effort HTM no son deseables, ya que obligan al programador a pensar en términos de los límites existentes en el hardware que se esta utilizando, así como en el sistema de STM que se llama cuando los recursos son sobrepasados. Además, tiene que resolver que transacciones hardware y software se ejecuten concurrentemente. En cambio, los sistemas de HTM ilimitados soportan un numero de operaciones ilimitadas o sea no están restringidos a límites impuestos artificialmente por el hardware, como ser el tamaño de las caches o buffers internos. Los sistemas HTM ilimitados por lo general requieren protocolos complejos o mecanismos muy costosos para la detección de conflictos y el mantenimiento de versiones de los datos entre las transacciones. Por otra parte, la ejecución de transacciones es a menudo mucho más lenta que en una ejecución sobre un sistema de HTM que este limitado. Esto es debido al que los mecanismos utilizados en el HTM limitado trabaja con conjuntos de datos relativamente pequeños que caben o están muy cerca del núcleo del procesador. En esta tesis estudiamos implementaciones de TM en hardware. Presentaremos tres contribuciones principales: Primero, mejoramos el rendimiento general de los sistemas, al proponer un protocolo escalable para la gestión de conflictos. El protocolo detecta los conflictos de forma precisa, en contraste con otras técnicas basadas en filtros Bloom, que pueden reportar conflictos falsos entre las transacciones. Segundo, proponemos un best-effort HTM que utiliza el nuevo protocolo escalable detección de conflictos, denominado EazyHTM. EazyHTM permite la ejecución completamente paralela de todas las transacciones sin conflictos, y por lo general simplifica la ejecución. Por último, proponemos una extensión y mejora del protocolo inicial para la gestión de conflictos, que llamaremos EcoTM. EcoTM cuenta con detección de conflictos precisa, eficiente y es compatible tanto con transacciones grandes como con pequeñas. La idea clave de EcoTM es aprovechar la observación que en muy pocas ubicaciones de memoria aparecen los conflictos entre las transacciones, incluso en aplicaciones tienen muchos conflictos. En EcoTM, cada núcleo detecta localmente si la línea es conflictiva, además existe un mecanismo de detección de conflictos detallado que solo se activa para las pocas líneas de memoria que son potencialmente conflictivas