Contention-Free Complexity of Shared Memory Algorithms

AbstractWorst-case time complexity is a measure of the maximum time needed to solve a problem over all runs. Contention-free time complexity indicates the maximum time needed when a process executes by itself, without competition from other processes. Since contention is rare in well-designed systems, it is important to design algorithms which perform well in the absence of contention. We study the contention-free time complexity of shared memory algorithms using two measures: step complexity, which counts the number of accesses to shared registers; and register complexity, which measures the number of different registers accessed. Depending on the system architecture, one of the two measures more accurately reflects the elapsed time. We provide lower and upper bounds for the contention-free step and register complexity of solving the mutual exclusion problem as a function of the number of processes and the size of the largest register that can be accessed in one atomic step. We also present bounds on the worst-case and contention-free step and register complexities of solving the naming problem. These bounds illustrate that the proposed complexity measures are useful in differentiating among the computational powers of different primitive

Dynamic sharing of a multiple access channel

In this paper we consider the mutual exclusion problem on a multiple access channel. Mutual exclusion is one of the fundamental problems in distributed computing. In the classic version of this problem, n processes perform a concurrent program which occasionally triggers some of them to use shared resources, such as memory, communication channel, device, etc. The goal is to design a distributed algorithm to control entries and exits to/from the shared resource in such a way that in any time there is at most one process accessing it. We consider both the classic and a slightly weaker version of mutual exclusion, called ep-mutual-exclusion, where for each period of a process staying in the critical section the probability that there is some other process in the critical section is at most ep. We show that there are channel settings, where the classic mutual exclusion is not feasible even for randomized algorithms, while ep-mutual-exclusion is. In more relaxed channel settings, we prove an exponential gap between the makespan complexity of the classic mutual exclusion problem and its weaker ep-exclusion version. We also show how to guarantee fairness of mutual exclusion algorithms, i.e., that each process that wants to enter the critical section will eventually succeed

Distributed match-making

In many distributed computing environments, processes are concurrently executed by nodes in a store- and-forward communication network. Distributed control issues as diverse as name server, mutual exclusion, and replicated data management involve making matches between such processes. We propose a formal problem called distributed match-making as the generic paradigm. Algorithms for distributed match-making are developed and the complexity is investigated in terms of messages and in terms of storage needed. Lower bounds on the complexity of distributed match-making are established. Optimal algorithms, or nearly optimal algorithms, are given for particular network topologies

Progressive Transactional Memory in Time and Space

Transactional memory (TM) allows concurrent processes to organize sequences of operations on shared \emph{data items} into atomic transactions. A transaction may commit, in which case it appears to have executed sequentially or it may \emph{abort}, in which case no data item is updated. The TM programming paradigm emerged as an alternative to conventional fine-grained locking techniques, offering ease of programming and compositionality. Though typically themselves implemented using locks, TMs hide the inherent issues of lock-based synchronization behind a nice transactional programming interface. In this paper, we explore inherent time and space complexity of lock-based TMs, with a focus of the most popular class of \emph{progressive} lock-based TMs. We derive that a progressive TM might enforce a read-only transaction to perform a quadratic (in the number of the data items it reads) number of steps and access a linear number of distinct memory locations, closing the question of inherent cost of \emph{read validation} in TMs. We then show that the total number of \emph{remote memory references} (RMRs) that take place in an execution of a progressive TM in which $n$ concurrent processes perform transactions on a single data item might reach $\Omega(n \log n)$, which appears to be the first RMR complexity lower bound for transactional memory.Comment: Model of Transactional Memory identical with arXiv:1407.6876, arXiv:1502.0272

Randomized versus Deterministic Implementations of Concurrent Data Structures

One of the key trends in computing over the past two decades has been increased distribution, both at the processor level, where multi-core architectures are now the norm, and at the system level, where many key services are currently distributed overmultiple machines. Thus, understanding the power and limitations of computing in a concurrent, distributed setting is one of the major challenges in Computer Science. In this thesis, we analyze the complexity of implementing concurrent data structures in asynchronous shared memory systems. We focus on the complexity of a classic distributed coordination task called renaming, in which a set of processes need to pick distinct names from a small set of identifiers. We present the first tight bounds for the time complexity of this problem, both for deterministic and randomized implementations, solving a long-standing open problem in the field. For deterministic algorithms, we prove a tight linear lower bound; for randomized solutions, we provide logarithmic upper and lower bounds on time complexity. Together, these results show an exponential separation between deterministic and randomized renaming solutions. Importantly, the lower bounds extend to implementations of practical shared-memory data structures, such as queues, stacks, and counters. From a technical perspective, this thesis highlights new connections between the distributed renaming problem and other fundamental objects, such as sorting networks, mutual exclusion, and counters. In particular, we show that sorting networks can be used to obtain optimal randomized solutions to renaming, and that, in turn, the existence of these solutions implies a linear lower bound on the complexity of the problem. In sum, the results in this thesis suggest that deterministic implementations of shared-memory data structures do not scale well in terms of worst-case time complexity. On the positive side, we emphasize randomization as a natural alternative, which can circumvent the deterministic lower bounds with high probability. Thus, a promising direction for future work is to extend our randomized renaming techniques to obtain efficient implementations of concurrent data structures

Group Mutual Exclusion in Linear Time and Space

We present two algorithms for the Group Mutual Exclusion (GME) Problem that satisfy the properties of Mutual Exclusion, Starvation Freedom, Bounded Exit, Concurrent Entry and First Come First Served. Both our algorithms use only simple read and write instructions, have O(N) Shared Space complexity and O(N) Remote Memory Reference (RMR) complexity in the Cache Coherency (CC) model. Our first algorithm is developed by generalizing the well-known Lamport's Bakery Algorithm for the classical mutual exclusion problem, while preserving its simplicity and elegance. However, it uses unbounded shared registers. Our second algorithm uses only bounded registers and is developed by generalizing Taubenfeld's Black and White Bakery Algorithm to solve the classical mutual exclusion problem using only bounded shared registers. We show that contrary to common perception our algorithms are the first to achieve these properties with these combination of complexities.Comment: A total of 21 pages including 5 figures and 3 appendices. The bounded shared registers algorithm in the old version has a subtle error (that has no easy fix) necessitating replacement. A correct, but fundamentally different, bounded shared registers algorithm, which has the same properties claimed in the old version is presented in this new version. Also, this version has an additional autho