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

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

Non-blocking Priority Queue based on Skiplists with Relaxed Semantics

Priority queues are data structures that store information in an orderly fashion. They are of tremendous importance because they are an integral part of many applications, like Dijkstra’s shortest path algorithm, MST algorithms, priority schedulers, and so on. Since priority queues by nature have high contention on the delete_min operation, the design of an efficient priority queue should involve an intelligent choice of the data structure as well as relaxation bounds on the data structure. Lock-free data structures provide higher scalability as well as progress guarantee than a lock-based data structure. That is another factor to be considered in the priority queue design. We present a relaxed non-blocking priority queue based on skiplists. We address all the design issues mentioned above in our priority queue. Use of skiplists allows multiple threads to concurrently access different parts of the skiplist quickly, whereas relaxing the priority queue delete_min operation distributes contention over the skiplist instead of just at the front. Furthermore, a non-blocking implementation guarantees that the system will make progress even when some process fails. Our priority queue is internally composed of several priority queues, one for each thread and one shared priority queue common to all threads. Each thread selects the best value from its local priority queue and the shared priority queue and returns the value. In case a thread is unable to delete an item, it tries to spy items from other threads\u27 local priority queues. We experimentally and theoretically show the correctness of our data structure. We also compare the performance of our data structure with other variations like priority queues based on coarse-grained skiplists for both relaxed and non-relaxed semantics