DeltaTree: A Practical Locality-aware Concurrent Search Tree

As other fundamental programming abstractions in energy-efficient computing, search trees are expected to support both high parallelism and data locality. However, existing highly-concurrent search trees such as red-black trees and AVL trees do not consider data locality while existing locality-aware search trees such as those based on the van Emde Boas layout (vEB-based trees), poorly support concurrent (update) operations. This paper presents DeltaTree, a practical locality-aware concurrent search tree that combines both locality-optimisation techniques from vEB-based trees and concurrency-optimisation techniques from non-blocking highly-concurrent search trees. DeltaTree is a $k$-ary leaf-oriented tree of DeltaNodes in which each DeltaNode is a size-fixed tree-container with the van Emde Boas layout. The expected memory transfer costs of DeltaTree's Search, Insert, and Delete operations are $O(\log_B N)$, where $N, B$ are the tree size and the unknown memory block size in the ideal cache model, respectively. DeltaTree's Search operation is wait-free, providing prioritised lanes for Search operations, the dominant operation in search trees. Its Insert and {\em Delete} operations are non-blocking to other Search, Insert, and Delete operations, but they may be occasionally blocked by maintenance operations that are sometimes triggered to keep DeltaTree in good shape. Our experimental evaluation using the latest implementation of AVL, red-black, and speculation friendly trees from the Synchrobench benchmark has shown that DeltaTree is up to 5 times faster than all of the three concurrent search trees for searching operations and up to 1.6 times faster for update operations when the update contention is not too high

A Template for Implementing Fast Lock-free Trees Using HTM

Algorithms that use hardware transactional memory (HTM) must provide a software-only fallback path to guarantee progress. The design of the fallback path can have a profound impact on performance. If the fallback path is allowed to run concurrently with hardware transactions, then hardware transactions must be instrumented, adding significant overhead. Otherwise, hardware transactions must wait for any processes on the fallback path, causing concurrency bottlenecks, or move to the fallback path. We introduce an approach that combines the best of both worlds. The key idea is to use three execution paths: an HTM fast path, an HTM middle path, and a software fallback path, such that the middle path can run concurrently with each of the other two. The fast path and fallback path do not run concurrently, so the fast path incurs no instrumentation overhead. Furthermore, fast path transactions can move to the middle path instead of waiting or moving to the software path. We demonstrate our approach by producing an accelerated version of the tree update template of Brown et al., which can be used to implement fast lock-free data structures based on down-trees. We used the accelerated template to implement two lock-free trees: a binary search tree (BST), and an (a,b)-tree (a generalization of a B-tree). Experiments show that, with 72 concurrent processes, our accelerated (a,b)-tree performs between 4.0x and 4.2x as many operations per second as an implementation obtained using the original tree update template

Techniques for Constructing Efficient Lock-free Data Structures

Building a library of concurrent data structures is an essential way to simplify the difficult task of developing concurrent software. Lock-free data structures, in which processes can help one another to complete operations, offer the following progress guarantee: If processes take infinitely many steps, then infinitely many operations are performed. Handcrafted lock-free data structures can be very efficient, but are notoriously difficult to implement. We introduce numerous tools that support the development of efficient lock-free data structures, and especially trees.Comment: PhD thesis, Univ Toronto (2017

Deletion without Rebalancing in Non-Blocking Binary Search Trees

We present a provably linearizable and lock-free relaxed AVL tree called the non-blocking ravl tree. At any time, the height of a non-blocking ravl tree is upper bounded by log_d (2m) + c, where d is the golden ratio, m is the total number of successful INSERT operations performed so far and c is the number of active concurrent processes that have inserted new keys and are still rebalancing the tree at this time. The most significant feature of the non-blocking ravl tree is that it does not rebalance itself after DELETE operations. Instead, it performs rebalancing only after INSERT operations. Thus, the non-blocking ravl tree is much simpler to implement than other self-balancing concurrent binary search trees (BSTs) which typically introduce a large number of rebalancing cases after DELETE operations, while still providing a provable non-trivial bound on its height. We further conduct experimental studies to compare our solution with other state-of-the-art concurrent BSTs using randomly generated data sequences under uniform distributions, and find that our solution achieves the best performance among concurrent self-balancing BSTs. As the keys in access sequences are likely to be partially sorted in system software, we also conduct experiments using data sequences with various degrees of presortedness to better simulate applications in practice. Our experimental results show that, when there are enough degrees of presortedness, our solution achieves the best performance among all the concurrent BSTs used in our studies, including those that perform self-balancing operations and those that do not, and thus is potentially the best candidate for many real-world applications

Parallel Working-Set Search Structures

In this paper we present two versions of a parallel working-set map on p processors that supports searches, insertions and deletions. In both versions, the total work of all operations when the map has size at least p is bounded by the working-set bound, i.e., the cost of an item depends on how recently it was accessed (for some linearization): accessing an item in the map with recency r takes O(1+log r) work. In the simpler version each map operation has O((log p)^2+log n) span (where n is the maximum size of the map). In the pipelined version each map operation on an item with recency r has O((log p)^2+log r) span. (Operations in parallel may have overlapping span; span is additive only for operations in sequence.) Both data structures are designed to be used by a dynamic multithreading parallel program that at each step executes a unit-time instruction or makes a data structure call. To achieve the stated bounds, the pipelined data structure requires a weak-priority scheduler, which supports a limited form of 2-level prioritization. At the end we explain how the results translate to practical implementations using work-stealing schedulers. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first parallel implementation of a self-adjusting search structure where the cost of an operation adapts to the access sequence. A corollary of the working-set bound is that it achieves work static optimality: the total work is bounded by the access costs in an optimal static search tree.Comment: Authors' version of a paper accepted to SPAA 201