Randomized Two-Process Wait-Free Test-and-Set

We present the first explicit, and currently simplest, randomized algorithm for 2-process wait-free test-and-set. It is implemented with two 4-valued single writer single reader atomic variables. A test-and-set takes at most 11 expected elementary steps, while a reset takes exactly 1 elementary step. Based on a finite-state analysis, the proofs of correctness and expected length are compressed into one table.Comment: 9 pages, 4 figures, LaTeX source; Submitte

On the Optimal Space Complexity of Consensus for Anonymous Processes

The optimal space complexity of consensus in shared memory is a decades-old open problem. For a system of $n$ processes, no algorithm is known that uses a sublinear number of registers. However, the best known lower bound due to Fich, Herlihy, and Shavit requires $\Omega(\sqrt{n})$ registers. The special symmetric case of the problem where processes are anonymous (run the same algorithm) has also attracted attention. Even in this case, the best lower and upper bounds are still $\Omega(\sqrt{n})$ and $O(n)$. Moreover, Fich, Herlihy, and Shavit first proved their lower bound for anonymous processes, and then extended it to the general case. As such, resolving the anonymous case might be a significant step towards understanding and solving the general problem. In this work, we show that in a system of anonymous processes, any consensus algorithm satisfying nondeterministic solo termination has to use $\Omega(n)$ read-write registers in some execution. This implies an $\Omega(n)$ lower bound on the space complexity of deterministic obstruction-free and randomized wait-free consensus, matching the upper bound and closing the symmetric case of the open problem

Consensus with Max Registers

We consider the problem of implementing randomized wait-free consensus from max registers under the assumption of an oblivious adversary. We show that max registers solve m-valued consensus for arbitrary m in expected O(log^* n) steps per process, beating the Omega(log m/log log m) lower bound for ordinary registers when m is large and the best previously known O(log log n) upper bound when m is small. A simple max-register implementation based on double-collect snapshots translates this result into an O(n log n) expected step implementation of m-valued consensus from n single-writer registers, improving on the best previously-known bound of O(n log^2 n) for single-writer registers

On the Importance of Registers for Computability

All consensus hierarchies in the literature assume that we have, in addition to copies of a given object, an unbounded number of registers. But why do we really need these registers? This paper considers what would happen if one attempts to solve consensus using various objects but without any registers. We show that under a reasonable assumption, objects like queues and stacks cannot emulate the missing registers. We also show that, perhaps surprisingly, initialization, shown to have no computational consequences when registers are readily available, is crucial in determining the synchronization power of objects when no registers are allowed. Finally, we show that without registers, the number of available objects affects the level of consensus that can be solved. Our work thus raises the question of whether consensus hierarchies which assume an unbounded number of registers truly capture synchronization power, and begins a line of research aimed at better understanding the interaction between read-write memory and the powerful synchronization operations available on modern architectures.Comment: 12 pages, 0 figure

An electronic family health history tool to identify and manage patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer: protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BackgroundColorectal cancer is the fourth most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States. Approximately 3-10% of the population has an increased risk for colorectal cancer due to family history and warrants more frequent or intensive screening. Yet, < 50% of that high-risk population receives guideline-concordant care. Systematic collection of family health history and decision support may improve guideline-concordant screening for patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer. We seek to test the effectiveness of a web-based, systematic family health history collection tool and decision support platform (MeTree) to improve risk assessment and appropriate management of colorectal cancer risk among patients in the Department of Veterans Affairs primary care practices.MethodsIn this ongoing randomized controlled trial, primary care providers at the Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System and the Madison VA Medical Center are randomized to immediate intervention or wait-list control. Veterans are eligible if assigned to enrolled providers, have an upcoming primary care appointment, and have no conditions that would place them at increased risk for colorectal cancer (such as personal history, adenomatous polyps, or inflammatory bowel disease). Those with a recent lower endoscopy (e.g. colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy) are excluded. Immediate intervention patients put their family health history information into a web-based platform, MeTree, which provides both patient- and provider-facing decision support reports. Wait-list control patients access MeTree 12 months post-consent. The primary outcome is the risk-concordant colorectal cancer screening referral rate obtained via chart review. Secondary outcomes include patient completion of risk management recommendations (e.g. colonoscopy) and referral for genetic consultation. We will also conduct an economic analysis and an assessment of providers' experience with MeTree clinical decision support recommendations to inform future implementation efforts if the intervention is found to be effective.DiscussionThis trial will assess the feasibility and effectiveness of patient-collected family health history linked to decision support to promote risk-appropriate screening in a large healthcare system such as the Department of Veterans Affairs.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02247336 . Registered on 25 September 2014