Safety of Deferred Update in Transactional Memory

Transactional memory allows the user to declare sequences of instructions as speculative \emph{transactions} that can either \emph{commit} or \emph{abort}. If a transaction commits, it appears to be executed sequentially, so that the committed transactions constitute a correct sequential execution. If a transaction aborts, none of its instructions can affect other transactions. The popular criterion of \emph{opacity} requires that the views of aborted transactions must also be consistent with the global sequential order constituted by committed ones. This is believed to be important, since inconsistencies observed by an aborted transaction may cause a fatal irrecoverable error or waste of the system in an infinite loop. Intuitively, an opaque implementation must ensure that no intermediate view a transaction obtains before it commits or aborts can be affected by a transaction that has not started committing yet, so called \emph{deferred-update} semantics. In this paper, we intend to grasp this intuition formally. We propose a variant of opacity that explicitly requires the sequential order to respect the deferred-update semantics. We show that our criterion is a safety property, i.e., it is prefix- and limit-closed. Unlike opacity, our property also ensures that a serialization of a history implies serializations of its prefixes. Finally, we show that our property is equivalent to opacity if we assume that no two transactions commit identical values on the same variable, and present a counter-example for scenarios when the "unique-write" assumption does not hold

Privatization-Safe Transactional Memories

Transactional memory (TM) facilitates the development of concurrent applications by letting the programmer designate certain code blocks as atomic. Programmers using a TM often would like to access the same data both inside and outside transactions, and would prefer their programs to have a strongly atomic semantics, which allows transactions to be viewed as executing atomically with respect to non-transactional accesses. Since guaranteeing such semantics for arbitrary programs is prohibitively expensive, researchers have suggested guaranteeing it only for certain data-race free (DRF) programs, particularly those that follow the privatization idiom: from some point on, threads agree that a given object can be accessed non-transactionally. In this paper we show that a variant of Transactional DRF (TDRF) by Dalessandro et al. is appropriate for a class of privatization-safe TMs, which allow using privatization idioms. We prove that, if such a TM satisfies a condition we call privatization-safe opacity and a program using the TM is TDRF under strongly atomic semantics, then the program indeed has such semantics. We also present a method for proving privatization-safe opacity that reduces proving this generalization to proving the usual opacity, and apply the method to a TM based on two-phase locking and a privatization-safe version of TL2. Finally, we establish the inherent cost of privatization-safety: we prove that a TM cannot be progressive and have invisible reads if it guarantees strongly atomic semantics for TDRF programs

Tailoring Transactional Memory to Real-World Applications

Transactional Memory (TM) promises to provide a scalable mechanism for synchronizationin concurrent programs, and to offer ease-of-use benefits to programmers. Since multiprocessorarchitectures have dominated CPU design, exploiting parallelism in program