9,149 research outputs found

    Locality-Adaptive Parallel Hash Joins Using Hardware Transactional Memory

    Get PDF
    Previous work [1] has claimed that the best performing implementation of in-memory hash joins is based on (radix-)partitioning of the build-side input. Indeed, despite the overhead of partitioning, the benefits from increased cache-locality and synchronization free parallelism in the build-phase outweigh the costs when the input data is randomly ordered. However, many datasets already exhibit significant spatial locality (i.e., non-randomness) due to the way data items enter the database: through periodic ETL or trickle loaded in the form of transactions. In such cases, the first benefit of partitioning — increased locality — is largely irrelevant. In this paper, we demonstrate how hardware transactional memory (HTM) can render the other benefit, freedom from synchronization, irrelevant as well. Specifically, using careful analysis and engineering, we develop an adaptive hash join implementation that outperforms parallel radix-partitioned hash joins as well as sort-merge joins on data with high spatial locality. In addition, we show how, through lightweight (less than 1% overhead) runtime monitoring of the transaction abort rate, our implementation can detect inputs with low spatial locality and dynamically fall back to radix-partitioning of the build-side input. The result is a hash join implementation that is more than 3 times faster than the state-of-the-art on high-locality data and never more than 1% slower

    Lock-free Concurrent Data Structures

    Full text link
    Concurrent data structures are the data sharing side of parallel programming. Data structures give the means to the program to store data, but also provide operations to the program to access and manipulate these data. These operations are implemented through algorithms that have to be efficient. In the sequential setting, data structures are crucially important for the performance of the respective computation. In the parallel programming setting, their importance becomes more crucial because of the increased use of data and resource sharing for utilizing parallelism. The first and main goal of this chapter is to provide a sufficient background and intuition to help the interested reader to navigate in the complex research area of lock-free data structures. The second goal is to offer the programmer familiarity to the subject that will allow her to use truly concurrent methods.Comment: To appear in "Programming Multi-core and Many-core Computing Systems", eds. S. Pllana and F. Xhafa, Wiley Series on Parallel and Distributed Computin

    A Template for Implementing Fast Lock-free Trees Using HTM

    Full text link
    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

    Non-blocking Priority Queue based on Skiplists with Relaxed Semantics

    Full text link
    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
    • …
    corecore