Mark Moir. Efficient Object Sharing in Shared-Memory Multiprocessors. PhD thesis, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, 1996. Home/Search Document Details and Download
Summary Related Articles Check |
This paper is cited in the following contexts:
Speculation-Based Techniques for Lockfree Execution of Lock-Based .. - Rajwar (2002) (Correct)
.... As mentioned earlier, Lamport demonstrated that, in a sequentially consistent memory, atomic reads and writes can be implemented from non atomic reads and writes without mutual exclusion [94, 100, 101] Since then, extensive research has been conducted in lock free and wait free synchronization [8, 11, 17, 58, 63, 64, 65, 66, 75, 78, 119, 126, 127, 128, 138, 149, 158, 164]. Lock free and wait free operation implementations consist of code that typically executes multiple atomic statements and does not involve mutual exclusion. The correctness conditions for lock free and wait free implementations are necessarily more complicated than for mutual exclusion based ....
....restart the sequence if preempted. The operation is atomic with respect to processes on other processors because it is protected by a lock. While substantial research has been conducted in lock free and wait free synchronization, such techniques are quite difficult to design and verify as correct [64, 126]. To allow the easy development of correct concurrent objects, Herlihy proposed universal constructions [63] A universal construction takes as input a sequential implementation of an object and produces a lock free or wait free implementation of the given object. While practical universal ....
[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]
Mark Moir. Efficient Object Sharing in Shared-Memory Multiprocessors. PhD thesis, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, 1996.
Universal Constructions for Large Objects - Anderson, Moir (1999) (12 citations) Self-citation (Moir) (Correct)
....variables discussed above. We then present our lock free and wait free universal constructions in Sections 4 and 5, respectively. Finally, we discuss performance results in Section 6, and end the paper with concluding remarks in Section 7. Formal correctness proofs have been published elsewhere [10], and are long and tedious, so we do not present them again here. However, we do give a high level, intuitive proof sketch in an appendix. 1 The multi word operations considered here access a single variable that spans multiple words. The multi word operations considered in [2, 4, 9, 13] are ....
....and Write procedures, which are called by the sequential operation in order to read or write the MEM array. Because sequential object code must call these procedures, our constructions are not completely transparent to the sequential object designer. For example, instead of writing MEM [1] MEM [10] , the designer would write Write(1; Read(10) As a more concrete example of how a programmer would write the sequential code for an operation, consider Figure 3, which contains the actual code we used to implement a FIFO queue using our constructions. As seen in the figure, this code is very ....
[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]
M. Moir, Efficient Object Sharing in Shared-Memory Multiprocessors, Ph.D. thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1996. UMI Dissertation Services, 1996.
Universal Constructions for Large Objects - James Anderson (1995) (12 citations) Self-citation (Moir) (Correct)
....in Sections 4 and 5 respectively. Finally, we discuss performance results in Section 6, and end the paper with concluding remarks in Section 7. Most of the algorithms we present are rather intuitive, so formal proofs have been omitted. For full proofs, the interested reader is refered to [8]. Although we do not give formal proofs here, our algorithm descriptions do walk through most of the important cases that arise in the proofs. 2 Preliminaries Our algorithms are designed for use in shared memory multiprocessors that provide load linked (LL) validate (VL) and store conditional ....
....The semantics of VL and SC are undefined if process p has not executed a LL instruction since p s most recent SC. multi word operations we consider admit simpler and more efficient implementations than those considered in [1, 3, 7, 11] The correctness condition used in the proof presented in [8] is that of linearizability [4] A linearizable implementation ensures that, in every run, the partial order over operations 2 can be extended to a total order that is consistent with the sequential semantics of the implemented object. Thus, linearizability gives the appearance that each ....
[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]
M. Moir, Efficient Object Sharing in Shared-Memory Multiprocessors, Ph.D. thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1996.
Online articles have much greater impact More about CiteSeer.IST Add search form to your site Submit documents Feedback
CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC