S. Prakash, Y.-H. Lee, and T. Johnson. Non-blocking algorithms for concurrent data structures. Technical Report 91--002, Department of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Florida, 7 1991.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....Alemany et al. 1] and LaMarca [19] proposed techniques to reduce the inefficiencies in applying this methodology to large objects at the cost of more communication between the application process and the operating system. Other methods to improve this were proposed in [4, 32] Prakash et al. [26] and Turek et al. 32] presented techniques to transform multiplelock concurrent objects into lock free objects. However, it was shown that their transformed algorithms are less efficient than the corresponding lock based algorithms [15, 19, 30] These authors are concerned with transforming ....

S. Prakash, Y.-H. Lee, and T. Johnson. Non-blocking algorithms for concurrent data structures. Technical Report 91--002, Department of Computer Science, University of California, Los Angeles, 1991.

.... the potential for deadlock, and certain undesirable scheduling side effects (i.e. priority inversion and convoying) An alternative approach is to use non blocking synchronization techniques (e.g. Barnes, 1993) Greenwald et al., 1996) Herlihy, 1988) Herlihy, 1991) Massalin et al., 1991) (Prakash et al., 1991), Valois, 1995) Non blocking techniques do not suffer from these problems since processes optimistically execute concurrently and therefore never wait on one another. As such, they offer distinct advantages for certain parallel applications. Nonblocking techniques that make hard guarantees ....

....insertion and deletion into a shared linked list which are presented in Section 4 utilize only the CAS and DCAS instructions. 2. 2 Generic Non Blocking Data Structures A number of so called universal methods (e.g. Barnes, 1993) Herlihy, 1993) Herlihy et al., 1993) Herlihy et al., 1987) (Prakash et al., 1991)) for constructing non blocking data structures of any type have been discussed in the literature. Lamport, 1983) described the first lock free algorithm for the problem of managing a single writer, multiple reader shared variable. Such variables may be used as a basis for developing a wide ....

S. Prakash, Y.H. Lee, and T. Johnson (1991). Non-Blocking Algorithms for Concurrent Data Structures, University of Florida Report TR91-002.

....using extra communication between the operating system kernel and application processes. Barnes [5] presented a similar general methodology in which processes record and timestamp their modifications to the shared object, and cooperate whenever conflicts arise. Turek et al. 23] and Prakash et al. [20] presented methodologies for transforming multiple lock concurrent objects into lock free concurrent objects. In comparison to data structure specific non blocking algorithms, these general methodologies tend to be inefficient, with significant overheads for copying and or logging of operational ....

S. Prakash, Y. H. Lee, and T. Johnson. Non-Blocking Algorithms for Concurrent Data Structures. Technical Report 91-002, University of Florida, 1991.

....compare and swap using load linked store conditional. Also, Anderson and Moir [5] presented non blocking methodologies for large objects that rely on techniques for implementing multipleword compare and swap using load linked store conditional and vice versa. Turek et al. 40] and Prakash et al. [31] presented methodologies for transforming multiple lock concurrent objects into lock free concurrent objects. Unfortunately, the performance of non blocking algorithms resulting from general methodologies is acknowledged to be significantly inferior to that of the corresponding lock based ....

S. Prakash, Y. H. Lee, and T. Johnson. Non-Blocking Algorithms for Concurrent Data Structures. Technical Report 91-002, Department of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Florida, 1991.

....guarantees that every active process will make progress within a bounded number of time steps. Treiber [21] presents an algorithm that is non blocking but inefficient: a dequeue operation takes time proportional to the number of the elements in the queue. Herlihy [6] Prakash, Lee, and Johnson [15]; Turek, Shasha, and Prakash [22] and Barnes [2] propose general methodologies for generating non blocking versions of sequential or concurrent lock based algorithms. However, the resulting implementations are generally inefficient compared to specialized algorithms. Massalin and Pu [10] present ....

S. Prakash, Y. H. Lee, and T. Johnson. Non-Blocking Algorithms for Concurrent Data Structures. Technical Report 91-002, University of Florida, 1991.

....the data structure behaves exactly like its sequential counterpart. Concurrent operations can take place in any relative sequential order. Universal constructions exist for constructing lockfree data structures from sequential functional algorithms [4, 15] or concurrent lock based algorithms [17, 21]. In general, for a simple data structure like a queue, these methods have far more overhead than the algorithms we will be considering. We will assume that the target architecture supports common atomic read modify write primitives, such as Fetch Add (FAA) and Compare Swap (CSW) FAA atomically ....

S. Prakash, Y. Lee, and T. Johnson. Non-blocking algorithms for concurrent data structures. Technical Report TR91--002, University of Florida, 1991.

....compare and swap using load linked store conditional. Also, Anderson and Moir [2] presented non blocking methodologies for large objects that rely on techniques for implementing multipleword compare and swap using load linked store conditional and vice versa. Turek et al. 39] and Prakash et al. [30] presented methodologies for transforming multiple lock concurrent objects into lock free concurrent objects. Unfortunately, the performance of non blocking algorithms resulting from general methodologies is acknowledged to be significantly inferior to that of the corresponding lock based ....

S. Prakash, Y. H. Lee, and T. Johnson. Non-Blocking Algorithms for Concurrent Data Structures. Technical Report 91-002, University of Florida, July 1991.

....transaction processing models. We modify the transaction model to examine the bias towards fast transactions that OCC introduces (taking the transaction execution model to that in [17] We developed these OCC models as a tool for analyzing the performance of non blocking data structure algorithms [20, 21, 29, 30], and they also have applications in analyzing real time optimistic transaction processing schemes [6, 9] 2 Model Description Data access conflicts in OCC are detected by the use of timestamps. Each data granule, g, the smallest unit of concurrency control) has an associated timestamp, t(g) ....

....the SB OCC on the VF transactions became significantly greater, surpassing the performance of the DB OCC. 5 An Application: Nonblocking Data Structures Many parallel data structures use locks to ensure simultaneous but non interfering access. Other parallel data structures avoid the use of locks [16, 20, 21, 15, 7, 8, 25, 27, 4, 28, 29, 30]. Nonblocking data structures avoid the use of locks, and also guarantee that no operation blocks the execution of any other operation for more than a finite number of steps [7] Nonblocking data structures are tolerant of SS SB V FF VF FF VF 5 3.456 4.157 4.019 5.000 10 5.146 7.174 6.455 10.000 ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

S. Prakash, Y.H. Lee, and T. Johnson. Non-blocking algorithms for concurrent data structures. Technical report, University of Florida Dept. of CIS, 1991. Available at cis.ufl.edu:cis/techreports /tr91/tr91.002.ps.Z.

No context found.

S. Prakash, Y.-H. Lee, and T. Johnson. Non-blocking algorithms for concurrent data structures. Technical Report 91--002, Department of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Florida, 7 1991.

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