DOCSLIB.ORG

Lock-Free Shared Data Structures

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lock-Free Shared Data Structures Lock-free Shared Data Structures 10th Estonian Summer School on Computer and Systems Science Introduction and Motivation Eric Ruppert DisCoVeri Group York University Toronto, Canada August, 2011 Eric Ruppert Lock-free Shared Data Structures Eric Ruppert Lock-free Shared Data Structures Moore’s Law Moore’s Law for Automobiles Gordon Moore [1965]: “If the automobile industry advanced as rapidly as the The number of components in semiconductor industry, a Rolls Royce would get a integrated circuits doubled each year million miles per gallon, and it would be cheaper to between 1958 and 1965. throw it away than to park it.” – Gordon Moore Continued doubling every 1 to 2 years since. This yielded exponential increases in performance: clock speeds increased memory capacity increased processing power increased Eric Ruppert Lock-free Shared Data Structures Eric Ruppert Lock-free Shared Data Structures Limits of Moore’s Law Multicore Machines Exponential improvements cannot go on forever. Multicore machines have multiple processor chips. Components will soon be getting down to the scale of atoms. Each chip has multiple cores. Even now, increases in computing power come from having Each core can run multiple programmes (or processes). more processors, not bigger or faster processors. Today: Machines can run 100 processes concurrently. Big performance gains in the future will come from parallelism. Future: Many more processes. Eric Ruppert Lock-free Shared Data Structures Eric Ruppert Lock-free Shared Data Structures The Big Challenge for Computer Science Amdahl’s Law Suppose we only know how to do 75% of some task in parallel. # Cores Time required Speedup 1 100 1.0 2 63 1.6 Most algorithms are designed for one process. 3 50 2.0 4 44 2.3 . We must design efficient parallel solutions to problems. 10 32 3.1 . 100 26 3.9 . 1 25 4.0 Better parallelization is needed to make use of extra cores. Eric Ruppert Lock-free Shared Data Structures Eric Ruppert Lock-free Shared Data Structures One Challenge of Parallelization What These Lectures Are About Many processes must cooperate efficiently to solve a problem. Designing implementations of shared data structures. Cooperation often requires communication between processes and sharing data. Desirable properties: load-balancing requires transferring tasks between (reasonably) easy to use processes can be accessed concurrently by several processes distributing input to processes efficient (in terms of time and space) (inputs may arrive online at different processes) scalable aggregating results of different processes’ computations (fault-tolerant) communicating partial results from one process to another Eric Ruppert Lock-free Shared Data Structures Eric Ruppert Lock-free Shared Data Structures Models of Distributed Systems Two main models of communication in distributed computing. Shared Memory Formalizing the Problem Message Passing Processes op response Memory Eric Ruppert Lock-free Shared Data Structures Eric Ruppert Lock-free Shared Data Structures Shared-Memory Model Types of Shared Objects We will focus on the shared-memory model. (It closely resembles multicore machines.) Read-write register Shared Memory Each register stores a value and provides two operations: Shared memory contains READ(): returns current value stored and does not change objects of various types. Processes the value Each process can perform op WRITE(v): changes the stored value to v and returns ack operations on the objects. response The operation can change The most basic type of shared object. the state of the object and Memory Provided in hardware. return a response. Eric Ruppert Lock-free Shared Data Structures Eric Ruppert Lock-free Shared Data Structures Another Type Formal Definition of an Object Type FIFO Queue Sequential specification describes how object behaves when Stores a list of items and provides two operations: accessed by a single process at a time. ENQUEUE(x): adds x to the end of the list and returns ack Q is the set of states DEQUEUE(): removes and returns one item from the front of the list OP is the set of operations that can be applied to the object RES is the set of responses the object can return 17 24 97 12 12 δ ⊆ Q × OP × RES × Q is the transition relation If (q; op; res; q0) 2 δ, it means that ENQUEUE(23) DEQUEUE!12 when op is applied to an object in state q, the operation can return response res and Useful for dividing up work among a collection of processes. the object can change to state q0. Not usually provided in hardware; must build it in software. Eric Ruppert Lock-free Shared Data Structures Eric Ruppert Lock-free Shared Data Structures Example: Read/Write Register Example: Queue Object stores a natural number and allows processes to write A FIFO queue of natural numbers. values and read current value. Q = set of all finite sequences of natural numbers Q = IN OP = fENQUEUE(v): v 2 INg [ fDEQUEUE()g OP = fWRITE(v): v 2 INg [ fREADg RES = IN [ fNIL; ACKg RES = IN [ fACKg δ = f(σ; ENQUEUE(v); ACK; hvi · σ): σ 2 Q; v 2 INg [ 0 0 0 δ = f(v; WRITE(v ); ACK; v ): v; v 2 INg [ f(σ · hvi; DEQUEUE(); v; σ): σ 2 Q; v 2 INg [ f(v; READ; v; v): v 2 INg f(hi; DEQUEUE(); NIL; hi)g Eric Ruppert Lock-free Shared Data Structures Eric Ruppert Lock-free Shared Data Structures How to Share an Object An Example: Read-Write Register Suppose we have a read-write register initialized to value 0. Process In reality, performing an operation is not instantaneous; P it takes some interval of time to complete. WRITE(1) What happens when processes access an object concurrently? Q WRITE(2) How should the object behave? R READ!? time READ can output 1 or 2. Eric Ruppert Lock-free Shared Data Structures Eric Ruppert Lock-free Shared Data Structures An Example: Read-Write Register An Example: Read-Write Register Suppose we have a read-write register initialized to value 0. Suppose we have a read-write register initialized to value 0. Process Process P WRITE(1) P WRITE(1) WRITE(3) Q WRITE(2) READ!? Q WRITE(2) READ!? R READ!? R READ!? time time Both READS can output 1 or 2. For linearizability, they should Both READS can output 1, 2 or 3. For linearizability, they should both output the same value. not output 1 and 2. Eric Ruppert Lock-free Shared Data Structures Eric Ruppert Lock-free Shared Data Structures An Example: Read-Write Register An Example: Read-Write Register Suppose we have a read-write register initialized to value 0. Suppose we have a read-write register initialized to value 0. Process Process ? 4 P WRITE(1) P WRITE(1) Not permitted 6 ?? Q WRITE(2) READ!1 Q WRITE(2) READ!1 ? R READ!2 R READ!2 time time Eric Ruppert Lock-free Shared Data Structures Eric Ruppert Lock-free Shared Data Structures Linearizability A More Complicated Execution An object (built in hardware or software) is linearizable if its Process operations seem to occur instantaneously. ? ? ? 4 P READ!0 READ!1 WRITE(2) More formally: ? ? For every execution that uses the objects, Q WRITE(1) READ!1 we can choose a ? inside each operation’s time interval so that ? ? all operations would return the same results if they were R READ!0 READ!2 performed sequentially in the order of their ?s. The ? is called the linearization point of the operation. time Eric Ruppert Lock-free Shared Data Structures Eric Ruppert Lock-free Shared Data Structures Linearizability Example with a Queue Alternative Definition of Linearizability Consider an initially empty queue. What are the possible values for A and B? Process For every execution that uses the objects, there exists a sequential order of all the operations such that P ENQUEUE(1) DEQUEUE!B 1 all operations return the same results in the sequential order, and Q DEQUEUE!A 2 if op1 ends before op2 begins, then op1 precedes op2 in the sequential order. R ENQUEUE(2) Original (and equivalent) definition of Herlihy and Wing [1990]. time A = 1; B = 2 OR A = 2; B = 1 OR A = NIL; B = 1 OR A = 1; B = NIL Eric Ruppert Lock-free Shared Data Structures Eric Ruppert Lock-free Shared Data Structures Consistency Conditions Specifying Correctness: Summary Linearizability is a consistency condition. There are many other weaker ones: sequential consistency How to specify correctness of a shared data structure? processor consistency Safety = sequential specification + linearizability causal consistency (Q; OPS; RES; δ) etc. Progress: operations terminate (discussed later) Weaker conditions are easier to implement but harder to use. We will focus on linearizable objects. ) When using linearizable objects, can assume operations happen atomically. Eric Ruppert Lock-free Shared Data Structures Eric Ruppert Lock-free Shared Data Structures What are These Talks About? Challenges of Implementing Shared Objects Goal: Design shared data structure implementations using basic objects provided by system (like registers). Asynchrony (processes run at different, variable speeds). Assume basic objects are linearizable. Concurrent updates should not corrupt data. Prove implemented objects are also linearizable. Reading data while others update it should not produce inconsistent results. Study complexity of implementations. Other unpredictable events (e.g., failures). Prove some implementations are impossible. Eric Ruppert Lock-free Shared Data Structures Eric Ruppert Lock-free Shared Data Structures Traditional Approach: Locks Fine-Grained Locking Each object has a lock associated with it. Each part of an object has a lock. Only one process can hold the lock at any time. 1 Obtain locks for parts you want to access 1 obtain lock 2 Access those parts of object 2 access object 3 Release locks 3 release lock Cons: Cons: Pros: Pros: limited parallelism slow some parallelism simple no fault-tolerance avoids problems of no real parallelism reduces problems of concurrent accesses danger of deadlock, concurrent accesses no fault-tolerance livelock Eric Ruppert Lock-free Shared Data Structures Eric Ruppert Lock-free Shared Data Structures Alternative Approach: Lock-Free Implementations Lock-free Implementations Avoid use of locks altogether.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fast and Correct Load-Link/Store-Conditional Instruction Handling in DBT Systems
    Fast and Correct Load-Link/Store-Conditional Instruction Handling in DBT Systems Abstract Atomic Read Memory Dynamic Binary Translation (DBT) requires the implemen- Operation tation of load-link/store-conditional (LL/SC) primitives for guest systems that rely on this form of synchronization. When Equals targeting e.g. x86 host systems, LL/SC guest instructions are YES NO typically emulated using atomic Compare-and-Swap (CAS) expected value? instructions on the host. Whilst this direct mapping is efficient, this approach is problematic due to subtle differences between Write new value LL/SC and CAS semantics. In this paper, we demonstrate that to memory this is a real problem, and we provide code examples that fail to execute correctly on QEMU and a commercial DBT system, Exchanged = true Exchanged = false which both use the CAS approach to LL/SC emulation. We then develop two novel and provably correct LL/SC emula- tion schemes: (1) A purely software based scheme, which uses the DBT system’s page translation cache for correctly se- Figure 1: The compare-and-swap instruction atomically reads lecting between fast, but unsynchronized, and slow, but fully from a memory address, and compares the current value synchronized memory accesses, and (2) a hardware acceler- with an expected value. If these values are equal, then a new ated scheme that leverages hardware transactional memory value is written to memory. The instruction indicates (usually (HTM) provided by the host. We have implemented these two through a return register or flag) whether or not the value was schemes in the Synopsys DesignWare® ARC® nSIM DBT successfully written.
    [Show full text]
  • Mastering Concurrent Computing Through Sequential Thinking
    review articles DOI:10.1145/3363823 we do not have good tools to build ef- A 50-year history of concurrency. ficient, scalable, and reliable concur- rent systems. BY SERGIO RAJSBAUM AND MICHEL RAYNAL Concurrency was once a specialized discipline for experts, but today the chal- lenge is for the entire information tech- nology community because of two dis- ruptive phenomena: the development of Mastering networking communications, and the end of the ability to increase processors speed at an exponential rate. Increases in performance come through concur- Concurrent rency, as in multicore architectures. Concurrency is also critical to achieve fault-tolerant, distributed services, as in global databases, cloud computing, and Computing blockchain applications. Concurrent computing through sequen- tial thinking. Right from the start in the 1960s, the main way of dealing with con- through currency has been by reduction to se- quential reasoning. Transforming problems in the concurrent domain into simpler problems in the sequential Sequential domain, yields benefits for specifying, implementing, and verifying concur- rent programs. It is a two-sided strategy, together with a bridge connecting the Thinking two sides. First, a sequential specificationof an object (or service) that can be ac- key insights ˽ A main way of dealing with the enormous challenges of building concurrent systems is by reduction to sequential I must appeal to the patience of the wondering readers, thinking. Over more than 50 years, more sophisticated techniques have been suffering as I am from the sequential nature of human developed to build complex systems in communication. this way. 12 ˽ The strategy starts by designing —E.W.
    [Show full text]
  • A Separation Logic for Refining Concurrent Objects
    A Separation Logic for Refining Concurrent Objects Aaron Turon ∗ Mitchell Wand Northeastern University {turon, wand}@ccs.neu.edu Abstract do { tmp = *C; } until CAS(C, tmp, tmp+1); Fine-grained concurrent data structures are crucial for gaining per- implements inc using an optimistic approach: it takes a snapshot formance from multiprocessing, but their design is a subtle art. Re- of the counter without acquiring a lock, computes the new value cent literature has made large strides in verifying these data struc- of the counter, and uses compare-and-set (CAS) to safely install the tures, using either atomicity refinement or separation logic with new value. The key is that CAS compares *C with the value of tmp, rely-guarantee reasoning. In this paper we show how the owner- atomically updating *C with tmp + 1 and returning true if they ship discipline of separation logic can be used to enable atomicity are the same, and just returning false otherwise. refinement, and we develop a new rely-guarantee method that is lo- Even for this simple data structure, the fine-grained imple- calized to the definition of a data structure. We present the first se- mentation significantly outperforms the lock-based implementa- mantics of separation logic that is sensitive to atomicity, and show tion [17]. Likewise, even for this simple example, we would prefer how to control this sensitivity through ownership. The result is a to think of the counter in a more abstract way when reasoning about logic that enables compositional reasoning about atomicity and in- its clients, giving it the following specification: terference, even for programs that use fine-grained synchronization and dynamic memory allocation.
    [Show full text]
  • Lock-Free Programming
    Lock-Free Programming Geoff Langdale L31_Lockfree 1 Desynchronization ● This is an interesting topic ● This will (may?) become even more relevant with near ubiquitous multi-processing ● Still: please don’t rewrite any Project 3s! L31_Lockfree 2 Synchronization ● We received notification via the web form that one group has passed the P3/P4 test suite. Congratulations! ● We will be releasing a version of the fork-wait bomb which doesn't make as many assumptions about task id's. – Please look for it today and let us know right away if it causes any trouble for you. ● Personal and group disk quotas have been grown in order to reduce the number of people running out over the weekend – if you try hard enough you'll still be able to do it. L31_Lockfree 3 Outline ● Problems with locking ● Definition of Lock-free programming ● Examples of Lock-free programming ● Linux OS uses of Lock-free data structures ● Miscellanea (higher-level constructs, ‘wait-freedom’) ● Conclusion L31_Lockfree 4 Problems with Locking ● This list is more or less contentious, not equally relevant to all locking situations: – Deadlock – Priority Inversion – Convoying – “Async-signal-safety” – Kill-tolerant availability – Pre-emption tolerance – Overall performance L31_Lockfree 5 Problems with Locking 2 ● Deadlock – Processes that cannot proceed because they are waiting for resources that are held by processes that are waiting for… ● Priority inversion – Low-priority processes hold a lock required by a higher- priority process – Priority inheritance a possible solution L31_Lockfree
    [Show full text]
  • Multithreading for Gamedev Students
    Multithreading for Gamedev Students Keith O’Conor 3D Technical Lead Ubisoft Montreal @keithoconor - Who I am - PhD (Trinity College Dublin), Radical Entertainment (shipped Prototype 1 & 2), Ubisoft Montreal (shipped Watch_Dogs & Far Cry 4) - Who this is aimed at - Game programming students who don’t necessarily come from a strict computer science background - Some points might be basic for CS students, but all are relevant to gamedev - Slides available online at fragmentbuffer.com Overview • Hardware support • Common game engine threading models • Race conditions • Synchronization primitives • Atomics & lock-free • Hazards - Start at high level, finish in the basement - Will also talk about potential hazards and give an idea of why multithreading is hard Overview • Only an introduction ◦ Giving a vocabulary ◦ See references for further reading ◦ Learn by doing, hair-pulling - Way too big a topic for a single talk, each section could be its own series of talks Why multithreading? - Hitting power & heat walls when going for increased frequency alone - Go wide instead of fast - Use available resources more efficiently - Taken from http://www.karlrupp.net/2015/06/40-years-of-microprocessor- trend-data/ Hardware multithreading Hardware support - Before we use multithreading in games, we need to understand the various levels of hardware support that allow multiple instructions to be executed in parallel - There are many more aspects to hardware multithreading than we’ll look at here (processor pipelining, cache coherency protocols etc.) - Again,
    [Show full text]
  • CS 241 Honors Concurrent Data Structures
    CS 241 Honors Concurrent Data Structures Bhuvan Venkatesh University of Illinois Urbana{Champaign March 7, 2017 CS 241 Course Staff (UIUC) Lock Free Data Structures March 7, 2017 1 / 37 What to go over Terminology What is lock free Example of Lock Free Transactions and Linerazability The ABA problem Drawbacks Use Cases CS 241 Course Staff (UIUC) Lock Free Data Structures March 7, 2017 2 / 37 Atomic instructions - Instructions that happen in one step to the CPU or not at all. Some examples are atomic add, atomic compare and swap. Terminology Transaction - Like atomic operations, either the entire transaction goes through or doesn't. This could be a series of operations (like push or pop for a stack) CS 241 Course Staff (UIUC) Lock Free Data Structures March 7, 2017 3 / 37 Terminology Transaction - Like atomic operations, either the entire transaction goes through or doesn't. This could be a series of operations (like push or pop for a stack) Atomic instructions - Instructions that happen in one step to the CPU or not at all. Some examples are atomic add, atomic compare and swap. CS 241 Course Staff (UIUC) Lock Free Data Structures March 7, 2017 3 / 37 int atomic_cas(int *addr, int *expected, int value){ if(*addr == *expected){ *addr = value; return 1;//swap success }else{ *expected = *addr; return 0;//swap failed } } But this all happens atomically! Atomic Compare and Swap? CS 241 Course Staff (UIUC) Lock Free Data Structures March 7, 2017 4 / 37 But this all happens atomically! Atomic Compare and Swap? int atomic_cas(int *addr, int *expected,
    [Show full text]
  • Verifying Invariants of Lock-Free Data Structures with Rely-Guarantee and Refinement Types 11 COLIN S
    Verifying Invariants of Lock-Free Data Structures with Rely-Guarantee and Refinement Types 11 COLIN S. GORDON, Drexel University MICHAEL D. ERNST and DAN GROSSMAN, University of Washington MATTHEW J. PARKINSON, Microsoft Research Verifying invariants of fine-grained concurrent data structures is challenging, because interference from other threads may occur at any time. We propose a new way of proving invariants of fine-grained concurrent data structures: applying rely-guarantee reasoning to references in the concurrent setting. Rely-guarantee applied to references can verify bounds on thread interference without requiring a whole program to be verified. This article provides three new results. First, it provides a new approach to preserving invariants and restricting usage of concurrent data structures. Our approach targets a space between simple type systems and modern concurrent program logics, offering an intermediate point between unverified code and full verification. Furthermore, it avoids sealing concurrent data structure implementations and can interact safely with unverified imperative code. Second, we demonstrate the approach’s broad applicability through a series of case studies, using two implementations: an axiomatic COQ domain-specific language and a library for Liquid Haskell. Third, these two implementations allow us to compare and contrast verifications by interactive proof (COQ) and a weaker form that can be expressed using automatically-discharged dependent refinement typesr (Liquid Haskell). r CCS Concepts: Theory of computation → Type structures; Invariants; Program verification; Computing methodologies → Concurrent programming languages; Additional Key Words and Phrases: Type systems, rely-guarantee, refinement types, concurrency,verification ACM Reference Format: Colin S. Gordon, Michael D. Ernst, Dan Grossman, and Matthew J.
    [Show full text]
  • Optimised Lock-Free FIFO Queue Dominique Fober, Yann Orlarey, Stéphane Letz
    Optimised Lock-Free FIFO Queue Dominique Fober, Yann Orlarey, Stéphane Letz To cite this version: Dominique Fober, Yann Orlarey, Stéphane Letz. Optimised Lock-Free FIFO Queue. [Technical Re- port] GRAME. 2001. hal-02158792 HAL Id: hal-02158792 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02158792 Submitted on 18 Jun 2019 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. GRAME - Computer Music Research Lab. Technical Report - TR010101 This is a revised version of the previously published paper. It includes a contribution from Shahar Frank who raised a problem with the fifo-pop algorithm. Revised version date: sept. 30 2003. Optimised Lock-Free FIFO Queue Dominique Fober, Yann Orlarey, Stéphane Letz January 2001 Grame - Computer Music Research Laboratory 9, rue du Garet BP 1185 69202 FR - LYON Cedex 01 [fober, orlarey, letz]@grame.fr Abstract Concurrent access to shared data in preemptive multi-tasks environment and in multi-processors architecture have been subject to many works. Based on these works, we present a new algorithm to implements lock-free fifo stacks with a minimum constraints on the data structure. Compared to the previous solutions, this algorithm is more simple and more efficient.
    [Show full text]
  • Concurrent Programming CLASS NOTES
    COMP 409 Concurrent Programming CLASS NOTES Based on professor Clark Verbrugge's notes Format and figures by Gabriel Lemonde-Labrecque Contents 1 Lecture: January 4th, 2008 7 1.1 Final Exam . .7 1.2 Syllabus . .7 2 Lecture: January 7th, 2008 8 2.1 What is a thread (vs a process)? . .8 2.1.1 Properties of a process . .8 2.1.2 Properties of a thread . .8 2.2 Lifecycle of a process . .9 2.3 Achieving good performances . .9 2.3.1 What is speedup? . .9 2.3.2 What are threads good for then? . 10 2.4 Concurrent Hardware . 10 2.4.1 Basic Uniprocessor . 10 2.4.2 Multiprocessors . 10 3 Lecture: January 9th, 2008 11 3.1 Last Time . 11 3.2 Basic Hardware (continued) . 11 3.2.1 Cache Coherence Issue . 11 3.2.2 On-Chip Multiprocessing (multiprocessors) . 11 3.3 Granularity . 12 3.3.1 Coarse-grained multi-threading (CMT) . 12 3.3.2 Fine-grained multithreading (FMT) . 12 3.4 Simultaneous Multithreading (SMT) . 12 4 Lecture: January 11th, 2008 14 4.1 Last Time . 14 4.2 \replay architecture" . 14 4.3 Atomicity . 15 5 Lecture: January 14th, 2008 16 6 Lecture: January 16th, 2008 16 6.1 Last Time . 16 6.2 At-Most-Once (AMO) . 16 6.3 Race Conditions . 18 7 Lecture: January 18th, 2008 19 7.1 Last Time . 19 7.2 Mutual Exclusion . 19 8 Lecture: January 21st, 2008 21 8.1 Last Time . 21 8.2 Kessel's Algorithm . 22 8.3 Brief Interruption to Introduce Java and PThreads .
    [Show full text]
  • Concurrent Programming: Algorithms, Principles, PART 1: Lock-Based Synchronization and Foundations
    Motivation Synchronization is Coming Back • Synchonization is coming back, but is it the same? But is it the Same? • Lots of new concepts and mechanisms since locks! Michel RAYNAL [email protected] • The multicore (r)evolution The synchronization world has changed Institut Universitaire de France • IRISA, Universit´ede Rennes, France Dpt of Computing, Polytechnic Univ., Hong Kong c Michel Raynal Synchronization is coming back! 1 c Michel Raynal Synchronization is coming back! 2 A recent book on the topic Part I Concurrent programming: Algorithms, Principles, PART 1: Lock-Based Synchronization and Foundations • Chapter 1: The Mutual Exclusion Problem by Michel Raynal • Chapter 2: Solving Exclusion Problem Springer, 515 pages, 2013 • Chapter 3: Lock-Based Concurrent Objects ISBN: 978-3-642-32026-2 6 Parts, composed of 17 Chapters Balance: algorithms vs foundations c Michel Raynal Synchronization is coming back! 3 c Michel Raynal Synchronization is coming back! 4 Part II Part III PART 3: Mutex-free Synchronization Chapter 5: Mutex-Free Concurrent Objects PART 2: On the Foundations Side: the Atomicity Concept • • Chapter 6: Hybrid Concurrent Objects • Chapter 4: • Chapter 7: Wait-Free Objects from Read/write Registers Only Atomicity: Formal Definition and Properties • Chapter 8: Snapshot Objects from Read/Write Registers Only • Chapter 9: Renaming Objects from Read/Write Registers Only c Michel Raynal Synchronization is coming back! 5 c Michel Raynal Synchronization is coming back! 6 Part IV Part V PART 5: On the Foundations Side: from Safe
    [Show full text]
  • Lock Tricks, Skip Lists, and Without Locks I
    spcl.inf.ethz.ch @spcl_eth TORSTEN HOEFLER Parallel Programming Lock tricks, skip lists, and without Locks I xkcd.org spcl.inf.ethz.ch @spcl_eth Last week . Producer/Consumer in detail . Queues, implementation . Deadlock cases (repetition) . Monitors (repetition) . Condition variables, wait, signal, etc. Java’s thread state machine . Sleeping barber . Optimize (avoid) notifications using counters . RW Locks . Fairness is an issue (application-dependent) . Lock tricks on the list-based set example . Fine-grained locking … continued now 2 spcl.inf.ethz.ch @spcl_eth Learning goals today . Finish lock tricks . Optimistic synchronization . Lazy synchronization . Conflict-minimizing structures (probabilistic) . Example: skip lists . Lock scheduling . Sleeping vs. spinlock (deeper repetition) . Lock-free . Stack, list 3 spcl.inf.ethz.ch @spcl_eth Fine grained Locking Often more intricate than visible at a first sight • requires careful consideration of special cases Idea: split object into pieces with separate locks • no mutual exclusion for algorithms on disjoint pieces 4 spcl.inf.ethz.ch @spcl_eth Let's try this remove(c) a b c d Is this ok? 5 spcl.inf.ethz.ch @spcl_eth Let's try this Thread A: remove(c) Thread B: remove(b) B A a b c d c not deleted! 6 spcl.inf.ethz.ch @spcl_eth What's the problem? . When deleting, the next field of next is read, i.e., next also has to be protected. A thread needs to lock both, predecessor and the node to be deleted (hand-over-hand locking). B B a b d e 7 spcl.inf.ethz.ch @spcl_eth Remove method hand over
    [Show full text]
  • Capability-Based Type Systems for Concurrency Control
    Digital Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Science and Technology 1611 Capability-Based Type Systems for Concurrency Control ELIAS CASTEGREN ACTA UNIVERSITATIS UPSALIENSIS ISSN 1651-6214 ISBN 978-91-513-0187-7 UPPSALA urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-336021 2018 Dissertation presented at Uppsala University to be publicly examined in sal 2446, ITC, Lägerhyddsvägen 2, hus 2, Uppsala, Friday, 9 February 2018 at 13:15 for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The examination will be conducted in English. Faculty examiner: Professor Alan Mycroft (Cambridge University). Abstract Castegren, E. 2018. Capability-Based Type Systems for Concurrency Control. Digital Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Science and Technology 1611. 106 pp. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. ISBN 978-91-513-0187-7. Since the early 2000s, in order to keep up with the performance predictions of Moore's law, hardware vendors have had to turn to multi-core computers. Today, parallel hardware is everywhere, from massive server halls to the phones in our pockets. However, this parallelism does not come for free. Programs must explicitly be written to allow for concurrent execution, which adds complexity that is not present in sequential programs. In particular, if two concurrent processes share the same memory, care must be taken so that they do not overwrite each other's data. This issue of data-races is exacerbated in object-oriented languages, where shared memory in the form of aliasing is ubiquitous. Unfortunately, most mainstream programming languages were designed with sequential programming in mind, and therefore provide little or no support for handling this complexity.
    [Show full text]