恒定的RMR解决方案,以读写同步

V. Bhatt, P. Jayanti
{"title":"恒定的RMR解决方案,以读写同步","authors":"V. Bhatt, P. Jayanti","doi":"10.1145/1835698.1835803","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We study Reader-Writer Exclusion [1], a well-known variant of the Mutual Exclusion problem [2] where processes are divided into two classes - readers and writers - and multiple readers can be in the Critical Section (CS) at the same time, although no process may be in the CS at the same time as a writer. Since readers don't conflict with each other, they should not obstruct each other. Specifically, the concurrent entering property must be satisfied: if all writers are in the Remainder section, each reader should be able to enter the CS in a bounded number of its own steps. Three versions of the Reader-Writer Exclusion problem are commonly studied - one where writers have priority over readers, another where readers have priority, and the last where neither class has priority over the other and no process may starve. To ensure high performance on Cache-Coherent (CC) and Distributed Shared Memory (DSM) multiprocessors, algorithms should be designed to generate as few remote memory references (RMRs) as possible. It would be ideal to achieve constant RMR complexity, i.e., the worst case number of RMRs that a process generates in order to enter and exit the CS once is a constant, independent of the number of processes. Constant RMR complexity algorithms have existed for Mutual Exclusion for two decades [3, 4], but none exists for Reader-Writer Exclusion. Danek and Hadzilacos' lower bound proof implies that it is impossible to achieve sublinear RMR complexity for DSM machines [5]. For CC machines, the best existing bound, also due to Danek and Hadzilacos [5], is O(log n), where n is the number of processes. In this work, we present the first constant RMR complexity algorithms for all three versions of the Reader-Writer Exclusion problem (for CC machines).","PeriodicalId":447863,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGACT-SIGOPS symposium on Principles of distributed computing","volume":"104 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"16","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Constant RMR solutions to reader writer synchronization\",\"authors\":\"V. Bhatt, P. Jayanti\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/1835698.1835803\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We study Reader-Writer Exclusion [1], a well-known variant of the Mutual Exclusion problem [2] where processes are divided into two classes - readers and writers - and multiple readers can be in the Critical Section (CS) at the same time, although no process may be in the CS at the same time as a writer. Since readers don't conflict with each other, they should not obstruct each other. Specifically, the concurrent entering property must be satisfied: if all writers are in the Remainder section, each reader should be able to enter the CS in a bounded number of its own steps. Three versions of the Reader-Writer Exclusion problem are commonly studied - one where writers have priority over readers, another where readers have priority, and the last where neither class has priority over the other and no process may starve. To ensure high performance on Cache-Coherent (CC) and Distributed Shared Memory (DSM) multiprocessors, algorithms should be designed to generate as few remote memory references (RMRs) as possible. It would be ideal to achieve constant RMR complexity, i.e., the worst case number of RMRs that a process generates in order to enter and exit the CS once is a constant, independent of the number of processes. Constant RMR complexity algorithms have existed for Mutual Exclusion for two decades [3, 4], but none exists for Reader-Writer Exclusion. Danek and Hadzilacos' lower bound proof implies that it is impossible to achieve sublinear RMR complexity for DSM machines [5]. For CC machines, the best existing bound, also due to Danek and Hadzilacos [5], is O(log n), where n is the number of processes. In this work, we present the first constant RMR complexity algorithms for all three versions of the Reader-Writer Exclusion problem (for CC machines).\",\"PeriodicalId\":447863,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGACT-SIGOPS symposium on Principles of distributed computing\",\"volume\":\"104 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-07-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"16\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGACT-SIGOPS symposium on Principles of distributed computing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/1835698.1835803\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGACT-SIGOPS symposium on Principles of distributed computing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/1835698.1835803","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

摘要

我们研究了Reader-Writer Exclusion[1],这是互斥问题[2]的一个众所周知的变体,其中进程被分为两类——reader和writer——多个reader可以同时处于临界区(CS),尽管没有进程可以作为writer同时处于CS。既然读者之间不冲突,他们就不应该互相阻碍。具体地说,必须满足并发输入属性:如果所有的写入器都在剩余部分中,则每个读取器都应该能够以有限的步数进入CS。通常研究三种版本的读写排斥问题——一种是写程序优先于读程序,另一种是读程序优先,最后一种是两个类都不优先于另一个类,没有进程会饿死。为了确保在缓存一致(CC)和分布式共享内存(DSM)多处理器上的高性能,算法应该设计成尽可能少地生成远程内存引用(RMRs)。理想的情况是实现恒定的RMR复杂度,也就是说,一个进程为了进入和退出CS而生成的最坏情况下的RMR数量是一个常数,与进程的数量无关。恒定RMR复杂度算法在互斥方面已经存在了二十年[3,4],但在读写排斥方面还不存在。Danek和Hadzilacos的下界证明表明,DSM机器不可能实现亚线性RMR复杂度[5]。对于CC机器,同样由Danek和Hadzilacos[5]得出的最佳现有界为O(log n),其中n为进程数。在这项工作中,我们为所有三个版本的读写排斥问题(CC机器)提出了第一个恒定RMR复杂度算法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Constant RMR solutions to reader writer synchronization
We study Reader-Writer Exclusion [1], a well-known variant of the Mutual Exclusion problem [2] where processes are divided into two classes - readers and writers - and multiple readers can be in the Critical Section (CS) at the same time, although no process may be in the CS at the same time as a writer. Since readers don't conflict with each other, they should not obstruct each other. Specifically, the concurrent entering property must be satisfied: if all writers are in the Remainder section, each reader should be able to enter the CS in a bounded number of its own steps. Three versions of the Reader-Writer Exclusion problem are commonly studied - one where writers have priority over readers, another where readers have priority, and the last where neither class has priority over the other and no process may starve. To ensure high performance on Cache-Coherent (CC) and Distributed Shared Memory (DSM) multiprocessors, algorithms should be designed to generate as few remote memory references (RMRs) as possible. It would be ideal to achieve constant RMR complexity, i.e., the worst case number of RMRs that a process generates in order to enter and exit the CS once is a constant, independent of the number of processes. Constant RMR complexity algorithms have existed for Mutual Exclusion for two decades [3, 4], but none exists for Reader-Writer Exclusion. Danek and Hadzilacos' lower bound proof implies that it is impossible to achieve sublinear RMR complexity for DSM machines [5]. For CC machines, the best existing bound, also due to Danek and Hadzilacos [5], is O(log n), where n is the number of processes. In this work, we present the first constant RMR complexity algorithms for all three versions of the Reader-Writer Exclusion problem (for CC machines).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信