arXiv · 1502.02725
Why Transactional Memory Should Not Be Obstruction-Free
Abstract
Transactional memory (TM) is an inherently optimistic abstraction: it allows concurrent processes to execute sequences of shared-data accesses (transactions) speculatively, with an option of aborting them in the future. Early TM designs avoided using locks and relied on non-blocking synchronization to ensure obstruction-freedom: a transaction that encounters no step contention is not allowed to abort. However, it was later observed that obstruction-free TMs perform poorly and, as a result, state-of-the-art TM implementations are nowadays blocking, allowing aborts because of data conflicts rather than step contention. In this paper, we explain this shift in the TM practice theoretically, via complexity bounds. We prove a few important lower bounds on obstruction-free TMs. Then we present a lock-based TM implementation that beats all of these lower bounds. In sum, our results exhibit a considerable complexity gap between non-blocking and blocking TM implementations.
Explore related subjects
Keep this discovery
Petr Kuznetsov, Srivatsan Ravi. 2016-03-04. Why Transactional Memory Should Not Be Obstruction-Free. https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.02725
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.