Abstract
Reducing the number of aborts is one of the biggest challenges of most transactional systems: existing TMs may abort many transactions that could, in fact, commit without violating correctness. Historically, the commonly used method for reducing the abort rate was maintaining multiple object versions. Multiversion concurrency control is a classical approach for providing concurrent access to the database in database management systems. Its idea is to let a reading transaction obtain a consistent snapshot corresponding to an arbitrary point in time (e.g., defined at the beginning of a transaction) – concurrent updates are isolated through maintaining old versions rather than via scheduling decisions.
Multi-versioning was adopted by transactional memory algorithms as well. In this chapter we overview the multi-versioning approach by studying the inherent properties of STMs that use multiple versions to guarantee successful commits of all read-only transactions.
We first consider the challenges of garbage collecting of old object versions, and show that no STM can be optimal in the number of previous versions kept, while following the naïve approach of keeping a constant number of last versions per object might lead to an exponential memory growth.
We then show the potential performance challenges of multi-versioned STMs, including disjoint-access parallelism and visibility of read-only transactions.
We demonstrate the advantages of implementing multi-versioned STMs in managed memory environments by presenting Selective Multi-Versioning (SMV) algorithm. SMV relies on automatic garbage collection, and thus efficiently deals with old versions while still allowing invisible read-only transactions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Attiya, H., Hillel, E.: Single-version STMs can be multi-version permissive (Extended abstract). In: Aguilera, M.K., Yu, H., Vaidya, N.H., Srinivasan, V., Choudhury, R.R. (eds.) ICDCN 2011. LNCS, vol. 6522, pp. 83–94. Springer, Heidelberg (2011), http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1946143.1946151
Attiya, H., Hillel, E., Milani, A.: Inherent limitations on disjoint-access parallel implementations of transactional memory. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-first Annual Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures, SPAA 2009, pp. 69–78. ACM, New York (2009), http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1583991.1584015
Aydonat, U., Abdelrahman, T.: Serializability of transactions in software transactional memory. In: Second ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on Transactional Computing (2008)
Basin, D., Fan, R., Keidar, I., Kiselov, O., Perelman, D.: CAFÉ: Scalable task pools with adjustable fairness and contention. In: Peleg, D. (ed.) DISC 2011. LNCS, vol. 6950, pp. 475–488. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
Berenson, H., Bernstein, P., Gray, J., Melton, J., O’Neil, E., O’Neil, P.: A critique of ANSI SQL isolation levels. In: Proceedings of the 1995 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pp. 1–10 (1995)
Bernstein, P.A., Hadzilacos, V., Goodman, N.: Concurrency Control and Recovery in Database Systems. Addison-Wesley (1987)
Cachopo, J., Rito-Silva, A.: Versioned boxes as the basis for memory transactions. Science of Computer Programming 63(2), 172–185 (2006)
Carvalho, N., Cachopo, J., Rodrigues, L., Rito-Silva, A.: Versioned transactional shared memory for the FenixEDU web application. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Dependable Distributed Data Management, pp. 15–18 (2008)
Dice, D., Shalev, O., Shavit, N.: Transactional locking II. In: Dolev, S. (ed.) DISC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4167, pp. 194–208. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Dice, D., Shavit, N.: TLRW: Return of the read-write lock. In: TRANSACT 2009: 4th Workshop on Transactional Computing (February 2009)
Dragojević, A., Harris, T.: Stm in the small: Trading generality for performance in software transactional memory. In: Proceedings of the 7th ACM European Conference on Computer Systems, EuroSys 2012, pp. 1–14. ACM, New York (2012), http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2168836.2168838
Ellen, F., Lev, Y., Luchangco, V., Moir, M.: Snzi: Scalable nonzero indicators. In: PODC 2007: Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pp. 13–22. ACM, New York (2007)
Ennals, R.: Cache sensitive software transactional memory. Tech. rep.
Fernandes, S.M., Cachopo, J.A.: Lock-free and Scalable Multi-Version Software Transactional Memory. In: PPoPP 2011, pp. 179–188 (2011)
Fraser, K.: Practical lock freedom. Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge University Computer Laboratory (2003)
Gosling, J., Joy, B., Steele, G., Bracha, G.: The Java Language Specification, 3rd edn. Addison-Wesley Longman (2005)
Guerraoui, R., Henzinger, T.A., Singh, V.: Permissiveness in Transactional Memories. In: Taubenfeld, G. (ed.) DISC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5218, pp. 305–319. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Heber, T., Hendler, D., Suissa, A.: On the impact of serializing contention management on stm performance. J. Parallel Distrib. Comput. 72(6), 739–750 (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpdc.2012.02.009
Herlihy, M., Shavit, N.: The Art of Multiprocessor Programming. Morgan Kaufmann (2008)
Keidar, I., Perelman, D.: On avoiding spare aborts in transactional memory. In: SPAA 2009, pp. 59–68 (2009)
Koskinen, E., Herlihy, M.: Dreadlocks: Efficient deadlock detection. In: Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures, pp. 297–303 (2008)
Michael, M.M.: Hazard pointers: Safe memory reclamation for lock-free objects. IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst. 15, 491–504 (2004)
Michael, M.M., Scott, M.L.: Simple, fast, and practical non-blocking and blocking concurrent queue algorithms. In: Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, PODC 1996, pp. 267–275 (1996)
Napper, J., Alvisi, L.: Lock-free serializable transactions. Tech. rep., The University of Texas at Austin (2005)
Papadimitriou, C.H., Kanellakis, P.C.: On concurrency control by multiple versions. ACM Trans. Database Syst., 89–99 (1984)
Perelman, D., Byshevsky, A., Litmanovich, O., Keidar, I.: SMV: Selective multi-versioning STM. In: Peleg, D. (ed.) DISC 2011. LNCS, vol. 6950, pp. 125–140. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
Perelman, D., Fan, R., Keidar, I.: On maintaining multiple versions in STM. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures, PODC 2001, pp. 16–25 (2010)
Ramadan, H.E., Roy, I., Herlihy, M., Witchel, E.: Committing conflicting transactions in an STM. SIGPLAN Not 44(4), 163–172 (2009)
Riegel, T., Fetzer, C., Sturzrehm, H., Felber, P.: From causal to z-linearizable transactional memory. In: Proceedings of the 26th Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pp. 340–341 (2007)
Riegel, T., Felber, P., Fetzer, C.: A lazy snapshot algorithm with eager validation. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Symposium on Distributed Computing, pp. 284–298 (2006)
Spear, M.F., Michael, M.M., von Praun, C.: RingSTM: Scalable transactions with a single atomic instruction. In: SPAA 2008, pp. 275–284 (2008)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Keidar, I., Perelman, D. (2015). Multi-versioning in Transactional Memory. In: Guerraoui, R., Romano, P. (eds) Transactional Memory. Foundations, Algorithms, Tools, and Applications. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8913. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14720-8_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14720-8_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-14719-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-14720-8
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)