skip to main content
10.1145/872035.872047acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagespodcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Operation-valency and the cost of coordination

Published:13 July 2003Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper introduces operation-valency, a generalization of the valency proof technique originated by Fischer, Lynch, and Paterson. By focusing on critical events that influence the return values of individual operations rather then on critical events that influence a protocol's single return value, the new technique allows us to derive a collection of realistic lower bounds for lock-free implementations of concurrent objects such as linearizable queues, stacks, sets, hash tables, shared counters, approximate agreement, and more. By realistic we mean that they follow the real-world model introduced by Dwork, Herlihy, and Waarts, counting both memory-references and memory-stalls due to contention, and that they allow the combined use of read, write, and read-modify-write operations available on current machines.By using the operation-valency technique, we derive an Ω(√n) non-cached shared memory accesses lower bound on the worst-case time complexity of lock-free implementations of objects in Influence(n), a wide class of concurrent objects including all of those mentioned above, in which an individual operation can be influenced by all others.We also prove the existence of a fundamental relationship between the space complexity, latency, contention, and "influence level" of any lock-free object implementation. Our results are broad in that they hold for implementations combining read/write memory and any collection of read-modify-write operations, and in that they apply even if shared memory words have unbounded size.

References

  1. Anderson and Yang. Time/contention trade-offs for multiprocessor synchronization. INFCTRL: Information and Computation (formerly Information and Control), 124, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. J. Anderson and Y. Kim. An improved lower bound for the time complexity of mutual exclusion, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. C. Busch, N. Hardavellas, and M. Mavronicolas. Contention in counting networks. In Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, page 404, 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. C. Busch and M. Mavronicolas. An efficient counting network. In Proceedings of the 1st Merged International Parallel Processing Symposium and Symposium on Parallel and Distributed Processing (IPPS/SPDP'98), pages 380--385, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. B. Chor, A. Israeli, and M. Li. On processor coordination using asynchronous hardware. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC), pages 86--97, New York, NY, 1987. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. R. Cypher. The communication requirements of mutual exclusion. In ACM Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Symposium on Parallel Algorithms and Architectures, pages 147--156, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. C. Dwork, M. Herlihy, and O. Waarts. Contention in shared memory algorithms. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 44(6):779--805, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. F. E. Fich and E. Ruppert. Lower bounds in distributed computing. In International Symposium on Distributed Computing, pages 1--28, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. M. J. Fischer, N. A. Lynch, and M. S. Paterson. Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process. Journal of the ACM, 32(2):374--382, April 1985. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. M. Herlihy. Wait-free synchronization. ACM Transactions On Programming Languages and Systems, 13(1):123--149, Jan. 1991. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. M. Herlihy. Wait-free synchronization. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 13(1):124--149, January 1991. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. M. Herlihy, N. Shavit, and O. Waarts. Linearizable counting networks. Distributed Computing, 9(4):193--203, April 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. P. Jayanti. A time complexity lower bound for randomized implementations of some shared objects. In Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pages 201--210, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. M. C. Loui and H. H. Abu.-Amara. Memory requirements for agreement among unreliable asynchronous processes. Advances in Computing Research, 4:163--183, 1987.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. N. Lynch. A hundred impossibility proofs for distributed computing. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC), pages 1--28, New York, NY, 1989. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. M. Merrit and G. Taubenfeld. Knowledge in shared memory systems. In ACM Symp. on Principles of Distributed Computing, pages 189--200, 1991. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Operation-valency and the cost of coordination

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      PODC '03: Proceedings of the twenty-second annual symposium on Principles of distributed computing
      July 2003
      380 pages
      ISBN:1581137087
      DOI:10.1145/872035

      Copyright © 2003 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 13 July 2003

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • Article

      Acceptance Rates

      PODC '03 Paper Acceptance Rate51of226submissions,23%Overall Acceptance Rate740of2,477submissions,30%

      Upcoming Conference

      PODC '24

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader