Approximate Count and Queue Objects in Transactional Memory

In Transactional Memory each shared object can be accessed by concurrent transactions which may result to object access conflicts and aborts. Opacity is a precise consistency property which maps a concurrent execution to a legal sequential execution that preserves the real time order of events. However, having precise consistency may result in a large rate of aborts especially in systems that have frequent memory updates. In real applications, there are systems that do not require precise consistency especially when the data is not sensitive. As a means for relaxing consistency, we use the notion of K-opacity where transactions are allowed to read one of the K most recent written values to the objects (and not the latest value only). This increases the throughput and reduces the abort rate by reducing the chance of conflicts. In this paper we apply the K-opacity concept to read/write, count and queue objects, which are common objects used in typical concurrent programs. We use the technique of writer lists to keep track of the transactions and the data being written to the system, in order to control the error rate and to prevent error propagation. We illustrate with an experimental analysis the positive impact of our approach on performance, where higher opacity relaxation (higher values of K) increases the throughput and decreases the aborts rate significantly.

[1]  GrayJim,et al.  A critique of ANSI SQL isolation levels , 1995 .

[2]  Rachid Guerraoui,et al.  Principles of Transactional Memory , 2010, Synthesis Lectures on Distributed Computing Theory.

[3]  Mukul K. Sinha,et al.  Nonsensitive Data and Approximate Transactions , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[4]  Jim Gray,et al.  A critique of ANSI SQL isolation levels , 1995, SIGMOD '95.

[5]  Jiawei Han,et al.  gApprox: Mining Frequent Approximate Patterns from a Massive Network , 2007, Seventh IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM 2007).

[6]  Sathya Peri,et al.  A TimeStamp Based Multi-version STM Algorithm , 2014, ICDCN.

[7]  R. D. Juan-Marín,et al.  Providing Read Committed Isolation Level in Non-Blocking ROWA Database Replication Protocols ⋆ , 2007 .

[8]  Idit Keidar,et al.  SMV: Selective Multi-Versioning STM , 2011, DISC.

[9]  GuerraouiRachid,et al.  The semantics of progress in lock-based transactional memory , 2009 .

[10]  Konrad Siek,et al.  Brief Announcement: Relaxing Opacity in Pessimistic Transactional Memory , 2014 .

[11]  Nir Shavit,et al.  Software transactional memory , 1995, PODC '95.

[12]  Maurice Herlihy,et al.  Transactional Memory: Architectural Support For Lock-free Data Structures , 1993, Proceedings of the 20th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture.

[13]  Costas Busch,et al.  Approximately Opaque Multi-version Permissive Transactional Memory , 2016, 2016 45th International Conference on Parallel Processing Workshops (ICPPW).

[14]  Rachid Guerraoui,et al.  The semantics of progress in lock-based transactional memory , 2009, POPL '09.

[15]  Torvald Riegel,et al.  Dynamic performance tuning of word-based software transactional memory , 2008, PPoPP.

[16]  Rachid Guerraoui,et al.  On the correctness of transactional memory , 2008, PPoPP.

[17]  Torvald Riegel,et al.  Snapshot Isolation for Software Transactional Memory , 2006 .

[18]  Torvald Riegel,et al.  A Lazy Snapshot Algorithm with Eager Validation , 2006, DISC.

[19]  Viswanath Poosala,et al.  Aqua: A Fast Decision Support Systems Using Approximate Query Answers , 1999, VLDB.

[20]  Jacob Nelson,et al.  Approximate storage in solid-state memories , 2013, 2013 46th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO).