On the Computational Power of Shared Objects

We propose a new classification for evaluating the strength of shared objects. The classification is based on finding, for each object of type o , the strongest progress condition for which it is possible to solve consensus for any number of processes, using any number of objects of type o and atomic registers. We use the strongest progress condition to associate with each object a number call the power number of that object. Objects with higher power numbers are considered stronger. Then, we define the power hierarchy which is an infinite hierarchy of objects such that the objects at level i of the hierarchy are exactly those objects with power number i . Comparing our classification with the traditional one which is based on fixing the progress condition (namely, wait-freedom) and finding the largest number of processes for which consensus is solvable, reveals interesting results. Our equivalence and extended universality results, provide a deeper understanding of the nature of the relative computational power of shared objects.

[1]  Leslie Lamport,et al.  Reaching Agreement in the Presence of Faults , 1980, JACM.

[2]  Maurice Herlihy,et al.  Obstruction-free synchronization: double-ended queues as an example , 2003, 23rd International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, 2003. Proceedings..

[3]  Maurice Herlihy,et al.  Wait-free synchronization , 1991, TOPL.

[4]  Serge A. Plotkin.  Sticky bits and universality of consensus , 1989, PODC '89.

[5]  Maurice Herlihy,et al.  Linearizability: a correctness condition for concurrent objects , 1990, TOPL.

[6]  Gadi Taubenfeld.  Contention-Sensitive Data Structures and Algorithms , 2009, DISC.

[7]  Mark Moir,et al.  On the Uncontended Complexity of Consensus , 2003, DISC.

[8]  Vassos Hadzilacos,et al.  All of Us Are Smarter than Any of Us: Nondeterministic Wait-Free Hierarchies Are Not Robust , 2000, SIAM J. Comput..

[9]  Sam Toueg,et al.  Some Results on the Impossibility, Universality, and Decidability of Consensus , 1992, WDAG.

[10]  Eli Gafni,et al.  The concurrency hierarchy, and algorithms for unbounded concurrency , 2001, PODC '01.

[11]  Prasad Jayanti,et al.  Robust wait-free hierarchies , 1997, JACM.

[12]  Michael Merritt,et al.  Resilient Consensus for Infinitely Many Processes , 2003, DISC.

[13]  Rachid Guerraoui,et al.  Computing with Reads and Writes in the Absence of Step Contention , 2005, DISC.

[14]  Nancy A. Lynch,et al.  Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process , 1985, JACM.

[15]  Gadi Taubenfeld.  Synchronization Algorithms and Concurrent Programming , 2006 .

[16]  N. Meyers,et al.  H = W. , 1964, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[17]  Faith Ellen,et al.  Hundreds of impossibility results for distributed computing , 2003, Distributed Computing.