Relating L-resilience and wait-freedom via hitting sets

The condition of t-resilience stipulates that an n-process program is only obliged to make progress when at least n - t processes are correct. Put another way, the live sets, the collection of process sets such that progress is required if all the processes in one of these sets are correct, are all sets with at least n - t processes. We show that the ability of arbitrary collection of live sets L to solve distributed tasks is tightly related to the minimum hitting set of L, a minimum cardinality subset of processes that has a non-empty intersection with every live set. Thus, finding the computing power of L is NP-complete. For the special case of colorless tasks that allow participating processes to adopt input or output values of each other, we use a simple simulation to show that a task can be solved L-resiliently if and only if it can be solved (h - 1)-resiliently, where h is the size of the minimum hitting set of L. For general tasks, we characterize L-resilient solvability of tasks with respect to a limited notion of weak solvability: in every execution where all processes in some set in L are correct, outputs must be produced for every process in some (possibly different) participating set in L. Given a task T, we construct another task TL such that T is solvable weakly L-resiliently if and only if TL is solvable weakly wait-free.

[1]  Maurice Herlihy,et al.  The topological structure of asynchronous computability , 1999, JACM.

[2]  Richard M. Karp,et al.  Reducibility Among Combinatorial Problems , 1972, 50 Years of Integer Programming.

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

[4]  Petr Kuznetsov,et al.  L-Resilient Adversaries and Hitting Sets , 2010, ArXiv.

[5]  Rachid Guerraoui,et al.  The Disagreement Power of an Adversary , 2009, DISC.

[6]  Keith Marzullo,et al.  A framework for the design of dependent‐failure algorithms , 2007, Concurr. Comput. Pract. Exp..

[7]  Eli Gafni,et al.  Generalized FLP impossibility result for t-resilient asynchronous computations , 1993, STOC.

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

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

[10]  Maurice Herlihy,et al.  The topology of shared-memory adversaries , 2010, PODC '10.

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

[12]  Maurice Herlihy,et al.  The decidability of distributed decision tasks (extended abstract) , 1997, STOC '97.

[13]  Eli Gafni,et al.  Round-by-round fault detectors (extended abstract): unifying synchrony and asynchrony , 1998, PODC '98.

[14]  Michel Raynal,et al.  Visiting Gafni's Reduction Land: From the BG Simulation to the Extended BG Simulation , 2009, SSS.

[15]  Eli Gafni,et al.  A simple algorithmically reasoned characterization of wait-free computation (extended abstract) , 1997, PODC '97.

[16]  Eli Gafni The extended BG-simulation and the characterization of t-resiliency , 2009, STOC '09.

[17]  Petr Kuznetsov,et al.  Turning Adversaries into Friends: Simplified, Made Constructive, and Extended , 2010, OPODIS.

[18]  Nancy A. Lynch,et al.  The BG distributed simulation algorithm , 2001, Distributed Computing.

[19]  Eli Gafni,et al.  Three-Processor Tasks Are Undecidable , 1999, SIAM J. Comput..