Relating L\mathcal{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 T_L such that T is solvable weakly L-resiliently if and only if T_L is solvable weakly wait-free.

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

[2]  Keith Marzullo,et al.  A framework for the design of dependent-failure algorithms: Research Articles , 2007 .

[3]  Nir Shavit,et al.  Atomic snapshots of shared memory , 1990, JACM.

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

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

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

[7]  Rachid Guerraoui,et al.  The disagreement power of an adversary , 2011, Distributed Computing.

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

[9]  Eli Gafni,et al.  Round-by-Round Fault Detectors: Unifying Synchrony and Asynchrony (Extended Abstract). , 1998, PODC 1998.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[17]  Nancy A. Lynch,et al.  Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process , 1983, PODS '83.

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

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

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