Adjacency lists are frequently used in graphing or map based applications. Although efficient concurrent linked-list algorithms are well known, it can be difficult to adapt these approaches to build a high-performance adjacency list. Furthermore, it can often be desirable to execute operations in these data structures transactionally, or perform a sequence of operations in one atomic step. In this paper, we present a lock-free transactional adjacency list based on a multi-dimensional list (MDList). We are able to combine known linked list strategies with the capability of the MDList in order to efficiently organize graph vertexes and their edges. We design our underlying data structure to be node-based and linearizable, then use the Lock-Free Transactional Transformation (LFTT) methodology to efficiently enable transactional execution. In our performance evaluation, our lock-free transactional adjacency list achieves an average of 50 speedup over a transactional boosting implementation.
Transactional linked list implementations based on transactional boosting use coarse-grained locking to ensure that non-commutative method calls are never allowed to execute simultaneously. The underlying linked list algorithm's linearizability is preserved during this process to handle thread level synchronization. Rollbacks are performed by calling a method's inverse operation, which causes a performance loss for aborted transactions. Zhang and Dechev @cite_26 present a lock-free transactional linked list alongside LFTT which takes advantage of a node based conflict detection scheme to preserve the underlying algorithm's lock-freedom. This approach additionally reduces the performance hit of rollbacks by introducing a logical status update scheme capable of aborting a transaction in a single atomic step. LFTT provides transformation templates for the set abstract data type, which does not account for operations in which elements are related to each other.
@cite_26
2518341045
Hardware lock-elision HLE introduces concurrency into legacy lock-based code by optimistically executing critical sections in a fast-path as hardware transactions. Its main limitation is that in case of repeated aborts, it reverts to a fallback-path that acquires a serial lock. This fallback-path lacks hardware-software concurrency, because all fast-path hardware transactions abort and wait for the completion of the fallback. Software lock elision has no such limitation, but the overheads incurred are simply too high. We propose amalgamated lock-elision ALE, a novel lock-elision algorithm that provides hardware-software concurrency and efficiency: the fallback-path executes concurrently with fast-path hardware transactions, while the common-path fast-path reads incur no overheads and proceed without any instrumentation. The key idea in ALE is to use a sequence of fine-grained locks in the fallback-path to detect conflicts with the fast-path, and at the same time reduce the costs of these locks by executing the fallback-path as a series segments, where each segment is a dynamic length short hardware transaction. We implemented ALE into GCC and tested the new system on Intel Haswell 16-way chip that provides hardware transactions. We benchmarked linked-lists, hash-tables and red-black trees, as well as converting KyotoCacheDB to use ALE in GCC, and all show that ALE significantly outperforms HLE. Hardware transactional memory (HTM) is becoming widely available on modern platforms. However, software using HTM requires at least two carefully-coordinated code paths: one for transactions, and at least one for when transactions either fail, or are not supported at all. We present the MCMS interface that allows a simple design of fast concurrent data structures. MCMS-based code can execute fast when HTM support is provided, but it also executes well on platforms that do not support HTM, and it handles transaction failures as well. To demonstrate the advantage of such an abstraction, we designed MCMS-based linked-list and tree algorithms. The list algorithm outperforms all known lock-free linked-lists by a factor of up to X2.15. The tree algorithm builds on [7] and outperforms it by a factor of up to X1.37. Both algorithms are considerably simpler than their lock-free counterparts. Chip multi-processors (CMPs) have become ubiquitous, while tools that ease concurrent programming have not. The promise of increased performance for all applications through ever more parallel hardware requires good tools for concurrent programming, especially for average programmers. Transactional memory (TM) has enjoyed recent interest as a tool that can help programmers program concurrently. The transactional memory (TM) research community is heavily invested in the claim that programming with transactional memory is easier than alternatives (like locks), but evidence for or against the veracity of this claim is scant. In this paper, we describe a user-study in which 237 undergraduate students in an operating systems course implement the same programs using coarse and fine-grain locks, monitors, and transactions. We surveyed the students after the assignment, and examined their code to determine the types and frequency of programming errors for each synchronization technique. Inexperienced programmers found baroque syntax a barrier to entry for transactional programming. On average, subjective evaluation showed that students found transactions harder to use than coarse-grain locks, but slightly easier to use than fine-grained locks. Detailed examination of synchronization errors in the students' code tells a rather different story. Overwhelmingly, the number and types of programming errors the students made was much lower for transactions than for locks. On a similar programming problem, over 70 of students made errors with fine-grained locking, while less than 10 made errors with transactions. Distributed storage systems run transactions across machines to ensure serializability. Traditional protocols for distributed transactions are based on two-phase locking (2PL) or optimistic concurrency control (OCC). 2PL serializes transactions as soon as they conflict and OCC resorts to aborts, leaving many opportunities for concurrency on the table. This paper presents ROCOCO, a novel concurrency control protocol for distributed transactions that outperforms 2PL and OCC by allowing more concurrency. ROCOCO executes a transaction as a collection of atomic pieces, each of which commonly involves only a single server. Servers first track dependencies between concurrent transactions without actually executing them. At commit time, a transaction's dependency information is sent to all servers so they can re-order conflicting pieces and execute them in a serializable order. We compare ROCOCO to OCC and 2PL using a scaled TPC-C benchmark. ROCOCO outperforms 2PL and OCC in workloads with varying degrees of contention. When the contention is high, ROCOCO's throughput is 130 and 347 higher than that of 2PL and OCC.