* Exclusion: At most one process executes its critical section at any time.

This paper addresses the properties and design of long-lived adaptive algorithms in the read/write shared memory model. In particular we present adaptive and long-lived algorithms that adapt to the point contention of an operation while using only a bounded amount of memory. We believe the techniques and building blocks developed here to be of further use in the design of adaptive and long-lived algorithms. We use the renaming problem as a test-case to demonstrate the new techniques and properties. Three new implementations of adaptive, wait-free, and long-lived renaming in the read/write shared memory model are presented. Unlike previous algorithms [1] the three algorithms require a bounded number of registers and adapt to the point contention of an operation. The two previous algorithms presented in [1] either adapt to the point contention or use a bounded size memory...

Abstract. Various timing-based mutual exclusion algorithms have been proposed that guarantee mutual exclusion if certain timing assumptions hold. In this paper, we examine how these algorithms behave when the time for the basic operations is governed by probability distributions. In particular, we are concerned withhow often suchalgorithms succeed in allowing a processor to obtain a critical region and how this success rate depends on the random variables involved. We explore this question in the case where operation times are governed by exponential and gamma distributions, using both theoretical analysis and simulations.

this paper we were able to define and implement a variant of the Moir-Anderson splitter that does not have all the properties that their splitter has but on the other hand, has an adaptive and long-lived implementation. Furthermore, we use this splitter as a building block in constructions other than a grid (for example a row of splitters or a tree of splitters) and in this way implement diverse applications such as mutual exclusion and optimal name space renaming

this paper. Motivated by their first work Moir and Anderson developed renaming algorithms, in the read/write model, when such a bound on the maximum number of processes is known in advance. This led to a sequence of works on the renaming problem in this model [MA95, MG96, BGHM95] that lead to a long-lived (2K \Gamma 1)-renaming algorithm with O(K ) step complexity and O(K space complexity [Moi98]. These works employed various variants of the splitter building block which is a descendant of Lamport's adaptive mutual exclusion algorithm, however the last one [Moi98] depends on an additional work which is the first long-lived renaming algorithm by Burns and Peterson [BP89]

Abstract We consider the time complexity of shared-memory mutual exclusion algorithms based on reads, writes, and comparison primitives under the remote-memory-reference (RMR) time measure. For asynchronous systems, a lower bound of \Omega (log N / log log N) RMRs per critical-section entry has been established in previous work, where N is the number of processes. Also, algorithms with O(log N) time complexity are known. Thus, for algorithms in this class, logarithmic or near-logarithmic RMR time complexity is fundamentally required.

Two implementations of an adaptive, wait-free, and long-lived renaming task in the read/write shared memory model are presented. Implementations of longlived and adaptive objects were previously known only in the much stronger model of load-linked and store-conditional (i.e., read-modify-write) shared memory. In read/write shared-memory only one-shot adaptive objects are known. Presented here are two algorithms that assign a new unique id in the range 1, ..., O(k²) to any process whose initial unique name is taken from a set of size N , for an arbitrary N and where k is the number of processors that actually take steps or hold a name while the new name is being acquired. The step complexity of acquiring a new name is respectively O(k²) and O(k² log k), while the step complexity of releasing a name is 1. The main differences between the two algorithms are in the prec...