Results 1 -
6 of
6
Atomic Snapshots of Shared Memory
, 1993
"... . This paper introduces a general formulation of atomic snapshot memory, a shared memory partitioned into words written (updated) by individual processes, or instantaneously read (scanned) in its entirety. This paper presents three wait-free implementations of atomic snapshot memory. The first imple ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 148 (42 self)
- Add to MetaCart
. This paper introduces a general formulation of atomic snapshot memory, a shared memory partitioned into words written (updated) by individual processes, or instantaneously read (scanned) in its entirety. This paper presents three wait-free implementations of atomic snapshot memory. The first implementation in this paper uses unbounded (integer) fields in these registers, and is particularly easy to understand. The second implementation uses bounded registers. Its correctness proof follows the ideas of the unbounded implementation. Both constructions implement a single-writer snapshot memory, in which each word may be updated by only one process, from single-writer, n-reader registers. The third algorithm implements a multi-writer snapshot memory from atomic n-writer, n-reader registers, again echoing key ideas from the earlier constructions. All operations require \Theta(n 2 ) reads and writes to the component shared registers in the worst case. Categories and Subject Discriptors:...
Are Wait-Free Algorithms Fast?
, 1991
"... The time complexity of wait-free algorithms in "normal" executions, where no failures occur and processes operate at approximately the same speed, is considered. A lower bound of log n on the time complexity of any wait-free algorithm that achieves approximate agreement among n processes is proved. ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 42 (12 self)
- Add to MetaCart
The time complexity of wait-free algorithms in "normal" executions, where no failures occur and processes operate at approximately the same speed, is considered. A lower bound of log n on the time complexity of any wait-free algorithm that achieves approximate agreement among n processes is proved. In contrast, there exists a non-wait-free algorithm that solves this problem in constant time. This implies an (log n) time separation between the wait-free and non-wait-free computation models. On the positive side, we present an O(log n) time wait-free approximate agreement algorithm; the complexity of this algorithm is within a small constant of the lower bound.
Computing with Faulty Shared Objects
, 1995
"... This paper investigates the effects of the failure of shared objects on distributed systems. First the notion of a faulty shared object is introduced. Then upper and lower bounds on the space complexity of implementing reliable shared objects are provided. ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 19 (0 self)
- Add to MetaCart
This paper investigates the effects of the failure of shared objects on distributed systems. First the notion of a faulty shared object is introduced. Then upper and lower bounds on the space complexity of implementing reliable shared objects are provided.
Bounded Concurrent Time-Stamping
- SIAM JOURNAL ON COMPUTING
, 1997
"... We introduce concurrent time-stamping, a paradigm that allows processes to temporally order concurrent events in an asynchronous shared-memory system. Concurrent time-stamp systems are powerful tools for concurrency control, serving as the basis for solutions to coordination problems such as mutual ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 14 (1 self)
- Add to MetaCart
We introduce concurrent time-stamping, a paradigm that allows processes to temporally order concurrent events in an asynchronous shared-memory system. Concurrent time-stamp systems are powerful tools for concurrency control, serving as the basis for solutions to coordination problems such as mutual exclusion, l-exclusion, randomized consensus, and multiwriter multireader atomic registers. Unfortunately, all previously known methods for implementing concurrent timestamp systems have been theoretically unsatisfying since they require unbounded-size time-stamps -- in other words, unbounded-size memory. This work presents the first bounded implementation of a concurrent time-stamp system, providing a modular unbounded-to-bounded transformation of the simple unbounded solutions to problems such as those mentioned above. It allows solutions to two formerly open problems, the boundedprobabilistic -consensus problem of Abrahamson and the fifo-l-exclusion problem of Fischer, Lynch, Burns and...
A Bounded First-In, First-Enabled Solution to the l-Exclusion Problem
- ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems
, 1990
"... This paper presents a solution to the first-come, first-enabled `-exclusion problem of [?]. Unlike the solution in [?], this solution does not use powerful read-modify-write synchronization primitives, and requires only bounded shared memory. Use of the concurrent timestamp system of [?] is key in s ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 3 (0 self)
- Add to MetaCart
This paper presents a solution to the first-come, first-enabled `-exclusion problem of [?]. Unlike the solution in [?], this solution does not use powerful read-modify-write synchronization primitives, and requires only bounded shared memory. Use of the concurrent timestamp system of [?] is key in solving the problem within bounded shared memory. Categories and Subject Descriptors: D.4.1 [Operating Systems]: Process Management---Mutual
Self-Stabilizing l-Exclusion Algorithms
, 1993
"... A distributed system consists of a set of loosely connected machines that do not share a global memory. The system is self-stabilizing if it can be started in any global state and achieves its consistency all by itself. This also means that the system can deal with infrequent errors. This paper p ..."
Abstract
- Add to MetaCart
A distributed system consists of a set of loosely connected machines that do not share a global memory. The system is self-stabilizing if it can be started in any global state and achieves its consistency all by itself. This also means that the system can deal with infrequent errors. This paper presents self-stabilizing/-exclusion algorithms. The l-exclusion

