Results 1 
7 of
7
Sharedmemory mutual exclusion: Major research trends since
 Distributed Computing
, 1986
"... * Exclusion: At most one process executes its critical section at any time. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 47 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
* Exclusion: At most one process executes its critical section at any time.
An Improved Lower Bound for the Time Complexity of Mutual Exclusion (Extended Abstract)
 IN PROCEEDINGS OF THE 20TH ANNUAL ACM SYMPOSIUM ON PRINCIPLES OF DISTRIBUTED COMPUTING
, 2001
"... We establish a lower bound of 23 N= log log N) remote memory references for Nprocess mutual exclusion algorithms based on reads, writes, or comparison primitives such as testandset and compareand swap. Our bound improves an earlier lower bound of 32 log N= log log log N) established by Cyph ..."
Abstract

Cited by 41 (12 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We establish a lower bound of 23 N= log log N) remote memory references for Nprocess mutual exclusion algorithms based on reads, writes, or comparison primitives such as testandset and compareand swap. Our bound improves an earlier lower bound of 32 log N= log log log N) established by Cypher. Our lower bound is of importance for two reasons. First, it almost matches the (log N) time complexity of the bestknown algorithms based on reads, writes, or comparison primitives. Second, our lower bound suggests that it is likely that, from an asymptotic standpoint, comparison primitives are no better than reads and writes when implementing localspin mutual exclusion algorithms. Thus, comparison primitives may not be the best choice to provide in hardware if one is interested in scalable synchronization.
A time complexity bound for adaptive mutual exclusion
 In Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium on Distributed Computing
, 2001
"... ..."
WaitFree Consensus with Infinite Arrivals
 In Proceedings of the 34th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing
, 2002
"... A randomized algorithm is given that solves the waitfree consensus problem for a sharedmemory model with in nitely many processes. The algorithm is based on a weak shared coin algorithm that uses weighted voting to achieve a majority outcome with at least constant probability that cannot be disgui ..."
Abstract

Cited by 17 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
A randomized algorithm is given that solves the waitfree consensus problem for a sharedmemory model with in nitely many processes. The algorithm is based on a weak shared coin algorithm that uses weighted voting to achieve a majority outcome with at least constant probability that cannot be disguised even if a strong adversary is allowed to destroy in nitely many votes. The number of operations performed by process i is a polynomial function of i. Additional algorithms are given for solving consensus more eciently in models with an unknown upper bound b on concurrency or an unknown upper bound n on the number of active processes; under either of these restrictions, it is also shown that the problem can be solved even with in nitely many anonymous processes by pre xing each instance of the shared coin with a naming algorithm that breaks symmetry with high probability. For many of these algorithms, matching lower bounds are proved that show that their perprocess work is nearly optimal as a function of i, b, or n. The case of n active processes gives an algorithm for anonymous, adaptive consensus that requires only O(n log n) perprocess work, which is within a constant factor of the best previously known nonadaptive algorithm for a strong adversary. Finally, it is shown that standard universal constructions based on consensus continue to work with in nitely many processes with only slight modi cations. This shows that in in nite distributed systems, as in nite ones, with randomness all things are possible.
Nonatomic Mutual Exclusion with Local Spinning (Extended Abstract)
, 2002
"... We present an Nprocess localspin mutual exclusion algorithm, based on nonatomic reads and writes, in which each process performs \Theta (log N) remote memory references to enter and exit its critical section. This algorithm is derived from Yang and Anderson's atomic treebased localspin algorit ..."
Abstract

Cited by 13 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We present an Nprocess localspin mutual exclusion algorithm, based on nonatomic reads and writes, in which each process performs \Theta (log N) remote memory references to enter and exit its critical section. This algorithm is derived from Yang and Anderson's atomic treebased localspin algorithm in a way that preserves its time complexity. No atomic read/write algorithm with better asymptotic worstcase time complexity (under the remotememoryreferences measure) is currently known. This suggests that atomic memory is not fundamentally required if one is interested in worstcase time complexity. The same cannot be said if one is interested in fastpath algorithms (in which contentionfree time complexity is required to be O(1)) or adaptive algorithms (in which time complexity is required to be proportional to the number of contending processes). We show that such algorithms fundamentally require memory accesses to be atomic. In particular, we show that for any Nprocess nonatomic algorithm, there exists a singleprocess execution in which the lone competing process executes \Omega (log N / log log N) remote operations to enter its critical section. Moreover, these operations must access \Omega (plog N / log log N) distinct variables, which implies that fast and adaptive algorithms are impossible even if caching techniques are used to avoid accessing the processorstomemory interconnection network.
Lamport on Mutual Exclusion: 27 Years of Planting Seeds
 In 20th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing
, 2001
"... Mutual exclusion is a topic that Leslie Lamport has returned to many times throughout his career. This article, which is being written in celebration of Lamport's sixtieth birthday, is an attempt to survey some of his many contributions to research on this topic. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 9 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Mutual exclusion is a topic that Leslie Lamport has returned to many times throughout his career. This article, which is being written in celebration of Lamport's sixtieth birthday, is an attempt to survey some of his many contributions to research on this topic.
Appendix A
"... 60dB 4.20 512 96 ETSIA ETSIA ETSI1 60dB 4.20 1536 512 AWGN140 AWGN140 Draft Recommendation G.992.2 140 14 T1.601 #9 1536kbps 256kbps 49 Annex A G.992.2 15 T1.601 #9 1536kbps 256kbps 24 DSL 16 Shortened T1.601#7 1536kbps 256kbps 24 HDSL Table 47. Extended Reach Test Cases NOTE1: A goal of futu ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
60dB 4.20 512 96 ETSIA ETSIA ETSI1 60dB 4.20 1536 512 AWGN140 AWGN140 Draft Recommendation G.992.2 140 14 T1.601 #9 1536kbps 256kbps 49 Annex A G.992.2 15 T1.601 #9 1536kbps 256kbps 24 DSL 16 Shortened T1.601#7 1536kbps 256kbps 24 HDSL Table 47. Extended Reach Test Cases NOTE1: A goal of future enhancements of this Recommendation is to make the "Extended Reach Cases" mandatory. NOTE2: Performance levels do not reflect the effect of customer premise wiring, which is expected to reduce data rate.G.992.2G.992.2G.992.2 Draft Recommendation G.992.2 139 ANNEX D D.1 System Performance for North America All test loops specified in this section shall be used for G.992.2 and testing shall confirm to the following: . No power cutback on upstream transmitter. . Margin=4 dB . BER=10 7 . Background noise = 140 dBm/Hz . Rates, except where noted,