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

We present an N-process local-spin 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 tree-based local-spin algorithm in a way that preserves its time complexity. No atomic read/write algorithm with better asymptotic worst-case time complexity (under the remote-memory-references measure) is currently known. This suggests that atomic memory is not fundamentally required if one is interested in worst-case time complexity. The same cannot be said if one is interested in fast-path algorithms (in which contention-free 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 N-process nonatomic algorithm, there exists a single-process 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 processors-to-memory interconnection network.

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.

60dB 4.20 512 96 ETSI-A ETSI-A ETSI-1 60dB 4.20 1536 512 AWGN-140 AWGN-140 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,

Lock-freedom is a progress guarantee that ensures overall program progress. Wait-freedom is a stronger progress guarantee that ensures the progress of each thread in the program. While many practical lock-free algorithms exist, wait-free algorithms are typically inefficient and hardly used in practice. In this paper, we propose a methodology called fast-path-slow-path for creating efficient waitfree algorithms. The idea is to execute the efficient lock-free version most of the time and revert to the wait-free version only when things go wrong. The generality and effectiveness of this methodology is demonstrated by two examples. In this paper, we apply this idea to a recent construction of a wait-free queue, bringing the wait-free implementation to perform in practice as efficient as the lock-free implementation. In another work, the fast-path-slow-path methodology has been used for (dramatically) improving the performance of a wait-free linked-list.