Abstract

Transactional memory allows the user to declare sequences of instructions as speculative transactions that can either commit or abort. If a transaction commits, it appears to be executed sequentially, so that the committed transactions constitute a correct sequential execution. If a transaction aborts, none of its instructions can affect other transactions. The popular criterion of opacity requires that the views of aborted transactions must also be consistent with the global sequential order constituted by committed ones. This is believed to be important, since inconsistencies observed by an aborted transaction may cause a fatal irrecoverable error or waste of the system in an infinite loop. Intuitively, an opaque implementation must ensure that no intermediate view a transaction obtains before it commits or aborts can be affected by a transaction that has not started committing yet, so called deferred-update semantics. In this paper, we intend to grasp this intuition formally. We propose a variant of opacity that explicitly requires the sequential order to respect the deferred-update semantics. Unlike opacity, our property also ensures that a serialization of a history implies serializations of its prefixes. Finally, we show that our property is equivalent to opacity if we assume that no two transactions commit identical values on the same variable, and present a counter-example for scenarios when the “unique-write ” assumption does not hold.