Paper detail

Multiversion Conflict Notion for Transactional Memory Systems

In recent years, Software Transactional Memory systems (STMs) have garnered significant interest as an elegant alternative for addressing concurrency issues in memory. STM systems take optimistic approach. Multiple transactions are allowed to execute concurrently. On completion, each transaction is validated and if any inconsistency is observed it is aborted. Otherwise it is allowed to commit. In databases a class of histories called as conflict-serializability (CSR) based on the notion of conflicts have been identified, whose membership can be efficiently verified. As a result, CSR is the commonly used correctness criterion in databases. Similarly, using the notion of conflicts, a correctness criterion, conflict-opacity (co-opacity) which is a sub-class of can be designed whose membership can be verified in polynomial time. Using the verification mechanism, an efficient STM implementation can be designed that is permissive w.r.t co-opacity. By storing multiple versions for each transaction object, multi-version STMs provide more concurrency than single-version STMs. But the main drawback of co-opacity is that it does not admit histories that are uses multiple versions. This has motivated us to develop a new conflict notions for multi-version STMs. In this paper, we present a new conflict notion multi-version conflict. Using this conflict notion, we identify a new subclass of opacity (a popular correctness-criterion), mvc-opacity that admits multi-versioned histories and whose membership can be verified in polynomial time. We show that co-opacity is a proper subset of this class. The proposed conflict notion mv-conflict can be applied on non-sequential histories as well unlike traditional conflicts. Further, we believe that this conflict notion can be easily extended to other correctness-criterion as well.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.