[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
10.1145/3212734.3212739acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagespodcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Separating Lock-Freedom from Wait-Freedom

Published: 23 July 2018 Publication History

Abstract

A long-standing open question has been whether lock-freedom and wait-freedom are fundamentally different progress conditions, namely, can the former be provided in situations where the latter cannot? This paper answers the question in the affirmative, by proving that there are objects with lock-free implementations, but without wait-free implementations-using objects of any finite power. We precisely define an object called n-process long-lived approximate agreement (n-LLAA), in which two sets of processes associated with two sides, 0 or 1, need to decide on a sequence of increasingly closer outputs. We prove that 2-LLAA has a lock-free implementation using reads and writes only, while n-LLAA has a lock-free implementation using reads, writes and (n - 1)-process consensus objects. In contrast, we prove that there is no wait-free implementation of the n-LLAA object using reads, writes and specific (n - 1)-process consensus objects, called (n - 1)-window registers.

References

[1]
M. R. Achour Mostéfaoui, Matthieu Perrin. A simple object that spans the whole consensus hierarchy. Parallel Processing Letters, 2018 (in press).
[2]
Y. Afek, E. Gafni, and A. Morrison. Common2 extended to stacks and unbounded concurrency. Distributed Computing, 20(4):239--252, 2007.
[3]
Y. Afek, E. Weisberger, and H. Weisman. A completeness theorem for a class of synchronization objects. In PODC, pages 159--170, 1993.
[4]
J. Aspnes and M. Herlihy. Wait-free data structures in the asynchronous pram model. In SPAA, pages 340--349, 1990.
[5]
H. Attiya, A. Casta neda, and D. Hendler. Nontrivial and universal helping for wait-free queues and stacks. In OPODIS, 2015.
[6]
K. Censor-Hillel, E. Petrank, and S. Timnat. Help! In PODC, pages 241--250, 2015.
[7]
O. Denysyuk and P. Woelfel. Wait-freedom is harder than lock-freedom under strong linearizability. In DISC, pages 60--74, 2015.
[8]
F. Ellen, R. Gelashvili, N. Shavit, and L. Zhu. A complexity-based hierarchy for multiprocessor synchronization. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pages 289--298, 2016.
[9]
W. Golab, L. Higham, and P. Woelfel. Linearizable implementations do not suffice for randomized distributed computation. In STOC, pages 373--382, 2011.
[10]
M. Herlihy. Impossibility results for asynchronous pram. In SPAA, pages 327--336, 1991.
[11]
M. Herlihy. Wait-free synchronization. ACM Trans. Prog. Lang. Syst., 13(1):124--149, Jan. 1991.
[12]
M. P. Herlihy and J. M. Wing. Linearizability: A correctness condition for concurrent objects. ACM Trans. Prog. Lang. Syst., 12(3):463--492, July 1990.
[13]
A. Kogan and E. Petrank. A methodology for creating fast wait-free data structures. In PPoPP, pages 141--150, 2012.
[14]
M. Perrin, A. Mostefaoui, and J. Claude. Causal consistency: beyond memory. In Proceedings of the 21st ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles and Practice of Parallel Programming, 2016.

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)Locally Solvable Tasks and the Limitations of Valency ArgumentsJournal of Parallel and Distributed Computing10.1016/j.jpdc.2023.02.002Online publication date: Feb-2023

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
PODC '18: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing
July 2018
512 pages
ISBN:9781450357951
DOI:10.1145/3212734
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

In-Cooperation

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 23 July 2018

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. concurrency
  2. lock-freedom
  3. multi-core algorithms
  4. nonblocking
  5. shared memory
  6. wait-freedom

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Funding Sources

Conference

PODC '18

Acceptance Rates

PODC '18 Paper Acceptance Rate 41 of 163 submissions, 25%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 740 of 2,477 submissions, 30%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)6
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 12 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)Locally Solvable Tasks and the Limitations of Valency ArgumentsJournal of Parallel and Distributed Computing10.1016/j.jpdc.2023.02.002Online publication date: Feb-2023

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media