1 / 22

More Mutex with Read/Write Variables Set 8: Lower Bound & Main Results

Explore advanced concepts in mutual exclusion with read/write variables, including lower bound theorems and main results. Dive deep into quiescent configurations and warm-up lemmas, each supporting the development of fast mutual exclusion algorithms.

Download Presentation

More Mutex with Read/Write Variables Set 8: Lower Bound & Main Results

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Set 8: More Mutex with Read/Write Variables CSCE 668DISTRIBUTED ALGORITHMS AND SYSTEMS Spring 2014 Prof. Jennifer Welch

  2. Number of R/W Variables • Bakery algorithm used 2n shared read/write variables. • Tournament tree algorithm used 3n shared read/write variables. • Can we do (asymptotically) better, in terms of fewer variables? • No! Set 8: More Mutex with Read/Write Variables

  3. Lower Bound on Number of Variables Theorem (4.19): Any no-deadlock mutual exclusion algorithm using read/write variables must use at least n shared variables. Proof Strategy: Show by induction on n there must be at least n variables. For each n, there is a configuration in which n variables are covered: means some processor is about to write to it. Set 8: More Mutex with Read/Write Variables

  4. Appearing Quiescent • Two configurations C and D are P-similar if each processor in P has same state in C as in D and each shared variable has same value in C as in D. • A configuration is quiescent if all processors are in remainder section. • To make the induction go through, the configuration whose existence we prove must appear quiescent to a set of processors: • C is P-quiescent if there is a quiescent configuration D such that C and D are P-similar Set 8: More Mutex with Read/Write Variables

  5. Warm-Up Lemma Before a processor can enter its CS, it must write to an uncovered variable. Lemma (4.17): If C is pi-quiescent, then there is a pi-only schedule  such that • pi is in CS in (C) and • during exec(C,), pi writes to a variable that is not covered in C. Set 8: More Mutex with Read/Write Variables

  6. D pi in CS by ND quiescent  C pi in CS pi-quiescent Proof of Warm-Up Lemma (a) • Since C is pi-quiescent, it looks the same to pi as some quiescent D. • By ND, some pi-only schedule  exists starting at D in which pi enters CS. • When  starts at C, pi also enters CS. Set 8: More Mutex with Read/Write Variables

  7. 1 2  C E Q some pj (not pi) takes steps alone; by ND eventually pjenters CS successively invoke ND to cause all procs to be in remainder; pi takes no step one step by each proc in P; over- writes W Proof of Warm-up Lemma (b) • Suppose in contradiction when  is executed starting at C, pi writes to the set of variables W but all the variables in W are covered in C. • Let P be the set of processors covering the variables in W. Set 8: More Mutex with Read/Write Variables

  8. pi-only, writes to W 1 2  C' E' Q' overwrites W successively invoke ND pj-only pj in CS, pi in CS pi in CS Proof of Warm-up Lemma (b) 1 2  C E Q successively invoke ND pj-only pj in CS overwrites W Contradiction! Only difference in shared memory between C and C' are the writes by pi, but those values are overwritten in 1so the info is lost. Set 8: More Mutex with Read/Write Variables

  9. Main Result Lemma (4.18): For all k between 1 and n, for all quiescent C, there exists D s.t. • D is reachable from C by steps of p0,…,pk-1 only • p0,…,pk-1 cover k distinct variables in D • D is {pk,…,pn-1}-quiescent. implies desired result when k = n Set 8: More Mutex with Read/Write Variables

  10. Proof of Main Result - Basis By induction on k. Basis:k = 1. Must show for all quiescent C, there exists D s.t. • D is reachable from C by steps of p0 only • p0 covers a variable in D • D looks quiescent to the other procs. • By warm-up lemma (a), if p0 takes steps alone, it eventually writes to some var. • Desired D is just before p0 's first write. Set 8: More Mutex with Read/Write Variables

  11. 0 C C1 only p0 to pk-1 take steps any qui. config. p0 to pk-1 cover W; pk to pn-1qui. pk-only   D1' pk covers x not in W p0 to pk-1 overwrite W, become quiescent pk in entry looks qui. to rest Proof of Main Result - Induction Assume for k, show for k+1. by ind. hyp. by warm-up lemma (b) as in pf. of warm-up lemma Set 8: More Mutex with Read/Write Variables

  12.  D1 C2 qui. p0 to pk-1 only p0 to pk-1 cover W; pkto pn-1qui.  C2' p0 to pk cover W and x; pk+1to pn-1 qui. Proof of Main Result - Induction k vars. 0 C C1 only p0 to pk-1 take steps any qui. config. p0 to pk-1 cover W; pkto pn-1qui. by ind. hyp. but why is the same set of k vars covered again? pk-only   D1' pk covers x not in W p0 to pk-1 o'write W, become quiescent pk in entry looks qui. to rest k+1 vars. Set 8: More Mutex with Read/Write Variables

  13. Proof of Main Result - Fix • The result of applying  to D1 might result in a different set of k variables, W', being covered instead of W. • If W' includes x, we have not succeeded in covering an additional variable. • To fix this problem, repeatedly apply inductive hypothesis to get C1,D1,C2,D2,C3,D3,… • Since number of variables is finite, there exist i and jsuch that in Ci and Cjthe same set of k variables is covered. • Then apply same argument as before, replacing C1 and C2 with Ci and Cj. Set 8: More Mutex with Read/Write Variables

  14. Fast Mutual Exclusion • The read/write mutex algorithms we've seen so far require a processor to access f(n) variables in the entry section even if no contention. • It would be nice to have a fast algorithm: if no competition, a processor enters CS in O(1) steps. • Even better would be an adaptive algorithm: performance depends on number of currently competing processors, not total number. Set 8: More Mutex with Read/Write Variables

  15. Fast Mutual Exclusion • Note that multi-writer shared variables are required to be fast. • Combine two mechanisms: • provide fast entry when no contention • provide no deadlock when there is contention Set 8: More Mutex with Read/Write Variables

  16. Contention Detector Overview • A doorway mechanism captures a set of processors that are concurrently accessing the detector • Use a race to choose a unique one of the captured processors to "win" Set 8: More Mutex with Read/Write Variables

  17. Contention Detector Uses two shared variables, door and race. Initially door = "open", race = -1. • race := id • if door = "closed" then return "lose" • else • door := "closed" • if race = id then return "win" • else return "lose" Set 8: More Mutex with Read/Write Variables

  18. Analysis of Contention Detector Claim: At most one processor wins the contention detector. Why? • Let K be set of procs. that read "open" from door in Line 2. • Let pj be proc. that writes to race most recently before door is first set to "closed". • No node pi other than pj can win: • If pi is not in K, it loses in Line 2. • If pi is in K, it writes race before pj does but checks again (Line 5) after pj 's write and loses. Set 8: More Mutex with Read/Write Variables

  19. Analysis of Contention Detector Claim: If pi executes the contention detector alone, then pi wins. Why? • Trace through the code when there is no concurrency. Set 8: More Mutex with Read/Write Variables

  20. Ensuring No Deadlock • If there is concurrency, it is possible that no processor wins the contention detector. • To ensure progress: • nodes that lose the contention detector participate in an n-processor ME alg. • The winner of the n-processor alg. competes with the (potential) winner of the contention detector using a 2-processor ME alg. • Winner of 2-processor alg. can enter CS Set 8: More Mutex with Read/Write Variables

  21. Ensuring No Deadlock lose contention detector n-proc. mutex win play role of p0 play role of p1 2-proc. mutex critical section Set 8: More Mutex with Read/Write Variables

  22. Discussion of Fast Mutex • Be careful about the exit section: contention detector needs to be reset properly • This is a modular presentation: doesn't specify particular n-proc and 2-proc subroutine mutex algorithms • Not adaptive: even if only 2 procs are contending, execute the potentially expensive n-proc algorithm Set 8: More Mutex with Read/Write Variables

More Related