480 likes | 625 Views
Coarse-Grained Transactions. Maurice Herlihy Brown University Joint work with Eric Koskinen and Matthew Parkinson (POPL 10). Skew Heaps. Tree with “heap” property. 0. 1. 2. 3. 4. Concurrent Skew Heap. Insert me!. Insert me!. 6. 0. 2. 1. 3. 4. 5. Concurrent Skew Heap. 2. 6.
E N D
Coarse-Grained Transactions Maurice Herlihy Brown University Joint work with Eric Koskinen and Matthew Parkinson (POPL 10)
Skew Heaps Tree with “heap” property 0 1 2 3 4 TMW April 2010
Concurrent Skew Heap Insert me! Insert me! 6 0 2 1 3 4 5 TMW April 2010
Concurrent Skew Heap 2 6 0 Lock parent Swap R & L 1 3 4 5 TMW April 2010
Concurrent Skew Heap 2 6 0 Unlock parent 1 3 4 5 Lock right child TMW April 2010
Concurrent Skew Heap No global rebalancing 6 0 1 3 Good amortized performance 4 5 2 Good concurrency TMW April 2010
Transactional Skew Heap Insert me! Insert me! 6 0 2 1 3 4 5 TMW April 2010
Transactional Skew Heap Good concurrency with locking 2 6 0 Write-write conflict! I wrote Not with transactions … 1 3 0 4 5 Confusion between thread-level & transaction-level synchronization TMW April 2010
Coarse-Grained Synchronization Synchronize on high-level operations, Like add(), remove(), etc. … Not low-level reads and writes Pessimistic: update in place, undo on abort Optimistic: update private copy, apply changes on commit But what is the meaning ofconflict? TMW April 2010
Pessimistic Boosting Undo Logs transactions Abstract locks Black-box linearizable data object TMW April 2010
Pessimistic Boosting add(x) Undo Logs transactions Abstract locks Black-box linearizable data object TMW April 2010
Pessimistic Boosting add(x) Undo Logs transactions Abstract locks Black-box linearizable data object TMW April 2010
Pessimistic Boosting add(x) Undo Logs transactions Abstract locks Black-box linearizable data object TMW April 2010
Pessimistic Boosting add(x) rem(x) x Undo Logs transactions Abstract locks Black-box linearizable data object TMW April 2010
Pessimistic Boosting add(x) rem(x) add(y) x y Undo Logs transactions Abstract locks Black-box linearizable data object TMW April 2010
Pessimistic Boosting add(x) rem(x) member(x) x Undo Logs transactions Abstract locks Black-box linearizable data object TMW April 2010
Pessimistic Boosting Thread-safe base object Log Inverses Updated in place Conflicting operations blocked by abstract locks What does it mean for operations to conflict? TMW April 2010
Optimistic Boosting Black-box linearizable data object TMW April 2010
Optimistic Boosting private copies Black-box linearizable data object TMW April 2010
Optimistic Boosting redo logs private copies Black-box linearizable data object TMW April 2010
Optimistic Boosting add(x) redo logs private copies Black-box linearizable data object TMW April 2010
Optimistic Boosting add(x) redo logs add(x) private copies x Black-box linearizable data object TMW April 2010
Optimistic Boosting add(y) add(x) redo logs add(x) add(y) private copies x y Black-box linearizable data object TMW April 2010
On Commit redo logs add(x) add(y) add(x) private copies x y add(x) Black-box linearizable data object TMW April 2010
No conflict, apply updates to my copy On Commit redo logs add(x) add(y) add(x) private copies x x y add(x) x Black-box linearizable data object TMW April 2010
On Commit Different physical values, Same logical values add(x) add(y) add(x) x x y add(x) x TMW April 2010
Conflict! Abort & restore my copy On Commit redo logs add(x) rem(x) add(x) private copies x add(x) x Black-box linearizable data object TMW April 2010
Optimistic Boosting Thread-local object copies Deferred operatons kept in redo log No inverses On commit, broadcast deferred operations To other transactions, public copy Transactions snoop on broadcast, Abort if conflict detected What does it mean for operations to conflict? TMW April 2010
time Left-Movers legal history TMW April 2010
time Left-Movers If and are adjacent, Ok to move earlier TMW April 2010
time Left-Mover Example: Semaphore dec() inc() dec() 1 0 1 0 TMW April 2010
time Inc() is Left-mover WRT Dec() inc() dec() dec() 1 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 TMW April 2010
time Left-Mover Example: Semaphore Same sequence of calls (results unaffected) inc() dec() dec() 1 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 TMW April 2010
time Left-Mover Example: Semaphore inc() dec() dec() 3 3 2 3 2 4 3 3 2 Same final state TMW April 2010
dec() inc() dec() time 0 1 0 Left-Mover Counter-example 1 TMW April 2010
dec() inc() dec() time 0 1 0 Dec() not Left-Mover WRT Inc() -1 1 TMW April 2010
time Right-Movers legal history TMW April 2010
time Right-Movers If and are adjacent, Ok to move later TMW April 2010
time Commutativity If and are adjacent, Ok to swap TMW April 2010
time Pessimistic Semantics(modify shared state in place) Txn A beg cmt Txn B beg Pessimistic Commit: Move Left of pending What Theory? Sept 2009
time Pessimistic Semantics(modify shared state in place) Txn A beg abt Txn B beg What Theory? Sept 2009
time Pessimistic Semantics(modify shared state in place) Txn A beg 2 3 1 3 2 4 4 1 Txn B beg Pessimistic Abort: Move Right of pending Pessimistic Abort: Pending ops move Left What Theory? Sept 2009
Pessimistic Semantics(modify shared state in place) • Operations must be LEFT moversw.r.t. other pending operations • On commit, move operations LEFT • On abort, move operations RIGHT (free)and append inverses What Theory? Sept 2009
time Optimistic Semantics(modify local copies; merge) Txn A beg cmt Txn B cmt Optimistic Commit: Move Right of committed What Theory? Sept 2009
time Optimistic Semantics(modify local copies; merge) Txn A beg abt Txn B cmt Optimistic Abort: Discard Operations What Theory? Sept 2009
Optimistic Semantics(modify local copies; merge) • Operations must be RIGHT moversw.r.t. concurrently committed operations • On commit, move operations RIGHT • Abort if concurrent non-LM op • On abort, discard local changes What Theory? Sept 2009
Two Execution Models Algebraic Abstract Properties What Theory? Sept 2009
Challenges • Automation? • Theorem proving • Model checking • Compiler & Language support? • Implementation … TMW April 2010