Algorithms for mutual exclusion
Algorithms for mutual exclusion
Linearizability: a correctness condition for concurrent objects
ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS)
ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS)
Logical Time in Distributed Computing Systems
Computer - Distributed computing systems: separate resources acting as one
Proving sequential consistency of high-performance shared memories (extended abstract)
SPAA '91 Proceedings of the third annual ACM symposium on Parallel algorithms and architectures
Specifying non-blocking shared memories (extended abstract)
SPAA '92 Proceedings of the fourth annual ACM symposium on Parallel algorithms and architectures
ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review
The power of processor consistency
SPAA '93 Proceedings of the fifth annual ACM symposium on Parallel algorithms and architectures
Programming DEC-Alpha based multiprocessors the easy way (extended abstract)
SPAA '94 Proceedings of the sixth annual ACM symposium on Parallel algorithms and architectures
Memory consistency models for shared-memory multiprocessors
Memory consistency models for shared-memory multiprocessors
How to Make a Correct Multiprocess Program Execute Correctly on a Multiprocessor
IEEE Transactions on Computers
SIAM Journal on Computing
Weak ordering—a new definition
ISCA '90 Proceedings of the 17th annual international symposium on Computer Architecture
Memory consistency and event ordering in scalable shared-memory multiprocessors
ISCA '90 Proceedings of the 17th annual international symposium on Computer Architecture
A new solution of Dijkstra's concurrent programming problem
Communications of the ACM
A Unified Formalization of Four Shared-Memory Models
IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems
Java: Memory Consistency and Process Coordination
DISC '98 Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Distributed Computing
Randomized two-process wait-free test-and-set
Distributed Computing
Limitations and capabilities of weak memory consistency systems
Limitations and capabilities of weak memory consistency systems
A Distributed Implementation of Sequential Consistency with Multi-Object Operations
ICDCS '04 Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS'04)
Relationships between memory models
Information Processing Letters
A unified theory of shared memory consistency
Journal of the ACM (JACM)
Efficient algorithms for verifying memory consistency
Proceedings of the seventeenth annual ACM symposium on Parallelism in algorithms and architectures
Tight Bounds for Critical Sections in Processor Consistent Platforms
IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems
Specifying memory consistency of write buffer multiprocessors
ACM Transactions on Computer Systems (TOCS)
Distributed Systems: Principles and Paradigms (2nd Edition)
Distributed Systems: Principles and Paradigms (2nd Edition)
How to Make a Multiprocessor Computer That Correctly Executes Multiprocess Programs
IEEE Transactions on Computers
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
Designers of distributed algorithms typically assume strong memory consistency guarantees, but system implementations provide weaker guarantees for better performance and scalability. This motivates the study of how to implement programs designed for sequential consistency on platforms with weaker consistency models. Typically, such implementations are impossible using only read and write operations to shared variables. One variant of processor consistency originally proposed by Goodman and called here PC-G is an exception because it provides just enough consistency to implement mutual exclusion using only reads and writes. This paper investigates the existence of compilers to convert arbitrary programs that use shared read/write variables with sequentially consistent memory semantics, to programs that use read/write variables with PC-G consistency semantics. We first provide a simple program transformation, and prove that it correctly compiles any 2-process program to a PC-G memory system, while preserving wait-freedom. We next prove that even a substantial generalization of this transformation cannot be a compiler for even a very restricted class of 3-process programs. Even though our program transformation is not a general compiler for three or more processes, it does correctly transform some specific n-process programs. In particular, for the special case of the (necessarily randomized) Test&Set algorithm of Tromp and Vitanyi, our transformation extends to any number of processes, thus providing the first algorithm for expected wait-free Test&Set on any weak memory system, using only read/write variables.