Reconciling transactional conflicts with compiler's help
Pages 53 - 62
Abstract
Software transactional memory(STM) is a promising programming paradigm for shared memory multithreaded programs. While STM offers the promise of being less error-prone and more programmer friendly compared to traditional lock-based synchronization, it also needs to be competitive in performance in order for it to be adopted in mainstream software. A major source of performance overheads in STM is transactional aborts. Conflict resolution and aborting a transaction typically happens at the transaction level which has the advantage that it is automatic and application agnostic. However it has a substantial disadvantage in that STM declares the entire transaction as conflicting and hence aborts it and re-executes it fully, instead of partially re-executing only those part(s) of the transaction, which have been affected due to the conflict. This "Re-execute Everything" approach has a significant adverse impact on STM performance.
In order to mitigate the abort overheads, we propose a compiler aided Selective Reconciliation STM (SR-STM) scheme, wherein certain transactional conflicts can be reconciled by performing partial re-execution of the transaction. Ours is a selective hybrid approach which uses compiler analysis to identify those data accesses which are legal and profitable candidates for reconciliation and applies partial re-execution only to these candidates selectively while other conflicting data accesses are handled by the default STM approach of abort and full re-execution. We describe the compiler analysis and code transformations required for supporting selective reconciliation. We find that SR-STM is effective in reducing the transactional abort overheads by improving the performance for a set of five STAMP benchmarks by 12.58% on an average and up to 22.34%.
References
[1]
Y. Afek, A. Morrison, and M. Tzafrir. Brief announcement: view transactions: transactional model with relaxed consistency checks. In Proceeding of the 29th ACM SIGACT-SIGOPS symposium on Principles of distributed computing, PODC '10, pages 65--66, New York, NY, USA, 2010. ACM.
[2]
C. Blundell, A. Raghavan, and M. M. Martin. Retcon: transactional repair without replay. In Proceedings of the 37th annual international symposium on Computer architecture, ISCA '10, pages 258--269, New York, NY, USA, 2010.
[3]
J. Bobba, K. E. Moore, H. Volos, L. Yen, M. D. Hill, M. M. Swift, and D. A. Wood. Performance pathologies in hardware transactional memory. SIGARCH Comput. Archit. News, 35:81--91, June 2007.
[4]
C. Cao Minh, J. Chung, C. Kozyrakis, and K. Olukotun. STAMP: Stanford transactional applications for multi-processing. In IISWC '08: Proceedings of The IEEE International Symposium on Workload Characterization, September 2008.
[5]
S. C. Chan, G. R. Gao, B. Chapman, T. Linthicum, and A. Dasgupta. Open64 tutorial. In IPDPS, page 1, 2008.
[6]
D. Dice, O. Shalev, and N. Shavit. Transactional locking II. In DISC '06: Proc. 20th International Symposium on Distributed Computing, pages 194--208, September 2006.
[7]
D. Dice and N. Shavit. Understanding tradeoffs in software transactional memory. In CGO '07: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Code Generation and Optimization, pages 21--33, March 2007.
[8]
S. Dolev, D. Hendler, and A. Suissa. Car-stm: scheduling-based collision avoidance and resolution for software transactional memory. In Proceedings of PODC, pages 125--134. August 2008.
[9]
A. Dragojević, R. Guerraoui, and M. Kapalka. Stretching transactional memory. SIGPLAN Not., 44:155--165, June 2009.
[10]
A. Dragojević, R. Guerraoui, A. V. Singh, and V. Singh. Preventing versus curing: Avoiding conflicts in transactional memories. In PODC '09: Proc. 28th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, August 2009.
[11]
P. Felber, V. Gramoli, and R. Guerraoui. Elastic transactions. In Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on Distributed computing, DISC'09, pages 93--107, Berlin, 2009.
[12]
T. Harris and S. Stipic. Abstract nested transactions. In TRANSACT '07, August 2007.
[13]
M. Herlihy and E. Koskinen. Transactional boosting: a methodology for highly-concurrent transactional objects. In PPoPP '08, pages 207--216, New York, NY, USA, 2008. ACM.
[14]
M. Herlihy, V. Luchangco, M. Moir, and William Scherer. Software transactional memory for dynamic-sized data structures. In PODC '03, pages 92--101, July 2003.
[15]
G. Kestor, V. Karakostas, O. S. Unsal, A. Cristal, I. Hur, and M. Valero. Rms-tm: a comprehensive benchmark suite for transactional memory systems. SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 36:42--43, Sept. 2011.
[16]
E. Koskinen and M. Herlihy. Checkpoints and continuations instead of nested transactions. In Proceedings of the twentieth annual symposium on Parallelism in algorithms and architectures, SPAA '08, pages 160--168, 2008.
[17]
J. R. Larus and R. Rajwar. Transactional Memory. Morgan and Claypool, 2006.
[18]
J. E. B. Moss. Open nested transactions: Semantics and support (poster). In Workshop on Memory Performance Issues, February 2006.
[19]
J. E. B. Moss and A. L. Hosking. Nested transactional memory: model and architecture sketches. Sci. Comput. Program., 63:186--201, December 2006.
[20]
Y. Ni, V. S. Menon, A.-R. Adl-Tabatabai, A. L. Hosking, R. L. Hudson, J. E. B. Moss, B. Saha, and T. Shpeisman. Open nesting in software transactional memory. In PPoPP '07, pages 68--78, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM.
[21]
L. Schaelicke and E. DeLano. Intel itanium quad-core architecture for the enterprise. In EPIC '08: Proceedings of the Eighth Workshop on Explicitly Parallel Instruction Computing Architectures and Compiler Technology, pages 21--33, April 2010.
[22]
W. N. Scherer III and M. L. Scott. Advanced contention management for dynamic software transactional memory. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, Las Vegas, NV, July 2005.
[23]
Y. Wu and J. R. Larus. Static branch frequency and program profile analysis. In Proceedings of the 27th annual international symposium on Microarchitecture, MICRO 27, pages 1--11, New York, NY, USA, 1994. ACM.
[24]
R. M. Yoo and H.-H. S. Lee. Adaptive transaction scheduling for transactional memory systems. In SPAA '08, pages 169--178, June 2008.
[25]
R. M. Yoo, Y. Ni, A. Welc, B. Saha, A.-R. Adl-Tabatabai, and H.-H. S. Lee. Kicking the tires of software transactional memory: why the going gets tough. In SPAA '08, pages 265--274, June 2008.
[26]
F. Zyulkyarov, S. Stipic, T. Harris, O. S. Unsal, A. Cristal, I. Hur, and M. Valero. Discovering and understanding performance bottlenecks in transactional applications. In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on Parallel architectures and compilation techniques, PACT '10, pages 285--294, New York, NY, USA, 2010. ACM.
Index Terms
- Reconciling transactional conflicts with compiler's help
Recommendations
Safe privatization in transactional memory
PPoPP '18Transactional memory (TM) facilitates the development of concurrent applications by letting the programmer designate certain code blocks as atomic. Programmers using a TM often would like to access the same data both inside and outside transactions, ...
Safe privatization in transactional memory
PPoPP '18: Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles and Practice of Parallel ProgrammingTransactional memory (TM) facilitates the development of concurrent applications by letting the programmer designate certain code blocks as atomic. Programmers using a TM often would like to access the same data both inside and outside transactions, ...
An efficient software transactional memory using commit-time invalidation
CGO '10: Proceedings of the 8th annual IEEE/ACM international symposium on Code generation and optimizationTo improve the performance of transactional memory (TM), researchers have found many eager and lazy optimizations for conflict detection, the process of determining if transactions can commit. Despite these optimizations, nearly all TMs perform one ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
March 2012
285 pages
ISBN:9781450312066
DOI:10.1145/2259016
- General Chairs:
- Carol Eidt,
- Anne Holler,
- Program Chairs:
- Uma Srinivasan,
- Saman Amarasinghe
Copyright © 2012 ACM.
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]
Sponsors
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 31 March 2012
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Conference
CGO '12: Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Code Generation and Optimization
March 31 - April 4, 2012
California, San Jose
Acceptance Rates
CGO '12 Paper Acceptance Rate 26 of 90 submissions, 29%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 312 of 1,061 submissions, 29%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 179Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)0
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 01 Sep 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Get Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in