The power of processor consistency

Mustaque Ahamad, Rida Bazzi, Ranjit John, Prince Kohli, Gil Neiger

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

62 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Shared memories that provide weaker consistency guarantees than the traditional sequentially consistent or atomic memories have been claimed to provide the key to building scalable systems. One influential memory model, processor consistency, has been cited widely in the literature but, due to the lack of a precise and formal definition, contradictory claims have been made regarding its power. We use a formed model to give two distinct definitions of processors consistency: one corresponding to Goodman's original proposal and the other corresponding that given by the implementors of the DASH system. These definitions are non-operational and can be easily related to other types of memories. To illustrate the power of processor consistency, we exhibit a non-cooperative solution to the mutual exclusion problem that is correct with processor consistency. As a contrast, we show that Lamport's Bakery algorithm is not correct with processor consistency.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationProceedings of the 5th Annual ACM Symposium on Parallel Algorithms and Architectures, SPAA 1993
PublisherAssociation for Computing Machinery, Inc
Pages251-260
Number of pages10
ISBN (Electronic)0897915992, 9780897915991
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 1993
Externally publishedYes
Event5th Annual ACM Symposium on Parallel Algorithms and Architectures, SPAA 1993 - Velen, Germany
Duration: Jun 30 1993Jul 2 1993

Other

Other5th Annual ACM Symposium on Parallel Algorithms and Architectures, SPAA 1993
CountryGermany
CityVelen
Period6/30/937/2/93

Fingerprint

Data storage equipment
Bakeries
Weak Consistency
Mutual Exclusion
Memory Model
Shared Memory
Distinct
Model

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Software
  • Theoretical Computer Science
  • Hardware and Architecture

Cite this

Ahamad, M., Bazzi, R., John, R., Kohli, P., & Neiger, G. (1993). The power of processor consistency. In Proceedings of the 5th Annual ACM Symposium on Parallel Algorithms and Architectures, SPAA 1993 (pp. 251-260). Association for Computing Machinery, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1145/165231.165264

The power of processor consistency. / Ahamad, Mustaque; Bazzi, Rida; John, Ranjit; Kohli, Prince; Neiger, Gil.

Proceedings of the 5th Annual ACM Symposium on Parallel Algorithms and Architectures, SPAA 1993. Association for Computing Machinery, Inc, 1993. p. 251-260.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

Ahamad, M, Bazzi, R, John, R, Kohli, P & Neiger, G 1993, The power of processor consistency. in Proceedings of the 5th Annual ACM Symposium on Parallel Algorithms and Architectures, SPAA 1993. Association for Computing Machinery, Inc, pp. 251-260, 5th Annual ACM Symposium on Parallel Algorithms and Architectures, SPAA 1993, Velen, Germany, 6/30/93. https://doi.org/10.1145/165231.165264
Ahamad M, Bazzi R, John R, Kohli P, Neiger G. The power of processor consistency. In Proceedings of the 5th Annual ACM Symposium on Parallel Algorithms and Architectures, SPAA 1993. Association for Computing Machinery, Inc. 1993. p. 251-260 https://doi.org/10.1145/165231.165264
Ahamad, Mustaque ; Bazzi, Rida ; John, Ranjit ; Kohli, Prince ; Neiger, Gil. / The power of processor consistency. Proceedings of the 5th Annual ACM Symposium on Parallel Algorithms and Architectures, SPAA 1993. Association for Computing Machinery, Inc, 1993. pp. 251-260
@inproceedings{6dd2f7ba2e584be989f31a142403a83c,
title = "The power of processor consistency",
abstract = "Shared memories that provide weaker consistency guarantees than the traditional sequentially consistent or atomic memories have been claimed to provide the key to building scalable systems. One influential memory model, processor consistency, has been cited widely in the literature but, due to the lack of a precise and formal definition, contradictory claims have been made regarding its power. We use a formed model to give two distinct definitions of processors consistency: one corresponding to Goodman's original proposal and the other corresponding that given by the implementors of the DASH system. These definitions are non-operational and can be easily related to other types of memories. To illustrate the power of processor consistency, we exhibit a non-cooperative solution to the mutual exclusion problem that is correct with processor consistency. As a contrast, we show that Lamport's Bakery algorithm is not correct with processor consistency.",
author = "Mustaque Ahamad and Rida Bazzi and Ranjit John and Prince Kohli and Gil Neiger",
year = "1993",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1145/165231.165264",
language = "English (US)",
pages = "251--260",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the 5th Annual ACM Symposium on Parallel Algorithms and Architectures, SPAA 1993",
publisher = "Association for Computing Machinery, Inc",

}

TY - GEN

T1 - The power of processor consistency

AU - Ahamad, Mustaque

AU - Bazzi, Rida

AU - John, Ranjit

AU - Kohli, Prince

AU - Neiger, Gil

PY - 1993/8/1

Y1 - 1993/8/1

N2 - Shared memories that provide weaker consistency guarantees than the traditional sequentially consistent or atomic memories have been claimed to provide the key to building scalable systems. One influential memory model, processor consistency, has been cited widely in the literature but, due to the lack of a precise and formal definition, contradictory claims have been made regarding its power. We use a formed model to give two distinct definitions of processors consistency: one corresponding to Goodman's original proposal and the other corresponding that given by the implementors of the DASH system. These definitions are non-operational and can be easily related to other types of memories. To illustrate the power of processor consistency, we exhibit a non-cooperative solution to the mutual exclusion problem that is correct with processor consistency. As a contrast, we show that Lamport's Bakery algorithm is not correct with processor consistency.

AB - Shared memories that provide weaker consistency guarantees than the traditional sequentially consistent or atomic memories have been claimed to provide the key to building scalable systems. One influential memory model, processor consistency, has been cited widely in the literature but, due to the lack of a precise and formal definition, contradictory claims have been made regarding its power. We use a formed model to give two distinct definitions of processors consistency: one corresponding to Goodman's original proposal and the other corresponding that given by the implementors of the DASH system. These definitions are non-operational and can be easily related to other types of memories. To illustrate the power of processor consistency, we exhibit a non-cooperative solution to the mutual exclusion problem that is correct with processor consistency. As a contrast, we show that Lamport's Bakery algorithm is not correct with processor consistency.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85012881094&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85012881094&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1145/165231.165264

DO - 10.1145/165231.165264

M3 - Conference contribution

SP - 251

EP - 260

BT - Proceedings of the 5th Annual ACM Symposium on Parallel Algorithms and Architectures, SPAA 1993

PB - Association for Computing Machinery, Inc

ER -