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 language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Title of host publication | Proceedings of the 5th Annual ACM Symposium on Parallel Algorithms and Architectures, SPAA 1993 |
| Publisher | Association for Computing Machinery, Inc |
| Pages | 251-260 |
| Number of pages | 10 |
| ISBN (Electronic) | 0897915992, 9780897915991 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Aug 1 1993 |
| Externally published | Yes |
| Event | 5th Annual ACM Symposium on Parallel Algorithms and Architectures, SPAA 1993 - Velen, Germany Duration: Jun 30 1993 → Jul 2 1993 |
Other
| Other | 5th Annual ACM Symposium on Parallel Algorithms and Architectures, SPAA 1993 |
|---|---|
| Country | Germany |
| City | Velen |
| Period | 6/30/93 → 7/2/93 |
Fingerprint
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Software
- Theoretical Computer Science
- Hardware and Architecture
Cite this
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 proceeding › Conference contribution
}
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 -