TY - GEN
T1 - The power of processor consistency
AU - Ahamad, Mustaque
AU - Bazzi, Rida A.
AU - John, Ranjit
AU - Kohli, Prince
AU - Neiger, Gil
N1 - Funding Information:
* Thk work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under grants CCR-8619S86, CCR-8909663j and CCR-9106627. Authors’ address: College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0280. t Tlds author was supported in part by a scholarship Hariri Foundation.
Publisher Copyright:
© 1993 ACM.
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
AN - SCOPUS:85012881094
T3 - Proceedings of the 5th Annual ACM Symposium on Parallel Algorithms and Architectures, SPAA 1993
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
T2 - 5th Annual ACM Symposium on Parallel Algorithms and Architectures, SPAA 1993
Y2 - 30 June 1993 through 2 July 1993
ER -