Check out the new USENIX Web site. next up previous
Next: Improving Chen's Algorithm Up: Improving Wait-Free Algorithms for Previous: Restricting Memory Use

Improving Wait-Free IPC

In order to gain the benefits of wait-free IPC along with low memory usage, and low average- and worst- case execution times, we first generalize the concept of fast and slow readers (to reduce the memory requirements) introduced in EMERALDS. We then devise a transformation mechanism that can be applied to existing wait-free algorithms, preserves all of their inherent benefits, and simultaneously improves their performance.

Here, fast readers are defined as those tasks for which temporal concurrency control suffices to ensure uncorrupted reads without excessive memory usage. Slow readers consist of all of the other reader tasks, which would require too much memory to employ temporal concurrency control alone. The actual division of tasks would depend on the requirements of the final system, as we will see later.

We can transform IPC algorithms to use this concept of fast and slow readers. The fast readers will basically employ the NBW read mechanism, and will require sufficient buffers to ensure temporal concurrency control. The slow readers will use the existing IPC mechanism, although slight changes may be required because of the parallel approach employed by the fast readers. The writer requires more significant changes in order to interact with both types of readers. The precise nature of these changes depends on the actual algorithm transformed.

In general, we can make some predictions about the resulting performance. First, the average-case execution time (ACET) will decrease, since the highest-frequency readers will use the very efficient NBW mechanism. Worst-case execution time (WCET) is also often reduced, since for most algorithms, execution time depends on the number of simultaneous readers using the mechanism, which is reduced to only the slow readers. With the proper division of tasks into fast and slow readers (Section 3.4), the transformed algorithm should require much less memory on average than the original algorithm, and in the worst case, require no more than the original.

Our transformation mechanism can be illustrated more concretely by showing how we apply it to some actual algorithms. We first apply our transformation to the algorithm proposed by Chen et al. in [7]. We then show how to transform the Double Buffer algorithm, which we have developed and present in Section 3.2. Chen's algorithm has a relatively high execution time overhead and low space overhead, so we expect our transformation to primarily improve execution time. In contrast, the Double Buffer algorithm has a high space overhead and low execution time overhead. We expect this algorithm to benefit primarily from memory usage reduction after transformation. The following subsections detail the improved algorithms, which are evaluated in Section 4.



Subsections
next up previous
Next: Improving Chen's Algorithm Up: Improving Wait-Free Algorithms for Previous: Restricting Memory Use
hai huang 2002-03-30