cpsc 668set 6: mutual exclusion in shared memory1 cpsc 668 distributed algorithms and systems fall...
Post on 18-Dec-2015
216 views
TRANSCRIPT
CPSC 668 Set 6: Mutual Exclusion in Shared Memory 1
CPSC 668Distributed Algorithms and Systems
Fall 2006
Prof. Jennifer Welch
CPSC 668 Set 6: Mutual Exclusion in Shared Memory 2
Shared Memory Model
• Processors communicate via a set of shared variables, instead of passing messages.
• Each shared variable has a type, defining a set of operations that can be performed atomically.
CPSC 668 Set 6: Mutual Exclusion in Shared Memory 3
Shared Memory Model
• Changes to the model from the message-passing case:– no inbuf and outbuf state components– configuration includes a value for each
shared variable– only event type is a computation step by a
processor– An execution is admissible if every
processor takes an infinite number of steps
CPSC 668 Set 6: Mutual Exclusion in Shared Memory 4
Computation Step in Shared Memory Model• When processor pi takes a step:
– pi 's state in old configuration specifies whch shared variable is to be accessed and with which operation
– operation is done: shared variable's value in the new configuration changes according to the operation's semantics
– pi 's state in new configuration changes according to its old state and the result of the operation
CPSC 668 Set 6: Mutual Exclusion in Shared Memory 5
Observations on SM Model
• Accesses to the shared variables are modeled as occurring instantaneously (atomically) during a computation step, one access per step
• Definition of admissible execution implies– asynchronous– no failures
CPSC 668 Set 6: Mutual Exclusion in Shared Memory 6
• Each processor's code is divided into four sections:
– entry: synchronize with others to ensure mutually exclusive access to the …
– critical: use some resource; when done, enter the…– exit: clean up; when done, enter the…– remainder: not interested in using the resource
Mutual Exclusion (Mutex) Problem
entry
critical
exit
remainder
CPSC 668 Set 6: Mutual Exclusion in Shared Memory 7
Mutual Exclusion Algorithms
• A mutual exclusion algorithm specifies code for entry and exit sections to ensure:– mutual exclusion: at most one processor
is in its critical section at any time, and– some kind of "liveness" or "progress"
condition. There are three commonly considered ones…
CPSC 668 Set 6: Mutual Exclusion in Shared Memory 8
Mutex Progress Conditions
• no deadlock: if a processor is in its entry section at some time, then later some processor is in its critical section
• no lockout: if a processor is in its entry section at some time, then later the same processor is in its critical section
• bounded waiting: no lockout + while a processor is in its entry section, other processors enter the critical section no more than a certain number of times.
• These conditions are increasingly strong.
CPSC 668 Set 6: Mutual Exclusion in Shared Memory 9
Mutual Exclusion Algorithms
• The code for the entry and exit sections is allowed to assume that– no processor stays in its critical section
forever– shared variables used in the entry and exit
sections are not accessed during the critical and remainder sections
CPSC 668 Set 6: Mutual Exclusion in Shared Memory 10
Complexity Measure for Mutex
• Main complexity measure of interest for shared memory mutex algorithms is amount of shared space needed.
• Space complexity is affected by:– how powerful is the type of the shared
variables– how strong is the progress property to be
satisfied (no deadlock vs. no lockout vs. bounded waiting)
CPSC 668 Set 6: Mutual Exclusion in Shared Memory 11
Mutex Results Using RMW
• When using powerful shared variables of "read-modify-write" type
number of SM
states
upper bound lower bound
no deadlock 2
(test&set alg)
2
(obvious)
no lockout n/2 + c
(Burns et al.)
n/2
(Burns et al.)
bounded waiting
n2
(queue alg.)
n
(Burns & Lynch)
CPSC 668 Set 6: Mutual Exclusion in Shared Memory 12
Mutex Results Using Read/Write
• When using read/write shared variables
number of distinct vars.
upper bound lower bound
no deadlock n
(Burns & Lynch)
no lockout 3n booleans
(tournament alg.)
bounded waiting
2n unbounded
(bakery alg.)
CPSC 668 Set 6: Mutual Exclusion in Shared Memory 13
Test-and-Set Shared Variable
• A test-and-set variable V holds two values, 0 or 1, and supports two (atomic) operations:– test&set(V):
temp := VV := 1return temp
– reset(V):V := 0
CPSC 668 Set 6: Mutual Exclusion in Shared Memory 14
Mutex Algorithm Using Test&Set
• code for entry section:repeat t := test&set(V)until (t = 0)An alternative construction is:
wait until test&set(V) = 0
• code for exit section:reset(V)
CPSC 668 Set 6: Mutual Exclusion in Shared Memory 15
Mutual Exclusion is Ensured
• Suppose not. Consider first violation, when some pi enters CS but another pj is already in CS
pj enters CS:sees V = 0,sets V to 1
pi enters CS:sees V = 0,sets V to 1
no node leaves CS so V stays 1
impossible!
CPSC 668 Set 6: Mutual Exclusion in Shared Memory 16
No Deadlock• Claim: V = 0 iff no processor is in CS.
– Proof is by induction on events in execution, and relies on fact that mutual exclusion holds.
• Suppose there is a time after which a processor is in its entry section but no processor ever enters CS.
no processor enters CS
no processor is in CSV always equals 0, next t&s returns 0proc enters CS, contradiction!
CPSC 668 Set 6: Mutual Exclusion in Shared Memory 17
What About No Lockout?
• One processor could always grab V (i.e., win the test&set competition) and starve the others.
• No Lockout does not hold.
• Thus Bounded Waiting does not hold.
CPSC 668 Set 6: Mutual Exclusion in Shared Memory 18
Read-Modify-Write Shared Variable
• The state of this kind of variable can by anything and of any size.
• Variable V supports the (atomic) operation– rmw(V,f ), where f is any function
temp := VV := f(V)return temp
• This variable type is so strong there is no point in having multiple variables.
CPSC 668 Set 6: Mutual Exclusion in Shared Memory 19
Mutex Algorithm Using RMW
• Conceptually, the list of waiting processors is stored in a circular queue of length n
• Each waiting processor remembers in its local state its location in the queue (instead of keeping this info in the shared variable)
• Shared RMW variable V keeps track of active part of the queue with first and last pointers, which are indices into the queue (between 0 and n-1)– so V has two components, first and last
CPSC 668 Set 6: Mutual Exclusion in Shared Memory 20
Conceptual Data Structure
The RMW shared object just contains these two"pointers"
CPSC 668 Set 6: Mutual Exclusion in Shared Memory 21
Mutex Algorithm Using RMW
• Code for entry section:// increment last to enqueue selfposition := rmw(V,(V.first,V.last+1)// wait until first equals this valuerepeat queue := rmw(V,V)until (queue.first = position.last)
• Code for exit section:// dequeue selfrmw(V,(V.first+1,V.last))
CPSC 668 Set 6: Mutual Exclusion in Shared Memory 22
Correctness Sketch
• Mutual Exclusion: – Only the processor at the head of the
queue (V.first) can enter the CS, and only one processor is at the head at any time.
• n-Bounded Waiting:– FIFO order of enqueueing, and fact that no
processor stays in CS forever, give this result.
CPSC 668 Set 6: Mutual Exclusion in Shared Memory 23
Space Complexity
• The shared RMW variable V has two components in its state, first and last.
• Both are integers that take on values from 0 to n-1, n different values.
• The total number of different states of V thus is n2.
• And thus the required size of V in bits is 2*log2 n .
CPSC 668 Set 6: Mutual Exclusion in Shared Memory 24
Spinning
• A drawback of the RMW queue algorithm is that processors in entry section repeatedly access the same shared variable– called spinning
• Having multiple processors spinning on the same shared variable can be very time-inefficient in certain multiprocessor architectures
• Alter the queue algorithm so that each waiting processor spins on a different shared variable
CPSC 668 Set 6: Mutual Exclusion in Shared Memory 25
RMW Mutex Algorithm With Separate Spinning• Shared RMW variables:
– Last : corresponds to last "pointer" from previous algorithm; keeps track of index to be given to the next processor that starts waiting (cycles through 0 to n)
– Flags[0..n-1] : array of binary variables; these are the variables that processors spin on -- make sure no two processors spin on the same variable at the same time
CPSC 668 Set 6: Mutual Exclusion in Shared Memory 26
Overview of Algorithm• entry section:
– get next index from Last and store in a local variable myPlace
– spin on Flags[myPlace] until it equals 1 (means proc "has lock" and can enter CS)
– set Flags[myPlace] to 0 ("doesn't have lock")
• exit section:– set Flags[myPlace+1] to 1 (i.e., give the
priority to the next proc)
CPSC 668 Set 6: Mutual Exclusion in Shared Memory 27
Question
• Do the shared variables Last and Flags have to be RMW variables?
• Answer: The RMW semantics (atomically reading and updating a variable) are needed for Last, to make sure two processors don't get the same index at overlapping times.
CPSC 668 Set 6: Mutual Exclusion in Shared Memory 28
Invariants of the Algorithm
1. At most one element of Flags has value 1 ("has lock")
2. If no element of Flags has value 1, then some processor is in the CS.
3. If Flags[k] = 1, then exactly
(k - Last - 1) mod n processors are in the entry section, each spinning on a different element of Flags.
CPSC 668 Set 6: Mutual Exclusion in Shared Memory 29
Correctness
• Those three invariants can be used to prove:– Mutual exclusion is satisfied– n-Bounded Waiting is satisfied.
CPSC 668 Set 6: Mutual Exclusion in Shared Memory 30
Lower Bound on Number of Memory States
Theorem (4.4): Any mutex algorithm with k-bounded waiting (and no-deadlock) uses at least n states of shared memory.
Proof: Assume in contradiction there is an algorithm using less than n states of shared memory.
CPSC 668 Set 6: Mutual Exclusion in Shared Memory 31
Lower Bound on Number of Memory States
• Consider this execution of the algorithm:
• There exist i and j such that Ci and Cj have the same state of shared memory.
p0 p0 p0 … p1 p2 pn-1
C C0 C2 Cn-1C1……
p0 inCS byND
p1 inentrysec.
p2 inentrysec.
pn-1 inentrysec.
CPSC 668 Set 6: Mutual Exclusion in Shared Memory 32
Lower Bound on Number of Memory States
Ci Cjp0 in CS,p1-pi in entry,rest in rem.
p0 in CS,p1-pj in entry,rest in rem.
pi+1, pi+2, …, pj
= sched. in whichp0-pi take steps alternately
by ND, some ph
has entered CSk+1 times
ph enters CSk+1 times whilepi+1 is in entry
CPSC 668 Set 6: Mutual Exclusion in Shared Memory 33
Lower Bound on Number of Memory States• But why does ph do the same thing when
executing the sequence of steps in when starting from Cj as when starting from Ci?
• All the processes p0,…,pj do the same thing because:– they are in same states in the two configs– shared memory state is same in the two configs
– only differences between Ci and Cj are (potentially) the states of pi+1,…,pj and they don't take any steps in
CPSC 668 Set 6: Mutual Exclusion in Shared Memory 34
Discussion of Lower Bound
• The lower bound of n just shown on number of memory states only holds for algorithms that must provide bounded waiting in every execution.
• Suppose we weaken the liveness condition to just no-lockout in every execution: then the bound becomes n/2 distinct shared memory states.
• And if liveness is weakened to just no-deadlock in every execution, then the bound is just 2.
CPSC 668 Set 6: Mutual Exclusion in Shared Memory 35
"Beating" the Lower Bound with Randomization• An alternative way to weaken the
requirement is to give up on requiring liveness in every execution
• Consider Probabilistic No-Lockout: every processor has non-zero probability of succeeding each time it is in its entry section.
• Now there is an algorithm using O(1) states of shared memory.