Abstract
In transactional memory systems like TCC, unordered transactions are committed on a first-come, first-serve basis. If a transaction has read data that has been modified by the next transaction to commit, it will have to roll-back and a lot of computations can potentially be wasted. Even worse, such simple commit arbitration policies are prone to starvation; in fact, the performance of Raytrace in SPLASH-2 suffered significantly because of this. This paper analyzes in detail the design issues for commit arbitration policies and proposes novel policies that reduce the amount of wasted computation due to roll-back and, most importantly, avoid starvation. We analyze in detail how to incorporate them in a TCC-like transactional memory protocol. We find that our proposed schemes have no impact on the common-case performance. In addition, they add modest complexity to the baseline protocol.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
