research-article

Open access

Semantics of transactional memory and automatic mutual exclusion

Authors:

Andrew Birrell,

Michael IsardAuthors Info & Claims

ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS), Volume 33, Issue 1

Article No.: 2, Pages 1 - 50

https://doi.org/10.1145/1889997.1889999

Published: 25 January 2011 Publication History

Abstract

Software Transactional Memory (STM) is an attractive basis for the development of language features for concurrent programming. However, the semantics of these features can be delicate and problematic. In this article we explore the trade-offs semantic simplicity, the viability of efficient implementation strategies, and the flexibility of language constructs. Specifically, we develop semantics and type systems for the constructs of the Automatic Mutual Exclusion (AME) programming model; our results apply also to other constructs, such as atomic blocks. With this semantics as a point of reference, we study several implementation strategies. We model STM systems that use in-place update, optimistic concurrency, lazy conflict detection, and rollback. These strategies are correct only under nontrivial assumptions that we identify and analyze. One important source of errors is that some efficient implementations create dangerous “zombie” computations where a transaction keeps running after experiencing a conflict; the assumptions confine the effects of these computations.

References

[1]

Abadi, M. 2008. Automatic mutual exclusion and atomicity checks. In Concurrency, Graphs and Models, Essays Dedicated to Ugo Montanari on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, P. Degano, R. D. Nicola, and J. Meseguer, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5065. Springer-Verlag, 510--526.

Digital Library

[2]

Abadi, M., Birrell, A., Harris, T., Hsieh, J., and Isard, M. 2008. Dynamic separation for transactional memory. Tech. rep. MSR-TR-2008-43, Microsoft Research.

[3]

Abadi, M., Birrell, A., Harris, T., Hsieh, J., and Isard, M. 2009. Implementation and use of transactional memory with dynamic separation. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Compiler Construction (CC'09), O. de Moor and M. I. Schwartzbach, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5501. Springer-Verlag, 63--77.

Digital Library

[4]

Abadi, M., Flanagan, C., and Freund, S. N. 2006. Types for safe locking: Static race detection for Java. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 28, 2, 207--255.

Digital Library

[5]

Abadi, M., Harris, T., and Moore, K. F. 2008. A model of dynamic separation for transactional memory. In Proceedings of the 19th International Confernece on Concurrency Theory (CONCUR'08), F. van Breugel and M. Chechik, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5201. Springer-Verlag, 6--20.

Digital Library

[6]

Adl-Tabatabai, A.-R., Lewis, B. T., Menon, V., Murphy, B. R., Saha, B., and Shpeisman, T. 2006. Compiler and runtime support for efficient software transactional memory. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI'06). 26--37.

Digital Library

[7]

Adve, S. V. and Hill, M. D. 1990. Weak ordering--a new definition. SIGARCH Comput. Archit. News 18, 3a, 2--14.

Digital Library

[8]

Adya, A., Howell, J., Theimer, M., Bolosky, W. J., and Douceur, J. R. 2002. Cooperative task management without manual stack management. In Proceedings of the USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX'02). 289--302.

Digital Library

[9]

Allen, E., Chase, D., Hallett, J., Luchangco, V., Maessen, J.-W., Ryu, S., Steele Jr., G. L., and Tobin-Hochstadt, S. 2007. The Fortress language specification, v1.0β. Tech. rep., Sun Microsystems.

[10]

Blundell, C., Lewis, E. C., and Martin, M. M. K. 2006. Subtleties of transactional memory atomicity semantics. Comput. Archit. Lett. 5, 2.

Digital Library

[11]

Bronson, N. G., Kozyrakis, C., and Olukotun, K. 2009. Feedback-directed barrier optimization in a strongly isolated STM. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL'09). 213--225.

Digital Library

[12]

Carlstrom, B. D., McDonald, A., Chafi, H., Chung, J., Minh, C. C., Kozyrakis, C., and Olukotun, K. 2006. The Atomos transactional programming language. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI'06). 1--13.

Digital Library

[13]

Cohen, A., O'Leary, J. W., Pnueli, A., Tuttle, M. R., and Zuck, L. D. 2007. Verifying correctness of transactional memories. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design (FMCAD'07). 37--44.

Digital Library

[14]

Dalessandro, L. and Scott, M. L. 2009. Strong isolation is a weak idea. In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Transactional Computing (TRANSACT'09).

[15]

Dice, D., Shalev, O., and Shavit, N. 2006. Transactional locking II. In Proceedings of the 20th International Symposium on Distributed Computing (DISC'06), S. Dolev, Ed., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4167. Springer, 194--208.

Digital Library

[16]

Dice, D. and Shavit, N. 2006. What really makes transactions faster&quest; In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on Languages, Compilers, and Hardware Support for Transactional Computing (TRANSACT'06). http://hdl.handle.net/1802/4051.

[17]

Grossman, D., Manson, J., and Pugh, W. 2006. What do high-level memory models mean for transactions&quest; In Proceedings of the Workshop on Memory System Performance and Correctness (MSPC'06). 62--69.

Digital Library

[18]

Guerraoui, R., Henzinger, T., and Singh, V. 2008a. Model checking transactional memories. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI'08). 372--382.

Digital Library

[19]

Guerraoui, R., Henzinger, T. A., and Singh, V. 2008b. Completeness and nondeterminism in model checking transactional memories. In Proceedings of the 19th International Confernece on Concurrency Theory (CONCUR'08), F. van Breugel and M. Chechik, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5201. Springer-Verlag, 21--35.

Digital Library

[20]

Harris, T. and Fraser, K. 2003. Language support for lightweight transactions. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA'03). 388--402.

Digital Library

[21]

Harris, T., Marlow, S., Peyton Jones, S., and Herlihy, M. 2005. Composable memory transactions. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles and Practice of Parallel Programming (PPoPP'05). 48--60.

Digital Library

[22]

Harris, T., Plesko, M., Shinnar, A., and Tarditi, D. 2006. Optimizing memory transactions. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI'06). 14--25.

Digital Library

[23]

Igarashi, A., Pierce, B. C., and Wadler, P. 2001. Featherweight Java: a minimal core calculus for Java and GJ. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 23, 3, 396--450.

Digital Library

[24]

Isard, M. and Birrell, A. 2007. Automatic mutual exclusion. In Proceedings of the 11th Workshop on Hot Topics in Operating Systems (HotOS'07).

Digital Library

[25]

Jagannathan, S., Vitek, J., Welc, A., and Hosking, A. 2005. A transactional object calculus. Sci. Comput. Program. 57, 2, 164--186.

Digital Library

[26]

Kuszmaul, B. C. and Leiserson, C. E. 2003. Transactions everywhere. Tech. rep., MIT. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/3692.

[27]

Liblit, B. 2006. An operational semantics for LogTM. Tech. rep. 1571, University of Wisconsin--Madison. Version 1.0.

[28]

Manson, J., Baker, J., Cunei, A., Jagannathan, S., Prochazka, M., Xin, B., and Vitek, J. 2005. Preemptible atomic regions for real-time Java. In Proceedings of the 26th IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium (RTSS'05). 62--71.

Digital Library

[29]

Manson, J., Pugh, W., and Adve, S. V. 2005. The Java memory model. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL'05). 378--391.

Digital Library

[30]

Menon, V., Balensiefer, S., Shpeisman, T., Adl-Tabatabai, A.-R., Hudson, R., Saha, B., and Welc, A. 2008. Practical weak-atomicity semantics for Java STM. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures (SPAA'08). 314--325.

Digital Library

[31]

Moore, K. E., Bobba, J., Moravan, M. J., Hill, M. D., and Wood, D. A. 2006. LogTM: Log-based transactional memory. In Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA'06). 254--265.

[32]

Moore, K. F. and Grossman, D. 2008. High-level small-step operational semantics for transactions. In Proceedings of the 35th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL'08). 51--62.

Digital Library

[33]

Naik, M., Aiken, A., and Whaley, J. 2006. Effective static race detection for Java. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI'06). 308--319.

Digital Library

[34]

Saha, B., Adl-Tabatabai, A.-R., Hudson, R. L., Minh, C. C., and Hertzberg, B. 2006. McRT-STM: a high performance software transactional memory system for a multi-core runtime. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles and Practice of Parallel Programming (PPoPP'06). 187--197.

Digital Library

[35]

Schneider, F. T., Menon, V., Shpeisman, T., and Adl-Tabatabai, A.-R. 2008. Dynamic optimization for efficient strong atomicity. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications (OOPSLA'08). 181--194.

Digital Library

[36]

Scott, M. L. 2006. Sequential specification of transactional memory semantics. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on Languages, Compilers, and Hardware Support for Transactional Computing (TRANSACT'06). http://hdl.handle.net/1802/4050.

[37]

Shavit, N. and Touitou, D. 1995. Software transactional memory. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC'95). 204--213.

Digital Library

[38]

Shpeisman, T., Menon, V., Adl-Tabatabai, A.-R., Balensiefer, S., Grossman, D., Hudson, R. L., Moore, K. F., and Saha, B. 2007. Enforcing isolation and ordering in STM. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI'07). 78--88.

Digital Library

[39]

Spear, M. F., Dalessandro, L., Marathe, V., and Scott, M. L. 2008. Ordering-based semantics for software transactional memory. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Principles of Distributed Systems (OPODIS'08), T. P. Baker, A. Bui, and S. Tixeuil, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 972. Springer, 275--294.

Digital Library

[40]

Spear, M. F., Marathe, V. J., Dalessandro, L., and Scott, M. L. 2007. Privatization techniques for software transactional memory. Tech. rep. 915, University of Rochester.

[41]

Sterling, N. 1993. Warlock: A static data race analysis tool. In Proceedings of the USENIX Winter Technical Conference. 97--106.

[42]

Tasiran, S. 2008. A compositional method for verifying software transactional memory implementations. Tech. rep. MSR-TR-2008-56, Microsoft Research.

[43]

Wang, C., Chen, W.-Y., Wu, Y., Saha, B., and Adl-Tabatabai, A.-R. 2007. Code generation and optimization for transactional memory constructs in an unmanaged language. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Code Generation and Optimization (CGO'07). 34--48.

Digital Library

[44]

Welc, A., Jagannathan, S., and Hosking, A. 2005. Safe futures for Java. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA'05). 439--453.

Digital Library

[45]

Wright, A. K. and Felleisen, M. 1994. A syntactic approach to type soundness. Inform. Computat. 115, 1, 38--94.

Digital Library

Cited By

Zhou ZYe QDelaware BJagannathan S(2024)A HAT Trick: Automatically Verifying Representation Invariants using Symbolic Finite AutomataProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/36564338:PLDI(1387-1411)Online publication date: 20-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3656433
Paulino HAlmeida Matos ACederquist JGiunti MMatos JRavara A(2023)AtomiS: Data-Centric Synchronization Made PracticalProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/36228017:OOPSLA2(116-145)Online publication date: 16-Oct-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3622801
Neves DPaulino HHong JBures MPark JCerny T(2022)Condition-based synchronization in data-centric concurrency controlProceedings of the 37th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing10.1145/3477314.3507120(1268-1275)Online publication date: 25-Apr-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3477314.3507120
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Semantics of transactional memory and automatic mutual exclusion
1. Computing methodologies
  1. Parallel computing methodologies
    1. Parallel programming languages
2. Software and its engineering
  1. Software notations and tools
    1. General programming languages
      1. Language types
        Parallel programming languages

Recommendations

Towards transactional memory semantics for C++
SPAA '09: Proceedings of the twenty-first annual symposium on Parallelism in algorithms and architectures

Transactional memory (TM) eliminates many problems associated with lock-based synchronization. Over recent years, much progress has been made in software and hardware implementation techniques for TM. However, before transactional memory can be ...
On the correctness of transactional memory
PPoPP '08: Proceedings of the 13th ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles and practice of parallel programming

Transactional memory (TM) is perceived as an appealing alternative to critical sections for general purpose concurrent programming. Despite the large amount of recent work on TM implementations, however, very little effort has been devoted to precisely ...
Semantics of transactional memory and automatic mutual exclusion
POPL '08

Software Transactional Memory (STM) is an attractive basis for the development of language features for concurrent programming. However, the semantics of these features can be delicate and problematic. In this paper we explore the tradeoffs between ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems

ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems Volume 33, Issue 1

January 2011

218 pages

ISSN:0164-0925

EISSN:1558-4593

DOI:10.1145/1889997

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2011 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 25 January 2011

Accepted: 01 January 2010

Revised: 01 August 2009

Received: 01 November 2008

Published in TOPLAS Volume 33, Issue 1

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

26
Total Citations
View Citations
774
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)75
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)15

Reflects downloads up to 04 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Zhou ZYe QDelaware BJagannathan S(2024)A HAT Trick: Automatically Verifying Representation Invariants using Symbolic Finite AutomataProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/36564338:PLDI(1387-1411)Online publication date: 20-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3656433
Paulino HAlmeida Matos ACederquist JGiunti MMatos JRavara A(2023)AtomiS: Data-Centric Synchronization Made PracticalProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/36228017:OOPSLA2(116-145)Online publication date: 16-Oct-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3622801
Neves DPaulino HHong JBures MPark JCerny T(2022)Condition-based synchronization in data-centric concurrency controlProceedings of the 37th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing10.1145/3477314.3507120(1268-1275)Online publication date: 25-Apr-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3477314.3507120
Wu ZLu KWang RZhang W(2020)A survey on optimizations towards best-effort hardware transactional memoryCCF Transactions on High Performance Computing10.1007/s42514-020-00049-2Online publication date: 15-Sep-2020
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42514-020-00049-2
Dongol BJagadeesan RRiely JHollingsworth JKeidar I(2019)Modular transactionsProceedings of the 24th Symposium on Principles and Practice of Parallel Programming10.1145/3293883.3295708(82-93)Online publication date: 16-Feb-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3293883.3295708
Khyzha AAttiya HGotsman ARinetzky N(2018)Safe privatization in transactional memoryACM SIGPLAN Notices10.1145/3200691.317850553:1(233-245)Online publication date: 10-Feb-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3200691.3178505
Khyzha AAttiya HGotsman ARinetzky NKrall AGross T(2018)Safe privatization in transactional memoryProceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles and Practice of Parallel Programming10.1145/3178487.3178505(233-245)Online publication date: 10-Feb-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3178487.3178505
Dongol BJagadeesan RRiely J(2017)Transactions in relaxed memory architecturesProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/31581062:POPL(1-29)Online publication date: 27-Dec-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3158106
Nguyen DPingali K(2017)What Scalable Programs Need from Transactional MemoryACM SIGARCH Computer Architecture News10.1145/3093337.303775045:1(105-118)Online publication date: 4-Apr-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3093337.3037750
Nguyen DPingali K(2017)What Scalable Programs Need from Transactional MemoryACM SIGPLAN Notices10.1145/3093336.303775052:4(105-118)Online publication date: 4-Apr-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3093336.3037750
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Article

Figures

Tables

Media

View Issue’s Table of Contents