Abstract
Transactional memory allows the user to declare sequences of instructions as speculative transactions that can either commit or abort, providing all-or-nothing semantics. If a transaction commits, it should appear to execute sequentially, so that the committed transactions constitute a correct sequential execution. If a transaction aborts, none of its instructions should affect other transactions. These semantics allow the programmer to incorporate sequential code within transactions and let the transactional memory care about conflicts between concurrent transactions. In this sense, it is important that the memory is safe, i.e., every transaction has a consistent view even if the transaction aborts later. Otherwise, inconsistencies not predicted by the sequential program may cause a fatal irrecoverable error or an infinite loop. Furthermore, in a general setting, where a transaction may be explicitly aborted by the user or an external contention manager, a transaction should not be allowed to read from a not yet committed transaction, which is often called deferred-update semantics. This chapter overviews the scope of consistency criteria proposed so far to capture deferred-update semantics, and shows that—under reasonable conditions—the semantics induces a safety property.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 50-71 |
| Number of pages | 22 |
| Journal | Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) |
| Volume | 8913 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Jan 2015 |
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Safety and deferred update in transactional memory'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver