Algorithms that use hardware transactional memory (HTM) must provide a software-only fallback path to guarantee progress. The design of the fallback path can have a profound impact on performance. If the fallback path is allowed to run concurrently with hardware transactions, then hardware transactions must be instrumented, adding significant overhead. Otherwise, hardware transactions must wait for any processes on the fallback path, causing concurrency bottlenecks, or move to the fallback path. We introduce an approach that combines the best of both worlds. The key idea is to use three execution paths: an HTM fast path, an HTM middle path, and a software fallback path, such that the middle path can run concurrently with each of the other two. The fast path and fallback path do not run concurrently, so the fast path incurs no instrumentation overhead. Furthermore, fast path transactions can move to the middle path instead of waiting or moving to the software path. We demonstrate our approach by producing an accelerated version of the tree update template of , which can be used to implement fast lock-free data structures based on down-trees. We used the accelerated template to implement two lock-free trees: a binary search tree (BST), and an (a,b)-tree (a generalization of a B-tree). Experiments show that, with 72 concurrent processes, our accelerated (a,b)-tree performs between 4.0x and 4.2x as many operations per second as an implementation obtained using the original tree update template.
Different options for concurrency have recently begun to be explored in the context of TLE. Refined TLE @cite_14 and Amalgamated TLE @cite_20 both improve the concurrency of TLE when a process is on the fallback path by allowing HTM transactions to run concurrently with a on the fallback path. Both of these approaches still serialize processes on the fallback path. They also use locks, so they cannot be used to produce lock-free data structures.
@cite_14 @cite_20
2267165091 2189254265 2293605087 1542975293
Transactional lock elision (TLE) is a well-known technique that exploits hardware transactional memory (HTM) to introduce concurrency into lock-based software. It achieves that by attempting to execute a critical section protected by a lock in an atomic hardware transaction, reverting to the lock if these attempts fail. One significant drawback of TLE is that it disables hardware speculation once there is a thread running under lock. In this paper we present two algorithms that rely on existing compiler support for transactional programs and allow threads to speculate concurrently on HTM along with a thread holding the lock. We demonstrate the benefit of our algorithms over TLE and other related approaches with an in-depth analysis of a number of benchmarks and a wide range of workloads, including an AVL tree-based micro-benchmark and ccTSA, a real sequence assembler application. Transactional Lock Elision (TLE) uses Hardware Transactional Memory (HTM) to execute unmodified critical sections concurrently, even if they are protected by the same lock. To ensure correctness, the transactions used to execute these critical sections “subscribe” to the lock by reading it and checking that it is available. A recent paper proposed using the tempting “lazy subscription” optimization for a similar technique in a different context, namely transactional systems that use a single global lock (SGL) to protect all transactional data. We identify several pitfalls that show that lazy subscription is not safe for TLE because unmodified critical sections executing before subscribing to the lock may behave incorrectly in a number of subtle ways. We also show that recently proposed compiler support for modifying transaction code to ensure subscription occurs before any incorrect behavior could manifest is not sufficient to avoid all of the pitfalls we identify. We further argue that extending such compiler support to avoid all pitfalls would add substantial complexity and would usually limit the extent to which subscription can be deferred, undermining the effectiveness of the optimization. Hardware extensions suggested in the recent proposal also do not address all of the pitfalls we identify. A longer version of this paper proposes hardware extensions that make lazy subscription safe, both for SGL-based transactional systems and for TLE, without the need for special compiler support. Hardware lock-elision HLE introduces concurrency into legacy lock-based code by optimistically executing critical sections in a fast-path as hardware transactions. Its main limitation is that in case of repeated aborts, it reverts to a fallback-path that acquires a serial lock. This fallback-path lacks hardware-software concurrency, because all fast-path hardware transactions abort and wait for the completion of the fallback. Software lock elision has no such limitation, but the overheads incurred are simply too high. We propose amalgamated lock-elision ALE, a novel lock-elision algorithm that provides hardware-software concurrency and efficiency: the fallback-path executes concurrently with fast-path hardware transactions, while the common-path fast-path reads incur no overheads and proceed without any instrumentation. The key idea in ALE is to use a sequence of fine-grained locks in the fallback-path to detect conflicts with the fast-path, and at the same time reduce the costs of these locks by executing the fallback-path as a series segments, where each segment is a dynamic length short hardware transaction. We implemented ALE into GCC and tested the new system on Intel Haswell 16-way chip that provides hardware transactions. We benchmarked linked-lists, hash-tables and red-black trees, as well as converting KyotoCacheDB to use ALE in GCC, and all show that ALE significantly outperforms HLE. The transactional memory programming paradigm is gaining momentum as the approach of choice for replacing locks in concurrent programming. This paper introduces the transactional locking II (TL2) algorithm, a software transactional memory (STM) algorithm based on a combination of commit-time locking and a novel global version-clock based validation technique. TL2 improves on state-of-the-art STMs in the following ways: (1) unlike all other STMs it fits seamlessly with any system's memory life-cycle, including those using malloc free (2) unlike all other lock-based STMs it efficiently avoids periods of unsafe execution, that is, using its novel version-clock validation, user code is guaranteed to operate only on consistent memory states, and (3) in a sequence of high performance benchmarks, while providing these new properties, it delivered overall performance comparable to (and in many cases better than) that of all former STM algorithms, both lock-based and non-blocking. Perhaps more importantly, on various benchmarks, TL2 delivers performance that is competitive with the best hand-crafted fine-grained concurrent structures. Specifically, it is ten-fold faster than a single lock. We believe these characteristics make TL2 a viable candidate for deployment of transactional memory today, long before hardware transactional support is available.