School Notes

CSC469 Lecture 6

Transactional Memory

Database Transactions

We use this as inspiration behind transactional memory, since databases are able to provide concurrent query execution without the person writing the query having to worry about it. There are atomic and consistent operations, which determine how the operations should be ordered when executing a query.

Transactional Memory

With transactional memory, we gain a magic keyword, atomic:

atomic {

Specifies that we want an action to execute as a single unit. The TM system executes transactions optimistically in parallel, leaving checkpoints at each point, until it detects a conflict, at which point it rolls back and re-executes the code.

Differences from DB Transactions

  1. DB transactions are operating on disk, so the cost of keeping checkpoints and checking conflicts is dwarfed by the time spent on disk. However, in our TM system, we need to make sure these operations are super optimized, since everything's being done in memory.

  2. We have no need for durability.

  3. A program using TM has to coexist with libraries and operating systems that do not use it.

TM Options

  1. Hardware -- requires changes to system -- need extra cache for buffer writes, extend coherence protocol to track conflicts, special transaction instructions -- only supports a limited number of memory locations

  2. Software -- language runtime or library and extensions required to use transaction -- exploit multicores -- more widely used

  3. Hybrid


With an atomic operation, things won't see the results from functions until they finish executing, since the transaction won't be commited until the end. So if you have two threads running with atomic operations that set flags that would unblock the other thread, and then wait for their flag to become true, the flag wouldn't be set until the transaction completes. Visibility issue.

Isolation is another concern. We have two types of isolation -- weak and strong isolation. Weak isolation means that a memory reference outside the transaction may not follow the protocols of the TM system. Strong isolation converts all operations outside atomic blocks into individual transactions, guaranteeing everything obeys TM protocols.

For nested transactions(required for composability), we have three options:

  1. Flattened: remove inner transaction. Risk more aborts.
  2. Closed: effect of inner transaction only visible to surrounding one, abort affects only inner. Very difficult to implement.
  3. Open: Effect of inner becomes visible to everything after commit. Abort affects only inner. Solves the abort problem, but we've broken some isolation properties. Also, what if the outer one aborts afterwards?

Most systems implement a flattened transaction model, use another strategy if abort rate becomes too high.



1. What unit do we detect conflict over? Word or object?

2. Should a transaction directly modify an object or modify a private
copy and then propogate at commit time? Both are complicated when you
have data races.

3. Should we be optimistic when executing operations concurrently? Or
pessimistic instead? Typically we're optimistic, leading to the need
to detect and resolve conflicts.


With scaling things, adding more processors to a machine not designed for lots of processors won't cut it. The throughput will decrease after a certain point, rather than increase.

The main enemy of scaleability is shared data, since we need to make sure that we're not blocking the CPUs on other CPUs accessing that data. We distribute our data structures and use per-cpu data whenever possible, padding the cache lines to make sure that we don't accidentally share a cache line between processors.

MP Scheduling

How do we assign threads to different CPUs?

Same considerations as uniprocessor scheduling, but now we have to take into account the ready queue implementation, load balancing, and which CPU the thread would be best suited for based on the current location of data.