Autolocker: synchronization inference for atomic sections

ABSTRACT

The movement to multi-core processors increases the need for simpler, more robust parallel programming models. Atomic sections have been widely recognized for their ease of use. They are simpler and safer to use than manual locking and they increase modularity. But existing proposals have several practical problems, including high overhead and poor interaction with I/O. We present pessimistic atomic sections, a fresh approach that retains many of the advantages of optimistic atomic sections as seen in "transactional memory" without sacrificing performance or compatibility. Pessimistic atomic sections employ the locking mechanisms familiar to programmers while relieving them of most burdens of lock-based programming, including deadlocks. Significantly, pessimistic atomic sections separate correctness from performance: they allow programmers to extract more parallelism via finer-grained locking without fear of introducing bugs. We believe this property is crucial for exploiting multi-core processor designs.We describe a tool, Autolocker, that automatically converts pessimistic atomic sections into standard lock-based code. Autolocker relies extensively on program analysis to determine a correct locking policy free of deadlocks and race conditions. We evaluate the expressiveness of Autolocker by modifying a 50,000 line high-performance web server to use atomic sections while retaining the original locking policy. We analyze Autolocker's performance using microbenchmarks, where Autolocker outperforms software transactional memory by more than a factor of 3.

REFERENCES

• 1: Rakesh Agrawal , Michael J. Carey , Miron Livny, Concurrency control performance modeling: alternatives and implications, ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS), v.12 n.4, p.609-654, Dec. 1987 [doi>10.1145/32204.32220]
• 2: C. Scott Ananian , Krste Asanovic , Bradley C. Kuszmaul , Charles E. Leiserson , Sean Lie, Unbounded Transactional Memory, Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture, p.316-327, February 12-16, 2005 [doi>10.1109/HPCA.2005.41]
• 3: Chandrasekhar Boyapati , Martin C. Rinard, Safejava: a unified type system for safe programming, 2004
• 4: M. Christiaens and K. de Bosschere. TRaDE: A topological approach to on-the-fly race detection in java programs. In Proc. of the Java Virtual Machine Research and Technology Symposium, April 2001.
• 5: Robert Ennals. Software transactional memory should not be obstruction-free. http://www.cambridge.intel-research.net/~rennals/faststm.html.
• 6: Cormac Flanagan , Stephen N. Freund, Type-based race detection for Java, Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 2000 conference on Programming language design and implementation, p.219-232, June 18-21, 2000, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
• 7: Cormac Flanagan , Stephen N Freund, Atomizer: a dynamic atomicity checker for multithreaded programs, Proceedings of the 31st ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages, p.256-267, January 14-16, 2004, Venice, Italy
• 8: Cormac Flanagan and Stephen N. Freund. Type Inference Against Races. In SAS'04, pages 116--132, 2004.
• 9: Cormac Flanagan and Stephen N. Freund. Automatic Synchronization Correction. In Synchronization and Concurrency in Object-Oriented Languages (SCOOL), 2005.
• 10: Cormac Flanagan , Stephen N. Freund , Marina Lifshin, Type inference for atomicity, Proceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGPLAN international workshop on Types in languages design and implementation, p.47-58, January 10-10, 2005, Long Beach, California, USA [doi>10.1145/1040294.1040299]
• 11: Cormac Flanagan , Shaz Qadeer, A type and effect system for atomicity, Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 2003 conference on Programming language design and implementation, June 09-11, 2003, San Diego, California, USA
• 12: Keir Fraser. Practical lock freedom. PhD thesis, Cambridge University Computer Laboratory, 2003. Also available as Technical Report UCAM-CL-TR-579.
• 13: Keir Fraser and Tim Harris. Concurrent programming without locks. http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/Research/SRG/netos/lock-free.
• 14: J. N. Gray, R. A. Lorie, G. R. Putzolu, and I. L. Traiger. Granularity of locks and degrees of consistency in a shared data base. Technical report, IBM Research Laboratory, 1975. Report RJ 1654.
• 15: Tim Harris. Exceptions and side-effects in atomic blocks. In Proceedings of the 2004 Workshop on Concurrency and Synchronization in Java programs, pages 46--53, Jul 2004. Proceedings published as Memorial University of Newfoundland CS Technical Report 2004-01.
• 16: Tim Harris , Keir Fraser, Language support for lightweight transactions, Proceedings of the 18th annual ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object-oriented programing, systems, languages, and applications, October 26-30, 2003, Anaheim, California, USA
• 17: Tim Harris , Keir Fraser, Revocable locks for non-blocking programming, Proceedings of the tenth ACM SIGPLAN symposium on Principles and practice of parallel programming, June 15-17, 2005, Chicago, IL, USA [doi>10.1145/1065944.1065954]
• 18: Tim Harris , Simon Marlow , Simon Peyton-Jones , Maurice Herlihy, Composable memory transactions, Proceedings of the tenth ACM SIGPLAN symposium on Principles and practice of parallel programming, June 15-17, 2005, Chicago, IL, USA [doi>10.1145/1065944.1065952]
• 19: Maurice Herlihy , Victor Luchangco , Mark Moir , William N. Scherer, III, Software transactional memory for dynamic-sized data structures, Proceedings of the twenty-second annual symposium on Principles of distributed computing, p.92-101, July 13-16, 2003, Boston, Massachusetts [doi>10.1145/872035.872048]
• 20: Maurice Herlihy , J. Eliot B. Moss, Transactional memory: architectural support for lock-free data structures, Proceedings of the 20th annual international symposium on Computer architecture, p.289-300, May 16-19, 1993, San Diego, California, United States
• 21: Barbara Liskov , Robert Scheifler, Guardians and Actions: Linguistic Support for Robust, Distributed Programs, ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS), v.5 n.3, p.381-404, July 1983 [doi>10.1145/2166.357215]
• 22: D. B. Lomet, Process structuring, synchronization, and recovery using atomic actions, Proceedings of an ACM conference on Language design for reliable software, p.128-137, March 28-30, 1977, Raleigh, North Carolina
• 23: Maged M. Michael , Michael L. Scott, Simple, fast, and practical non-blocking and blocking concurrent queue algorithms, Proceedings of the fifteenth annual ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing, p.267-275, May 23-26, 1996, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States [doi>10.1145/248052.248106]
• 24: Kevin E. Moore, Mark D. Hill, and David A. Wood. Thread-level transactional memory. Technical report, University of Wisconsin, Mar 2005. CS-TR-2005-1524.
• 25: George C. Necula , Scott McPeak , Shree Prakash Rahul , Westley Weimer, CIL: Intermediate Language and Tools for Analysis and Transformation of C Programs, Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Compiler Construction, p.213-228, April 08-12, 2002
• 26: Christoph von Praun , Thomas R. Gross, Object race detection, Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object oriented programming, systems, languages, and applications, p.70-82, October 14-18, 2001, Tampa Bay, FL, USA
• 27: Ravi Rajwar , James R. Goodman, Transactional lock-free execution of lock-based programs, Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Architectural support for programming languages and operating systems, October 05-09, 2002, San Jose, California
• 28: Ravi Rajwar , Maurice Herlihy , Konrad Lai, Virtualizing Transactional Memory, Proceedings of the 32nd Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture, p.494-505, June 04-08, 2005
• 29: Raghu Ramakrishnan , Johannes Gehrke, Database Management Systems, McGraw-Hill Science/Engineering/Math, 2002
• 30: Alexandru Salcianu , Martin Rinard, Pointer and escape analysis for multithreaded programs, Proceedings of the eighth ACM SIGPLAN symposium on Principles and practices of parallel programming, p.12-23, June 2001, Snowbird, Utah, United States
• 31: Amit Sasturkar , Rahul Agarwal , Liqiang Wang , Scott D. Stoller, Automated type-based analysis of data races and atomicity, Proceedings of the tenth ACM SIGPLAN symposium on Principles and practice of parallel programming, June 15-17, 2005, Chicago, IL, USA [doi>10.1145/1065944.1065956]
• 32: Stefan Savage , Michael Burrows , Greg Nelson , Patrick Sobalvarro , Thomas Anderson, Eraser: a dynamic data race detector for multithreaded programs, ACM Transactions on Computer Systems (TOCS), v.15 n.4, p.391-411, Nov. 1997 [doi>10.1145/265924.265927]
• 33: D. Schonberg, On-the-fly detection of access anomalies, Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 1989 Conference on Programming language design and implementation, p.285-297, June 19-23, 1989, Portland, Oregon, United States
• 34: Y. Yu, T. L. Rodeheffer, and W. Chen. RaceTrack: Efficient detection of data race conditions via adaptive tracking. Technical report, Microsoft Research, 2005. MSR-TR-2005-54.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  D. Software
  D.3 PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES
      D.3.3 Language Constructs and Features
          Subjects: Concurrent programming structures

General Terms:
Algorithms, Languages

Keywords:
atomic, lock, pessimistic