An Adaptive Logging Framework for Persistent Memories

Poudel, Pavan; Sharma, Gokarna

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-03232-6_3

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We provide two different models of ADAPTIVE, one for persistent TM systems and another for non-persistent TM systems. We reported a preliminary version of ADAPTIVE for persistent TM systems in [24]. We reported a preliminary version of ADAPTIVE for non-persistent TM systems in [25].…”

Section: Contributionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Adaptive Versioning in Transactional Memory Systems

Poudel

Sharma

2021

Algorithms

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transactional memory has been receiving much attention from both academia and industry. In transactional memory, program code is split into transactions, blocks of code that appear to execute atomically. Transactions are executed speculatively and the speculative execution is supported through data versioning mechanism. Lazy versioning makes aborts fast but penalizes commits, whereas eager versioning makes commits fast but penalizes aborts. However, whether to use eager or lazy versioning to execute those transactions is still a hotly debated topic. Lazy versioning seems appropriate for write-dominated workloads and transactions in high contention scenarios whereas eager versioning seems appropriate for read-dominated workloads and transactions in low contention scenarios. This necessitates a priori knowledge on the workload and contention scenario to select an appropriate versioning method to achieve better performance. In this article, we present an adaptive versioning approach, called Adaptive, that dynamically switches between eager and lazy versioning at runtime, without the need of a priori knowledge on the workload and contention scenario but based on appropriate system parameters, so that the performance of a transactional memory system is always better than that is obtained using either eager or lazy versioning individually. We provide Adaptive for both persistent and non-persistent transactional memory systems using performance parameters appropriate for those systems. We implemented our adaptive versioning approach in the latest software transactional memory distribution TinySTM and extensively evaluated it through 5 micro-benchmarks and 8 complex benchmarks from STAMP and STAMPEDE suites. The results show significant benefits of our approach. Specifically, in persistent TM systems, our approach achieved performance improvements as much as 1.5× for execution time and as much as 240× for number of aborts, whereas our approach achieved performance improvements as much as 6.3× for execution time and as much as 170× for number of aborts in non-persistent transactional memory systems.

show abstract

Section: Contributionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The pseudocode is given in Algorithm 2. The barrier reduces total number of aborts but due to a time delay before switching, it may increase total execution time [24]. We provide a better time barrier design appropriate for non-persistent TM systens (described in Section 5) that will minimize this overhead.…”

Section: Time Barrier Requirement and Designmentioning

confidence: 99%