Lock-free algorithms: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:42, 12 July 2009 view source Dank (talk \| contribs) Bureaucrats, Administrators 11,302 edits No edit summary ← Older edit		Revision as of 14:43, 12 July 2009 view source Dank (talk \| contribs) Bureaucrats, Administrators 11,302 edits No edit summary Newer edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Herlihy, Luchangco and Moir's 2003 paper, "[http://www.cs.brown.edu/people/mph/HerlihyLM03/main.pdf Obstruction-Free Synchronization: Double-Ended Queues as an Example]" pretty much revolutionized the field and is mandatory reading. Techniques like [[transactional memory\|speculative lock elision]] (SLE) can abrogate much of the cost of uncontested locks, and threading implementations like [[NPTL]] handle uncontested mutexes entirely in userspace. ~~Nonetheless,~~		Herlihy, Luchangco and Moir's 2003 paper, "[http://www.cs.brown.edu/people/mph/HerlihyLM03/main.pdf Obstruction-Free Synchronization: Double-Ended Queues as an Example]" pretty much revolutionized the field and is mandatory reading. Techniques like [[transactional memory\|speculative lock elision]] (SLE) can abrogate much of the cost of uncontested locks, and threading implementations like [[NPTL]] handle uncontested mutexes entirely in userspace.

	==Architectural Primitives==		==Architectural Primitives==