DocumentCode
1704974
Title
A comparison of entry consistency and lazy release consistency implementations
Author
Adve, Sarita V. ; Cox, Alan L. ; Dwarkadas, Sandhya ; Rajamony, Ramakrishnan ; Zwaenepoel, Willy
Author_Institution
Dept. of Comput. Sci., Rice Univ., Houston, TX, USA
fYear
1996
Firstpage
26
Lastpage
37
Abstract
This paper compares several implementations of entry consistency (EC) and lazy release consistency (LRC), two relaxed memory models in use with software distributed shared memory (DSM) systems. We use six applications in our study: SOR, Quicksort, Water, Barnes-Hut, IS, and 3D-FFT. For these applications, EC´s requirement that all shared data be associated with a synchronization object leads to a fair amount of additional programming effort. We identify, in particular, extra synchronization, lock rebinding, and object granularity as sources of extra complexity. In terms of performance, for the set of applications and for the computing environment utilized neither model is consistently better than the other. For SOR and IS, execution times are about the same, but LRC is faster for Water (33%) and Barnes-Hut (41%) and EC is faster for Quicksort (14%) and 3D-FFT (10%)
Keywords
distributed memory systems; shared memory systems; synchronisation; virtual storage; 3D-FFT; Barnes-Hut; IS; Quicksort; SOR; Water; entry consistency; lazy release consistency; lock rebinding; object granularity; performance; relaxed memory models; software distributed shared memory systems; synchronization; synchronization object; Application software; Computer science; Distributed computing; Instruments; Memory management; Programming profession; Propagation delay; Random access memory;
fLanguage
English
Publisher
ieee
Conference_Titel
High-Performance Computer Architecture, 1996. Proceedings., Second International Symposium on
Conference_Location
San Jose, CA
Print_ISBN
0-8186-7237-4
Type
conf
DOI
10.1109/HPCA.1996.501171
Filename
501171
Link To Document