Lecture 12: TM, Consistency Models

1
Lecture 12 TM, Consistency Models

• Topics TM pathologies, sequential
  consistency, hw and
• hw/sw optimizations

2
Paper on TM Pathologies (ISCA08)

• LL lazy versioning, lazy conflict detection,
  committing
• transaction wins conflicts
• EL lazy versioning, eager conflict detection,
  requester
• succeeds and others abort
• EE eager versioning, eager conflict detection,
  requester
• stalls

3
Pathology 1 Friendly Fire

• VM any
• CD eager
• CR requester wins

• Two conflicting transactions that
• keep aborting each other
• Can do exponential back-off to
• handle livelock
• Fixable by doing requester stalls? Also fixable
  by doing
• requester wins only if the requester is older

4
Pathology 2 Starving Writer

• VM any
• CD eager
• CR requester stalls

• A writer has to wait for the reader
• to finish but if more readers keep
• showing up, the writer is starved
• (note that the directory allows new
• readers to proceed by just adding
• them to the list of sharers)
• Fixable by forcing the directory to override
  requester-stalls
• on a starvation alarm

5
Pathology 3 Serialized Commit

• VM lazy
• CD lazy
• CR any

• If theres a single commit token,
• transaction commit is serialized
• There are ways to alleviate this problem
  (discussed
• in the last class)

6
Pathology 4 Futile Stall

• VM any
• CD eager
• CR requester stalls

• A transaction is stalling on another
• transaction that ultimately aborts and
• takes a while to reinstate old values
• -- no good workaround

7
Pathology 5 Starving Elder

• VM lazy
• CD lazy
• CR committer wins

• Small successful transactions can
• keep aborting a large transaction
• The large transaction can eventually
• grab the token and not release it
• until after it commits

8
Pathology 6 Restart Convoy

• VM lazy
• CD lazy
• CR committer wins

• A number of similar (conflicting)
• transactions execute together one
• wins, the others all abort shortly,
• these transactions all return and
• repeat the process
• Use exponential back-off

9
Pathology 7 Dueling Upgrades

• VM eager
• CD eager
• CR requester stalls

• If two transactions both read the
• same object and then both decide to
• write it, a deadlock is created
• Exacerbated by the Futile Stall pathology
• Solution?

10
Four Extensions

• Predictor predict if the read will soon be
  followed by a
• write and acquire write permissions
  aggressively
• Hybrid if a transaction believes it is a
  Starving Writer, it
• can force other readers to abort for
  everything else, use
• requester stalls
• Timestamp In the EL case, requester wins only
  if it is the
• older transaction (handles Friendly Fire
  pathology)
• Backoff in the LL case, aborting transactions
  invoke
• exponential back-off to prevent convoy
  formation

11
Coherence Vs. Consistency

• Recall that coherence guarantees (i) that a
  write will
• eventually be seen by other processors, and
  (ii) write
• serialization (all processors see writes to the
  same location
• in the same order)
• The consistency model defines the ordering of
  writes and
• reads to different memory locations the
  hardware
• guarantees a certain consistency model and the
• programmer attempts to write correct programs
  with
• those assumptions

12
Example Programs
Initially, A B 0 P1
P2 A 1 B
1 if (B 0) if (A 0)
critical section critical
section Initially, A B 0 P1
P2 P3 A 1
if (A 1) B 1
if (B 1)
register A
P1 P2 Data 2000
while (Head 0) Head 1
Data
13
Sequential Consistency
P1 P2 Instr-a
Instr-A Instr-b Instr-B
Instr-c Instr-C Instr-d
Instr-D

• We assume
• Within a program, program order is preserved
• Each instruction executes atomically
• Instructions from different threads can be
  interleaved arbitrarily
• Valid executions
• abAcBCDdeE or ABCDEFabGc or
  abcAdBe or
• aAbBcCdDeE or ..

14
Sequential Consistency

• Programmers assume SC makes it much easier to
• reason about program behavior
• Hardware innovations can disrupt the SC model
• For example, if we assume write buffers, or
  out-of-order
• execution, or if we drop ACKS in the coherence
  protocol,
• the previous programs yield unexpected outputs

15
Consistency Example - I

• Consider a multiprocessor with bus-based
  snooping cache
• coherence and a write buffer between CPU and
  cache

Initially A B 0 P1
P2 A ? 1 B ? 1
if (B 0) if (A 0)
Crit.Section Crit.Section
The programmer expected the above code to
implement a lock because of write buffering,
both processors can enter the critical section
The consistency model lets the programmer know
what assumptions they can make about the
hardwares reordering capabilities
16
Consistency Example - 2
P1 P2
Data 2000 while (Head
0) Head 1 Data
Sequential consistency requires program order
-- the write to Data has to complete before the
write to Head can begin -- the read of Head has
to complete before the read of Data can begin
17
Consistency Example - 3
Initially, A B 0 P1 P2
P3 A 1 if
(A 1) B 1
if (B 1)

register A
Sequential consistency can be had if a process
makes sure that everyone has seen an update
before that value is read else, write
atomicity is violated
18
Sequential Consistency

• A multiprocessor is sequentially consistent if
  the result
• of the execution is achieveable by maintaining
  program
• order within a processor and interleaving
  accesses by
• different processors in an arbitrary fashion
• The multiprocessors in the previous examples are
  not
• sequentially consistent
• Can implement sequential consistency by
  requiring the
• following program order, write serialization,
  everyone has
• seen an update before a value is read very
  intuitive for
• the programmer, but extremely slow

19
HW Performance Optimizations

• Program order is a major constraint the
  following try to
• get around this constraint without violating
  seq. consistency
• if a write has been stalled, prefetch the block
  in
• exclusive state to reduce traffic when the
  write happens
• allow out-of-order reads with the facility to
  rollback
• if the ROB detects a violation (detected by
  re-executing
• the read later)

20
Relaxed Consistency Models (HW/SW)

• We want an intuitive programming model (such as
• sequential consistency) and we want high
  performance
• We care about data races and re-ordering
  constraints for
• some parts of the program and not for others
  hence,
• we will relax some of the constraints for
  sequential
• consistency for most of the program, but
  enforce them
• for specific portions of the code
• Fence instructions are special instructions that
  require
• all previous memory accesses to complete before
• proceeding (sequential consistency)

21
Fences
P1
P2
Region of code Region
of code with no races
with no races
Fence
Fence Acquire_lock
Acquire_lock Fence
Fence
Racy code
Racy code
Fence
Fence Release_lock
Release_lock Fence
Fence
22
Potential Relaxations

• Program Order (all refer to different memory
  locations)
• Write to Read program order
• Write to Write program order
• Read to Read and Read to Write program orders
• Write Atomicity (refers to same memory
  location)
• Read others write early
• Write Atomicity and Program Order
• Read own write early

23
Relaxations
Relaxation W ? R Order W ? W Order R ?RW Order Rd others Wr early Rd own Wr early
IBM 370 X
TSO X X
PC X X X
SC X

• IBM 370 a read can complete before an earlier
  write to a different address, but a
• read cannot return the value of a write
  unless all processors have seen the write
• SPARC V8 Total Store Ordering (TSO) a read can
  complete before an earlier
• write to a different address, but a read
  cannot return the value of a write by another
• processor unless all processors have seen the
  write (it returns the value of own
• write before others see it)
• Processor Consistency (PC) a read can complete
  before an earlier write (by any
• processor to any memory location) has been
  made visible to all

24
Performance Comparison

• Taken from Gharachorloo, Gupta, Hennessy,
  ASPLOS91
• Studies three benchmark programs and three
  different
• architectures
• MP3D 3-D particle simulator
• LU LU-decomposition for dense matrices
• PTHOR logic simulator
• LFC aggressive lockup-free caches, write
  buffer with
• bypassing
• RDBYP only write buffer with bypassing
• BASIC no write buffer, no lockup-free caches

25
Performance Comparison
26
Summary

• Sequential Consistency restricts performance
  (even more
• when memory and network latencies increase
  relative to
• processor speeds)
• Relaxed memory models relax different
  combinations of
• the five constraints for SC
• Most commercial systems are not sequentially
  consistent
• and rely on the programmer to insert
  appropriate fence
• instructions to provide the illusion of SC

27
Title

• Bullet