Lecture 9 : Concurrent Data Structures

1. Lecture 9 : Concurrent Data Structures Companion slides for The Art of Multiprocessor Programming by Maurice Herlihy & Nir Shavit

2. Concurrent Data Structures • We assume • shared-memory multiprocessors environment • concurrently execute multiple threads which communicate and synchronize through data structures in shared memory

3. Concurrent Data Structures : Issues • Far more difficult to design than sequential ones • Correctness • Primary source of difficulty is concurrency • The steps of different threads can be interleaved arbitrarily • Scalability (high performance)

4. Lock Granularity • Coarse grained locking • Simple & Easy • Sequential bottleneck Problem • at most one thread does useful work • Fine grained locking • Improve the problem of sequential bottleneck (i.e. multiple threades wait for a working thread)

5. Example • Concurrent linked list • Coarse grained locking • Fine grained locking • Scalable counter

6. List-Based Sets We assume data are sorted in list. public interface Set<T> { public booleanadd(T x); publicbooleanremove(T x); publicbooleancontains(T x); }

7. List Node public class Node { public T item; // item of interest publicint key; // usually hash code public Node next; // reference to next node }

8. b a c The List-Based Set -∞ +∞ Sorted with Sentinel nodes (min & max possible keys)

9. Sequential List Based Set Add() a d c Remove() a c b

10. Sequential List Based Set Add() a d c b Remove() a c b

11. Course Grained Locking a d b

12. Course Grained Locking a d b c

13. Course Grained Locking a d b honk! honk! c Simple but hotspot + bottleneck

14. Coarse-Grained Synchronization • Sequential bottleneck • Threads “stand in line” • Adding more threads • Does not improve throughput • Struggle to keep it from getting worse • So why even use a multiprocessor? • Well, some apps inherently parallel …

15. Coarse-Grained Synchronization(Linked List) public boolean add(T item) { Node pred, curr; int key = item.hashCode(); lock.lock(); try { pred = head; curr = pred.next; while (curr.key < key) { pred = curr; curr = curr.next; } if (key == curr.key) { return false; } else { Node node = new Node(item); node.next = curr; pred.next = node; return true; } } finally { lock.unlock(); } } public class CoarseList<T> { private Node head; private Node tail; private Lock lock = new ReentrantLock(); public CoarseList() { // Add sentinels to start and end head = new Node(Integer.MIN_VALUE); tail = new Node(Integer.MAX_VALUE); head.next = this.tail; }

16. public boolean remove(T item) { Node pred, curr; int key = item.hashCode(); lock.lock(); try { pred = this.head; curr = pred.next; while (curr.key < key) { pred = curr; curr = curr.next; } if (key == curr.key) pred.next = curr.next; return true; } else { return false; } } finally { lock.unlock(); } } public boolean contains(T item) { Node pred, curr; int key = item.hashCode(); lock.lock(); try { pred = head; curr = pred.next; while (curr.key < key) { pred = curr; curr = curr.next; } return (key == curr.key); } finally { lock.unlock(); } }

17. Coarse-Grained Locking • Easy, same as synchronized methods • “One lock to rule them all …” • Simple, clearly correct • Deserves respect! • Works poorly with contention

18. Performance Improvement • For highly-concurrent objects • Goal: • Concurrent access • More threads, more throughput

19. First:Fine-Grained Synchronization • Instead of using a single lock .. • Split object into • Independently-synchronized components • Methods conflict when they access • The same component … • At the same time

20. Second:Optimistic Synchronization • Search without locking … • If you find it, lock and check … • OK: we are done • Oops: start over • Evaluation • Usually cheaper than locking • Mistakes are expensive

21. Third:Lazy Synchronization • Postpone hard work • Removing components is tricky • Logical removal • Mark component to be deleted • Physical removal • Do what needs to be done

22. Fine-grained Locking • Requires careful thought • “Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger” • Split object into pieces • Each piece has own lock • Methods that work on disjoint pieces need not exclude each other

23. Fine-grained Locking • Use multiple locks of small granularity to protect different parts of the data structure • Goal • To allow concurrent operations to proceed in parallel when they do not access the same parts of the data structure

24. b a c Hand-over-Hand locking

25. b a c Hand-over-Hand locking

26. b a c Hand-over-Hand locking

27. b a c Hand-over-Hand locking

28. b a c Hand-over-Hand locking

29. b d a c Removing a Node remove(b)

30. b d a c Removing a Node remove(b)

31. b d a c Removing a Node remove(b)

32. b d a c Removing a Node remove(b)

33. b d a c Removing a Node remove(b)

34. d a c Removing a Node Why do we need to always hold 2 locks? remove(b)

35. b d a c Concurrent Removes remove(c) remove(b)

36. b d a c Concurrent Removes remove(c) remove(b)

37. b d a c Concurrent Removes remove(c) remove(b)

38. b d a c Concurrent Removes remove(c) remove(b)

39. b d a c Concurrent Removes remove(c) remove(b)

40. b d a c Concurrent Removes remove(c) remove(b)

41. b d a c Concurrent Removes remove(c) remove(b)

42. b d a c Concurrent Removes remove(c) remove(b)

43. d a c Uh, Oh remove(c) remove(b) Art of Multiprocessor Programming

44. d a c Uh, Oh Bad news, C not removed remove(c) remove(b)

45. b a c c Problem • To delete node c • Swing node b’s next field to d • Problem is, • Someone deleting b concurrently could direct a pointer to c a b

46. Insight • If a node is locked • No one can delete node’s successor • If a thread locks • Node to be deleted • And its predecessor • Then it works

47. b d a c Hand-Over-Hand Again remove(b)

48. b d a c Hand-Over-Hand Again remove(b)

49. b d a c Hand-Over-Hand Again remove(b)

50. b d a c Hand-Over-Hand Again Found it! remove(b)