High‐performance<i>N</i>‐thread software solutions for mutual exclusion
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Software solutions for mutual exclusion developed over a 30‐year period, starting with complex ad hoc algorithms and progressing to simpler formal ones. While it is easy to dismiss software solutions for mutual exclusion, as this family of algorithms is antiquated and most platforms support atomic hardware instructions, there is still a need for these algorithms in threaded, embedded systems running on low‐cost processors lacking atomic instructions. While N ‐thread solutions are usually short (10–25 lines of code), each is ingenious with exceptionally subtle aspects, often making it difficult to prove correctness or construct an implementation. This work examines correctness and performance of the implementations. An extensive survey of existing algorithms is presented, with explanations of the intuition behind the algorithms and how they work. Several errors were found and corrections made, as well as a few small improvements, in the existing algorithms; two new high‐performance algorithms were developed. Finally, a worst‐case high‐contention performance experiment is performed to compare the algorithms and contrast them with three common locks based on hardware atomic instructions. The results show our two new algorithms are highly competitive with an equivalent hardware lock (Mellor‐Crummey and Scott) over a range of 1–32 processors. Hence, threading is a viable alternative to event‐driven programming for complex embedded systems without atomic instructions. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it