MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2810665464 · doi:10.1145/3212734.3212755

Recoverable Mutual Exclusion Under System-Wide Failures

2018· article· en· W2810665464 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed systems and fault tolerance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMutual exclusionComputer scienceSemaphoreWord (group theory)Parallel computingTraverseClass (philosophy)Theoretical computer scienceAlgorithmArithmeticProgramming languageMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recoverable mutual exclusion (RME) is a variation on the classic mutual exclusion (ME) problem that allows processes to crash and recover. The time complexity of RME algorithms is quantified in the same way as for ME, namely by counting remote memory references -- expensive memory operations that traverse the processor-to-memory interconnect. Prior work has established that the RMR complexity of the RME problem for n processes is Θ(log n) for the class of algorithms that use read/write registers and single-word comparison primitives such as Compare-And-Swap (Golab and Ramaraju 2016), O(log n / log log n) for the class of algorithms that use read/write registers and additional single-word read-modify-primitives such as Fetch-And-Store (Golab and Hendler 2017), and Θ(1) for the class of algorithms that use read/write registers and specialized double-word read-modify-write primitives (Golab and Hendler 2017). These complexity bounds hold in a model of computation where processes may fail independently, and where a process that fails while accessing the mutex is required to recover eventually. This body of work leaves open two important questions: (i) what is the tight bound on the RMR complexity of RME for the class of algorithms that use read/write registers and commonly supported single-word read-modify-primitives; and (ii) how is the RMR complexity of RME affected by variations in the failure model? This paper answers both questions partially by showing that RME can be solved using O(1) RMRs per passage in the worst case in a model where failures are system-wide (i.e., all processes crash simultaneously), and processes receive additional information from the environment regarding the occurrence of the failure. The upper bound algorithm we present relies crucially on a novel RMR-efficient barrier that processes use to synchronize recovery actions after each failure. The barrier uses read/write registers and single-word Compare-And-Swap only. Additionally, we present a transformation that can add properties such as critical section re-entry and a strong notion of starvation freedom to any RME algorithm while preserving its asymptotic RMR complexity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDistributed systems and fault toleranceFrench-language works237,207