ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
An O(1) RMRs leader election algorithm
Full text PdfPdf (223 KB)
Source Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing archive
Proceedings of the twenty-fifth annual ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing table of contents
Denver, Colorado, USA
SESSION: Shared memory table of contents
Pages: 238 - 247  
Year of Publication: 2006
ISBN:1-59593-384-0
Authors
Wojciech Golab  University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
Danny Hendler  Technion
Philipp Woelfel  University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
Sponsors
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
SIGACT: ACM Special Interest Group on Algorithms and Computation Theory
SIGOPS: ACM Special Interest Group on Operating Systems
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 2,   Downloads (12 Months): 71,   Citation Count: 1
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Review this Article  
Save this Article to a Binder    Display Formats: BibTex  EndNote ACM Ref   
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1146381.1146417
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

The leader election problem is a fundamental distributed coordination problem. We present leader election algorithms for the cache-coherent (CC) and distributed shared memory (DSM) models using reads and writes only, for which the number of remote memory references (RMRs) is constant in the worst case.The algorithms use splitter-like objects [6, 8] in a novel way for the efficient partitioning of processes into disjoint sets that share work. As there is an Ω(log n/log log n) lower bound on the RMR complexity of mutual exclusion for n processes using reads and writes only [4], our result separates the mutual exclusion and leader election problems in terms of RMR complexity in both the CC and DSM models.Our result also implies that any algorithm using reads, writes and one-time test-and-set objects can be simulated by an algorithm using reads and writes with only a constant blowup of the RMR complexity. Anderson, Herman and Kim raise the question of whether conditional primitives such as test-and-set and compare-and-swap are stronger than read and write for the implementation of local-spin mutual exclusion [3]. We provide a negative answer to this question, at least for one-time test-and-set.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
R. Alur and G. Taubenfeld. Results about fast mutual exclusion. In Proc. RTSS 1992, pp. 154--162, 1992.
 
2
J. Anderson. A fine-grained solution to the mutual exclusion problem. Acta Inf., 30(3):249--265, 1993.
 
3
4
5
 
6
 
7
 
8
 
9
10
11
12
13
14
 
15
 
16
 
17


Collaborative Colleagues:
Wojciech Golab: colleagues
Danny Hendler: colleagues
Philipp Woelfel: colleagues