• Lockfree bounded LIFO stack and an almost Lock-free bounded FIFO queue

    From Wisdom91@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jul 20 15:17:42 2020
    Hello,


    Lockfree bounded LIFO stack and an almost Lock-free bounded FIFO queue
    and an almost Lock-free bounded FIFO priority queue version 1.1

    Author: Amine Moulay Ramdane is the inventor of the
    Lockfree bounded LIFO stack algorithm and
    the inventor of the almost Lockfree bounded
    FIFO queue algorithm and of the almost Lockfree
    bounded priority FIFO queue algorithm.


    Description:

    A Lock-free LIFO Stack algorithm and an almost(very nearly) Lock-free
    FIFO queue and an almost(very nearly) Lock-free priority queue, they are bounded (and the Lock-free LIFO stack is based on the almost Lock-free
    FIFO queue), and they don't have false sharing, and they retain the
    following advantages of Lock-free and Wait-free algorithms:

    - Signal Immunity: The C and C++Standards prohibit signals or
    asynchronous interrupts from calling many system routines such
    as malloc. If the interrupt calls malloc at the same time with
    an interrupted thread, that could cause deadlock. With my
    algorithms, there's no such problem anymore: Threads can
    freely interleave execution.
    - Priority Inversion Immunity: Priority inversion occurs when a
    low-priority thread holds a lock to a mutex needed by a high-
    priority thread. Such tricky conflicts must be resolved by the
    OS kernel.
    - Pre-emption tolerant and they are good at convoy-avoidance.
    - Starvation-free.
    - And for k number of threads in the system (of my almost Lock-
    free FIFO queue or my almost Lock-free FIFO priority queue or
    my almost Lock-free LIFO stack), my almost Lock-free FIFO
    queue or my almost Lock-free FIFO priority queue or my almost
    Lock-free LIFO stack have a system latency of O(q + s*sqrt(k)
    and an individual latency of O(k(q + s*sqrt(k)), but my
    algorithms are of the SCU(0,1) Class of Algorithms, so under
    scheduling conditions which approximate those found in
    commercial hardware architectures, there system latency is
    O(sqrt(k)) and there individual latency is O(k*sqrt(k)),
    read more below to understand more.

    I have invented this Lock-free LIFO stack algorithm that doesn't need
    ABA prevention and it doesn't need Hazard pointers and it is not
    complicated and it doesn't have false sharing, please look at its source
    code inside LockfreeStackBounded.pas.

    An unbounded queue can hold infinite number of messages, while bounded -
    up to some predefined limit. If the limit is reached further enqueue
    operations fail. Note that array-based queue are always bounded. On
    first sight unbounded queues are more attractive (because they allow you
    to not care). But they are not. They are dangerous. What will happen if
    your queue will grow up to 10^6 messages? 10^7? 10^8? 10^9? What? It
    should not happen? So why you put an unbounded queue in the first place?
    In 95% of cases you need a bounded queue, because it will enforce what
    you think should happen, and will save you from bad things, it is the
    same for Stacks.

    And read the following paper:

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1311.3200.pdf

    This paper suggests a simple solution to this problem. We show that, for
    a large class of lock- free algorithms, under scheduling conditions
    which approximate those found in commercial hardware architectures,
    lock-free algorithms behave as if they are wait-free. In other words, programmers can keep on designing simple lock-free algorithms instead of complex wait-free ones, and in practice, they will get wait-free
    progress. It says on the Analysis of the Class SCU(q, s):

    "Given an algorithm in SCU(q, s) on k correct processes under a uniform stochastic scheduler, the system latency is O(q + s*sqrt(k), and the
    individual latency is O(k(q + s*sqrt(k))."

    My algorithms of an almost Lock-free FIFO queue and my Lock-free LIFO
    stack algorithm are of the SCU(q, s) Class of Algorithms, so they are
    powerful and they are starvation-free and for k number of threads they
    have a system latency of O(q + s*sqrt(k) and an individual latency of
    O(k(q + s*sqrt(k)).

    The size of the queue and the stack must be passed to the constructor
    and it must be the power of 2.

    You can download them from my website here:

    https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/lockfree-bounded-lifo-stack-and-fifo-queue

    Language: FPC Pascal v2.2.0+ / Delphi 7+: http://www.freepascal.org/

    Operating Systems: Windows, Mac OSX , Linux on (x86)...

    Required FPC switches: -O3 -Sd

    -Sd for delphi mode....

    Required Delphi switches: -$H+

    You can configure it as follows from inside defines.inc file:

    {$DEFINE CPU32} and {$DEFINE Windows32} for 32 bit systems

    {$DEFINE CPU64} and {$DEFINE Windows64} for 64 bit systems


    Thank you,
    Amine Moulay Ramdane.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)