Is transactional memory an oxymoron?
Is transactional memory an oxymoron?
复制标题
事务性内存是矛盾的吗？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2008
影响因子：
2.5
通讯作者：
M. Hill
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Hill
交易记忆（TM）是15年前发明的[1]。然而，最近，TM活动爆炸了[2]，因为多芯片芯片的扩散引起了研究人员的重新访问对并行编程的支持。由于有些人将我视为TM专家，因此我的大部分谈话将总结TM的目标和实施方案，主要是通过开发分类法并将Wisconsin LogTM [3，4]作为案例研究。特别是，我将通过软件，硬件和混合动力车以及重要的设计选择来考虑TM实现，例如如何缓冲TM写入以及何时检测TM冲突。
我将以有关TM和数据库交易的前瞻性评论结束。从理论上讲，这两个概念具有许多相似之处。但是，实际上，它们有很大的不同。首先，今天的TM专门针对并发，而数据库交易首先寻求可靠性。其次，TM实现集中在带有缓存和内存的操作上，而数据库交易更多地涉及内存和磁盘之间更大的访问差距。最后，我将推测TM和数据库交易之间的交叉利用机会。我不会在这里提供答案，部分原因是您是数据库专家。但是，我希望鼓励我们所有人提出正确的问题。
Transactional memory (TM) was invented 15 years ago [1]. Recently, however, TM activity has exploded [2], as the proliferation of multicore chips has provoked researchers to revisit support for parallel programming. Since some regard me as a TM expert, most of my talk will summarize TM's goals and implementation options, primarily by developing a taxonomy and using Wisconsin LogTM [3, 4] as a case study. In particular, I will consider TM implementations via software, hardware, and hybrids, as well as important design choices, such as how to buffer TM writes and when to detect TM conflicts.
I will conclude with forward-looking comments regarding TM and database transactions. In theory, the two concepts have many similarities. In practice, however, they differ substantially. First, today's TM exclusively targets concurrency, while database transactions seek reliability first. Second, TM implementations focus in operations with caches and memory, while database transactions deal more with the more substantial access gap between memory and disks. Finally, I will speculate on cross-fertilization opportunities between TM and database transactions. I will not provide answers here, in part because you are the database experts. Nevertheless, I hope to encourage us all to ask the right questions.