Sequential consistency versus linearizability

Citations Over TimeTop 10% of 1994 papers

Abstract

The power of two well-known consistency conditions for shared-memory multiprocessors, sequential consistency and linearizability , is compared. The cost measure studied is the worst-case response time in distributed implementations of virtual shared memory supporting one of the two conditions. Three types of shared-memory objects are considered: read/write objects, FIFO queues, and stacks. If clocks are only approximately synchronized (or do not exist), then for all three object types it is shown that linearizability is more expensive than sequential consistency. We show that, for all three data types, the worst-case response time is very sensitive to the assumptions that are made about the timing information available to the system. Under the strong assumption that processes have perfectly synchronized clocks, it is shown that sequential consistency and linearizability are equally costly. We present upper bounds for linearizability and matching lower bounds for sequential consistency. The upper bounds are shown by presenting algorithms that use atomic broadcast in a modular fashion. The lower-bound proofs for the approximate case use the technique of “shifting,” first introduced for studying the clock synchronization problem.

Related Papers

• → Fault tolerance bounds for memory consistency(1997)4 cited
• → Fault tolerance bounds for memory consistency(1997)1 cited
• → Consistency models in distributed systems: A survey on definitions, disciplines, challenges and applications(2019)5 cited
• → A Simple Protocol Offering Both Atomic Consistent Read Operations and Sequentially Consistent Read Operations(2005)1 cited
• → Update Consistency for Wait-free Concurrent Objects(2015)1 cited