Showing papers on "Transactional memory published in 2002"
TL;DR: A framework to understand, specify, and reason about recovery support for transactional functionality, based on the notion of guarantees (promises one subsystem makes to another) and protocols (prescriptions for correct behavior).
Abstract: Mobile systems increasingly are being used for production-grade data-centered applications which require system support for transactional properties. For mobile applications, transactions can hide, to some extent, the infrastructure intrinsic to mobile systems, such as disconnection from the network, dozing, and storage limitations. In this paper, we introduce a framework to understand, specify, and reason about recovery support for transactional functionality, based on the notion of guarantees (promises one subsystem makes to another) and protocols (prescriptions for correct behavior). We apply our framework to a simple mobile system scenario, yielding an abstract specification that exposes the role of each component in achieving specific transactional semantics support, such as the redo-ability of committed updates that might be lost due to a failure; it also reveals unstated assumptions necessary for the correctness of recovery support. We also show how to reason about alternative ways of obtaining the desired transactional support and the requirements on the components to support recovery and transactions.
19 citations
26 Aug 2002
TL;DR: A transactional workflow model is presented and formally defined, and an efficient method for well-formedness validation through a set of computation rules is proposed, based on two kinds of locking granularities.
Abstract: A transactional workflow is composed of traditional flat transactions, and its execution has relaxed transactional atomicity. Due to different termination characteristics of transactions, a transactional workflow may be not well-formed. Moreover, only one workflow is allowed to execute a non-compensatable transaction with the current scheduling protocol. We present a transactional workflow model and formally define the correctness criteria of transactional workflow structure (well-formedness) and execution (serializability). We then propose an efficient method for well-formedness validation through a set of computation rules. Finally a scheduling protocol based on two kinds of locking granularities is presented. The protocol is different from related research in the fine-grained locking on transaction instances and coarse-grained locking on transaction classes, multiple workflows are therefore allowed to execute non-compensatable transactions if they are not conflict in a predicated future execution.