A performance comparison of homeless and home-based lazy release consistency protocols in software shared memory

In this paper, we compare the performance of two multiple-writer protocols based on lazy release consistency. In particular, we compare the performance of Princeton's home-based protocol and TreadMarks' protocol on a 32-processor platform. We found that the performance difference between the two protocols was less than 4% for four out of seven applications. For the three applications on which performance differed by more than 4%, the TreadMarks protocol performed better for two because most of their data were migratory, while the home-based protocol performed better for one. For this one application, the explicit control over the location of data provided by the home-based protocol resulted in a better distribution of communication load across the processors. These results differ from those of a previous comparison of the two protocols. We attribute this difference to (1) a different ratio of memory to network bandwidth on our platform and (2) lazy diffing and request overlapping, two optimizations used by TreadMarks that were not used in the previous study.