Logical Concurrency Control from Sequential Proofs

We are interested in identifying and enforcing the isolation requirements of a concurrent program, i.e., concurrency control that ensures that the program meets its specification. The thesis of this paper is that this can be done systematically starting from a sequential proof, i.e., a proof of correctness of the program in the absence of concurrent interleavings. We illustrate our thesis by presenting a solution to the problem of making a sequential library thread-safe for concurrent clients. We consider a sequential library annotated with assertions along with a proof that these assertions hold in a sequential execution. We show how we can use the proof to derive concurrency control that ensures that any execution of the library methods, when invoked by concurrent clients, satisfies the same assertions. We also present an extension to guarantee that the library methods are linearizable or atomic

Simplifying proofs of linearisability using layers of abstraction

Linearisability has become the standard correctness criterion for concurrent data structures, ensuring that every history of invocations and responses of concurrent operations has a matching sequential history. Existing proofs of linearisability require one to identify so-called linearisation points within the operations under consideration, which are atomic statements whose execution causes the effect of an operation to be felt. However, identification of linearisation points is a non-trivial task, requiring a high degree of expertise. For sophisticated algorithms such as Heller et al's lazy set, it even is possible for an operation to be linearised by the concurrent execution of a statement outside the operation being verified. This paper proposes an alternative method for verifying linearisability that does not require identification of linearisation points. Instead, using an interval-based logic, we show that every behaviour of each concrete operation over any interval is a possible behaviour of a corresponding abstraction that executes with coarse-grained atomicity. This approach is applied to Heller et al's lazy set to show that verification of linearisability is possible without having to consider linearisation points within the program code

Program equivalence for a concurrent lambda calculus with futures

Reasoning about the correctness of program transformations requires a notion of program equivalence. We present an observational semantics for the concurrent lambda calculus with futures Lambda(fut), which formalizes the operational semantics of the programming language Alice ML. We show that natural program optimizations, as well as partial evaluation with respect to deterministic rules, are correct for Lambda(fut). This relies on a number of fundamental properties that we establish for our observational semantics

Extending the theory of Owicki and Gries with a logic of progress

This paper describes a logic of progress for concurrent programs. The logic is based on that of UNITY, molded to fit a sequential programming model. Integration of the two is achieved by using auxiliary variables in a systematic way that incorporates program counters into the program text. The rules for progress in UNITY are then modified to suit this new system. This modification is however subtle enough to allow the theory of Owicki and Gries to be used without change