275 research outputs found
Concurrent Specifications Beyond Linearizability
With the advent of parallel architectures, distributed programs are used intensively and the question of how to formally specify the behaviors expected from such programs becomes crucial. A very general way to specify concurrent objects is to simply give the set of all the execution traces that we consider correct for the object. In many cases, one is only interested in studying a subclass of these concurrent specifications, and more convenient tools such as linearizability can be used to describe them.
In this paper, what we call a concurrent specification will be a set of execution traces that moreover satisfies a number of axioms. As we argue, these are actually the only concurrent specifications of interest: we prove that, in a reasonable computational model, every program satisfies all of our axioms. Restricting to this class of concurrent specifications allows us to formally relate our concurrent specifications with the ones obtained by linearizability, as well as its more recent variants (set- and interval-linearizability)
Concurrent Data Structures Linked in Time
Arguments about correctness of a concurrent data structure are typically
carried out by using the notion of linearizability and specifying the
linearization points of the data structure's procedures. Such arguments are
often cumbersome as the linearization points' position in time can be dynamic
(depend on the interference, run-time values and events from the past, or even
future), non-local (appear in procedures other than the one considered), and
whose position in the execution trace may only be determined after the
considered procedure has already terminated.
In this paper we propose a new method, based on a separation-style logic, for
reasoning about concurrent objects with such linearization points. We embrace
the dynamic nature of linearization points, and encode it as part of the data
structure's auxiliary state, so that it can be dynamically modified in place by
auxiliary code, as needed when some appropriate run-time event occurs. We name
the idea linking-in-time, because it reduces temporal reasoning to spatial
reasoning. For example, modifying a temporal position of a linearization point
can be modeled similarly to a pointer update in separation logic. Furthermore,
the auxiliary state provides a convenient way to concisely express the
properties essential for reasoning about clients of such concurrent objects. We
illustrate the method by verifying (mechanically in Coq) an intricate optimal
snapshot algorithm due to Jayanti, as well as some clients
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
Hoare-style Specifications as Correctness Conditions for Non-linearizable Concurrent Objects
Designing scalable concurrent objects, which can be efficiently used on
multicore processors, often requires one to abandon standard specification
techniques, such as linearizability, in favor of more relaxed consistency
requirements. However, the variety of alternative correctness conditions makes
it difficult to choose which one to employ in a particular case, and to compose
them when using objects whose behaviors are specified via different criteria.
The lack of syntactic verification methods for most of these criteria poses
challenges in their systematic adoption and application.
In this paper, we argue for using Hoare-style program logics as an
alternative and uniform approach for specification and compositional formal
verification of safety properties for concurrent objects and their client
programs. Through a series of case studies, we demonstrate how an existing
program logic for concurrency can be employed off-the-shelf to capture
important state and history invariants, allowing one to explicitly quantify
over interference of environment threads and provide intuitive and expressive
Hoare-style specifications for several non-linearizable concurrent objects that
were previously specified only via dedicated correctness criteria. We
illustrate the adequacy of our specifications by verifying a number of
concurrent client scenarios, that make use of the previously specified
concurrent objects, capturing the essence of such correctness conditions as
concurrency-aware linearizability, quiescent, and quantitative quiescent
consistency. All examples described in this paper are verified mechanically in
Coq.Comment: 18 page
An Epistemic Perspective on Consistency of Concurrent Computations
Consistency properties of concurrent computations, e.g., sequential
consistency, linearizability, or eventual consistency, are essential for
devising correct concurrent algorithms. In this paper, we present a logical
formalization of such consistency properties that is based on a standard logic
of knowledge. Our formalization provides a declarative perspective on what is
imposed by consistency requirements and provides some interesting unifying
insight on differently looking properties
- …