Cryogenic thermal control technology summaries

A summarization and categorization is presented of the pertinent literature associated with cryogenic thermal control technology having potential application to in-orbit fluid transfer systems and/or associated space storage. Initially, a literature search was conducted to obtain pertinent documents for review. Reports determined to be of primary significance were summarized in detail. Each summary, where applicable, consists of; (1) report identification, (2) objective(s) of the work, (3) description of pertinent work performed, (4)major results, and (5) comments of the reviewer (GD/C). Specific areas covered are; (1) multilayer insulation of storage tanks with and without vacuum jacketing, (2) other insulation such as foams, shadow shields, microspheres, honeycomb, vent cooling and composites, (3) vacuum jacketed and composite fluid lines, and (4) low conductive tank supports and insulation penetrations. Reports which were reviewed and not summarized, along with reasons for not summarizing, are also listed

LIPIcs

Synchronous programs are easy to specify because the side effects of an operation are finished by the time the invocation of the operation returns to the caller. Asynchronous programs, on the other hand, are difficult to specify because there are side effects due to pending computation scheduled as a result of the invocation of an operation. They are also difficult to verify because of the large number of possible interleavings of concurrent computation threads. We present synchronization, a new proof rule that simplifies the verification of asynchronous programs by introducing the fiction, for proof purposes, that asynchronous operations complete synchronously. Synchronization summarizes an asynchronous computation as immediate atomic effect. Modular verification is enabled via pending asynchronous calls in atomic summaries, and a complementary proof rule that eliminates pending asynchronous calls when components and their specifications are composed. We evaluate synchronization in the context of a multi-layer refinement verification methodology on a collection of benchmark programs

Fast and Precise Symbolic Analysis of Concurrency Bugs in Device Drivers

© 2015 IEEE.Concurrency errors, such as data races, make device drivers notoriously hard to develop and debug without automated tool support. We present Whoop, a new automated approach that statically analyzes drivers for data races. Whoop is empowered by symbolic pairwise lockset analysis, a novel analysis that can soundly detect all potential races in a driver. Our analysis avoids reasoning about thread interleavings and thus scales well. Exploiting the race-freedom guarantees provided by Whoop, we achieve a sound partial-order reduction that significantly accelerates Corral, an industrial-strength bug-finder for concurrent programs. Using the combination of Whoop and Corral, we analyzed 16 drivers from the Linux 4.0 kernel, achieving 1.5 - 20× speedups over standalone Corral

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

Verifying Parallel Loops with Separation Logic

This paper proposes a technique to specify and verify whether a loop can be parallelised. Our approach can be used as an additional step in a parallelising compiler to verify user annotations about loop dependences. Essentially, our technique requires each loop iteration to be specified with the locations it will read and write. From the loop iteration specifications, the loop (in)dependences can be derived. Moreover, the loop iteration specifications also reveal where synchronisation is needed in the parallelised program. The loop iteration specifications can be verified using permission-based separation logic.Comment: In Proceedings PLACES 2014, arXiv:1406.331