Overcoming extreme-scale reproducibility challenges through a unified, targeted, and multilevel toolset

pre-printReproducibility, the ability to repeat program executions with the same numerical result or code behavior, is crucial for computational science and engineering applications. However, non-determinism in concurrency scheduling often hampers achieving this ability on high performance computing (HPC) systems. To aid in managing the adverse effects of non-determinism, prior work has provided techniques to achieve bit-precise reproducibility, but most of them focus only on small-scale parallelism. While scalable techniques recently emerged, they are disparate and target special purposes, e.g., single-schedule domains. On current systems with O(106) compute cores and future ones with O(109), any technique that does not embrace a unied, targeted, and multilevel approach will fall short of providing reproducibility. In this paper, we argue for a common toolset that embodies this approach, where programmers select and compose complementary tools and can effectively, yet scalably, analyze, control, and eliminate sources of non-determinism at scale. This allows users to gain reproducibility only to the levels demanded by specific code development needs. We present our research agenda and ongoing work toward this goal

Overcoming extreme-scale reproducibility challenges through a unified, targeted, and multilevel toolset

Abstract not provide

A Survey of Algorithmic Debugging

"© ACM, 2017. This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here by permission of ACM for your personal use. Not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in ACM Computing Surveys, {50, 4, 2017} https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3106740"[EN] Algorithmic debugging is a technique proposed in 1982 by E. Y. Shapiro in the context of logic programming. This survey shows how the initial ideas have been developed to become a widespread debugging schema ftting many diferent programming paradigms and with applications out of the program debugging feld. We describe the general framework and the main issues related to the implementations in diferent programming paradigms and discuss several proposed improvements and optimizations. We also review the main algorithmic debugger tools that have been implemented so far and compare their features. From this comparison, we elaborate a summary of desirable characteristics that should be considered when implementing future algorithmic debuggers.This work has been partially supported by the EU (FEDER) and the Spanish Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad under grant TIN2013-44742-C4-1-R, TIN2016-76843-C4-1-R, StrongSoft (TIN2012-39391-C04-04), and TRACES (TIN2015-67522-C3-3-R) by the Generalitat Valenciana under grant PROMETEO-II/2015/013 (SmartLogic) and by the Comunidad de Madrid project N-Greens Software-CM (S2013/ICE-2731).Caballero, R.; Riesco, A.; Silva, J. (2017). A Survey of Algorithmic Debugging. ACM Computing Surveys. 50(4):1-35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3106740S135504Abramson, D., Foster, I., Michalakes, J., & Sosič, R. (1996). Relative debugging. Communications of the ACM, 39(11), 69-77. doi:10.1145/240455.240475K. R. Apt H. A. Blair and A. Walker. 1988. Towards a theory of declarative knowledge. In Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming J. Minker (Ed.). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. San Francisco CA 89--148. 10.1016/B978-0-934613-40-8.50006-3 K. R. Apt H. A. Blair and A. Walker. 1988. Towards a theory of declarative knowledge. In Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming J. Minker (Ed.). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. San Francisco CA 89--148. 10.1016/B978-0-934613-40-8.50006-3Arora, T., Ramakrishnan, R., Roth, W. G., Seshadri, P., & Srivastava, D. (1993). Explaining program execution in deductive systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 101-119. doi:10.1007/3-540-57530-8_7E. Av-Ron. 1984. Top-Down Diagnosis of Prolog Programs. Ph.D. Dissertation. Weizmann Institute. E. Av-Ron. 1984. Top-Down Diagnosis of Prolog Programs. Ph.D. Dissertation. Weizmann Institute.A. Beaulieu. 2005. Learning SQL. O’Reilly Farnham UK. A. Beaulieu. 2005. Learning SQL. O’Reilly Farnham UK.D. Binks. 1995. Declarative Debugging in Gödel. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Bristol. D. Binks. 1995. Declarative Debugging in Gödel. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Bristol.B. Braßel and H. Siegel. 2008. Debugging Lazy Functional Programs by Asking the Oracle. Springer-Verlag Berlin 183--200. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85373-2_11 10.1007/978-3-540-85373-2_11 B. Braßel and H. Siegel. 2008. Debugging Lazy Functional Programs by Asking the Oracle. Springer-Verlag Berlin 183--200. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85373-2_11 10.1007/978-3-540-85373-2_11Caballero, R. (2005). A declarative debugger of incorrect answers for constraint functional-logic programs. Proceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGPLAN workshop on Curry and functional logic programming - WCFLP ’05. doi:10.1145/1085099.1085102Caballero, R., García-Ruiz, Y., & Sáenz-Pérez, F. (2012). Declarative Debugging of Wrong and Missing Answers for SQL Views. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 73-87. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-29822-6_9Caballero, R., García-Ruiz, Y., & Sáenz-Pérez, F. (2015). Debugging of wrong and missing answers for datalog programs with constraint handling rules. Proceedings of the 17th International Symposium on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming - PPDP ’15. doi:10.1145/2790449.2790522Caballero, R., Martin-Martin, E., Riesco, A., & Tamarit, S. (2015). A zoom-declarative debugger for sequential Erlang programs. Science of Computer Programming, 110, 104-118. doi:10.1016/j.scico.2015.06.011Caballero, R., & Rodríguez-Artalejo, M. (2002). A Declarative Debugging System for Lazy Functional Logic Programs. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 64, 113-175. doi:10.1016/s1571-0661(04)80349-9Ceri, S., Gottlob, G., & Tanca, L. (1989). What you always wanted to know about Datalog (and never dared to ask). IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 1(1), 146-166. doi:10.1109/69.43410Chen, M., Mao, S., & Liu, Y. (2014). Big Data: A Survey. Mobile Networks and Applications, 19(2), 171-209. doi:10.1007/s11036-013-0489-0Chitil, O., & Davie, T. (2008). Comprehending finite maps for algorithmic debugging of higher-order functional programs. Proceedings of the 10th international ACM SIGPLAN symposium on Principles and practice of declarative programming - PPDP ’08. doi:10.1145/1389449.1389475Chitil, O., Faddegon, M., & Runciman, C. (2016). A Lightweight Hat. Proceedings of the 28th Symposium on the Implementation and Application of Functional Programming Languages - IFL 2016. doi:10.1145/3064899.3064904O. Chitil C. Runciman and M. Wallace. 2001. Freja Hat and Hood—A Comparative Evaluation of Three Systems for Tracing and Debugging Lazy Functional Programs. Springer Berlin 176--193. O. Chitil C. Runciman and M. Wallace. 2001. Freja Hat and Hood—A Comparative Evaluation of Three Systems for Tracing and Debugging Lazy Functional Programs. Springer Berlin 176--193.O. Chitil C. Runciman and Malcolm Wallace. 2003. Transforming Haskell for Tracing. Springer-Verlag Berlin 165--181. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44854-3_11 10.1007/3-540-44854-3_11 O. Chitil C. Runciman and Malcolm Wallace. 2003. Transforming Haskell for Tracing. Springer-Verlag Berlin 165--181. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44854-3_11 10.1007/3-540-44854-3_11Minh Ngoc Dinh, Abramson, D., & Chao Jin. (2014). Scalable Relative Debugging. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 25(3), 740-749. doi:10.1109/tpds.2013.86Faddegon, M., & Chitil, O. (2015). Algorithmic debugging of real-world haskell programs: deriving dependencies from the cost centre stack. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, 50(6), 33-42. doi:10.1145/2813885.2737985Faddegon, M., & Chitil, O. (2016). Lightweight computation tree tracing for lazy functional languages. Proceedings of the 37th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation - PLDI 2016. doi:10.1145/2908080.2908104Ferrand, G. (1987). Error diagnosis in logic programming an adaptation of E.Y. Shapiro’s method. The Journal of Logic Programming, 4(3), 177-198. doi:10.1016/0743-1066(87)90001-xFritzson, P., Shahmehri, N., Kamkar, M., & Gyimothy, T. (1992). Generalized algorithmic debugging and testing. ACM Letters on Programming Languages and Systems, 1(4), 303-322. doi:10.1145/161494.161498Fromherz, M. P. J. (s. f.). Towards declarative debugging of concurrent constraint programs. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 88-100. doi:10.1007/bfb0019403Harman, M., & Hierons, R. (2001). An overview of program slicing. Software Focus, 2(3), 85-92. doi:10.1002/swf.41F. Henderson T. Conway Z. Somogyi D. Jeffery P. Schachte S. Taylor C. Speirs T. Dowd R. Becket M. Brown and P. Wang. 2014. The Mercury Language Reference Manual (Version 14.01.1). The University of Melbourne. F. Henderson T. Conway Z. Somogyi D. Jeffery P. Schachte S. Taylor C. Speirs T. Dowd R. Becket M. Brown and P. Wang. 2014. The Mercury Language Reference Manual (Version 14.01.1). The University of Melbourne.C. Hermanns and H. Kuchen. 2013. Hybrid Debugging of Java Programs. Springer-Verlag Berlin 91--107. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36177-7_6 10.1007/978-3-642-36177-7_6 C. Hermanns and H. Kuchen. 2013. Hybrid Debugging of Java Programs. Springer-Verlag Berlin 91--107. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36177-7_6 10.1007/978-3-642-36177-7_6Hirunkitti, V., & Hogger, C. J. (s. f.). A generalised query minimisation for program debugging. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 153-170. doi:10.1007/bfb0019407Hughes, J. (2010). Software Testing with QuickCheck. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 183-223. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-17685-2_6G. Hutton. 2016. Programming in Haskell. Cambridge University Press Cambridge UK. G. Hutton. 2016. Programming in Haskell. Cambridge University Press Cambridge UK.Insa, D., & Silva, J. (2010). An algorithmic debugger for Java. 2010 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance. doi:10.1109/icsm.2010.5609661Insa, D., & Silva, J. (2011). Optimal Divide and Query. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 224-238. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-24769-9_17Insa, D., & Silva, J. (2011). An optimal strategy for algorithmic debugging. 2011 26th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE 2011). doi:10.1109/ase.2011.6100055D. Insa and J. Silva. 2011c. Scaling Up Algorithmic Debugging with Virtual Execution Trees. Springer-Verlag Berlin 149--163. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20551-4_10 10.1007/978-3-642-20551-4_10 D. Insa and J. Silva. 2011c. Scaling Up Algorithmic Debugging with Virtual Execution Trees. Springer-Verlag Berlin 149--163. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20551-4_10 10.1007/978-3-642-20551-4_10D. Insa and J. Silva. 2015a. Automatic transformation of iterative loops into recursive methods. Information 8 Software Technology 58 (2015) 95--109. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2014.10.001 10.1016/j.infsof.2014.10.001 D. Insa and J. Silva. 2015a. Automatic transformation of iterative loops into recursive methods. Information 8 Software Technology 58 (2015) 95--109. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2014.10.001 10.1016/j.infsof.2014.10.001Insa, D., & Silva, J. (2015). A Generalized Model for Algorithmic Debugging. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 261-276. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-27436-2_16Insa, D., Silva, J., & Riesco, A. (2013). Speeding Up Algorithmic Debugging Using Balanced Execution Trees. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 133-151. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-38916-0_8Insa, D., Silva, J., & Tomás, C. (2013). Enhancing Declarative Debugging with Loop Expansion and Tree Compression. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 71-88. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-38197-3_6K. Jensen and N. Wirth. 1974. PASCAL User Manual and Report. Springer-Verlag Berlin. 10.1007/978-3-662-21554-8 K. Jensen and N. Wirth. 1974. PASCAL User Manual and Report. Springer-Verlag Berlin. 10.1007/978-3-662-21554-8Jia, Y., & Harman, M. (2011). An Analysis and Survey of the Development of Mutation Testing. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 37(5), 649-678. doi:10.1109/tse.2010.62Kamkar, M., Shahmehri, N., & Fritzson, P. (s. f.). Bug localization by algorithmic debugging and program slicing. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 60-74. doi:10.1007/bfb0024176S. Köhler B. Ludäscher and Y. Smaragdakis. 2012. Declarative Datalog Debugging for Mere Mortals. Springer-Verlag Berlin 111--122. S. Köhler B. Ludäscher and Y. Smaragdakis. 2012. Declarative Datalog Debugging for Mere Mortals. Springer-Verlag Berlin 111--122.Kouh, H.-J., & Yoo, W.-H. (2003). The Efficient Debugging System for Locating Logical Errors in Java Programs. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 684-693. doi:10.1007/3-540-44839-x_72Benzmüller, C., & Miller, D. (2014). Automation of Higher-Order Logic. Handbook of the History of Logic, 215-254. doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-51624-4.50005-8Kowalski, R., & Kuehner, D. (1971). Linear resolution with selection function. Artificial Intelligence, 2(3-4), 227-260. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(71)90012-9K. Kuchcinski W. Drabent and J. Maluszynski. 1993. Automatic Diagnosis of VLSI Digital Circuits Using Algorithmic Debugging. Springer-Verlag Berlin 350--367. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BFb0019419 10.1007/BFb0019419 K. Kuchcinski W. Drabent and J. Maluszynski. 1993. Automatic Diagnosis of VLSI Digital Circuits Using Algorithmic Debugging. Springer-Verlag Berlin 350--367. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BFb0019419 10.1007/BFb0019419S. Liang. 1999. Java Native Interface: Programmer’s Guide and Reference (1st ed.). Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co. Inc. Boston MA. S. Liang. 1999. Java Native Interface: Programmer’s Guide and Reference (1st ed.). Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co. Inc. Boston MA.Lloyd, J. W. (1987). Declarative error diagnosis. New Generation Computing, 5(2), 133-154. doi:10.1007/bf03037396J. W. Lloyd. 1987b. Foundations of Logic Programming (2nd ed.). Springer-Verlag Berlin. 10.1007/978-3-642-83189-8 J. W. Lloyd. 1987b. Foundations of Logic Programming (2nd ed.). Springer-Verlag Berlin. 10.1007/978-3-642-83189-8W. Lux. 2006. Münster Curry User’s guide (Release 0.9.10 of May 10 2006). Retrieved from http://danae.uni-muenster.de/∼lux/curry/user.pdf. W. Lux. 2006. Münster Curry User’s guide (Release 0.9.10 of May 10 2006). Retrieved from http://danae.uni-muenster.de/∼lux/curry/user.pdf.Lux, W. (2008). Declarative Debugging Meets the World. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 216, 65-77. doi:10.1016/j.entcs.2008.06.034I. MacLarty. 2005. Practical Declarative Debugging of Mercury Programs. Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering The University of Melbourne. I. MacLarty. 2005. Practical Declarative Debugging of Mercury Programs. Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering The University of Melbourne.Naganuma, J., Ogura, T., & Hoshino, T. (s. f.). High-level design validation using algorithmic debugging. Proceedings of European Design and Test Conference EDAC-ETC-EUROASIC. doi:10.1109/edtc.1994.326833Naish, L. (1992). Declarative diagnosis of missing answers. New Generation Computing, 10(3), 255-285. doi:10.1007/bf03037939H. Nilsson. 1998. Declarative Debugging for Lazy Functional Languages. Ph.D. Dissertation. Linköping Sweden. H. Nilsson. 1998. Declarative Debugging for Lazy Functional Languages. Ph.D. Dissertation. Linköping Sweden.NILSSON, H. (2001). How to look busy while being as lazy as ever: the Implementation of a lazy functional debugger. Journal of Functional Programming, 11(6), 629-671. doi:10.1017/s095679680100418xNilsson, H., & Fritzson, P. (s. f.). Algorithmic debugging for lazy functional languages. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 385-399. doi:10.1007/3-540-55844-6_149Nilsson, H., & Fritzson, P. (1994). Algorithmic debugging for lazy functional languages. Journal of Functional Programming, 4(3), 337-369. doi:10.1017/s095679680000109xNilsson, H., & Sparud, J. (1997). Automated Software Engineering, 4(2), 121-150. doi:10.1023/a:1008681016679Ostrand, T. J., & Balcer, M. J. (1988). The category-partition method for specifying and generating fuctional tests. Communications of the ACM, 31(6), 676-686. doi:10.1145/62959.62964Pereira, L. M. (1986). Rational debugging in logic programming. Third International Conference on Logic Programming, 203-210. doi:10.1007/3-540-16492-8_76B. Pope. 2006. A Declarative Debugger for Haskell. Ph.D. Dissertation. The University of Melbourne Australia. B. Pope. 2006. A Declarative Debugger for Haskell. Ph.D. Dissertation. The University of Melbourne Australia.Ramakrishnan, R., & Ullman, J. D. (1995). A survey of deductive database systems. The Journal of Logic Programming, 23(2), 125-149. doi:10.1016/0743-1066(94)00039-9Riesco, A., Verdejo, A., Martí-Oliet, N., & Caballero, R. (2012). Declarative debugging of rewriting logic specifications. The Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming, 81(7-8), 851-897. doi:10.1016/j.jlap.2011.06.004DeRose, L., Gontarek, A., Vose, A., Moench, R., Abramson, D., Dinh, M. N., & Jin, C. (2015). Relative debugging for a highly parallel hybrid computer system. Proceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis on - SC ’15. doi:10.1145/2807591.2807605Runeson, P. (2006). A survey of unit testing practices. IEEE Software, 23(4), 22-29. doi:10.1109/ms.2006.91Russo, F., & Sancassani, M. (1992). A declarative debugging environment for DATALOG. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 433-441. doi:10.1007/3-540-55460-2_32E. Y. Shapiro. 1982a. Algorithmic Program Debugging. MIT Press Cambridge MA. E. Y. Shapiro. 1982a. Algorithmic Program Debugging. MIT Press Cambridge MA.Shapiro, E. Y. (1982). Algorithmic program diagnosis. Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages - POPL ’82. doi:10.1145/582153.582185Shmueli, O., & Tsur, S. (1991). Logical diagnosis ofLDL programs. New Generation Computing, 9(3-4), 277-303. doi:10.1007/bf03037166Silva, J. (s. f.). A Comparative Study of Algorithmic Debugging Strategies. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 143-159. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-71410-1_11Silva, J. (2011). A survey on algorithmic debugging strategies. Advances in Engineering Software, 42(11), 976-991. doi:10.1016/j.advengsoft.2011.05.024Silva, J., & Chitil, O. (2006). Combining algorithmic debugging and program slicing. Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGPLAN symposium on Principles and practice of declarative programming - PPDP ’06. doi:10.1145/1140335.1140355J. A. Silva E. R. Faria R. C. Barros E. R. Hruschka A. C. P. L. F. de Carvalho and J. Gama. 2013. Data stream clustering: A survey. Comput. Surv. 46 1 Article 13 (July 2013) 31 pages.DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2522968.2522981 10.1145/2522968.2522981 J. A. Silva E. R. Faria R. C. Barros E. R. Hruschka A. C. P. L. F. de Carvalho and J. Gama. 2013. Data stream clustering: A survey. Comput. Surv. 46 1 Article 13 (July 2013) 31 pages.DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2522968.2522981 10.1145/2522968.2522981SOSIČ, R., & ABRAMSON, D. (1997). Guard: A Relative Debugger. Software: Practice and Experience, 27(2), 185-206. doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-024x(199702)27:23.0.co;2-dL. Sterling and E. Shapiro. 1986. The Art of Prolog: Advanced Programming Techniques. The MIT Press Cambridge MA. L. Sterling and E. Shapiro. 1986. The Art of Prolog: Advanced Programming Techniques. The MIT Press Cambridge MA.P. Kambam Sugavanam. 2013. Debugging Framework for Attribute Grammars. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Minnesota. P. Kambam Sugavanam. 2013. Debugging Framework for Attribute Grammars. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Minnesota.Tamarit, S., Riesco, A., Martin-Martin, E., & Caballero, R. (2016). Debugging Meets Testing in Erlang. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 171-180. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-41135-4_10A. Tessier and G. Ferrand. 2000. Declarative diagnosis in the CLP scheme. In Analysis and Visualization Tools for Constraint Programming: Constraint Debugging Pierre Deransart Manuel V. Hermenegildo and Jan Maluszynski (Eds.). Springer-Verlag Berlin 151--174. 10.1007/10722311_6 A. Tessier and G. Ferrand. 2000. Declarative diagnosis in the CLP scheme. In Analysis and Visualization Tools for Constraint Programming: Constraint Debugging Pierre Deransart Manuel V. Hermenegildo and Jan Maluszynski (Eds.). Springer-Verlag Berlin 151--174. 10.1007/10722311_6Zinn, C. (2013). Algorithmic Debugging for Intelligent Tutoring: How to Use Multiple Models and Improve Diagnosis. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 272-283. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-40942-4_24Zinn, C. (2014). Algorithmic Debugging and Literate Programming to Generate Feedback in Intelligent Tutoring Systems. KI 2014: Advances in Artificial Intelligence, 37-48. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-11206-0_

Sandboxed, Online Debugging of Production Bugs for SOA Systems

Short time-to-bug localization is extremely important for any 24x7 service-oriented application. To this end, we introduce a new debugging paradigm called live debugging. There are two goals that any live debugging infrastructure must meet: Firstly, it must offer real-time insight for bug diagnosis and localization, which is paramount when errors happen in user-facing applications. Secondly, live debugging should not impact user-facing performance for normal events. In large distributed applications, bugs which impact only a small percentage of users are common. In such scenarios, debugging a small part of the application should not impact the entire system. With the above-stated goals in mind, this thesis presents a framework called Parikshan, which leverages user-space containers (OpenVZ) to launch application instances for the express purpose of live debugging. Parikshan is driven by a live-cloning process, which generates a replica (called debug container) of production services, cloned from a production container which continues to provide the real output to the user. The debug container provides a sandbox environment, for safe execution of monitoring/debugging done by the users without any perturbation to the execution environment. As a part of this framework, we have designed customized-network proxies, which replicate inputs from clients to both the production and test-container, as well safely discard all outputs. Together the network duplicator, and the debug container ensure both compute and network isolation of the debugging environment. We believe that this piece of work provides the first of its kind practical real-time debugging of large multi-tier and cloud applications, without requiring any application downtime, and minimal performance impact

Causality-Guided Adaptive Interventional Debugging

Runtime nondeterminism is a fact of life in modern database applications. Previous research has shown that nondeterminism can cause applications to intermittently crash, become unresponsive, or experience data corruption. We propose Adaptive Interventional Debugging (AID) for debugging such intermittent failures. AID combines existing statistical debugging, causal analysis, fault injection, and group testing techniques in a novel way to (1) pinpoint the root cause of an application's intermittent failure and (2) generate an explanation of how the root cause triggers the failure. AID works by first identifying a set of runtime behaviors (called predicates) that are strongly correlated to the failure. It then utilizes temporal properties of the predicates to (over)-approximate their causal relationships. Finally, it uses fault injection to execute a sequence of interventions on the predicates and discover their true causal relationships. This enables AID to identify the true root cause and its causal relationship to the failure. We theoretically analyze how fast AID can converge to the identification. We evaluate AID with six real-world applications that intermittently fail under specific inputs. In each case, AID was able to identify the root cause and explain how the root cause triggered the failure, much faster than group testing and more precisely than statistical debugging. We also evaluate AID with many synthetically generated applications with known root causes and confirm that the benefits also hold for them.Comment: Technical report of AID (SIGMOD 2020

Model checker for finding distributed concurrency bugs

Described herein are systems and methods for distributed concurrency (DC) bug detection. The method includes identifying a plurality of nodes in a distributed computing cluster; identifying a plurality of messages to be transmitted during execution of an application by the distributed computing cluster; determining a set of orderings of the plurality of messages for DC bug detection, the set of orderings determined based upon the plurality of nodes and the plurality of messages; removing a subset of the orderings from the set of orderings based upon one or more of a state symmetry algorithm, a disjoint-update independence algorithm, or a zero-crash-impact reordering algorithm; and performing DC bug detection testing using the set of orderings after the subset of the orderings is removed from the set of orderings

Predictive Monitoring against Pattern Regular Languages

In this paper, we focus on the problem of dynamically analysing concurrent software against high-level temporal specifications. Existing techniques for runtime monitoring against such specifications are primarily designed for sequential software and remain inadequate in the presence of concurrency -- violations may be observed only in intricate thread interleavings, requiring many re-runs of the underlying software. Towards this, we study the problem of predictive runtime monitoring, inspired by the analogous problem of predictive data race detection studied extensively recently. The predictive runtime monitoring question asks, given an execution $\sigma$, if it can be soundly reordered to expose violations of a specification. In this paper, we focus on specifications that are given in regular languages. Our notion of reorderings is trace equivalence, where an execution is considered a reordering of another if it can be obtained from the latter by successively commuting adjacent independent actions. We first show that the problem of predictive admits a super-linear lower bound of $O(n^\alpha)$, where $n$ is the number of events in the execution, and $\alpha$ is a parameter describing the degree of commutativity. As a result, predictive runtime monitoring even in this setting is unlikely to be efficiently solvable. Towards this, we identify a sub-class of regular languages, called pattern languages (and their extension generalized pattern languages). Pattern languages can naturally express specific ordering of some number of (labelled) events, and have been inspired by popular empirical hypotheses, the `small bug depth' hypothesis. More importantly, we show that for pattern (and generalized pattern) languages, the predictive monitoring problem can be solved using a constant-space streaming linear-time algorithm

Execution Synthesis: A Technique for Automating the Debugging of Software

Debugging real systems is hard, requires deep knowledge of the target code, and is time-consuming. Bug reports rarely provide sufficient information for debugging, thus forcing developers to turn into detectives searching for an explanation of how the program could have arrived at the reported failure state. This thesis introduces execution synthesis, a technique for automating this detective work: given a program and a bug report, execution synthesis automatically produces an execution of the program that leads to the reported bug symptoms. Using a combination of static analysis and symbolic execution, the technique “synthesizes” a thread schedule and various required program inputs that cause the bug to manifest. The synthesized execution can be played back deterministically in a regular debugger, like gdb. This is particularly useful in debugging concurrency bugs, because it transforms otherwise non-deterministic bugs into bugs that can be deterministically observed in a debugger. Execution synthesis requires no runtime recording, and no program or hardware modifications, thus incurring no runtime overhead. This makes it practical for use in production systems. This thesis includes a theoretical analysis of execution synthesis as well as empirical evidence that execution synthesis is successful in starting from mere bug reports and reproducing on its own concurrency and memory safety bugs in real systems, taking on the order of minutes. This thesis also introduces reverse execution synthesis, an automated debugging technique that takes a coredump obtained after a failure and automatically computes the suffix of an execution that leads to that coredump. Reverse execution synthesis generates the necessary information to then play back this suffix in a debugger deterministically as many times as needed to complete the debugging process. Since it synthesizes an execution suffix instead of the entire execution, reverse execution is particularly well suited for arbitrarily long executions in which the failure and its root cause occur within a short time span, so developers can use a short execution suffix to debug the problem. The thesis also shows how execution synthesis can be combined with recording techniques in order to automatically classify data races and to efficiently debug deadlock bugs

ENHANCING CLOUD SYSTEM RUNTIME TO ADDRESS COMPLEX FAILURES

As the reliance on cloud systems intensifies in our progressively digital world, understanding and reinforcing their reliability becomes more crucial than ever. Despite impressive advancements in augmenting the resilience of cloud systems, the growing incidence of complex failures now poses a substantial challenge to the availability of these systems. With cloud systems continuing to scale and increase in complexity, failures not only become more elusive to detect but can also lead to more catastrophic consequences. Such failures question the foundational premises of conventional fault-tolerance designs, necessitating the creation of novel system designs to counteract them. This dissertation aims to enhance distributed systems’ capabilities to detect, localize, and react to complex failures at runtime. To this end, this dissertation makes contributions to address three emerging categories of failures in cloud systems. The first part delves into the investigation of partial failures, introducing OmegaGen, a tool adept at generating tailored checkers for detecting and localizing such failures. The second part grapples with silent semantic failures prevalent in cloud systems, showcasing our study findings, and introducing Oathkeeper, a tool that leverages past failures to infer rules and expose these silent issues. The third part explores solutions to slow failures via RESIN, a framework specifically designed to detect, diagnose, and mitigate memory leaks in cloud-scale infrastructures, developed in collaboration with Microsoft Azure. The dissertation concludes by offering insights into future directions for the construction of reliable cloud systems