Sequentially consistent versus linearizable counting networks

We compare the impact of timing conditions on implementing sequentially consistent and linearizable counters using (uniform) counting networks in distributed systems. For counting problems in application domains which do not require linearizability but will run correctly if only sequential consistency is provided, the results of our investigation, and their potential payoffs, are threefold: • First, we show that sequential consistency and linearizability cannot be distinguished by the timing conditions previously considered in the context of counting networks; thus, in contexts where these constraints apply, it is possible to rely on the stronger semantics of linearizability, which simplifies proofs and enhances compositionality. • Second, we identify local timing conditions that support sequential consistency but not linearizability; thus, we suggest weaker, easily implementable timing conditions that are likely to be sufficient in many applications. • Third, we show that any kind of synchronization that is too weak to support even sequential consistency may violate it significantly for some counting networks; hence

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

Quiescent consistency: Defining and verifying relaxed linearizability

Concurrent data structures like stacks, sets or queues need to be highly optimized to provide large degrees of parallelism with reduced contention. Linearizability, a key consistency condition for concurrent objects, sometimes limits the potential for optimization. Hence algorithm designers have started to build concurrent data structures that are not linearizable but only satisfy relaxed consistency requirements. In this paper, we study quiescent consistency as proposed by Shavit and Herlihy, which is one such relaxed condition. More precisely, we give the first formal definition of quiescent consistency, investigate its relationship with linearizability, and provide a proof technique for it based on (coupled) simulations. We demonstrate our proof technique by verifying quiescent consistency of a (non-linearizable) FIFO queue built using a diffraction tree. © 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

The impact of timing on linearizability in counting networks

{\em Counting networks} form a new class of distributed, low-contention data structures, made up of {\em balancers} and {\em wires,} which are suitable for solving a variety of multiprocessor synchronization problems that can be expressed as counting problems. A {\em linearizable} counting network guarantees that the order of the values it returns respects the real-time order they were requested. Linearizability significantly raises the capabilities of the network, but at a possible price in network size or synchronization support. In this work, we further pursue the systematic study of the impact of {\em timing} assumptions on linearizability for counting networks, along the line of research recently initiated by Lynch~{\em et~al.} in [18]. We consider two basic {\em timing} models, the {instantaneous balancer} model, in which the transition of a token from an input to an output port of a balancer is modeled as an instantaneous event, and the {\em periodic balancer} model, where balancers send out tokens at a fixed rate. In both models, we assume lower and upper bounds on the delays incurred by wires connecting the balancers. We present necessary and sufficient conditions for linearizability in these models, in the form of precise inequalities that involve not only parameters of the timing models, but also certain structural parameters of the counting network, which may be of more general interest. Our results extend and strengthen previous impossibility and possibility results on linearizability in counting networks

Admit your weakness: Verifying correctness on TSO architectures

“The final publication is available at http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-15317-9_22 ”.Linearizability has become the standard correctness criterion for fine-grained non-atomic concurrent algorithms, however, most approaches assume a sequentially consistent memory model, which is not always realised in practice. In this paper we study the correctness of concurrent algorithms on a weak memory model: the TSO (Total Store Order) memory model, which is commonly implemented by multicore architectures. Here, linearizability is often too strict, and hence, we prove a weaker criterion, quiescent consistency instead. Like linearizability, quiescent consistency is compositional making it an ideal correctness criterion in a component-based context. We demonstrate how to model a typical concurrent algorithm, seqlock, and prove it quiescent consistent using a simulation-based approach. Previous approaches to proving correctness on TSO architectures have been based on linearizabilty which makes it necessary to modify the algorithm’s high-level requirements. Our approach is the first, to our knowledge, for proving correctness without the need for such a modification

Fault-Tolerant Consensus in Unknown and Anonymous Networks

This paper investigates under which conditions information can be reliably shared and consensus can be solved in unknown and anonymous message-passing networks that suffer from crash-failures. We provide algorithms to emulate registers and solve consensus under different synchrony assumptions. For this, we introduce a novel pseudo leader-election approach which allows a leader-based consensus implementation without breaking symmetry

IST Austria Technical Report

Linearizability requires that the outcome of calls by competing threads to a concurrent data structure is the same as some sequential execution where each thread has exclusive access to the data structure. In an ordered data structure, such as a queue or a stack, linearizability is ensured by requiring threads commit in the order dictated by the sequential semantics of the data structure; e.g., in a concurrent queue implementation a dequeue can only remove the oldest element. In this paper, we investigate the impact of this strict ordering, by comparing what linearizability allows to what existing implementations do. We first give an operational definition for linearizability which allows us to build the most general linearizable implementation as a transition system for any given sequential specification. We then use this operational definition to categorize linearizable implementations based on whether they are bound or free. In a bound implementation, whenever all threads observe the same logical state, the updates to the logical state and the temporal order of commits coincide. All existing queue implementations we know of are bound. We then proceed to present, to the best of our knowledge, the first ever free queue implementation. Our experiments show that free implementations have the potential for better performance by suffering less from contention