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

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

Linearizability with Ownership Transfer

Linearizability is a commonly accepted notion of correctness for libraries of concurrent algorithms. Unfortunately, it assumes a complete isolation between a library and its client, with interactions limited to passing values of a given data type. This is inappropriate for common programming languages, where libraries and their clients can communicate via the heap, transferring the ownership of data structures, and can even run in a shared address space without any memory protection. In this paper, we present the first definition of linearizability that lifts this limitation and establish an Abstraction Theorem: while proving a property of a client of a concurrent library, we can soundly replace the library by its abstract implementation related to the original one by our generalisation of linearizability. This allows abstracting from the details of the library implementation while reasoning about the client. We also prove that linearizability with ownership transfer can be derived from the classical one if the library does not access some of data structures transferred to it by the client

A History of BlockingQueues

This paper describes a way to formally specify the behaviour of concurrent data structures. When specifying concurrent data structures, the main challenge is to make specifications stable, i.e., to ensure that they cannot be invalidated by other threads. To this end, we propose to use history-based specifications: instead of describing method behaviour in terms of the object's state, we specify it in terms of the object's state history. A history is defined as a list of state updates, which at all points can be related to the actual object's state. We illustrate the approach on the BlockingQueue hierarchy from the java.util.concurrent library. We show how the behaviour of the interface BlockingQueue is specified, leaving a few decisions open to descendant classes. The classes implementing the interface correctly inherit the specifications. As a specification language, we use a combination of JML and permission-based separation logic, including abstract predicates. This results in an abstract, modular and natural way to specify the behaviour of concurrent queues. The specifications can be used to derive high-level properties about queues, for example to show that the order of elements is preserved. Moreover, the approach can be easily adapted to other concurrent data structures.Comment: In Proceedings FLACOS 2012, arXiv:1209.169

Verifying Concurrent Stacks by Divergence-Sensitive Bisimulation

The verification of linearizability -- a key correctness criterion for concurrent objects -- is based on trace refinement whose checking is PSPACE-complete. This paper suggests to use \emph{branching} bisimulation instead. Our approach is based on comparing an abstract specification in which object methods are executed atomically to a real object program. Exploiting divergence sensitivity, this also applies to progress properties such as lock-freedom. These results enable the use of \emph{polynomial-time} divergence-sensitive branching bisimulation checking techniques for verifying linearizability and progress. We conducted the experiment on concurrent lock-free stacks to validate the efficiency and effectiveness of our methods

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

Specifying and Verifying Concurrent Algorithms with Histories and Subjectivity

We present a lightweight approach to Hoare-style specifications for fine-grained concurrency, based on a notion of time-stamped histories that abstractly capture atomic changes in the program state. Our key observation is that histories form a partial commutative monoid, a structure fundamental for representation of concurrent resources. This insight provides us with a unifying mechanism that allows us to treat histories just like heaps in separation logic. For example, both are subject to the same assertion logic and inference rules (e.g., the frame rule). Moreover, the notion of ownership transfer, which usually applies to heaps, has an equivalent in histories. It can be used to formally represent helping---an important design pattern for concurrent algorithms whereby one thread can execute code on behalf of another. Specifications in terms of histories naturally abstract granularity, in the sense that sophisticated fine-grained algorithms can be given the same specifications as their simplified coarse-grained counterparts, making them equally convenient for client-side reasoning. We illustrate our approach on a number of examples and validate all of them in Coq.Comment: 17 page