Cargando…
Verifying Visibility-Based Weak Consistency
Multithreaded programs generally leverage efficient and thread-safe concurrent objects like sets, key-value maps, and queues. While some concurrent-object operations are designed to behave atomically, each witnessing the atomic effects of predecessors in a linearization order, others forego such str...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7702252/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44914-8_11 |
_version_ | 1783616577047887872 |
---|---|
author | Krishna, Siddharth Emmi, Michael Enea, Constantin Jovanović, Dejan |
author_facet | Krishna, Siddharth Emmi, Michael Enea, Constantin Jovanović, Dejan |
author_sort | Krishna, Siddharth |
collection | PubMed |
description | Multithreaded programs generally leverage efficient and thread-safe concurrent objects like sets, key-value maps, and queues. While some concurrent-object operations are designed to behave atomically, each witnessing the atomic effects of predecessors in a linearization order, others forego such strong consistency to avoid complex control and synchronization bottlenecks. For example, contains (value) methods of key-value maps may iterate through key-value entries without blocking concurrent updates, to avoid unwanted performance bottlenecks, and consequently overlook the effects of some linearization-order predecessors. While such weakly-consistent operations may not be atomic, they still offer guarantees, e.g., only observing values that have been present. In this work we develop a methodology for proving that concurrent object implementations adhere to weak-consistency specifications. In particular, we consider (forward) simulation-based proofs of implementations against relaxed-visibility specifications, which allow designated operations to overlook some of their linearization-order predecessors, i.e., behaving as if they never occurred. Besides annotating implementation code to identify linearization points, i.e., points at which operations’ logical effects occur, we also annotate code to identify visible operations, i.e., operations whose effects are observed; in practice this annotation can be done automatically by tracking the writers to each accessed memory location. We formalize our methodology over a general notion of transition systems, agnostic to any particular programming language or memory model, and demonstrate its application, using automated theorem provers, by verifying models of Java concurrent object implementations. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7702252 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-77022522020-12-01 Verifying Visibility-Based Weak Consistency Krishna, Siddharth Emmi, Michael Enea, Constantin Jovanović, Dejan Programming Languages and Systems Article Multithreaded programs generally leverage efficient and thread-safe concurrent objects like sets, key-value maps, and queues. While some concurrent-object operations are designed to behave atomically, each witnessing the atomic effects of predecessors in a linearization order, others forego such strong consistency to avoid complex control and synchronization bottlenecks. For example, contains (value) methods of key-value maps may iterate through key-value entries without blocking concurrent updates, to avoid unwanted performance bottlenecks, and consequently overlook the effects of some linearization-order predecessors. While such weakly-consistent operations may not be atomic, they still offer guarantees, e.g., only observing values that have been present. In this work we develop a methodology for proving that concurrent object implementations adhere to weak-consistency specifications. In particular, we consider (forward) simulation-based proofs of implementations against relaxed-visibility specifications, which allow designated operations to overlook some of their linearization-order predecessors, i.e., behaving as if they never occurred. Besides annotating implementation code to identify linearization points, i.e., points at which operations’ logical effects occur, we also annotate code to identify visible operations, i.e., operations whose effects are observed; in practice this annotation can be done automatically by tracking the writers to each accessed memory location. We formalize our methodology over a general notion of transition systems, agnostic to any particular programming language or memory model, and demonstrate its application, using automated theorem provers, by verifying models of Java concurrent object implementations. 2020-04-18 /pmc/articles/PMC7702252/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44914-8_11 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. |
spellingShingle | Article Krishna, Siddharth Emmi, Michael Enea, Constantin Jovanović, Dejan Verifying Visibility-Based Weak Consistency |
title | Verifying Visibility-Based Weak Consistency |
title_full | Verifying Visibility-Based Weak Consistency |
title_fullStr | Verifying Visibility-Based Weak Consistency |
title_full_unstemmed | Verifying Visibility-Based Weak Consistency |
title_short | Verifying Visibility-Based Weak Consistency |
title_sort | verifying visibility-based weak consistency |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7702252/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44914-8_11 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT krishnasiddharth verifyingvisibilitybasedweakconsistency AT emmimichael verifyingvisibilitybasedweakconsistency AT eneaconstantin verifyingvisibilitybasedweakconsistency AT jovanovicdejan verifyingvisibilitybasedweakconsistency |