Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

On abstraction and compositionality for weak-memory linearisability

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Verification, Model Checking, and Abstract Interpretation (VMCAI 2018)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 10747))

Abstract

Linearisability is the de facto standard correctness condition for concurrent objects. Classical linearisability assumes that the effect of a method is captured entirely by the allowed sequences of calls and returns. This assumption is inadequate in the presence of relaxed memory models, where happens-before relations are also of importance.

In this paper, we develop hb-linearisability for relaxed memory models by extending the classical notion with happens-before information. We consider two variants: Real time hb -linearisability, which adopts the classical view that time runs on a single global clock, and causal hb -linearisability, which eschews real-time and is appropriate for systems without a global clock. For both variants, we prove abstraction (so that programmers can reason about a client program using the sequential specification of an object rather than its more complex concurrent implementation) and composition (so that reasoning about independent objects can be conducted in isolation).

This work was partially supported by EPSRC grants EP/N016661/1 and EP/K008528/1, and NSF Grant No. 1617175.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Adve, S.V., Boehm, H.J.: Memory models: a case for rethinking parallel languages and hardware. Commun. ACM 53, 90–101 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Adve, S.V., Gharachorloo, K.: Shared memory consistency models: A tutorial. Computer 29(12), 66–76 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Alglave, J., Maranget, L., Tautschnig, M.: Herding cats: Modelling, simulation, testing, and data mining for weak memory. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 36(2), 7:1–7:74 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Batty, M., Dodds, M., Gotsman, A.: Library abstraction for C/C++ concurrency. In: POPL, pp. 235–248. ACM (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Batty, M., Owens, S., Sarkar, S., Sewell, P., Weber, T.: Mathematizing C++ concurrency. In: POPL, pp. 55–66. ACM (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Boehm, H.J., Adve, S.V.: Foundations of the C++ concurrency memory model. In: Gupta, R., Amarasinghe, S.P. (eds.) PLDI, pp. 68–78. ACM (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Burckhardt, S., Gotsman, A., Musuvathi, M., Yang, H.: Concurrent library correctness on the TSO memory model. In: Seidl, H. (ed.) ESOP 2012. LNCS, vol. 7211, pp. 87–107. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28869-2_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Deacon, W.: Arm64 cat file (2017). https://github.com/herd/herdtools7/commit/daa126680b6ecba97ba47b3e05bbaa51a89f27b7

  9. Derrick, J., Smith, G.: An observational approach to defining linearizability on weak memory models. In: Bouajjani, A., Silva, A. (eds.) FORTE 2017. LNCS, vol. 10321, pp. 108–123. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60225-7_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Derrick, J., Smith, G., Dongol, B.: Verifying linearizability on TSO architectures. In: Albert, E., Sekerinski, E. (eds.) IFM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8739, pp. 341–356. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10181-1_21

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dodds, M., Feng, X., Parkinson, M., Vafeiadis, V.: Deny-guarantee reasoning. In: Castagna, G. (ed.) ESOP 2009. LNCS, vol. 5502, pp. 363–377. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00590-9_26

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Doherty, S., Derrick, J.: Linearizability and causality. In: De Nicola, R., Kühn, E. (eds.) SEFM 2016. LNCS, vol. 9763, pp. 45–60. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41591-8_4

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dongol, B., Derrick, J.: Verifying linearisability: A comparative survey. ACM Comput. Surv. 48(2), 19 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dongol, B., Derrick, J., Smith, G., Groves, L.: Defining correctness conditions for concurrent objects in multicore architectures. In: Boyland, J.T. (ed.) ECOOP. LIPIcs, vol. 37, pp. 470–494. Dagstuhl (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Dongol, B., Groves, L.: Contextual trace refinement for concurrent objects: safety and progress. In: Ogata, K., Lawford, M., Liu, S. (eds.) ICFEM 2016. LNCS, vol. 10009, pp. 261–278. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47846-3_17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Filipović, I., O’Hearn, P.W., Rinetzky, N., Yang, H.: Abstraction for concurrent objects. Theor. Comput. Sci. 411(51–52), 4379–4398 (2010)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Gotsman, A., Yang, H.: Liveness-preserving atomicity abstraction. In: Aceto, L., Henzinger, M., Sgall, J. (eds.) ICALP 2011. LNCS, vol. 6756, pp. 453–465. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22012-8_36

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Herlihy, M., Shavit, N.: The Art of Multiprocessor Programming. Morg. Kauf. (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Herlihy, M.P., Wing, J.M.: Linearizability: a correctness condition for concurrent objects. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 12(3), 463–492 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Jagadeesan, R., Petri, G., Pitcher, C., Riely, J.: Quarantining weakness - compositional reasoning under relaxed memory models (extended abstract). In: Felleisen, M., Gardner, P. (eds.) ESOP 2013. LNCS, vol. 7792, pp. 492–511. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37036-6_27

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Lamport, L.: How to make a correct multiprocess program execute correctly on a multiprocessor. IEEE Trans. Computers 46(7), 779–782 (1979)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Liang, H., Hoffmann, J., Feng, X., Shao, Z.: Characterizing progress properties of concurrent objects via contextual refinements. In: D’Argenio, P.R., Melgratti, H. (eds.) CONCUR 2013. LNCS, vol. 8052, pp. 227–241. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40184-8_17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Manson, J., Pugh, W., Adve, S.V.: The Java memory model. In: POPL 2005, pp. 378–391 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Pulte, C., Flur, S., Deacon, W., French, J., Sarkar, S., Sewell, P.: Simplifying arm concurrency: multicopy-atomic axiomatic and operational models for armv8. In: POPL (2018) (to appear)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Sarkar, S., Sewell, P., Alglave, J., Maranget, L., Williams, D.: Understanding power multiprocessors. In: PLDI, pp. 175–186. ACM (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Sevcík, J.: Program Transformations in Weak Memory Models. PhD thesis, Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Sewell, P., Sarkar, S., Owens, S., Nardelli, F.Z., Myreen, M.O.: x86-TSO: A rigorous and usable programmer’s model for x86 multiprocessors. Commun. ACM 53(7), 89–97 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Shavit, N.: Data structures in the multicore age. Commun. ACM 54(3), 76–84 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Smith, G., Winter, K.: Relating trace refinement and linearizability. Formal Aspects of Computing 1–16 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Brunel University of London, London, UK

    Brijesh Dongol & Alasdair Armstrong

  2. DePaul University, Chicago, USA

    Radha Jagadeesan & James Riely

  3. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    Alasdair Armstrong

Authors
  1. Brijesh Dongol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Radha Jagadeesan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. James Riely
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alasdair Armstrong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brijesh Dongol .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Texas , Austin, Texas, USA

    Isil Dillig

  2. University of California , Los Angeles, California, USA

    Jens Palsberg

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Dongol, B., Jagadeesan, R., Riely, J., Armstrong, A. (2018). On abstraction and compositionality for weak-memory linearisability. In: Dillig, I., Palsberg, J. (eds) Verification, Model Checking, and Abstract Interpretation. VMCAI 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10747. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73721-8_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73721-8_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-73720-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-73721-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics