research-article

Relaxed-memory concurrency and verified compilation

Authors:

Jaroslav Ŝevčik,

Viktor Vafeiadis,

Francesco Zappa Nardelli,

Suresh Jagannathan,

Peter SewellAuthors Info & Claims

POPL '11: Proceedings of the 38th annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages

Pages 43 - 54

https://doi.org/10.1145/1926385.1926393

Published: 26 January 2011 Publication History

Abstract

In this paper, we consider the semantic design and verified compilation of a C-like programming language for concurrent shared-memory computation above x86 multiprocessors. The design of such a language is made surprisingly subtle by several factors: the relaxed-memory behaviour of the hardware, the effects of compiler optimisation on concurrent code, the need to support high-performance concurrent algorithms, and the desire for a reasonably simple programming model. In turn, this complexity makes verified (or verifying) compilation both essential and challenging.

We define a concurrent relaxed-memory semantics for ClightTSO, an extension of CompCert's Clight in which the processor's memory model is exposed for high-performance code. We discuss a strategy for verifying compilation from ClightTSO to x86, which we validate with correctness proofs (building on CompCert) for the most interesting compiler phases.

Supplementary Material

MP4 File (6-mpeg-4.mp4)

Download
478.61 MB

References

[1]

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

Digital Library

[2]

J. Alglave, L. Maranget, S. Sarkar, and P. Sewell. Fences in weak memory models. In Proc. CAV, 2010.

Digital Library

[3]

P. Becker, editor. Programming Languages -- C++. Final Committee Draft. 2010. ISO/IEC JTC1 SC22 WG21 N3092.

[4]

N. Benton and C.K Hur. Biorthogonality, step-indexing and compiler correctness. In Proc. ICFP, 2009.

Digital Library

[5]

Sandrine Blazy and Xavier Leroy. Mechanized semantics for the Clight subset of the C language. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 43(3):263--288, 2009.

[6]

H.-J. Boehm. Threads cannot be implemented as a library. In Proc. PLDI, pages 261--268, 2005.

Digital Library

[7]

M. Batty, S. Owens, S. Sarkar, P. Sewell, and T.Weber. Mathematizing C++ concurrency. In Proc. POPL, 2011.

Digital Library

[8]

Programming languages -- C (committee draft, WG14 N1494, ISO/IEC 9899:201x). http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/PostColorado.htm.

[9]

A. Chlipala. A verified compiler for an impure functional language. In Proc. POPL, 2010.

Digital Library

[10]

P. Cenciarelli, A. Knapp, and E. Sibilio. The Java memory model: Operationally, denotationally, axiomatically. In Proc. ESOP, 2007.

Digital Library

[11]

The Compcert verified compiler, v. 1.5. http://compcert.inria.fr/release/compcert-1.5.tgz, August 2009.

[12]

The Coq proof assistant. http://coq.inria.fr/.

[13]

Keir Fraser. Practical Lock Freedom. PhD thesis, 2003. Also available as Tech. Report UCAM-CL-TR-639.

[14]

G. Gonthier and A.Mahboubi. A small scale reflection extension for the coq system. Technical report, 2007.

[15]

A. Hobor, A.W. Appel, and F. Zappa Nardelli. Oracle semantics for concurrent separation logic. In Proc. ESOP, 2008.

Digital Library

[16]

L. Lamport. How to make a multiprocessor computer that correctly executes multiprocess programs. IEEE Trans. Comput., C-28(9):690--691, 1979.

Digital Library

[17]

D. Lea. Concurrent Programming in Java. Second Edition: Design Principles and Patterns. 1999.

Digital Library

[18]

Xavier Leroy. Formal verification of a realistic compiler. Communications of the ACM, 52(7):107--115, 2009.

Digital Library

[19]

Xavier Leroy. A formally verified compiler back-end. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 43(4):363--446, 2009.

Digital Library

[20]

1999. Linux Kernel mailing list, thread "spin unlock optimization(i386)", 119 messages, Nov. 20-Dec. 7th, http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/engine? post=105365;list=linux. Accessed 2009/11/18.

[21]

A. Lochbihler. Verifying a compiler for Java threads. In Proc. ESOP'10, 2010.

Digital Library

[22]

R. Milner. Communication and Concurrency. Prentice Hall International, 1989.

Digital Library

[23]

J. Manson, W. Pugh, and S.V. Adve. The Java memory model. In Proc. POPL, 2005.

Digital Library

[24]

M. O. Myreen. Verified just-in-time compiler on x86. In Proc. POPL, 2010.

Digital Library

[25]

S. Owens, S. Sarkar, and P. Sewell. A better x86 memory model: x86-TSO. In Proc. TPHOLs, 2009.

Digital Library

[26]

S. Owens. Reasoning about the implementation of concurrency abstractions on x86-TSO. In Proc. ECOOP, 2010.

Digital Library

[27]

W. Pugh. The Java memory model is fatally flawed. Concurrency - Practice and Experience, 12(6), 2000.

[28]

J. Ševçík and D. Aspinall. On validity of program transformations in the Java memory model. In ECOOP, 2008.

Digital Library

[29]

P. Sewell. On implementations and semantics of a concurrent programming language. In Proc. CONCUR, July 1997.

Digital Library

[30]

The SPARC architecture manual, v. 9. http://dev elopers.sun.com/solaris/articles/sparcv9.pdf.

Digital Library

[31]

The SPARC Architecture Manual, V. 8. SPARC International, Inc., 1992. Revision SAV080SI9308. http://www.sparc.org/standards/V8.pdf.

Digital Library

[32]

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

Digital Library

[33]

S. Sarkar, P. Sewell, F. Zappa Nardelli, S. Owens, T. Ridge, T. Braibant, M. Myreen, and J. Alglave. The semantics of x86-CC multiprocessor machine code. In Proc. POPL, 2009.

Digital Library

[34]

P. Sewell, F. Zappa Nardelli, S. Owens, G. Peskine, T. Ridge, S. Sarkar, and R. StrniŠa. Ott: Effective tool support for the working semanticist. J. Funct. Program., 20(1):71--122, 2010.

Digital Library

[35]

E. Torlak, M. Vaziri, and J. Dolby. MemSAT: checking axiomatic specifications of memory models. In PLDI, 2010.

Digital Library

Cited By

Cho MLee SLee DHur CLahav OJhala RDillig I(2022)Sequential reasoning for optimizing compilers under weak memory concurrencyProceedings of the 43rd ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation10.1145/3519939.3523718(213-228)Online publication date: 9-Jun-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3519939.3523718
Wang YZhang LShao ZKoenig J(2022)Verified compilation of C programs with a nominal memory modelProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/34986866:POPL(1-31)Online publication date: 12-Jan-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3498686
Windsor MDonaldson AWickerson J(2022)High‐coverage metamorphic testing of concurrency support in C compilersSoftware Testing, Verification and Reliability10.1002/stvr.181232:4Online publication date: 22-Mar-2022
https://doi.org/10.1002/stvr.1812
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Relaxed-memory concurrency and verified compilation

Recommendations

CompCertTSO: A Verified Compiler for Relaxed-Memory Concurrency

In this article, we consider the semantic design and verified compilation of a C-like programming language for concurrent shared-memory computation on x86 multiprocessors. The design of such a language is made surprisingly subtle by several factors: the ...
Relaxed-memory concurrency and verified compilation
POPL '11

In this paper, we consider the semantic design and verified compilation of a C-like programming language for concurrent shared-memory computation above x86 multiprocessors. The design of such a language is made surprisingly subtle by several factors: ...
Safe optimisations for shared-memory concurrent programs
PLDI '11

Current proposals for concurrent shared-memory languages, including C++ and C, provide sequential consistency only for programs without data races (the DRF guarantee). While the implications of such a contract for hardware optimisations are relatively ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

POPL '11: Proceedings of the 38th annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages

January 2011

652 pages

ISBN:9781450304900

DOI:10.1145/1926385

General Chair:
Thomas Ball
Microsoft Research, USA
,
Program Chair:
Mooly Sagiv
Tel Aviv University, Israel

ACM SIGPLAN Notices Volume 46, Issue 1
POPL '11
January 2011
624 pages
ISSN:0362-1340
EISSN:1558-1160
DOI:10.1145/1925844
Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2011 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

SIGPLAN: ACM Special Interest Group on Programming Languages

In-Cooperation

SIGACT: ACM Special Interest Group on Algorithms and Computation Theory

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 26 January 2011

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Conference

POPL '11

Sponsor:

SIGPLAN

POPL '11: The 38th Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages

January 26 - 28, 2011

Texas, Austin, USA

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 860 of 4,328 submissions, 20%

Upcoming Conference

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

91
Total Citations
View Citations
623
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)9
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

Reflects downloads up to 05 Mar 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Cho MLee SLee DHur CLahav OJhala RDillig I(2022)Sequential reasoning for optimizing compilers under weak memory concurrencyProceedings of the 43rd ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation10.1145/3519939.3523718(213-228)Online publication date: 9-Jun-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3519939.3523718
Wang YZhang LShao ZKoenig J(2022)Verified compilation of C programs with a nominal memory modelProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/34986866:POPL(1-31)Online publication date: 12-Jan-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3498686
Windsor MDonaldson AWickerson J(2022)High‐coverage metamorphic testing of concurrency support in C compilersSoftware Testing, Verification and Reliability10.1002/stvr.181232:4Online publication date: 22-Mar-2022
https://doi.org/10.1002/stvr.1812
Windsor MDonaldson AWickerson JCadar CZhang X(2021)C4: the C compiler concurrency checkerProceedings of the 30th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis10.1145/3460319.3469079(670-673)Online publication date: 11-Jul-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3460319.3469079
Gondelman LGregersen SNieto ATimany ABirkedal L(2021)Distributed causal memory: modular specification and verification in higher-order distributed separation logicProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/34343235:POPL(1-29)Online publication date: 4-Jan-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3434323
Wang YXu XWilke PShao Z(2020)CompCertELF: verified separate compilation of C programs into ELF object filesProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/34282654:OOPSLA(1-28)Online publication date: 13-Nov-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3428265
Fromherz AGiannarakis NHawblitzel CParno BRastogi ASwamy N(2019)A verified, efficient embedding of a verifiable assembly languageProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/32903763:POPL(1-30)Online publication date: 2-Jan-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3290376
Wang YWilke PShao Z(2019)An abstract stack based approach to verified compositional compilation to machine codeProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/32903753:POPL(1-30)Online publication date: 2-Jan-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3290375
Florence SYou STov JFindler R(2019)A calculus for Esterel: if can, can. if no can, no can.Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/32903743:POPL(1-29)Online publication date: 2-Jan-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3290374
Emmi MEnea C(2019)Weak-consistency specification via visibility relaxationProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/32903733:POPL(1-28)Online publication date: 2-Jan-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3290373
Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Figures

Tables

Media

View Table of Conten