research-article

A separation logic for refining concurrent objects

Authors:

Aaron Joseph Turon,

Mitchell WandAuthors Info & Claims

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

Pages 247 - 258

https://doi.org/10.1145/1926385.1926415

Published: 26 January 2011 Publication History

Abstract

Fine-grained concurrent data structures are crucial for gaining performance from multiprocessing, but their design is a subtle art. Recent literature has made large strides in verifying these data structures, using either atomicity refinement or separation logic with rely-guarantee reasoning. In this paper we show how the ownership discipline of separation logic can be used to enable atomicity refinement, and we develop a new rely-guarantee method that is localized to the definition of a data structure. We present the first semantics of separation logic that is sensitive to atomicity, and show how to control this sensitivity through ownership. The result is a logic that enables compositional reasoning about atomicity and interference, even for programs that use fine-grained synchronization and dynamic memory allocation.

Supplementary Material

MP4 File (24-mpeg-4.mp4)

Download
369.55 MB

References

[1]

R. J. Back and J. von Wright. Refinement calculus: a systematic introduction. Springer, 1998.

Digital Library

[2]

S. Brookes. Full abstraction for a shared variable parallel language. Information and Computation, 127(2):145--163, 1996.

[3]

C. Calcagno, P. W. O'Hearn, and H. Yang. Local action and abstract separation logic. In LICS, pages 366--378. IEEE Computer Society, 2007.

Digital Library

[4]

T. Dinsdale-Young, M. Dodds, P. Gardner, M. Parkinson, and V. Vafeiadis. Concurrent abstract predicates. In ECOOP, June 2010.

Digital Library

[5]

T. Elmas, S. Qadeer, and S. Tasiran. A calculus of atomic actions. In POPL, pages 2--15. ACM, 2009.

Digital Library

[6]

T. Elmas, S. Qadeer, A. Sezgin, O. Subasi, and S. Tasiran. Simplifying linearizability proofs with reduction and abstraction. In TACAS, pages 296--311. Springer, 2010.

Digital Library

[7]

X. Feng. Local rely-guarantee reasoning. In POPL, pages 315--327. ACM, 2009.

Digital Library

[8]

I. Filipović, P. O'Hearn, N. Rinetzky, and H. Yang. Abstraction for concurrent objects. In ESOP, pages 252--266. Springer, 2009.

Digital Library

[9]

L. Groves. Reasoning about nonblocking concurrency. JUCS, 15(1):72--111, 2009.

[10]

M. Herlihy and N. Shavit. The Art of Multiprocessor Programming. Morgan Kaufmann, 2008.

Digital Library

[11]

M. P. Herlihy and J. M. Wing. Linearizability: a correctness condition for concurrent objects. TOPLAS, 12(3):463--492, 1990.

Digital Library

[12]

C. B. Jones. Tentative steps toward a development method for interfering programs. TOPLAS, 5(4):596--619, 1983.

Digital Library

[13]

A. Kock. Strong functors and monoidal monads. Archiv der Mathematik, 23:113--120, 1971. ISSN 1.

[14]

R. J. Lipton. Reduction: a method of proving properties of parallel programs. Commun. ACM, 18(12):717--721, 1975.

Digital Library

[15]

B. Liskov and S. Zilles. Programming with abstract data types. In Symposium on Very high level languages, pages 50--59. ACM, 1974.

Digital Library

[16]

M. M. Michael. Hazard pointers: Safe memory reclamation for lock-free objects. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 15:491--504, 2004. ISSN 1045--9219.

Digital Library

[17]

M. M. Michael and M. L. Scott. Nonblocking algorithms and preemption-safe locking on multiprogrammed shared memory multiprocessors. J. Parallel Distrib. Comput., 51(1):1--26, 1998.

Digital Library

[18]

R. Milner. A Calculus of Communicating Systems. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., 1982.

Digital Library

[19]

J. C. Mitchell and G. D. Plotkin. Abstract types have existential type. TOPLAS, 10(3):470--502, 1988.

Digital Library

[20]

M. Moir and N. Shavit. Concurrent data structures. In Handbook of Data Structures and Applications, D. Metha and S. Sahni Editors, pages 47--14--47--30, 2007. Chapman and Hall/CRC Press.

[21]

C. Morgan and T. Vickers. On the refinement calculus. Springer, 1993.

Digital Library

[22]

J. H. Morris, Jr. Protection in programming languages. CACM, 16(1):15--21, 1973.

Digital Library

[23]

P. W. O'Hearn. Resources, concurrency, and local reasoning. Theor. Comput. Sci., 375(1--3):271--307, 2007.

Digital Library

[24]

M. Parkinson and G. Bierman. Separation logic and abstraction. POPL, 40(1):247--258, 2005.

Digital Library

[25]

D. Sangiorgi and D. Walker. Pi-Calculus: A Theory of Mobile Processes. Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Digital Library

[26]

R. K. Treiber. Systems programming: coping with parallelism. Technical report, Almaden Research Center, 1986.

[27]

V. Vafeiadis. Modular fine-grained concurrency verification. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, 2008.

[28]

V. Vafeiadis and M. Parkinson. A marriage of rely/guarantee and separation logic. In CONCUR, pages 256--271. Springer, 2007.

Digital Library

[29]

R. J. van Glabbeek. The linear time - branching time spectrum. In CONCUR, pages 278--297. Springer, 1990.

Digital Library

Cited By

Svyatlovskiy MMermelstein SLahav O(2024)Compositional Semantics for Shared-Variable ConcurrencyProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/36563998:PLDI(543-566)Online publication date: 20-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3656399
Dvir YKammar OLahav O(2024)A Denotational Approach to Release/Acquire ConcurrencyProgramming Languages and Systems10.1007/978-3-031-57267-8_5(121-149)Online publication date: 6-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-57267-8_5
Vindum SFrumin DBirkedal LPopescu AZdancewic S(2022)Mechanized verification of a fine-grained concurrent queue from meta’s folly libraryProceedings of the 11th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Certified Programs and Proofs10.1145/3497775.3503689(100-115)Online publication date: 17-Jan-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3497775.3503689
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

A separation logic for refining concurrent objects

Recommendations

A separation logic for refining concurrent objects
POPL '11

Fine-grained concurrent data structures are crucial for gaining performance from multiprocessing, but their design is a subtle art. Recent literature has made large strides in verifying these data structures, using either atomicity refinement or ...
Proving correctness of highly-concurrent linearisable objects
PPoPP '06: Proceedings of the eleventh ACM SIGPLAN symposium on Principles and practice of parallel programming

We study a family of implementations for linked lists using fine-grain synchronisation. This approach enables greater concurrency, but correctness is a greater challenge than for classical, coarse-grain synchronisation. Our examples are demonstrative of ...
Accurate and efficient runtime detection of atomicity errors in concurrent programs
PPoPP '06: Proceedings of the eleventh ACM SIGPLAN symposium on Principles and practice of parallel programming

Atomicity is an important correctness condition for concurrent systems. Informally, atomicity is the property that every concurrent execution of a set of transactions is equivalent to some serial execution of the same transactions. In multi-threaded ...

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

26
Total Citations
View Citations
566
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)28
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

Reflects downloads up to 05 Mar 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Svyatlovskiy MMermelstein SLahav O(2024)Compositional Semantics for Shared-Variable ConcurrencyProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/36563998:PLDI(543-566)Online publication date: 20-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3656399
Dvir YKammar OLahav O(2024)A Denotational Approach to Release/Acquire ConcurrencyProgramming Languages and Systems10.1007/978-3-031-57267-8_5(121-149)Online publication date: 6-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-57267-8_5
Vindum SFrumin DBirkedal LPopescu AZdancewic S(2022)Mechanized verification of a fine-grained concurrent queue from meta’s folly libraryProceedings of the 11th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Certified Programs and Proofs10.1145/3497775.3503689(100-115)Online publication date: 17-Jan-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3497775.3503689
Benton NHofmann MNigam VCheney JVidal G(2016)Effect-dependent transformations for concurrent programsProceedings of the 18th International Symposium on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming10.1145/2967973.2968602(188-201)Online publication date: 5-Sep-2016
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2967973.2968602
Dongol BDerrick J(2015)Verifying LinearisabilityACM Computing Surveys10.1145/279655048:2(1-43)Online publication date: 24-Sep-2015
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2796550
Sharma AHobor AChin W(2015)Specifying Compatible Sharing in Data StructuresFormal Methods and Software Engineering10.1007/978-3-319-25423-4_23(349-365)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2015
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25423-4_23
Hawblitzel CPetrank EQadeer STasiran S(2015)Automated and Modular Refinement Reasoning for Concurrent ProgramsComputer Aided Verification10.1007/978-3-319-21668-3_26(449-465)Online publication date: 14-Jul-2015
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21668-3_26
Schellhorn GDerrick JWehrheim H(2014)A Sound and Complete Proof Technique for Linearizability of Concurrent Data StructuresACM Transactions on Computational Logic10.1145/262949615:4(1-37)Online publication date: 12-Sep-2014
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2629496
Jagannathan SLaporte VPetri GPichardie DVitek J(2014)Atomicity Refinement for Verified CompilationACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems10.1145/260133936:2(1-30)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2014
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2601339
Liang HFeng XFu M(2014)Rely-Guarantee-Based Simulation for Compositional Verification of Concurrent Program TransformationsACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems10.1145/257623536:1(1-55)Online publication date: 1-Mar-2014
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2576235
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