Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Derivation of concurrent programs by stepwise scheduling of Event-B models

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Formal Aspects of Computing

Abstract

Concurrent programs are often complex and they are not straightforward to develop and prove correct. Formal development methods based on refinement make it possible not only to derive programs gradually, but also to prove their correctness in a stepwise fashion. Event-B is a formal framework that has been shown useful for developing concurrent and distributed programs. In order to scale to large systems, models can be decomposed into sub-models that can be refined semi-independently and executed in parallel. In this paper, we show how to introduce explicit control flow for the concurrent sub-models in the form of event schedules. The purpose of these schedules is both to provide process-oriented specifications of the programs to complement the state-based approach in Event-B, as well as to facilitate more efficient implementation of the models. The schedules are introduced in a stepwise manner and should be designed to result in a correctness-preserving refinement step. In order to reduce the verification burden on the developers, we provide patterns for schedule introduction, together with their associated proof obligations. We demonstrate our method by applying it on the dining philosophers problem.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abrial J-R (2010) Modeling in Event B: system and software engineering. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Abrial J-R, Hallerstede S (2007) Refinement, decomposition, and instantiation of discrete models: application to Event-B. Fundam Inform 77(1–2): 1–28

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Boström P, Degerlund F, Sere K, Waldén M (2011) Concurrent scheduling of Event-B models. In: Proceedings 15th international refinement workshop, pp 166–182. http://dx.doi.org/10.4204/EPTCS.55.11

  4. Butler M, Edmunds A (2011) Tasking Event-B: an extension to Event-B for generating concurrent code. In: PLACES 2011 workshop, 2011.http://places11.di.fc.ul.pt/proceedings.pdf/view

  5. Back R-JR, Kurki-Suonio R (1983) Decentralization of process nets with centralized control. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGACT-SIGOPS symposium of principles of distributed computing, pp 131–142

  6. Boström P (2010) Creating sequential programs from Event-B models. In: IFM’10 Proceedings of the 8th international conference on integrated formal methods, volume 6396 of LNCS. Springer, New York, pp 74–88

  7. Back R-JR, Sere K (1991) Stepwise refinement of action systems. Struct Program 12: 17–30

    Google Scholar 

  8. Butler M (2000) csp2B: a practical approach to combining CSP and B. Formal Aspects Comput 12(3): 182–198

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Back R, von Wright J (1990) Refinement calculus, part I: sequential nondeterministic programs. In: de Bakker J, de Roever W, Rozenberg G (eds) Stepwise refinement of distributed systems models, formalisms, correctness, volume 430 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Berlin, pp 42–66

  10. Back R-JR, von Wright J (1998) Refinement calculus: a systematic introduction. Graduate Texts in Computer Science. Springer, Berlin

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Back R-JR, von Wright J (1999) Reasoning algebraically about loops. Acta Inform 36: 295–334

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Back R-JR, von Wright J (2003) Compositional action system refinement. Formal Aspects Comput 15: 103–117

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Cavalcanti A, Sampaio A, Woodcock J (2003) A refinement strategy for circus. Formal Aspects Comput 15: 146–181

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Degerlund F, Grönblom R, Sere K (2011) Code generation and scheduling of Event-B models. Technical Report 1027. Turku Centre for Computer Science (TUCS)

  15. Edmunds A (2010) Providing concurrent implementations for Event-B developments. PhD thesis, University of Southampton, School of Electronics and Computer Science

  16. Grönblom R (2009) A framework for code generation and parallel execution of Event-B models. Master’s thesis, Åbo Akademi University

  17. Hoang TS, Abrial J-R (2010) Event-B decomposition for parallel programs. In: Abstract state machines, B and Z, volume 5977 of LNCS. Springer, Berlin, pp 319–333

  18. Hallerstede S (2008) On the purpose of Event-B proof obligations. In: Abstract state machines, B and Z, volume 5238 of LNCS. Springer, Berlin, pp 125–138

  19. Hallerstede S (2010) Structured Event-B models and proofs. In: Abstract state machines, B and Z, volume 5977 of LNCS. Springer, Berlin, pp 273–286

  20. Hoare CAR (1978) Communicating sequential processes. Commun ACM 21: 666–677

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Hoare CAR (1985) Communicating sequential processes. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

  22. Iliasov A (2009) On Event-B and control flow. Technical Report CS-TR-1159. School of Computing Science, Newcastle University

  23. Jones CB (1983) Tentative steps toward a development method for interfering programs. Trans Program Lang Syst 5(4): 596–619

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Méry D, Singh NK (2010) EB2C: a tool for Event-B to C conversion support. In: Poster and tool demo presentation at SEFM 2010.http://hal.inria.fr/inria-00540006/PDF/cameraready-sefm2010.pdf

  25. Owicki SS, Gries D (1976) An axiomatic proof technique for parallel programs I. Acta Inform 6: 319–340

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. Plosila J, Sere K, Waldén M (2005) Asynchronous system synthesis. Sci Comput Program 55: 259–288

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Rodin platform.http://www.event-b.org

  28. de Roever WP et al (2001) Concurrency Verification: Introduction to compositional and noncompositional methods. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  29. Sekerinski E, Sere K (1996) A theory of prioritizing composition. Comput J 39(8): 701–712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Schneider S, Treharne H, Wehrheim H (2010) A CSP approach to control in Event-B. In: Integrated formal methods 2010, volume 6396 of LNCS. Springer, Berlin, pp 260–274

  31. Wright S (2009) Automatic generation of C from Event-B. In: Workshop on integration of model-based formal methods and tools.http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/Publications/pub_master.jsp?id=2000990

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information Technologies, Åbo Akademi University, Joukahainengatan 3-5, 20520, Åbo, Finland

    Pontus Boström, Fredrik Degerlund, Kaisa Sere & Marina Waldén

  2. Turku Centre for Computer Science (TUCS), Joukahainengatan 3-5, 20520, Åbo, Finland

    Fredrik Degerlund

Authors
  1. Pontus Boström
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fredrik Degerlund
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kaisa Sere
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marina Waldén
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fredrik Degerlund.

Additional information

Eerke Boiten, John Derrick and Steve Reeves

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Boström, P., Degerlund, F., Sere, K. et al. Derivation of concurrent programs by stepwise scheduling of Event-B models. Form Asp Comp 26, 281–303 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00165-012-0260-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00165-012-0260-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation