Frontiers of Computer Science

, Volume 9, Issue 6, pp 944–955 | Cite as

BIFER: a biphasic trace filter approach to scalable prediction of concurrency errors

  • Xi Chang
  • Zhuo Zhang
  • Peng Zhang
  • Jianxin Xue
  • Jianjun Zhao
Research Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Predictive trace analysis (PTA), a static trace analysis technique for concurrent programs, can offer powerful capability support for finding concurrency errors unseen in a previous program execution. Existing PTA techniques always face considerable challenges in scaling to large traces which contain numerous critical events. One main reason is that an analyzed trace includes not only redundant memory accessing events and threads that cannot contribute to discovering any additional errors different from the found candidate ones, but also many residual synchronization events which still affect PTA to check whether these candidate ones are feasible or not even after removing the redundant events. Removing them from the trace can significantly improve the scalability of PTA without affecting the quality of the PTA results. In this paper, we propose a biphasic trace filter approach, BIFER in short, to filter these redundant events and residual events for improving the scalability of PTA to expose general concurrency errors. In addition, we design a model which indicates the lock history and the happens-before history of each thread with two kinds of ways to achieve the efficient filtering. We implement a prototypical tool BIFER for Java programs on the basis of a predictive trace analysis framework. Experiments show that BIFER can improve the scalability of PTA during the process of analyzing all of the traces.

Keywords

predictive trace analysis concurrency errors scalability 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Sen K, Rosu G, Agha G. Detecting errors in multithreaded programs by generalized predictive analysis of executions. In: Proceedings of the 7th IFIP WG6.1 International Conference on Formal Methods for Open Object-based Distributed Systems. 2005, 211–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wang L, Stoller S. Accurate and efficient runtime detection of atomicity errors in concurrent programs. In: Proceedings of ACM International Conference on Principles and Practice of Parallel Programming. 2006, 137–146Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Farzan A, Madhusudan P, Sorrentino F. Meta-analysis for atomicity violations under nested locking. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computer Aided Verification. 2009, 248–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen F, Serbanuta T F, Rosu G. Predictor: a predictive runtime analysis tool for Java. In: Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Software Engineering. 2008, 221–230Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wang C, Kundu S, Ganai M K, Gupta A. Symbolic predictive analysis for concurrent programs. In: Proceedings of International Symposium on Formal Methods. 2009, 256–272Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wang C, Limaye R, Ganai M K, Gupta A. Trace-based symbolic analysis for atomicity violations. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems. 2010, 328–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kahlon V, Wang C. Universal causality graphs: a precise happensbefore model for detecting bugs in concurrent programs. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computer Aided Verification. 2010, 434–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhang W, Sun C, Lu S. Conmem: detecting severe concurrency bugs through an effect-oriented approach. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, 2010, 45(3): 179–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vaziri M, Tip F, Dolby J. Associating synchronization constraints with data in an object-oriented language. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, 2006, 41(1): 334–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Huang J, Zhou J G, Zhang C. Scaling predictive analysis of concurrent programs by removing trace redundancy. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 2013, 22(1): 8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lu S, Park S, Seo E, Zhou Y Y. Learning from mistakes: a comprehensive study on real world concurrency bug characteristics. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, 2008, 43(3): 329–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lucia B, Wood B P, Ceze L. Isolating and understanding concurrency errors using reconstructed execution fragments. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, 2011, 46(6): 378–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shi Y, Park S, Yin Z N, Lu S, Zhou Y Y, Chen W G, Zheng W M. Do I use the wrong definition?: DeFuse: definition-use invariants for detecting concurrency and sequential bugs. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, 2010, 45(10): 160–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang C, Said M, Gupta A. Coverage guided systematic concurrency testing. In: Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering. 2011, 221–230Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lai Z, Cheung S C, Chan W K. Detecting atomic-set serializability violations in multithreaded programs through active randomized testing. In: Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Software Engineering. 2010, 235–244Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Huang J, Zhang C. Persuasive prediction of concurrency access anomalies. In: Proceedings of the 2011 International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis. 2011, 144–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Savage S, Burrows M, Nelson G, Sobalvarro P, Anderson T E. Eraser: a dynamic data race detector for multithreaded programs. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 1997, 15(4): 391–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sen K. Race directed random testing of concurrent programs. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, 2008, 43(6): 11–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Farchi E, Nir Y, Ur S. Concurrent bug patterns and how to test them. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium. 2003Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Flanagan C, Godefroid P. Dynamic partial-order reduction for model checking software. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, 2005, 40(1): 110–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sinha N, Wang C. Staged concurrent program analysis. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering. 2010, 47–56Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Serebryany K, Potapenko A, Iskhodzhanov T, Vyukov D. Dynamic race detection with LLVM compiler. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Runtime Verification. 2011, 110–114Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sack P, Bliss B E, Ma Z Q, Petersen P, Torrellas J. Accurate and efficient filtering for the intel thread checker race detector. In: Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Architectural and System Support for Improving Software Dependability. 2006, 34–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Marino D, Musuvathi M, Narayanasamy S. Literace: effective sampling for lightweight data-race detection. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, 2009, 44(6): 134–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bond M D, Coons K E, Mc Kinley K S. Pacer: proportional detection of data races. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, 2010, 45(6): 255–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yu Y, Rodeheffer T, W C. Racetrack: efficient detection of data race conditions via adaptive tracking. ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, 2005, 39(5): 221–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xi Chang
    • 1
  • Zhuo Zhang
    • 2
  • Peng Zhang
    • 2
  • Jianxin Xue
    • 3
  • Jianjun Zhao
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringShanghai Jiao Tong UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.Department of Software EngineeringNational University of Defense TechnologyChangshaChina
  3. 3.Department of Software EngineeringShanghai Second Polytechnic UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations