Vector sequence analysis and full weak safety for concurrent systems

  • Mahesh Girkar
  • Robert Moll
Communications
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 710)

Abstract

In this paper we analyze a particular sequence of points in the poset of nonnegative lattice points in n-dimensions. For this sequence, in 2-dimensions, we obtain optimal upper bounds on the number of points to be selected in order to ensure desired chain lengths among selected points; for higher dimensions, the upper bounds obtained are not optimal [6]. We use these bounds to decide full weak safety for a simple resource-oriented model for concurrent systems ([5, 12]). In this model, processes execute a sequence of operations (a program) which are controlled by a finite state device called the synchronizer. Concurrency among processes is modeled as an interleaving of their operations. A concurrent system consisting of a synchronizer and infinitely many identical processes is full weak safe if and only if all valid interleavings (of any finite number of processes) are accepted by the synchronizer. To decide full weak safety, we use our chain length result to give an effective procedure to obtain a threshold τ, such that the model is full weak safe if and only if all interleavings of operations length τ or less are accepted by the synchronizer.

Keywords

Directed Acyclic Graph Regular Language Concurrent System Short String Dead State 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    A. Valmari. A Stubborn Attack On State Explosion. Computer Aided Verification, 1990.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    E. M. Clarke, Emerson, and Sistla. Automatic Verification Of Finite-state Concurrent Systems Using Temporal Logic Specifications. 10th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, 1983.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    E. M. Clarke, O. Grumberg, and M. C. Browne. Reasoning About Networks With Many Identical Finite State Processes. Proc. 5th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, August 1986.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Gischer Jay. Shuffle Languages, Petri Nets, And Context-Sensitive Languages. Communications of the ACM, September 1981.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    K. Ramamritham. Synthesizing Code For Resource Controllers. IEEE Transactions on Software Engg, August 1985.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Mahesh Girkar and Robert Moll. Bounds On Chain Lengths For Collections Of Non-negative Points In n-space. CS Technical Report 92-31, Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Massachussetts, April 1992.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Mahesh Girkar and Robert Moll. Stability Analysis of Concurrent Systems with an Indefinite Number of Processes. CS Technical Report 92-72, Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Massachussetts, November 1992.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    R. P. Kurshan. Modelling Concurrent Programs. Symp. on Applied Mathematics, 1985.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    S. German and A. P. Sistla. Reasoning With Many Processes. Proc. Symp. on Logic in Computer Science, June 1987.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    S. German and A. P. Sistla. Reasoning About Systems With Many Processes. JACM, July 1992.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    S. Rao. Kosaraju. Decidability Of Reachability In Vector Addition Systems. Proceedings of the 16th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, May 1982.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Ugo Buy and Robert Moll. Analysis And Synthesis Of Inter-process Communication Code. To appear.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mahesh Girkar
    • 1
  • Robert Moll
    • 1
  1. 1.Department Of Computer ScienceUniversity of MassachusettsAmherst

Personalised recommendations