Modular Termination Verification for Non-blocking Concurrency

  • Pedro da Rocha Pinto
  • Thomas Dinsdale-Young
  • Philippa Gardner
  • Julian Sutherland
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9632)

Abstract

We present Total-TaDA, a program logic for verifying the total correctness of concurrent programs: that such programs both terminate and produce the correct result. With Total-TaDA, we can specify constraints on a thread’s concurrent environment that are necessary to guarantee termination. This allows us to verify total correctness for non-blocking algorithms, e.g. a counter and a stack. Our specifications can express lock- and wait-freedom. More generally, they can express that one operation cannot impede the progress of another, a new non-blocking property we call non-impedance. Moreover, our approach is modular. We can verify the operations of a module independently, and build up modules on top of each other.

References

  1. 1.
    Boström, P., Müller, P.: Modular verification of finite blocking in non-terminating programs. In: Boyland, J.T. (ed.) 29th European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, vol. 37, pp. 639–663. Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, Dagstuhl (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boyland, J.: Checking interference with fractional permissions. In: Cousot, R. (ed.) Static Analysis. LNCS, vol. 2694, pp. 55–72. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cantor, G.: Beiträge zur begründung der transfiniten mengenlehre. Mathematische Annalen 49(2), 207–246 (1897). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01444205 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dinsdale-Young, T., Birkedal, L., Gardner, P., Parkinson, M., Yang, H.: Views: compositional reasoning for concurrent programs. In: POPL, pp. 287–300 (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dinsdale-Young, T., Dodds, M., Gardner, P., Parkinson, M.J., Vafeiadis, V.: Concurrent abstract predicates. In: D’Hondt, T. (ed.) ECOOP 2010. LNCS, vol. 6183, pp. 504–528. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Floyd, R.W.: Assigning meanings to programs. In: Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society Symposia on Applied Mathematics, vol. 19, pp. 19–31 (1967)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gotsman, A., Cook, B., Parkinson, M., Vafeiadis, V.: Proving that non-blocking algorithms don’t block. In: POPL, pp. 16–28 (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Herlihy, M.: Wait-free synchronization. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 13(1), 124–149 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hessenberg, G.: Grundbegriffe der Mengenlehre. Abhandlungen der Fries’schen Schule / Neue Folge. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen (1906)MATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hoffmann, J., Marmar, M., Shao, Z.: Quantitative reasoning for proving lock-freedom. In: 2013 28th Annual IEEE/ACM Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS), pp. 124–133. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jung, R., Swasey, D., Sieczkowski, F., Svendsen, K., Turon, A., Birkedal, L., Dreyer, D.: Iris: monoids and invariants as an orthogonal basis for concurrent reasoning. In: POPL, pp. 637–650 (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liang, H., Feng, X., Shao, Z.: Compositional verification of termination-preserving refinement of concurrent programs. In: Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of the Twenty-Third EACSL Annual Conference on Computer Science Logic (CSL) and the Twenty-Ninth Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS), p. 65. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Massalin, H., Pu, C.: A lock-free multiprocessor os kernel. SIGOPS Oper. Syst. Rev. 26, 108 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Parkinson, M., Bierman, G.: Separation logic and abstraction. In: POPL, pp. 247–258 (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reynolds, J.C.: Separation logic: a logic for shared mutable data structures. In: 2002 Proceedings 17th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pp. 55–74. IEEE (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    da Rocha Pinto, P., Dinsdale-Young, T., Gardner, P.: Tada: a logic for time and data abstraction. In: Jones, R. (ed.) ECOOP 2014. LNCS, vol. 8586, pp. 207–231. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    da Rocha Pinto, P., Dinsdale-Young, T., Gardner, P.: Steps in modular specifications for concurrent modules (invited tutorial paper). Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 319, 3–18 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    da Rocha Pinto, P., Dinsdale-Young, T., Gardner, P., Sutherland, J.: Modular termination verification for non-blocking concurrency. Technical report, Imperial College London (2016)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Svendsen, K., Birkedal, L.: Impredicative concurrent abstract predicates. In: Shao, Z. (ed.) ESOP 2014 (ETAPS). LNCS, vol. 8410, pp. 149–168. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Treiber, R.K.: Systems programming: coping with parallelism. Technical report RJ 5118, IBM Almaden Research Center, April 1986Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Turing, A.M.: Checking a large routine. In: Report of a Conference on High Speed Automatic Calculating Machines, pp. 67–69 (1949). http://www.turingarchive.org/browse.php/B/8
  22. 22.
    Turon, A., Dreyer, D., Birkedal, L.: Unifying refinement and hoare-style reasoning in a logic for higher-order concurrency. In: ICFP, pp. 377–390 (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pedro da Rocha Pinto
    • 1
  • Thomas Dinsdale-Young
    • 2
  • Philippa Gardner
    • 1
  • Julian Sutherland
    • 1
  1. 1.Imperial College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Aarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark

Personalised recommendations