A type-theoretic approach to deadlock-freedom of asynchronous systems

  • Samson Abramsky
  • Simon Gay
  • Rajagopal Nagarajan
Session 4
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1281)

Abstract

We present a type-based technique for the verification of deadlock-freedom in asynchronous concurrent systems. Our general approach is to start with a simple interaction category, in which objects are types containing safety specifications and morphisms are processes. We then use a specification structure to add information to the types so that they specify stronger properties. In this paper the starting point is the category ASProc and the extra type information concerns deadlock-freedom. In the resulting category ASPrOC D , combining well-typed processes preserves deadlock-freedom. It is also possible to accommodate non-compositional methods within the same framework. The systems we consider are asynchronous, hence issues of divergence become significant; our approach incorporates an elegant treatment of both divergence and successful termination. As an example, we use our methods to verify the deadlock-freedom of an implementation of the alternating-bit protocol.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    S. Abramsky, S. J. Gay, and R. Nagarajan. Interaction categories and foundations of typed concurrent programming. In M. Broy, editor, Deductive Program Design: Proceedings of the 1994 Marktoberdorf International Summer School, NATO ASI Series F: Computer and Systems Sciences. Springer-Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. Abramsky, S. J. Gay, and R. Nagarajan. Specification structures and propositions-as-types for concurrency. In G. Birtwistle and F. Moller, editors, Logics for Concurrency: Structure vs. Automata—Proceedings of the VIIIth Banff Higher Order Workshop, volume 1043 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Abramsky. Interaction Categories and communicating sequential processes. In A. W. Roscoe, editor, A Classical Mind: Essays in Honour of C. A. R. Hoare, pages 1–15. Prentice Hall International, 1994.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    L. Aceto and M. Hennessy. Termination, deadlock and divergence. Journal of the ACM, 39:147–187, January 1992.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Barr. *-autonomous categories and linear logic. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, 1(2):159–178, July 1991.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Berger, S. Gay, and R. Nagarajan. A typed calculus of deadlock-free processes. Paper in preparation, 1997.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. D. Brookes and A. W. Roscoe. Deadlock analysis in networks of communicating processes. In K. Apt, editor, Logics and Models of Concurrent Systems, volume 13, pages 305–324. NATO Advanced Study Institutes, Series F, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1985.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    K. M. Chandy and J. Misra. Deadlock absence proofs for networks of communicating processes. Information Processing Letters, 9(4), November 1979.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. W. de Bakker. Mathematical Theory of Program Correctness. Prentice Hall International, 1980.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    E. W. Dijkstra and C. S. Scholten. A class of simple communication patterns. In Selected Writings on Computing. EWD643. Springer-Verlag, 1982.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    S. J. Gay. Linear Types for Communicating Processes. PhD thesis, University of London, 1995.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    S. J. Gay and R. Nagarajan. A typed calculus of synchronous processes. In Proceedings, Tenth Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J.-Y. Girard. Linear Logic. Theoretical Computer Science, 50(1):1–102, 1987.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    R. Hoofman. Non-Standard Models of Linear Logic. PhD thesis, Universiteit Utrecht, Netherlands, 1992.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    N. Kobayashi. A partially deadlock-free typed process calculus. In Proceedings, Twelfth Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    N. Kobayashi, B. C. Pierce, and D. N. Turner. Linearity and the pi-calculus. In Proceedings, 23rd ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, 1996.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    S. Mac Lane. Categories for the Working Mathematician. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1971.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. McKinna and R. Burstall. Deliverables: A categorical approach to program development in type theory. In Proceedings of Mathematical Foundation of Computer Science, 1993.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    R. Milner. Communication and Concurrency. Prentice Hall, 1989.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    R. Nagarajan. Typed Concurrent Programs: Specification & Verification. PhD thesis, University of London, 1997. To appear.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    P. W. O'Hearn and R. D. Tennent. Relational parametricity and local variables. In Proceedings, 20th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages. ACM Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    S. S. Owicki and D. Cries. Verifying properties of parallel programs. Communications of the ACM, 19(5):279–285, May 1976.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    A. M. Pitts. Relational properties of recursively defined domains. In 8th Annual Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pages 86–97. IEEE Computer Society Press, Washington, 1993.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    A. W. Roscoe and N. Daithi. The pursuit of deadlock freedom. Information and Computation, 75(3):289–327, December 1987.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    J. Sifakis. Deadlocks and livelocks in transition systems. In Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science, volume 88 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 587–599. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1980.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    K. Takeuchi, K. Honda, and M. Kubo. An interaction-based language and its typing system. In Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Parallel Languages and Architectures, number 817 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    W. W. Wadge. An extensional treatment of dataflow deadlock. Theoretical Computer Science, 13:3–15, 1981.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Samson Abramsky
    • 1
  • Simon Gay
    • 2
  • Rajagopal Nagarajan
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science, Royal HollowayUniversity of LondonEghamUK
  3. 3.Department of ComputingImperial CollegeLondonUK
  4. 4.Electronics Research LaboratoryUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations