Advertisement

Causal Atomicity

  • Azadeh Farzan
  • P. Madhusudan
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4144)

Abstract

Atomicity is an important generic specification that assures that a programmer can pretend blocks occur sequentially in any execution. We define a notion of atomicity based on causality. We model the control flow of a program with threads using a Petri net that naturally abstracts data, and faithfully captures the independence and interaction between threads. The causality between events in the partially ordered executions of the Petri net is used to define the notion of causal atomicity. We show that causal atomicity is a robust notion that many correct programs adopt, and show how we can effectively check causal atomicity using Petri net tools based on unfoldings, which exploit the concurrency in the net to yield automatic partial-order reduction in the state-space.

Keywords

Model Check Code Block Mutual Exclusion Sequential Execution Model Check Algorithm 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Alur, R., McMillan, K., Peled, D.: Model-checking of correctness conditions for concurrent objects. Inf. Comput. 160(1-2), 167–188 (2000)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bernstein, P., Hadzilacos, V., Goodman, N.: Concurrency control and recovery in database systems. Addison-Wesley Longman (1987)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chaki, S., Clarke, E., Kidd, N., Reps, T., Touili, T.: Verifying concurrent message-passing C programs with recursive calls. In: Hermanns, H., Palsberg, J. (eds.) TACAS 2006 and ETAPS 2006. LNCS, vol. 3920, pp. 334–349. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Diekert, V., Rozenberg, G.: The Book of Traces. World Scientific Publishing Co., Singapore (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Esparza, J., Romer, S., Vogler, W.: An improvement of McMillan’s unfolding algorithm. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) TACAS 1996. LNCS, vol. 1055, pp. 87–106. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eswaran, K., Gray, J., Lorie, R., Traiger, I.: The notions of consistency and predicate locks in a database system. Commun. ACM 19(11), 624–633 (1976)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Flanagan, C.: Verifying commit-atomicity using model-checking. In: Graf, S., Mounier, L. (eds.) SPIN 2004. LNCS, vol. 2989, pp. 252–266. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Flanagan, C., Freund, S.: Atomizer: a dynamic atomicity checker for multithreaded programs. In: POPL, pp. 256–267 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Flanagan, C., Freund, S., Qadeer, S.: Exploiting purity for atomicity. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 31(4), 275–291 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Flanagan, C., Qadeer, S.: Types for atomicity. In: TLDI, pp. 1–12 (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Flé, M., Roucairol, G.: On serializability of iterated transactions. In: PODC, pp. 194–200 (1982)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grahlmann, B.: The PEP tool. In: Grumberg, O. (ed.) CAV 1997. LNCS, vol. 1254, pp. 440–443. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hatcliff, J., Robby, Dwyer, M.: Verifying atomicity specifications for concurrent object-oriented software using model-checking. In: Steffen, B., Levi, G. (eds.) VMCAI 2004. LNCS, vol. 2937, pp. 175–190. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jensen, K.: Coloured Petri nets: basic concepts, analysis methods and practical use, 2nd edn., vol. 1. Springer, London (1996)MATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lipton, R.: Reduction: A method of proving properties of parallel programs. Commun. ACM 18(12), 717–721 (1975)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lodaya, K., Mukund, M., Ramanujam, R., Thiagarajan, P.S.: Models and logics for true concurrency. Technical Report TCS–90–3, School of Mathematics Internal (1990)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    McMillan, K.: A technique of state space search based on unfolding. Formal Methods in System Design 6(1), 45–65 (1995)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nielsen, M., Plotkin, G., Winsker, G.: Peri nets, event structures and domains — part i. Theoretical Computer Science 13, 85–108 (1981)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Papadimitriou, C.: The theory of database concurrency control. Computer Science Press, Inc., New York (1986)MATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Qadeer, S., Wu, D.: KISS: keep it simple and sequential. In: PLDI, pp. 14–24 (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Silberschatz, A., Korth, H., Sudarshan, S.: Database Systems Concepts, 5th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wang, L., Stoller, S.: Run-time analysis for atomicity. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 89(2) (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wang, L., Stoller, S.: Static analysis of atomicity for programs with non-blocking synchronization. In: PPOPP, pp. 61–71 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Azadeh Farzan
    • 1
  • P. Madhusudan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 

Personalised recommendations