In this talk I discuss the semantics of shared-variable concurrency, aka multi-threading. There are two well-known ways of managing concurrent threads: one either uses a preemptive or a cooperative scheduling discipline. In the former, a program, or more precisely its executable version, can be interrupted at any time during its execution by an external device, the scheduler, and the resources needed for execution are then given to another concurrent component for a while. This is perfect for executing concurrent processes, which do not share memory. In this case, the programmer does not have to care about the relative performance of the various processes in the system: this is the task of the scheduler. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to program multi-threaded applications with this model. The main difficulty is with data races, that is conflicting concurrent accesses to the memory. Although it is very easy to provide a formal “interleaving” semantics for preemptive multi-threading, this semantics usually does not coincide with what is actually implemented. In particular, the grain of atomicity is generally not preserved by the implementation, and a program may be time-sliced at some points of its execution which make no sense at the user level, and the consequence is that there is no clear semantics for the race conditions (see [14] for instance). It is therefore necessary to complement preemptive multi-threading with elaborate synchronization techniques, that require a real expertise from the programmer to be used (see [3]), and to design methods to analyze concurrent programs in order to make them “thread safe”, avoiding or detecting race conditions [1,6,11]. We shall not follow the preemptive approach in our proposal for shared-memory concurrency semantics.


Recursive Call Concurrent Program Realizability Interpretation Data Race Concurrent Access 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Abadi, M., Flanagan, C., Freund, S.N.: Types for safe locking: static race detection for Java. In: ACM TOPLAS, vol. 28(2), pp. 207–255 (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barendregt, H.: Lambda Calculi with Types. In: Abramsky, S., Gabbay, D.M., Maibaum, T.S.E. (eds.) Handbook of Logic in Computer Science, vol. 2, pp. 117–309. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1992)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Birrel, A.D.: An introduction to programming with threads, SRC Report 35 (December 1989)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boudol, G.: On typing information flow. In: Van Hung, D., Wirsing, M. (eds.) ICTAC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3722, pp. 366–380. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Girard, J.-Y., Lafont, Y., Taylor, P.: Proofs and Types. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 7. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1989)MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grossman, D.: Type-safe multithreading in Cyclone. In: TLDI 2003, pp. 13–25 (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kleene, S.C.: On the interpretation of intuitionistic number theory. J. of Symbolic Logic 10, 109–124 (1945)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Landin, P.J.: The mechanical evaluation of expressions. Computer Journal 6, 308–320 (1964)MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lucassen, J.M., Gifford, D.K.: Polymorphic effect systems. In: POPL 1988, pp. 47–57 (1988)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mitchell, J.C.: Foundations for Programming Languages. MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    O’Hearn, P.W.: Resources, concurrency and local reasoning. In: Gardner, P., Yoshida, N. (eds.) CONCUR 2004. LNCS, vol. 3170, pp. 49–67. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pitts, A., Stark, I.: Operational reasoning for functions with local state. In: Gordon, A., Pitts, A. (eds.) Higher- Order Operational Techniques in Semantics, Publications of the Newton Institute, pp. 227–273. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge (1998)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Plotkin, G.: Lambda-definability and logical relations, Memo SAI-RM-4, University of Edinburgh (1973)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Reynolds, J.C.: Toward a grainless semantics for shared-variable concurrency. In: Lodaya, K., Mahajan, M. (eds.) FSTTCS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3328, pp. 35–48. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tait, W.: Intensional interpretations of functionals of finite type I. J. of Symbolic Logic 32, 198–212 (1967)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tait, W.: A realizability interpretation of the theory of species, Logic Colloquium. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 453, pp. 240–251 (1975)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gérard Boudol
    • 1
  1. 1.INRIA Sophia Antipolis 

Personalised recommendations