Advertisement

Serializability in distributed systems with handshaking

  • R. J. R. Back
  • R. Kurki-Suonio
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 317)

Abstract

Computations in distributed systems can be described in terms of actions in which one or more processes synchronize by common handshakes. A general formulation for such action systems is given, together with two interleaved execution models: a serial model that allows simple temporal reasoning, and a concurrent model that reflects a distributed execution environment more faithfully. The equivalence of the two models is shown, up to fairness properties. The relationships between the natural fairness and justice notions in the two models are analyzed. This leads to sufficient conditions under which reasoning in terms of the serial model is valid even when the execution environment guarantees the weaker properties of the concurrent model only. Proving that these conditions hold for a particular system can be carried out totally within the simpler serial model. Finally, the results are discussed from the point of view of partial order computations.

Keywords

Joint Action Execution Environment Observation Sequence Concurrent Model Concurrent Computation 
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. [Ada]
    Ada Programming Language. American National Standards Institute, Inc., ANSI/MIL-STD-1815-A-1983, 1983.Google Scholar
  2. [Apt]
    Apt, K. R., Correctness proofs of distributed termination algorithms. In Advanced NATO Seminar on Logics and Models for Verification and Specification of Concurrent Systems. INRIA, 1984.Google Scholar
  3. [AFK]
    Apt, K. R., N. Francez, and S. Katz, Appraising fairness in languages for distributed programming. In 14th ACM Conference on Principles of Programming Languages, 1987, 189–198.Google Scholar
  4. [AF]
    Attie, P., and N. Francez, Fairness and hyperfairness in multi-party interactions. Manuscript 1988.Google Scholar
  5. [Ba]
    Back, R. J. R., Refining atomicity in parallel algorithms. Manuscript 1988.Google Scholar
  6. [BHK]
    Back, R. J. R., E. Hartikainen, and R. Kurki-Suonio, Multi-process handshaking on local area networks. Åbo Akademi, Department of Information Processing, Report 42, 1985.Google Scholar
  7. [BK83]
    Back, R. J. R., and R. Kurki-Suonio, Decentralization of process nets with a centralized control. In 2nd ACM SIGACT-SIGOPS Symp. on Principles of Distributed Computing, 1983, 131–142.Google Scholar
  8. [BK84a]
    Back, R. J. R., and R. Kurki-Suonio, A case study in constructing distributed algorithms: distributed exchange sort. In Proc. Winter School on Theoretical Computer Science, Finnish Society of Information Processing Science 1984, 1–33.Google Scholar
  9. [BK84b]
    Back, R. J. R., and R. Kurki-Suonio, Co-operation in distributed systems using symmetric multiprocess handshaking. Åbo Akademi, Department of Information Processing, Report A 34, 1984.Google Scholar
  10. [BK85]
    Back, R. J. R., and R. Kurki-Suonio, Serializability in distributed systems with handshaking. Carnegie-Mellon University, Report CMU-CS-85-109, 1985.Google Scholar
  11. [BK87a]
    Back, R. J. R., and R. Kurki-Suonio, A new paradigm for the design of concurrent systems. Ada Letters VII, 6, 1987, 110–112.Google Scholar
  12. [BK87b]
    Back, R. J. R., and R. Kurki-Suonio, Distributed Co-operation with Action Systems. Åbo Akademi, Department of Information Processing, Report A 56, 1987. A revised version of [BK84b], submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  13. [CM86]
    Chandy, K. M., and J. Misra, An example of stepwise refinement of distributed programs: quiescence detection. ACM Trans. Programming Languages and Systems 8, 3, 1986, 326–343.Google Scholar
  14. [CM88]
    Chandy, K. M., and J. Misra, A Foundation of Parallel Program Design. Addison-Wesley 1988.Google Scholar
  15. [Di]
    Dijkstra, E. W., Hierarchical ordering of sequential processes. In Operating Systems Techniques, eds. C. A. R. Hoare and R. H. Perrott, Academic Press 1972.Google Scholar
  16. [Fr]
    Francez, N., Fairness. Springer-Verlag 1986.Google Scholar
  17. [GFK]
    Grumberg, O., N. Francez, and S. Katz, Fair termination of communicating processes. In 3rd ACM SIGACT-SIGOPS Symp. on Principles of Distributed Computing, 1984, 254–265.Google Scholar
  18. [Ho]
    Hoare, C. A. R., Communicating sequential processes. Communications of the ACM 21, 8, August 1978, 666–677. Reprinted in Communications of the ACM 26, 1, January 1983, 100–106.Google Scholar
  19. [KdR]
    Kuiper, R., and W. P. de Roever, Fairness assumptions for CSP in a temporal logic framework. In Formal Description of Programming Concepts-II, ed. Dines Bjørner, North-Holland 1983, 159–167.Google Scholar
  20. [KK]
    Kurki-Suonio, R., and T. Kankaanpää, On the design of reactive systems. Manuscript submitted for publication, 1987.Google Scholar
  21. [La]
    Lamport, L., Time, clocks, and ordering of events in a distributed system. Communications of the ACM 21, July 1978, 558–565.Google Scholar
  22. [MP]
    Manna, Z., and A. Pnueli, How to cook a temporal proof system for your pet language. In Tenth ACM Conference on Principles of Programming Languages, 1983, 141–154.Google Scholar
  23. [Re]
    Reisig, W., Partial order semantics versus interleaving semantics for CSP-like languages and its impact on fairness. In Automata, Languages and Programming, ed. J. Paredaens, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 172, Springer-Verlag 1984, 403–413.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. J. R. Back
    • 1
  • R. Kurki-Suonio
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Information ProcessingÅbo AkademiÅboFinland
  2. 2.Computer Systems LaboratoryTampere University of TechnologyTampereFinland

Personalised recommendations