Abstract
Linearizability is the key correctness criterion for concurrent data structures. In recent years, numerous verification techniques for linearizability have been developed, ranging from model checking to mechanized proving. Today, these verification techniques are challenged by the fact that concurrent software is most likely to be run on multi-core processors equipped with a weak memory semantics (like total store order, TSO), making standard techniques unsound. While for model checking and static analysis techniques, approaches for handling weak memory in verification have already emerged, this is lacking for theorem-prover supported, mechanized correctness proofs.
In this paper, we present the very first approaches to handling TSO semantics in mechanized proofs of linearizability. More precisely, we introduce two approaches, one explicitly modelling store buffers and a second avoiding this modelling by instead reordering program operations. We exemplify and discuss our approach on two case studies, Burns mutual exclusion algorithm and a work stealing dequeue of Arora et al., both of which require additional memory barriers when executed on TSO.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abdulla, P.A., Atig, M.F., Chen, Y.-F., Leonardsson, C., Rezine, A.: Automatic Fence Insertion in Integer Programs via Predicate abstraction. In: Miné, A., Schmidt, D. (eds.) SAS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7460, pp. 164–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Adve, S.V., Gharachorloo, K.: Shared Memory Consistency Models: A Tutorial. IEEE Computer 29(12), 66–76 (1996)
Alglave, J., Kroening, D., Nimal, V., Tautschnig, M.: Software verification for weak memory via program transformation. In: Felleisen, M., Gardner, P. (eds.) Programming Languages and Systems. LNCS, vol. 7792, pp. 512–532. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
AMD. AMD64 Architecture Programmer’s Manual Volume 2: System Programming (2012), http://support.amd.com/us/Processor_TechDocs/24593_APM_v2.pdf
Arora, N.S., Blumofe, R.D., Greg Plaxton, C.: Thread Scheduling for Multiprogrammed Multiprocessors. In: Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM Symposium on Parallel Algorithms and Architectures, SPAA 1998, pp. 119–129. ACM, New York (1998)
Atig, M.F., Bouajjani, A., Parlato, G.: Getting Rid of Store-Buffers in TSO Analysis. In: Gopalakrishnan, G., Qadeer, S. (eds.) CAV 2011. LNCS, vol. 6806, pp. 99–115. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
Batty, M., Dodds, M., Gotsman, A.: Library abstraction for C/C++ concurrency. In: POPL, pp. 235–248 (2013)
Bouajjani, A., Derevenetc, E., Meyer, R.: Checking and Enforcing Robustness against TSO. In: Felleisen, M., Gardner, P. (eds.) Programming Languages and Systems. LNCS, vol. 7792, pp. 533–553. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
Burckhardt, S., Gotsman, A., Musuvathi, M., Yang, H.: Concurrent Library Correctness on the TSO Memory Model. In: Seidl, H. (ed.) Programming Languages and Systems. LNCS, vol. 7211, pp. 87–107. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Burnim, J., Sen, K., Stergiou, C.: Sound and complete monitoring of sequential consistency for relaxed memory models. In: Abdulla, P.A., Leino, K.R.M. (eds.) TACAS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6605, pp. 11–25. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
Burnim, J., Sen, K., Stergiou, C.: Testing concurrent programs on relaxed memory models. In: Dwyer, M.B., Tip, F. (eds.) ISSTA, pp. 122–132. ACM (2011)
Burns, J., Lynch, N.A.: Mutual Exclusion Using Indivisible Reads and Writes. In: Proceedings of the 18th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing, pp. 833–842 (1980)
Cytron, R., Ferrante, J., Rosen, B.K., Wegman, M.N., Zadeck, F.K.: Efficiently computing static single assignment form and the control dependence graph. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 13, 451–490 (1991)
Dan, A.M., Meshman, Y., Vechev, M., Yahav, E.: Predicate abstraction for relaxed memory models. In: Logozzo, F., Fähndrich, M. (eds.) SAS 2013. LNCS, vol. 7935, pp. 84–104. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
Derrick, J., Schellhorn, G., Wehrheim, H.: Mechanically verified proof obligations for linearizability. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 33(1), 4 (2011)
Derrick, J., Smith, G., Dongol, B.: Verifying linearizability on TSO architectures. In: iFM (to appear, 2014)
Gotsman, A., Musuvathi, M., Yang, H.: Show no weakness: Sequentially consistent specifications of TSO libraries. In: Aguilera, M.K. (ed.) DISC 2012. LNCS, vol. 7611, pp. 31–45. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Herlihy, M.P., Wing, J.M.: Linearizability: a correctness condition for concurrent objects. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 12(3), 463–492 (1990)
Intel, Santa Clara, CA, USA. Intel 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software Developer’s Manual Volume 3A: System Programming Guide, Part 1 (May 2012)
Kuperstein, M., Vechev, M.T., Yahav, E.: Automatic Inference of Memory Fences. SIGACT News 43(2), 108–123 (2012)
Lamport, L.: How to Make a Multiprocessor Computer That Correctly Executes Multiprocess Programs. IEEE Trans. Computers 28(9), 690–691 (1979)
Owens, S.: Reasoning about the Implementation of Concurrency Abstractions on x86-TSO. In: D’Hondt, T. (ed.) ECOOP 2010. LNCS, vol. 6183, pp. 478–503. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Corina, S.: Păsăreanu and Willem Visser. A Survey of New trends in Symbolic Execution for Software Testing and Analysis. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 11(4), 339–353 (2009)
Reif, W., Schellhorn, G., Stenzel, K., Balser, M.: Structured Specifications and Interactive Proofs with KIV. In: Automated Deduction—A Basis for Applications. Interactive Theorem Proving, vol. II, ch. 1, pp. 13–39. Kluwer (1998)
Schellhorn, G., Wehrheim, H., Derrick, J.: How to prove algorithms linearisable. In: Madhusudan, P., Seshia, S.A. (eds.) CAV 2012. LNCS, vol. 7358, pp. 243–259. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Sewell, P., Sarkar, S., Owens, S., Nardelli, F.Z., Myreen, M.O.: x86-TSO: a rigorous and usable programmer’s model for x86 multiprocessors. Commun. ACM 53(7), 89–97 (2010)
Travkin, O., Mütze, A., Wehrheim, H.: SPIN as a linearizability checker under weak memory models. In: Bertacco, V., Legay, A. (eds.) HVC 2013. LNCS, vol. 8244, pp. 311–326. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
Vafeiadis, V., Herlihy, M., Hoare, T., Shapiro, M.: Proving correctness of highly-concurrent linearisable objects. In: Torrellas, J., Chatterjee, S. (eds.) PPOPP, pp. 129–136 (2006)
Vechev, M., Yahav, E., Yorsh, G.: Experience with model checking linearizability. In: Păsăreanu, C.S. (ed.) SPIN 2009. LNCS, vol. 5578, pp. 261–278. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Travkin, O., Wehrheim, H. (2014). Handling TSO in Mechanized Linearizability Proofs. In: Yahav, E. (eds) Hardware and Software: Verification and Testing. HVC 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8855. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13338-6_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13338-6_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-13337-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-13338-6
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)