Advertisement

On the Implementation Complexity of Specifications of Concurrent Programs

  • Paul C. Attie
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2848)

Abstract

We present a decision algorithm for the following problem: given a specification, does there exist a concurrent program which both satisfies the specification and which can be implemented in hardware-available operations in a straightforward manner, i.e, without long correctness proofs, and without introducing excessive blocking and/or centralization? In case our decision algorithm answers “yes,” we also present a synthesis method to produce such a program. We consider specifications expressed in branching time temporal logic. Our result gives a way of classifying specifications as either “easy to implement” or “difficult to implement,” and can be regarded as the first step towards a notion of “implementation complexity” of specifications.

Keywords

Temporal Logic Shared Variable Mutual Exclusion Atomic Proposition Concurrent Program 
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. 1.
    Anderson, J.H., Moir, M.: Universal constructions for multi-object operations. In: Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (1995)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anuchitanukul, A., Manna, Z.: Realizability and synthesis of reactive modules. In: Dill, D.L. (ed.) CAV 1994. LNCS, vol. 818, pp. 156–169. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Attie, P.C., Emerson, E.A.: Synthesis of concurrent systems for an atomic read/atomic write model of computation (extended abstract). In: Fifteenth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, May 1996, pp. 111–120. ACM Press, New York (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Attie, P.C., Emerson, E.A.: Synthesis of concurrent systems for an atomic read/write model of computation. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 23(2), 187–242 (2001); Extended abstract appears in ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing PODC 1996 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Browne, M.C., Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O.: Characterizing finite kripke structures in propositional temporal logic. Theoretical Computer Science 59, 115–131 (1988)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Courtois, P.J., Heymans, H., Parnas, D.L.: Concurrent control with readers and writers. Communications of the ACM 14(10), 667–668 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dijkstra, E.W.: A Discipline of Programming. Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs (1976)MATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dill, D.L., Wong-Toi, H.: Synthesizing processes and schedulers from temporal specifications. In: Clarke, E., Kurshan, R.P. (eds.) CAV 1990. LNCS, vol. 531, pp. 272–281. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Emerson, E.A.: Temporal and modal logic. In: Van Leeuwen, J. (ed.) Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science. Formal Models and Semantics, vol. B. The MIT Press/Elsevier (1990)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Emerson, E.A., Clarke, E.M.: Using branching time temporal logic to synthesize synchronization skeletons. Sci. Comput. Program. 2, 241–266 (1982)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harris, T.L., Fraser, K., Pratt, I.: A practical multi-word compare-and-swap operation. In: IEEE Symposium on Distributed Computing (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Katz, S.: Temporary stability in parallel programs. Tech. Rep., Computer Science Dept., Technion, Haifa, Israel (1986)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kupferman, O., Madhusudan, P., Thiagarajan, P.S., Vardi, M.Y.: Open systems in reactive environments: Control and synthesis. In: Palamidessi, C. (ed.) CONCUR 2000. LNCS, vol. 1877, pp. 92–107. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kupferman, O., Vardi, M.Y.: Synthesis with incomplete information. In: 2nd International Conference on Temporal Logic, Manchester, July 1997, pp. 91–106. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1997)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Manna, Z., Wolper, P.: Synthesis of communicating processes from temporal logic speciications. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 6(1), 68–93 (1984); Also appears in Proceedings of the Workshop on Logics of Programs, Yorktown-Heights, N.Y. LNCS. Springer, Heidelberg (1981)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moir, M.: Transparent support for wait-free transactions. In: Workshop on Distributed Algorithms (1997)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pnueli, A., Rosner, R.: On the synthesis of a reactive module. In: Proceedings of the 16th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 179–190. ACM, New York (1989)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pnueli, A., Rosner, R.: On the synthesis of asynchronous reactive modules. In: Ronchi Della Rocca, S., Ausiello, G., Dezani-Ciancaglini, M. (eds.) ICALP 1989. LNCS, vol. 372, pp. 652–671. Springer, Heidelberg (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shavit, N., Touitou, D.: Software transactional memory. In: ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, Ontario, Canada (1995)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul C. Attie
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.College of Computer ScienceNortheastern UniversityBoston
  2. 2.MIT Laboratory for Computer ScienceCambridge

Personalised recommendations