Controlling Reversibility in Higher-Order Pi

  • Ivan Lanese
  • Claudio Antares Mezzina
  • Alan Schmitt
  • Jean-Bernard Stefani
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6901)

Abstract

We present in this paper a fine-grained rollback primitive for the higher-order π-calculus (HOπ), that builds on the reversibility apparatus of reversible HOπ [9]. The definition of a proper semantics for such a primitive is a surprisingly delicate matter because of the potential interferences between concurrent rollbacks. We define in this paper a high-level operational semantics which we prove sound and complete with respect to reversible HOπ backward reduction. We also define a lower-level distributed semantics, which is closer to an actual implementation of the rollback primitive, and we prove it to be fully abstract with respect to the high-level semantics.

Keywords

Operational Semantic Transitive Closure Parallel Composition Variable Convention Controlling Reversibility 
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.
    Avizienis, A., Laprie, J.C., Randell, B., Landwehr, C.E.: Basic concepts and taxonomy of dependable and secure computing. IEEE Trans. Dependable Sec. Comput. 1(1) (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bennett, C.H.: Notes on the history of reversible computation. IBM Journal of Research and Development 32(1) (1988)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chothia, T., Duggan, D.: Abstractions for fault-tolerant global computing. Theor. Comput. Sci. 322(3) (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Danos, V., Krivine, J.: Reversible communicating systems. In: Gardner, P., Yoshida, N. (eds.) CONCUR 2004. LNCS, vol. 3170, pp. 292–307. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Danos, V., Krivine, J.: Transactions in RCCS. In: Abadi, M., de Alfaro, L. (eds.) CONCUR 2005. LNCS, vol. 3653, pp. 398–412. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Elnozahy, E.N., Alvisi, L., Wang, Y.M., Johnson, D.B.: A survey of rollback-recovery protocols in message-passing systems. ACM Comput. Surv. 34(3) (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Field, J., Varela, C.A.: Transactors: a programming model for maintaining globally consistent distributed state in unreliable environments. In: Proc. of POPL 2005. ACM, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lanese, I., Mezzina, C.A., Schmitt, A., Stefani, J.B.: Controlling reversibility in higher-order pi (TR), http://www.cs.unibo.it/~lanese/publications/fulltext/TR-rollpi.pdf.gz
  9. 9.
    Lanese, I., Mezzina, C.A., Stefani, J.B.: Reversing higher-order pi. In: Gastin, P., Laroussinie, F. (eds.) CONCUR 2010. LNCS, vol. 6269, pp. 478–493. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leeman, G.B.: A formal approach to undo operations in programming languages. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 8(1) (1986)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sangiorgi, D.: Expressing Mobility in Process Algebras: First-Order and Higher-Order Paradigms. PhD thesis CST–99–93, University of Edinburgh (1992)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ziarek, L., Jagannathan, S.: Lightweight checkpointing for concurrent ML. J. Funct. Program. 20(2) (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ivan Lanese
    • 1
  • Claudio Antares Mezzina
    • 2
  • Alan Schmitt
    • 2
  • Jean-Bernard Stefani
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Bologna & INRIAItaly
  2. 2.INRIA Grenoble-Rhône-AlpesFrance

Personalised recommendations