Advertisement

Concepts for concurrent programming

  • Fred B. Schneider
  • Gregory R. Andrews
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 224)

Abstract

Techniques for reasoning about safety properties of concurrent programs are discussed and implications for program design noted. The relationship between interference freedom and synchronization mechanisms is described. The methods are illustrated with a number of examples, including partial correctness of a bank simulation, and mutual exclusion, non-blocking, and deadlock freedom of a solution to the critical section problem.

Keywords

auxiliary variables concurrency condition synchronization conditional and unconditional atomic actions critical section problem deadlock freedom interference freedom invariant fairness liveness property mutual exclusion proof outline logic safety property scheduling policy synchronization 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [Alpern & Schneider 86]
    Alpern, B., and F.B. Schneider. Defining liveness. Information Processing Letters 21, (Oct. 1985), 181–185.Google Scholar
  2. [Andrews & Schneider 83]
    Andrews, G. and F.B. Schneider. Concepts and notations for concurrent programming. ACM Computing Surveys 15, 1 (March 1983), 3–43.Google Scholar
  3. [Ashcroft 75]
    Ashcroft, E. Proving Assertions about Parallel Programs. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 10 1 (Feb. 1975), 110–135.Google Scholar
  4. [Ashcroft 76]
    Ashcroft, E. Program verification tableaus. Technical Report CS-76-01. University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, Jan. 1976.Google Scholar
  5. [Ashcroft & Manna 71]
    Ashcroft, E., and Z. Manna. Formalization of properties of parallel programs. Machine Intelligence 6, (1971), Edinburgh University Press, 17–41.Google Scholar
  6. [Barringer 85]
    Barringer, Howard. A Survey of Verification Techniques for Parallel Programs. Lecture Notes in Computer Science Volume 191, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1985.Google Scholar
  7. [Ben Ari 82]
    Ben Ari, M. Principles of Concurrent Programming. Prentice Hall International, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1982.Google Scholar
  8. [Brinch Hansen 73]
    Brinch Hansen, P. Concurrent programming concepts. ACM Computing Surveys 5, 4 (Dec. 1973), 223–245.Google Scholar
  9. [Brinch Hansen 77]
    Brinch Hansen, P. The Architecture of Concurrent Programs, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1977.Google Scholar
  10. [Burstall 68]
    Burstall, R.M. Proving properties of programs by structural induction. Experimental Programming Reports, No. 17. DMIP, Edinburgh, 1968.Google Scholar
  11. [Clint 73]
    Clint, M. Program proving: Coroutines. Acta Informatica 2, 1 (1973), 50–63.Google Scholar
  12. [Constable & O'Donnell 78]
    Constable, R.L. and M.J. O'Donnell. A Programming Logic. Winthrop Publishers, Cambridge, Mass., 1978.Google Scholar
  13. [de Bakker 68]
    de Bakker, J.W. Axiomatics of simple assignment statements. M.R. 94, Mathematisch Centrum, Amsterdam, 1968.Google Scholar
  14. [Dijkstra 76]
    Dijkstra, E.W. A personal summary of the Gries-Owicki theory. EWD 554, in Selected Writings on Computing: A Personal Perspective, E.W. Dijkstra, Springer Verlag, New York, 1982.Google Scholar
  15. [Dijkstra 77]
    On making solutions more and more fine-grained. EWD 622, in Selected Writings on Computing: A Personal Perspective, E.W. Dijkstra, Springer Verlag, New York, 1982.Google Scholar
  16. [Dijkstra 81]
    Dijkstra, E.W. An Assertional Proof of a Protocol by G.L. Peterson. Technical Report EWD 779, Burroughs, Corp. Feb. 1981.Google Scholar
  17. [Fillman & Friedman 84]
    Fillman, R.E. and D.P. Friedman. Coordinated Computing Tools and Techniques for Distributed Software. McGraw Hill, New York, New York, 1983.Google Scholar
  18. [Floyd 67]
    Floyd, R.W. Assigning meanings to programs. Proc. of Symposia in Applied Mathematics 19, 1967, 19–31.Google Scholar
  19. [Francez 86]
    Francez, N. Fairness. To appear. Springer Verlag, New York, 1986.Google Scholar
  20. [Goldstine & von Neumann 47]
    Goldstine, H.H. and J. von Neumann. Planning and coding of problems for an electronic computing instrument. Report for U.S. Ord. Dept. In A. Taub (ed.) Collected Works of J. von Neumann, New York, Pergamon, Vol. 5, 1965, 80–151.Google Scholar
  21. [Gries 78]
    Gries, D. The multiple assignment statement. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering SE-4, 2 (March 1978), 87–93.Google Scholar
  22. [Halpern 82]
    Halpern, Brent T. Verifying Concurrent Processes Using Temporal Logic. Lecture Notes in Computer Science Volume 129, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1982.Google Scholar
  23. [Hoare 69]
    Hoare, C.A.R. An axiomatic basis for computer programming. CACM 12, 10 (Oct. 1969), 576–580.Google Scholar
  24. [Hoare 72]
    Hoare, C.A.R. Towards a theory of parallel programming. In Operating Systems Techniques, C.A.R. Hoare and R. Perrot (eds.), Academic Press, New York, 1972.Google Scholar
  25. [Hoare 75]
    Hoare, C.A.R. Parallel programming: An axiomatic approach. Computer Languages 1, 1975, Pergamon Press, 151–160.Google Scholar
  26. [Hoare 85]
    Hoare, C.A.R. Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice Hall, International, New Jersey, 1985.Google Scholar
  27. [Holt 83]
    Concurrent Euclid, The UNIX System, and Tunis. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1983.Google Scholar
  28. [Holt et al. 78]
    Holt, R.C., G.S. Graham, E.D. Lazowska, and M.A. Scott. Structured Concurrent Programming with Operating Systems Applications. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1978.Google Scholar
  29. [Igarashi 64]
    Igarashi, S. An axiomatic approach to equivalence problems of algorithms with applications. Ph.D. thesis, University of Tokoyo, 1964.Google Scholar
  30. [Lamport 76]
    Lamport, L. Towards a theory of correctness for multi-user data base systems. Technical Report CA-7610-0712, Massachusetts Computer Associates, Wakefield, Mass., Oct. 1976.Google Scholar
  31. [Lamport 77]
    Lamport, L. Proving the correctness of multiprocess programs. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering SE-3, 2 (March 1977), 125–143.Google Scholar
  32. [Lamport 80]
    Lamport, L. The “Hoare Logic” of concurrent programs. Acta Informatica 14, (1980), 21–37.Google Scholar
  33. [Lamport & Schneider 84]
    The “Hoare Logic” of CSP and all that. ACM TOPLAS 6, 2 (April 1984), 281–296.Google Scholar
  34. [Lamport 85]
    Lamport, L. Logical foundation. In Distributed Systems—Methods and Tools for Specification. (M. Paul and H.J. Siegert eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science Volume 190, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1985.Google Scholar
  35. [Lehman et al. 81]
    Lehman, D., A. Pnueli, and J. Stavi. Impartiality, justice and fairness: The ethics of concurrent termination. Proc. Eighth Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming, Lecture Notes in Computer Science Volume 115, Springer-Verlag, 1981, 264–277.Google Scholar
  36. [Levitt 72]
    Levitt, K.N. The application of program-proving techniques to the verification of synchronization processes. Proc. AFIPS Fall Joint Computer Conference, AFIPS Press, 1972, 33–47.Google Scholar
  37. [McCarthy 62]
    McCarthy, J. Towards a mathematical science of computation. Proc IFIP Congress 1962, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1962, 21–28.Google Scholar
  38. [Morris & Jones 84]
    Morris, F.L. and C.B. Jones. An early program proof by Alan Turing. Annals of the History of Computing 6, 2 (April 1984), 139–143.Google Scholar
  39. [Naur 66]
    Naur, P. Proof of algorithms by general snapshots. BIT 6, 4, 310–316.Google Scholar
  40. [Owicki 75]
    Axiomatic proof techniques for parallel programs. Ph.D. Thesis, Computer Science Department, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, 1975.Google Scholar
  41. [Owicki & Gries 76]
    An axiomatic proof technique for parallel programs I. Acta Informatica 6, (1976), 319–340.Google Scholar
  42. [Paul & Siegert 85]
    Paul, M. and H.J. Siegert (eds.). Distributed Systems—Methods and Tools for Specification. Lecture Notes in Computer Science Volume 190, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1985.Google Scholar
  43. [Peterson 81]
    Peterson, G.L. Myths about the mutual exclusion problem. Information Processing Letters 12, 3 (June 1981), 115–116.Google Scholar
  44. [Turing 49]
    Turing, A.M. Checking a large routine. Report of a Conference on High Speed Automatic Calculating Machines, University Mathematics Laboratory, Cambridge, 67–69.Google Scholar
  45. [Yanov 58]
    Yanov, Yu I. Logical operator schemes. Kybernetika 1 (1958).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fred B. Schneider
    • 1
  • Gregory R. Andrews
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceCornell UniversityIthacaU.S.A.
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of ArizonaTucsonU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations