Abstract
We build upon established techniques of deadlock analysis by formulating a new sound but incomplete framework for deadlock freedom analysis that tackles some sources of imprecision of current incomplete techniques. Our new deadlock candidate criterion is based on constraints derived from the analysis of the state space of pairs of components. This new characterisation represents an improvement in the accuracy of current incomplete techniques; in particular, the so-called non-hereditary deadlock-free systems (i.e. deadlock-free systems that have a deadlocking subsystem), which are neglected by most incomplete techniques, are tackled by our framework. Furthermore, we demonstrate how SAT checkers can be used to efficiently implement our framework in a way that, typically, scales better than current techniques for deadlock analysis. This is demonstrated by a series of practical experiments.
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
Notes
- 1.
Depending on the properties of the underlying communicating system, one might be able to restrict such cycles to proper cycles which have at least three nodes, and where all the nodes are distinct.
- 2.
FDR3 uses a more general representation of a process called a generalised labelled transition system (GLTS). Nevertheless, this extension can be simply converted into a traditional LTS and working with LTS makes our definitions considerably simpler.
- 3.
SDD stands for State Dependency Digraph.
- 4.
There are some significant differences with SLAP: here the propositional formula is satisfied by a possible deadlock, whereas in SLAP the propositional formula is satisfied by a proof of livelock freedom. We might also note that livelock arises from a sequence of states, whereas deadlock arises in a single one.
References
Antonino, P.R.G., Oliveira, M.M., Sampaio, A.C.A., Kristensen, K.E., Bryans, J.W.: Leadership election: an industrial SoS application of compositional deadlock verification. In: Badger, J.M., Rozier, K.Y. (eds.) NFM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8430, pp. 31–45. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)
Antonino, P., Roscoe, A.W., Gibson-Robinson, T.: Experiment package (2015). http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/people/pedro.antonino/exp.zip
Antonino, P., Roscoe, A.W., Gibson-Robinson, T.: Efficient deadlock analysis using local analysis and SAT solving. Technical report, University of Oxford (2015). http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/people/pedro.antonino/techreport.pdf
Antonino, P., Sampaio, A., Woodcock, J.: A refinement based strategy for local deadlock analysis of networks of CSP processes. In: Jones, C., Pihlajasaari, P., Sun, J. (eds.) FM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8442, pp. 62–77. Springer, Switzerland (2014)
Attie, P.C., Bensalem, S., Bozga, M., Jaber, M., Sifakis, J., Zaraket, F.A.: An abstract framework for deadlock prevention in BIP. In: Beyer, D., Boreale, M. (eds.) FMOODS/FORTE 2013. LNCS, vol. 7892, pp. 161–177. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
Attie, P.C., Chockler, H.: Efficiently verifiable conditions for deadlock-freedom of large concurrent programs. In: Cousot, R. (ed.) VMCAI 2005. LNCS, vol. 3385, pp. 465–481. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Audemard, G., Simon, L.: Predicting learnt clauses quality in modern SAT solvers. In: IJCAI 2009, San Francisco, CA, USA, pp. 399–404 (2009)
Brookes, S.D., Roscoe, A.W.: Deadlock analysis in networks of communicating processes. Distrib. Comput. 4, 209–230 (1991)
Coffman, E.G., Elphick, M., Shoshani, A.: System deadlocks. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 3(2), 67–78 (1971)
Gibson-Robinson, T., Armstrong, P., Boulgakov, A., Roscoe, A.W.: FDR3 — a modern refinement checker for CSP. In: Ábrahám, E., Havelund, K. (eds.) TACAS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8413, pp. 187–201. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)
Gibson-Robinson, T., Hansen, H., Roscoe, A.W., Wang, X.: Practical partial order reduction for CSP. In: Havelund, K., Holzmann, G., Joshi, R. (eds.) NFM 2015. LNCS, vol. 9058, pp. 188–203. Springer, Switzerland (2015)
Godefroid, P., Wolper, P.: Using partial orders for the efficient verification of deadlock freedom and safety properties. FMSD 2(2), 149–164 (1993)
Hoare, C.A.R.: Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River (1985)
Lambertz, C., Majster-Cederbaum, M.: Analyzing component-based systems on the basis of architectural constraints. In: Arbab, F., Sirjani, M. (eds.) FSEN 2011. LNCS, vol. 7141, pp. 64–79. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Martin, J.M.R.: The design and construction of deadlock-free concurrent systems. Ph.D. thesis, University of Buckingham (1996)
Martin, J.M.R., Jassim, S.A.: An efficient technique for deadlock analysis of large scale process networks. In: Fitzgerald, J., Jones, C.B., Lucas, P. (eds.) FME 1997. LNCS, vol. 1313, pp. 418–441. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)
Ouaknine, J., Palikareva, H., Roscoe, A.W., Worrell, J.: A static analysis framework for livelock freedom in CSP. LMCS 9(3), 1–53 (2013)
Roscoe, A.W., Dathi, N.: The pursuit of deadlock freedom. Inf. Comput. 75(3), 289–327 (1987)
Roscoe, A.W., Gardiner, P.H.B., Goldsmith, M.H., Hulance, J.R., Jackson, D.M., Scattergood, J.B.: Hierarchical compression for model-checking CSP or how to check 10\(^{20}\) dining philosophers for deadlock. In: Brinksma, E., Cleaveland, W.R., Larsen, K.G., Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) TACAS 1995. LNCS, vol. 1019, pp. 133–152. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)
Roscoe, A.W.: Understanding Concurrent Systems. Springer, London (2010)
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to Jöel Ouaknine and James Worrell for many fruitful discussions concerning this work. The first author is a CAPES Foundation scholarship holder (Process no: 13201/13-1). The second and third authors are partially sponsored by DARPA under agreement number FA8750-12-2-0247.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Antonino, P., Gibson-Robinson, T., Roscoe, A.W. (2016). Efficient Deadlock-Freedom Checking Using Local Analysis and SAT Solving. In: Ábrahám, E., Huisman, M. (eds) Integrated Formal Methods. IFM 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9681. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33693-0_22
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33693-0_22
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-33692-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-33693-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)