research-article

Sequential verification of serializability

Authors:

N. RinetzkyAuthors Info & Claims

POPL '10: Proceedings of the 37th annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages

Pages 31 - 42

https://doi.org/10.1145/1706299.1706305

Published: 17 January 2010 Publication History

Abstract

Serializability is a commonly used correctness condition in concurrent programming. When a concurrent module is serializable, certain other properties of the module can be verified by considering only its sequential executions. In many cases, concurrent modules guarantee serializability by using standard locking protocols, such as tree locking or two-phase locking. Unfortunately, according to the existing literature, verifying that a concurrent module adheres to these protocols requires considering concurrent interleavings.

In this paper, we show that adherence to a large class of locking protocols (including tree locking and two-phase locking) can be verified by considering only sequential executions. The main consequence of our results is that in many cases, the (manual or automatic) verification of serializability can itself be done using sequential reasoning .

References

[1]

D. Amit, N. Rinetzky, T. Reps, M. Sagiv, and E. Yahav. Comparison under abstraction for verifying linearizability. In CAV, 2007.

Digital Library

[2]

H. Attiya, G. Ramalingam, and N. Rinetzky. Sequential verification of serializability. Technical report. http://www.dcs.qmul.ac.uk/~maon/pubs/seqser.pdf.

[3]

J. Berdine, A. Chawdhary, B. Cook, D. Distefano, and P. O'Hearn. Variance analyses from invariance analyses. In POPL, 2007.

Digital Library

[4]

J. Berdine, T. Lev-Ami, R. Manevich, G. Ramalingam, and M. Sagiv. Thread quantification for concurrent shape analysis. In CAV, 2008.

Digital Library

[5]

P. A. Bernstein, V. Hadzilacos, and N. Goodman. Concurrency Control and Recovery in Database Systems. Addison-Wesley, 1987.

Digital Library

[6]

A. R. Bradley, Z. Manna, and H. B. Sipma. The polyranking principle. In ICALP, 2005.

Digital Library

[7]

V. K. Chaudhri and V. Hadzilacos. Safe locking policies for dynamic databases. In PODS, 1995.

Digital Library

[8]

S. Cherem, T. M. Chilimbi, and S. Gulwani. Inferring locks for atomic sections. In PLDI, 2008.

Digital Library

[9]

E. M. Clarke, Jr., O. Grumberg, and D. A. Peled. Model checking. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1999.

Digital Library

[10]

B. Cook, A. Podelski, and A. Rybalchenko. Termination proofs for systems code. In PLDI, 2006.

Digital Library

[11]

T. Elmas, S. Qadeer, and S. Tasiran. A calculus of atomic actions. In POPL, 2009.

Digital Library

[12]

F. Fich, M. Herlihy, and N. Shavit. On the space complexity of randomized synchronization. JACM, 45(5), 1998.

Digital Library

[13]

C. Flanagan and S. Qadeer. A type and effect system for atomicity. In PLDI, 2003.

Digital Library

[14]

M. P. Herlihy and J. M. Wing. Linearizability: a correctness condition for concurrent objects. TOPLAS, 12(3), 1990.

Digital Library

[15]

Z. M. Kedem and A. Silberschatz. A characterization of database graphs admitting a simple locking protocol. Acta Informatica, 16, 1981.

[16]

C. S. Lee, N. D. Jones, and A. M. Ben-Amram. The size-change principle for program termination. In POPL, 2001.

Digital Library

[17]

T. Lev-Ami, T. Reps, M. Sagiv, and R. Wilhelm. Putting static analysis to work for verification: A case study. In ISSTA, 2000.

Digital Library

[18]

T. Lev-Ami and M. Sagiv. TVLA: A framework for Kleene based static analysis. In SAS. Springer, 2000.

[19]

R. J. Lipton. Reduction: a method of proving properties of parallel programs. CACM, 18(12), 1975.

Digital Library

[20]

A. Loginov, T. W. Reps, and M. Sagiv. Automated verification of the deutsch-schorr-waite tree-traversal algorithm. In SAS, 2006.

Digital Library

[21]

R. Manevich, T. Lev-Ami, G. Ramalingam, M. Sagiv, and J. Berdine. Heap decomposition for concurrent shape analysis. In SAS, 2008.

Digital Library

[22]

A. Miné. The octagon abstract domain. HOSC, 19(1), 2006.

Digital Library

[23]

C. H. Papadimitriou. The serializability of concurrent database updates. J. ACM, 26(4), 1979.

Digital Library

[24]

M. Segalov, T. Lev-Ami, R. Manevich, G. Ramalingam, and M. Sagiv. Abstract transformers for thread correlation analysis. In APLAS, 2009.

Digital Library

[25]

S. D. Stoller and E. Cohen. Optimistic synchronization-based state-space reduction. FMSD, 28(3), 2006.

Digital Library

[26]

R. H. Thomas. A majority consensus approach to concurrency control for multiple copy databases. ACM Trans. Database Syst., 4(2), 1979.

Digital Library

[27]

V. Vafeiadis. Shape-value abstraction for verifying linearizability. In VMCAI, 2009.

Digital Library

[28]

G. Weikum and G. Vossen. Transactional Information Systems: Theory, Algorithms, and the Practice of Concurrency Control. Morgan Kaufmann, 2001.

Digital Library

Cited By

Yefet NAlon UYahav E(2020)Adversarial examples for models of codeProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/34282304:OOPSLA(1-30)Online publication date: 13-Nov-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3428230
Kallas KNiksic FStanford CAlur R(2020)DiffStream: differential output testing for stream processing programsProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/34282214:OOPSLA(1-29)Online publication date: 13-Nov-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3428221
Sprenger CKlenze TEilers MWolf FMüller PClochard MBasin D(2020)Igloo: soundly linking compositional refinement and separation logic for distributed system verificationProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/34282204:OOPSLA(1-31)Online publication date: 13-Nov-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3428220
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Recommendations

Sequential verification of serializability
POPL '10

Serializability is a commonly used correctness condition in concurrent programming. When a concurrent module is serializable, certain other properties of the module can be verified by considering only its sequential executions. In many cases, concurrent ...
Automatic fine-grain locking using shape properties
OOPSLA '11

We present a technique for automatically adding fine-grain locking to an abstract data type that is implemented using a dynamic forest -i.e., the data structures may be mutated, even to the point of violating forestness temporarily during the execution ...
Automatic fine-grain locking using shape properties
OOPSLA '11: Proceedings of the 2011 ACM international conference on Object oriented programming systems languages and applications

We present a technique for automatically adding fine-grain locking to an abstract data type that is implemented using a dynamic forest -i.e., the data structures may be mutated, even to the point of violating forestness temporarily during the execution ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

POPL '10: Proceedings of the 37th annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages

January 2010

520 pages

ISBN:9781605584799

DOI:10.1145/1706299

General Chair:
Manuel Hermenegildo
IMDEA-Software and T.U. of Madrid, Spain
,
Program Chair:
Jens Palsberg
UCLA, University of California, Los Angeles

ACM SIGPLAN Notices Volume 45, Issue 1
POPL '10
January 2010
500 pages
ISSN:0362-1340
EISSN:1558-1160
DOI:10.1145/1707801
Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2010 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

SIGPLAN: ACM Special Interest Group on Programming Languages

In-Cooperation

SIGACT: ACM Special Interest Group on Algorithms and Computation Theory

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 17 January 2010

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Conference

POPL '10

Sponsor:

SIGPLAN

POPL '10: The 37th Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages

January 17 - 23, 2010

Madrid, Spain

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 824 of 4,130 submissions, 20%

Upcoming Conference

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

22
Total Citations
View Citations
475
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)6
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 25 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Yefet NAlon UYahav E(2020)Adversarial examples for models of codeProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/34282304:OOPSLA(1-30)Online publication date: 13-Nov-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3428230
Kallas KNiksic FStanford CAlur R(2020)DiffStream: differential output testing for stream processing programsProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/34282214:OOPSLA(1-29)Online publication date: 13-Nov-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3428221
Sprenger CKlenze TEilers MWolf FMüller PClochard MBasin D(2020)Igloo: soundly linking compositional refinement and separation logic for distributed system verificationProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/34282204:OOPSLA(1-31)Online publication date: 13-Nov-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3428220
Raad ALahav OVafeiadis V(2020)Persistent Owicki-Gries reasoning: a program logic for reasoning about persistent programs on Intel-x86Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/34282194:OOPSLA(1-28)Online publication date: 13-Nov-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3428219
Li GZhou LYu NDing YYing MXie Y(2020)Projection-based runtime assertions for testing and debugging Quantum programsProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/34282184:OOPSLA(1-29)Online publication date: 13-Nov-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3428218
Griesemer RHu RKokke WLange JTaylor IToninho BWadler PYoshida N(2020)Featherweight goProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/34282174:OOPSLA(1-29)Online publication date: 13-Nov-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3428217
Feldman YKhyzha AEnea CMorrison ANanevski ARinetzky NShoham S(2020)Proving highly-concurrent traversals correctProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/34281964:OOPSLA(1-29)Online publication date: 13-Nov-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3428196
Attiya HRajsbaum S(2020)IndistinguishabilityCommunications of the ACM10.1145/337690263:5(90-99)Online publication date: 20-Apr-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3376902
Gilad EBrown TOskin MEtsion Y(2018)Snapshot-Based Synchronization: A Fast Replacement for Hand-over-Hand LockingEuro-Par 2018: Parallel Processing10.1007/978-3-319-96983-1_33(465-479)Online publication date: 1-Aug-2018
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96983-1_33
Vojdani VApinis KRõtov VSeidl HVene VVogler RLo DApel SKhurshid S(2016)Static race detection for device drivers: the Goblint approachProceedings of the 31st IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering10.1145/2970276.2970337(391-402)Online publication date: 25-Aug-2016
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2970276.2970337
Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Figures

Tables

Media

View Table of Conten