research-article

Open access

The semantics of transactions and weak memory in x86, Power, ARM, and C++

Authors:

Tyler Sorensen,

John WickersonAuthors Info & Claims

PLDI 2018: Proceedings of the 39th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation

Pages 211 - 225

https://doi.org/10.1145/3192366.3192373

Published: 11 June 2018 Publication History

Abstract

Weak memory models provide a complex, system-centric semantics for concurrent programs, while transactional memory (TM) provides a simpler, programmer-centric semantics. Both have been studied in detail, but their combined semantics is not well understood. This is problematic because such widely-used architectures and languages as x86, Power, and C++ all support TM, and all have weak memory models.

Our work aims to clarify the interplay between weak memory and TM by extending existing axiomatic weak memory models (x86, Power, ARMv8, and C++) with new rules for TM. Our formal models are backed by automated tooling that enables (1) the synthesis of tests for validating our models against existing implementations and (2) the model-checking of TM-related transformations, such as lock elision and compiling C++ transactions to hardware. A key finding is that a proposed TM extension to ARMv8 currently being considered within ARM Research is incompatible with lock elision without sacrificing portability or performance.

Supplementary Material

WEBM File (p211-chong.webm)

Download
113.08 MB

References

[1]

Allon Adir, Dave Goodman, Daniel Hershcovich, Oz Hershkovitz, Bryan Hickerson, Karen Holtz, Wisam Kadry, Anatoly Koyfman, John Ludden, Charles Meissner, Amir Nahir, Randall R. Pratt, Mike Schliffli, Brett St Onge, Brian Thompto, Elena Tsanko, and Avi Ziv. 2014. Verification of Transactional Memory in POWER8. In Design Automation Conference (DAC).

Digital Library

[2]

Sarita V. Adve and Mark D. Hill. 1990. Weak Ordering - A New Definition. In Int. Symp. on Computer Architecture (ISCA).

Digital Library

[3]

Jade Alglave, Luc Maranget, Susmit Sarkar, and Peter Sewell. 2010. Fences in Weak Memory Models. In Computer Aided Verification (CAV).

Digital Library

[4]

Jade Alglave, Luc Maranget, Susmit Sarkar, and Peter Sewell. 2011. Litmus: Running Tests Against Hardware. In Int. Conf. on Tools and Algorithms for Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS).

Digital Library

[5]

Jade Alglave, Luc Maranget, and Michael Tautschnig. 2014. Herding cats: modelling, simulation, testing, and data-mining for weak memory. ACM Trans. on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS) 36, 2 (2014).

Digital Library

[6]

Jade Alglave, Luc Maranget, and Michael Tautschnig. 2014. Herding cats: modelling, simulation, testing, and data-mining for weak memory (online companion material). (2014). http://moscova.inria.fr/ ~maranget/cats/model-power/all.html#sec4 .

[7]

ARM. 2017. ARMv8 Architecture Reference Manual. https://static.docs. arm.com/ddi0487/b/DDI0487B_a_armv8_arm.pdf

[8]

Mark Batty, Mike Dodds, and Alexey Gotsman. 2013. Library Abstraction for C/C++ Concurrency. In ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL).

Digital Library

[9]

Mark Batty, Alastair F. Donaldson, and John Wickerson. 2016. Overhauling SC atomics in C11 and OpenCL. In ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL).

Digital Library

[10]

Mark Batty, Kayvan Memarian, Kyndylan Nienhuis, Jean PichonPharabod, and Peter Sewell. 2015. The Problem of Programming Language Concurrency Semantics. In Europ. Symp. on Programming (ESOP).

[11]

Armin Biere. 2010. Lingeling, Plingeling, PicoSAT and PrecoSAT at SAT Race 2010. Technical Report 10/1. Institute for Formal Models and Verification, Johannes Kepler University. http://fmv.jku.at/papers/ Biere-FMV-TR-10-1.pdf

[12]

Colin Blundell, E. C. Lewis, and Milo M. K. Martin. 2006. Subtleties of Transactional Memory Atomicity Semantics. IEEE Computer Architecture Letters 5, 2 (2006).

Digital Library

[13]

Hans-J. Boehm and Sarita V. Adve. 2008. Foundations of the C++ Concurrency Memory Model. In ACM Conf. on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI).

Digital Library

[14]

James Bornholt and Emina Torlak. 2017. Synthesizing Memory Models from Framework Sketches and Litmus Tests. In ACM Conf. on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI).

Digital Library

[15]

Harold W. Cain, Brad Frey, Derek Williams, Maged M. Michael, Cathy May, and Hung Le. 2013. Robust Architectural Support for Transactional Memory in the Power Architecture. In Int. Symp. on Computer Architecture (ISCA).

Digital Library

[16]

Andrea Cerone, Giovanni Bernardi, and Alexey Gotsman. 2015. A Framework for Transactional Consistency Models with Atomic Visibility. In Int. Conf. on Concurrency Theory (CONCUR).

[17]

JaeWoong Chung, Michael Dalton, Hari Kannan, and Christos Kozyrakis. 2008. Thread-Safe Dynamic Binary Translation using Transactional Memory. In Int. Symp. on High Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA).

[18]

William W. Collier. 1992. Reasoning about Parallel Architectures. Prentice Hall.

Digital Library

[19]

Luke Dalessandro and Michael L. Scott. 2009. Strong Isolation is a Weak Idea. In ACM Workshop on Transactional Computing (TRANSACT). http://transact09.cs.washington.edu/33_paper.pdf

[20]

Luke Dalessandro, Michael L. Scott, and Michael F. Spear. 2010. Transactions as the Foundation of a Memory Consistency Model. In Int. Conf. on Distributed Computing (DISC).

Digital Library

[21]

Will Deacon. 2016. The ARMv8 Application Level Memory Model. https://github.com/herd/herdtools7/blob/master/herd/libdir/ aarch64.cat . (2016).

[22]

Dave Dice, Yossi Lev, Mark Moir, and Dan Nussbaum. 2009. Early Experience with a Commercial Hardware Transactional Memory Implementation. In Int. Conf. on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS).

Digital Library

[23]

Brijesh Dongol, Radha Jagadeesan, and James Riely. 2018. Transactions in Relaxed Memory Architectures. In ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL).

Digital Library

[24]

Shaked Flur, Kathryn E. Gray, Christopher Pulte, Susmit Sarkar, Ali Sezgin, Luc Maranget, Will Deacon, and Peter Sewell. 2016. Modelling the ARMv8 Architecture, Operationally: Concurrency and ISA. In ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL).

Digital Library

[25]

Dan Grossman, Jeremy Manson, and William Pugh. 2006. What Do High-Level Memory Models Mean for Transactions?. In ACM Workshop on Memory Systems Performance & Correctness (MSPC).

Digital Library

[26]

Mark Hachman. 2014. Intel finds specialized TSX enterprise bug on Haswell, Broadwell CP Us. PCWorld (August 2014). http://www. pcworld.com/article/2464880

[27]

Tim Harris, James Larus, and Ravi Rajwar. 2010. Transactional Memory (2nd ed.). Morgan & Claypool.

Digital Library

[28]

Maurice Herlihy and J. Eliot B. Moss. 1993. Transactional Memory: Architectural Support for Lock-Free Data Structures. In Int. Symp. on Computer Architecture (ISCA).

Digital Library

[29]

IBM. 2015. Power ISA (Version 3.0).

[30]

Intel. 2017. 6th Generation Intel Processor Family: Specification Update. (June 2017). https://www3.intel.com/content/ dam/www/public/us/en/documents/specification-updates/ desktop-6th-gen-core-family-spec-update.pdf

[31]

Intel. 2017. Intel 64 and IA-32 Architectures: Software Developer’s Manual. https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-sdm

[32]

Intel Developer Zone. 2012. Transactional Synchronization in Haswell. (February 2012). https://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2012/02/07/ transactional-synchronization-in-haswell

[33]

ISO/IEC. 2011. Programming languages – C++. International standard 14882:2011.

[34]

ISO/IEC. 2015. Technical Specification for C++ Extensions for Transactional Memory. Draft technical specification. http://www.open-std. org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2015/n4514.pdf

[35]

Daniel Jackson. 2012. Software Abstractions – Logic, Language, and Analysis (revised ed.). MIT Press.

Digital Library

[36]

Eric H. Jensen, Gary W. Hagensen, and Jeffrey M. Broughton. 1987. A New Approach to Exclusive Data Access in Shared Memory Multiprocessors. Technical Report 97663. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/212157.pdf

[37]

Michalis Kokologiannakis, Ori Lahav, Konstantinos Sagonas, and Viktor Vafeiadis. 2018. Effective Stateless Model Checking for C/C++ Concurrency. In ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL).

Digital Library

[38]

Ori Lahav, Viktor Vafeiadis, Jeehoon Kang, Chung-Kil Hur, and Derek Dreyer. 2017. Repairing Sequential Consistency in C/C++11. In ACM Conf. on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI).

Digital Library

[39]

Leslie Lamport. 1979. How to Make a Multiprocessor Computer That Correctly Executes Multiprocess Programs. IEEE Trans. Comput. C-28, 9 (1979).

Digital Library

[40]

Daniel Lustig, Andrew Wright, Alexandros Papakonstantinou, and Olivier Giroux. 2017. Automated Synthesis of Comprehensive Memory Model Litmus Test Suites. In Int. Conf. on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS).

Digital Library

[41]

Jan-Willem Maessen and Arvind. 2007. Store Atomicity for Transactional Memory. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 174, 9 (2007).

Digital Library

[42]

Chaiyasit Manovit, Sudheendra Hangal, Hassan Chafi, Austen McDonald, Christos Kozyrakis, and Kunle Olukotun. 2006. Testing Implementations of Transactional Memory. In Int. Conf. on Parallel Architectures and Compilation Techniques (PACT).

Digital Library

[43]

Kyndylan Nienhuis, Kayvan Memarian, and Peter Sewell. 2016. An Operational Semantics for C/C++11 Concurrency. In ACM Int. Conf. on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA).

Digital Library

[44]

Scott Owens, Susmit Sarkar, and Peter Sewell. 2009. A Better x86 Memory Model: x86-TSO. In Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics (TPHOLs).

Digital Library

[45]

Christopher Pulte, Shaked Flur, Will Deacon, Jon French, Susmit Sarkar, and Peter Sewell. 2018. Simplifying ARM Concurrency: Multicopyatomic Axiomatic and Operational Models for ARMv8. In ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL).

Digital Library

[46]

Ravi Rajwar and James R. Goodman. 2001. Speculative Lock Elision: Enabling Highly Concurrent Multithreaded Execution. In Int. Symp. on Microarchitecture (MICRO).

Digital Library

[47]

Susmit Sarkar, Kayvan Memarian, Scott Owens, Mark Batty, Peter Sewell, Luc Maranget, Jade Alglave, and Derek Williams. 2012. Synchronising C/C++ and POWER. In ACM Conf. on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI).

Digital Library

[48]

Susmit Sarkar, Peter Sewell, Jade Alglave, Luc Maranget, and Derek Williams. 2011. Understanding POWER Multiprocessors. In ACM Conf. on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI).

Digital Library

[49]

Dennis Shasha and Marc Snir. 1988. Efficient and Correct Execution of Parallel Programs that Share Memory. ACM Trans. on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS) 10, 2 (1988).

Digital Library

[50]

Tatiana Shpeisman, Ali-Reza Adl-Tabatabai, Robert Geva, Yang Ni, and Adam Welc. 2009. Towards Transactional Memory Semantics for C++. In Symp. on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures (SPAA).

Digital Library

[51]

Tatiana Shpeisman, Vijay Menon, Ali-Reza Adl-Tabatabai, Steven Balensiefer, Dan Grossman, Richard L. Hudson, Katherine F. Moore, and Bratin Saha. 2007. Enforcing Isolation and Ordering in STM. In ACM Conf. on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI).

Digital Library

[52]

Tyler Sorensen, Alastair F. Donaldson, Mark Batty, Ganesh Gopalakrishnan, and Zvonimir Rakamarić. 2016. Portable Inter-workgroup Barrier Synchronisation for GP Us. In ACM Int. Conf. on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA).

Digital Library

[53]

Srdan Stipić, Vesna Smiljković, Osman Unsal, Adrián Cristal, and Mateo Valero. 2013. Profile-Guided Transaction Coalescing—Lowering Transactional Overheads by Merging Transactions. ACM Transactions on Architecture and Code Optimization 10, 4 (2013).

Digital Library

[54]

Andrew Waterman and Krste Asanović (Eds.). 2017. The RISC-V Instruction Set Manual, Volume I: User-Level ISA (version 2.2). RISC-V Foundation. https://riscv.org/specifications/

[55]

John Wickerson, Mark Batty, Tyler Sorensen, and George A. Constantinides. 2017. Automatically Comparing Memory Consistency Models. In ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL).

Digital Library

[56]

Michael Wong. 2014. Transactional Language Constructs for C++. In C++ Conference (CppCon). http://bit.ly/2tWk4uz

Cited By

Raad ALahav OWickerson JBalcer PDongol B(2024)Intel PMDK Transactions: Specification, Validation and ConcurrencyProgramming Languages and Systems10.1007/978-3-031-57267-8_6(150-179)Online publication date: 6-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-57267-8_6
Dalvandi SDongol B(2022)Implementing and verifying release-acquire transactional memory in C11Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/35633526:OOPSLA2(1817-1844)Online publication date: 31-Oct-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3563352
Windsor MDonaldson AWickerson J(2022)High‐coverage metamorphic testing of concurrency support in C compilersSoftware Testing, Verification and Reliability10.1002/stvr.181232:4Online publication date: 22-Mar-2022
https://doi.org/10.1002/stvr.1812
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

The semantics of transactions and weak memory in x86, Power, ARM, and C++
1. Theory of computation
  1. Models of computation
    1. Concurrency
      1. Parallel computing models
  2. Semantics and reasoning
    1. Program semantics

Recommendations

The semantics of transactions and weak memory in x86, Power, ARM, and C++
PLDI '18

Weak memory models provide a complex, system-centric semantics for concurrent programs, while transactional memory (TM) provides a simpler, programmer-centric semantics. Both have been studied in detail, but their combined semantics is not well ...
Towards transactional memory semantics for C++
SPAA '09: Proceedings of the twenty-first annual symposium on Parallelism in algorithms and architectures

Transactional memory (TM) eliminates many problems associated with lock-based synchronization. Over recent years, much progress has been made in software and hardware implementation techniques for TM. However, before transactional memory can be ...
Safe open-nested transactions through ownership
PPoPP '09: Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGPLAN symposium on Principles and practice of parallel programming

Researchers in transactional memory (TM) have proposed open nesting as a methodology for increasing the concurrency of transactional programs. The idea is to ignore ``low-level'' memory operations of an open-nested transaction when detecting conflicts ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

PLDI 2018: Proceedings of the 39th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation

June 2018

825 pages

ISBN:9781450356985

DOI:10.1145/3192366

General Chair:
Jeffrey S. Foster
University of Maryland at College Park, USA
,
Program Chair:
Dan Grossman
University of Washington, USA

ACM SIGPLAN Notices Volume 53, Issue 4
PLDI '18
April 2018
834 pages
ISSN:0362-1340
EISSN:1558-1160
DOI:10.1145/3296979
Editor:
Matthew Fluet
Rodchester Institude of Technology
Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2018 Owner/Author.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike International 4.0 License.

Sponsors

SIGPLAN: ACM Special Interest Group on Programming Languages

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 11 June 2018

Check for updates

Badges

Artifacts Evaluated & Functional

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Funding Sources

EPSRC

Conference

PLDI '18

Sponsor:

SIGPLAN

PLDI '18: ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation

June 18 - 22, 2018

PA, Philadelphia, USA

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 406 of 2,067 submissions, 20%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

22
Total Citations
View Citations
2,275
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)244
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)32

Reflects downloads up to 12 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Raad ALahav OWickerson JBalcer PDongol B(2024)Intel PMDK Transactions: Specification, Validation and ConcurrencyProgramming Languages and Systems10.1007/978-3-031-57267-8_6(150-179)Online publication date: 6-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-57267-8_6
Dalvandi SDongol B(2022)Implementing and verifying release-acquire transactional memory in C11Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/35633526:OOPSLA2(1817-1844)Online publication date: 31-Oct-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3563352
Windsor MDonaldson AWickerson J(2022)High‐coverage metamorphic testing of concurrency support in C compilersSoftware Testing, Verification and Reliability10.1002/stvr.181232:4Online publication date: 22-Mar-2022
https://doi.org/10.1002/stvr.1812
Sorensen TSalvador LRaval HEvrard HWickerson JMartonosi MDonaldson A(2021)Specifying and testing GPU workgroup progress modelsProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/34855085:OOPSLA(1-30)Online publication date: 15-Oct-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3485508
Alglave JDeacon WGrisenthwaite RHacquard AMaranget L(2021)Armed CatsACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems10.1145/345892643:2(1-54)Online publication date: 23-Jul-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3458926
Kirkham JSorensen TTureci EMartonosi M(2020)Foundations of empirical memory consistency testingProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/34282944:OOPSLA(1-29)Online publication date: 13-Nov-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3428294
Usman MWang WVasic MWang KVikalo HKhurshid SDonaldson ATorlak E(2020)A study of the learnability of relational properties: model counting meets machine learning (MCML)Proceedings of the 41st ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation10.1145/3385412.3386015(1098-1111)Online publication date: 11-Jun-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3385412.3386015
Singh SVasic MKhurshid S(2020)Designing Neural Networks Using Logical Specs2020 IEEE 31st International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE)10.1109/ISSRE5003.2020.00024(160-171)Online publication date: Oct-2020
https://doi.org/10.1109/ISSRE5003.2020.00024
Raad AWickerson JNeiger GVafeiadis V(2019)Persistency semantics of the Intel-x86 architectureProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/33710794:POPL(1-31)Online publication date: 20-Dec-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3371079
Raad AWickerson JVafeiadis V(2019)Weak persistency semantics from the ground up: formalising the persistency semantics of ARMv8 and transactional modelsProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/33605613:OOPSLA(1-27)Online publication date: 10-Oct-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3360561
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

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

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents