A procedure for splitting data-aware processes and its application to coordination

Jongmans, Sung-Shik; Clarke, Dave; Proença, José

doi:10.1016/j.scico.2014.02.017

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In [13] it was shown how this type of decomposition can be achieved for mCRL2 processes. Furthermore, a decomposition technique was used in [10] to improve the efficiency of equivalence checking.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decomposing Monolithic Processes in a Process Algebra with Multi-actions

Laveaux

Willemse

2021

Electron. Proc. Theor. Comput. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A monolithic process is a single recursive equation with data parameters, which only uses nondeterminism, action prefixing, and recursion. We present a technique that decomposes such a monolithic process into multiple processes where each process defines behaviour for a subset of the parameters of the monolithic process. For this decomposition we can show that a composition of these processes is strongly bisimilar to the monolithic process under a suitable synchronisation context. Minimising the resulting processes before determining their composition can be used to derive a state space that is smaller than the one obtained by a monolithic exploration. We apply the decomposition technique to several specifications to show that this works in practice. Finally, we prove that state invariants can be used to further improve the effectiveness of this decomposition technique.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decomposing Monolithic Processes in a Process Algebra with Multi-actions

Laveaux

Willemse

2021

Electron. Proc. Theor. Comput. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…• Proença et al [14,15] observe that a partially-distributed, partially-centralized hybrid approach is generally ideal [7,[16][17][18][19]. In the hybrid approach, a compiler splits a connector into parts, implements those parts according to the centralized approach, and runs those implementations according to the distributed approach.…”

Section: Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this paper, we compare centralized-approach compilation and execution with hybrid-approach compilation and execution, focusing on performance in terms of time; we do not consider memory in this paper. Previously studying the theoretical foundations of the hybrid approach [16][17][18][19], we have not performed such an experimental evaluation before. For this comparison, we use nine different connector "families" (i.e., connectors parametric in their number of coordinated processes).…”

Section: Contributionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We formulated the condition based on which the algorithm makes this decision generally, in terms of cas and their transitions [16,19]. In the context of Reo, however, this partitioning algorithm coincides with the identification of synchronous/asynchronous regions of a connector [15,17] (each of which gets a corresponding subset in the partition). The asynchronous regions of a connector are its smallest connected subconnectors that have asynchronous data-flow (e.g., the fourth channel in Table 1).…”

Section: Compilersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Centralized coordination vs. partially-distributed coordination with Reo and constraint automata

Jongmans

Arbab

2018

Science of Computer Programming

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

High-level concurrency notations and abstractions have several well-known software engineering advantages when it comes to programming concurrency protocols among threads. To also explore their complementary performance advantages, in ongoing work, we are developing compilation technology for a high-level coordination language, Reo, based on this language's formal automaton semantics. By now, as shown in our previous work, our tools are capable of generating code that can compete with carefully handcrafted code, at least for some protocols. An important prerequisite to further advance this promising technology, now, is to gain a better understanding of how the significantly different compilation approaches that we developed so far, which vary in the amount of parallelism in their generated code, compare against each other. For instance, to better and more reliably tune our compilers, we must learn under which circumstances parallel protocol code, with high throughput but also high latency, outperforms sequential protocol code, with low latency but also low throughput. In this paper, we report on an extensive performance comparison between these approaches for a substantial number of protocols, expressed in Reo. Because we have always formulated our compilation technology in terms of a general kind of communicating automaton (i.e., constraint automata), our findings apply not only to Reo but, in principle, to any language whose semantics can be defined in terms of such automata.

show abstract