Parameterised Linearisability

Cerone, Andrea; Gotsman, Alexey; Yang, Hongseok

doi:10.1007/978-3-662-43951-7_9

Cited by 15 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our third example extends the flat-combining case study from [3] by lifting it to higher-order types.…”

Section: Relational Linearisabilitymentioning

confidence: 98%

“…The definition above follows the classic definition from [12] and allows us to (first) express linearisability in terms of a given library L and a sequential specification A. The definition given in [3], on the other hand, expresses linearisability as a relation between two libraries. This is catered for at the end of Definition 8.…”

Section: General Linearisabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The authors of [3] analysed a parameterised library that reacts to concurrent requests by calling the corresponding abstract methods subject to mutual exclusion. In Figure 4, we present the code adapted to arbitrary higher-order types, which is possible thanks to the presence of higher-order references in our framework.…”

Section: Relational Linearisabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…fully implemented, libraries in which both method arguments and results are of ground types. The closedness limitation was lifted by Cerone, Gotsman and Yang [3], who extended the techniques to parametric libraries, whereby methods were divided into available routines (public methods) and unimplemented ones (abstract methods). However, both public and abstract methods were still restricted to first-order functions of type int → int.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Higher-order linearisability

Murawski

Tzevelekos

2019

Journal of Logical and Algebraic Methods in Programming

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Linearisability is a central notion for verifying concurrent libraries: a given library is proven safe if its operational history can be rearranged into a new sequential one which, in addition, satisfies a given specification. Linearisability has been examined for libraries in which method arguments and method results are of ground type, including libraries parameterised with such methods. In this paper we extend linearisability to the general higher-order setting: methods can be passed as arguments and returned as values. A library may also depend on abstract methods of any order. We use this generalised notion to show correctness of several higher-order example libraries.

show abstract

“…Our third example extends the flat-combining case study from [3] by lifting it to higher-order types.…”

Section: Relational Linearisabilitymentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: General Linearisabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Relational Linearisabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Higher-order linearisability

Murawski

Tzevelekos

2019

Journal of Logical and Algebraic Methods in Programming

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A Hoare spec is also immediately useful in proofs, whereas with linearizability, one also has to verify the sequential program itself. Second, in linearizability it has traditionally been difficult to address ownership transfer of heaps between data structures [Cerone et al 2014;Gotsman and Yang 2012], whereas for us (and other extensions of CSL [da Rocha Pinto et al 2014;Dinsdale-Young et al 2010;Jung et al 2018Jung et al , 2015Liang and Feng 2013]), ownership transfer is directly inherited from separation logic. We also inherit from separation logic a way to dynamically nest parallel compositions of threads, whereas linearizability is typically considered on programs with a fixed, though arbitrary, number of threads.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Specifying concurrent programs in separation logic: morphisms and simulations

Nanevski

Banerjee

Delbianco

et al. 2019

Proc. ACM Program. Lang.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In addition to pre-and postconditions, program specifications in recent separation logics for concurrency have employed an algebraic structure of resources-a form of state transition systems-to describe the state-based program invariants that must be preserved, and to record the permissible atomic changes to program state. In this paper we introduce a novel notion of resource morphism, i.e. structure-preserving function on resources, and show how to effectively integrate it into separation logic, using an associated notion of morphism-specific simulation. We apply morphisms and simulations to programs verified under one resource, to compositionally adapt them to operate under another resource, thus facilitating proof reuse. lock = do x ← CAS(r , false, true) while ¬x 1 The idea of bounding the interference is the foundation behind the classic rely-guarantee method [Jones 1983] as well. In fact, resources may be seen as structuring and compactly representing-in the form of transitions-the rely and guarantee relations of the rely-guarantee method. 2 The Compare-and-Set variant of CAS(r, a, b) [Herlihy and Shavit 2008] atomically sets the pointer r to b if r contains a, otherwise leaves r unchanged. It moreover returns a Boolean value denoting the success or failure of the operation.

show abstract

Specifying and Verifying Concurrent Algorithms with Histories and Subjectivity

Sergey

Nanevski

Banerjee

2015

Programming Languages and Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a lightweight approach to Hoare-style specifications for fine-grained concurrency, based on a notion of time-stamped histories that abstractly capture atomic changes in the program state.Our key observation is that histories form a partial commutative monoid, a structure fundamental for representation of concurrent resources. This insight provides us with a unifying mechanism that allows us to treat histories just like heaps in separation logic. For example, both are subject to the same assertion logic and inference rules (e.g., the frame rule). Moreover, the notion of ownership transfer, which usually applies to heaps, has an equivalent in histories. It can be used to formally represent helping-an important design pattern for concurrent algorithms whereby one thread can execute code on behalf of another. Specifications in terms of histories naturally abstract granularity, in the sense that sophisticated finegrained algorithms can be given the same specifications as their simplified coarse-grained counterparts, making them equally convenient for client-side reasoning. We illustrate our approach on a number of examples and validate all of them in Coq. 2018/7/6

show abstract

Parameterised Linearisability

Cited by 15 publications

References 14 publications

Higher-order linearisability

Higher-order linearisability

Specifying concurrent programs in separation logic: morphisms and simulations

Specifying and Verifying Concurrent Algorithms with Histories and Subjectivity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About