Abstract
The implementation of weak (or relaxed) memory models is standard practice in modern multiprocessor hardware. For efficiency, these memory models allow operations to take effect in shared memory in a different order from that which they occur in a program. A number of correctness criteria have been proposed for concurrent objects operating on such memory models, each reflecting different constraints on the objects which can be proved correct. In this paper, we provide a framework in which correctness criteria are defined in terms of two components: the first defining the particular criterion (as it would be defined in the absence of a weak memory model), and the second defining the particular weak memory model. The framework facilitates the definition and comparison of correctness criteria, and encourages reuse of existing definitions. The latter enables properties of the criteria to be proved using existing proofs. We illustrate the framework via the definition of correctness criteria on the TSO (Total Store Order) weak memory model.
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
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alglave, J., Fox, A., Ishtiaq, S., Myreen, M.O., Sarkar, S., Sewell, P., Nardelli, F.Z.: The Semantics of Power and ARM Multiprocessor Machine Code. In: Petersen, L., Chakravarty, M.M.T. (eds.) DAMP 2009, pp. 13–24. ACM (2008)
Aspnes, J., Herlihy, M., Shavit, N.: Counting networks. J. ACM 41(5), 1020–1048 (1994)
Burckhardt, S., Gotsman, A., Musuvathi, M., Yang, H.: Concurrent library correctness on the TSO memory model. In: Seidl, H. (ed.) Programming Languages and Systems. LNCS, vol. 7211, pp. 87–107. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Derrick, J., Schellhorn, G., Wehrheim, H.: Mechanically verified proof obligations for linearizability. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 33(1), 4 (2011)
Derrick, J., Smith, G., Dongol, B.: Verifying linearizability on TSO architectures. In: Albert, E., Sekerinski, E. (eds.) IFM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8739, pp. 341–356. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)
Dongol, B., Derrick, J., Groves, L., Smith, G.: Defining correctness conditions for concurrent objects in multicore architectures. In: ECOOP 2015, LNCS. Springer (2015)
Filipovic, I., O’Hearn, P.W., Rinetzky, N., Yang, H.: Abstraction for concurrent objects. Theoretical Computer Science 411(51-52), 4379–4398 (2010)
Fitzpatrick, J.: An interview with Steve Furber. Commun. ACM 54(5), 34–39 (2011)
Gotsman, A., Musuvathi, M., Yang, H.: Show no weakness: Sequentially consistent specifications of TSO libraries. In: Aguilera, M.K. (ed.) DISC 2012. LNCS, vol. 7611, pp. 31–45. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Herlihy, M., Shavit, N.: The Art of Multiprocessor Programming. Morgan Kaufmann (2008)
Herlihy, M., Wing, J.M.: Linearizability: A correctness condition for concurrent objects. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 12(3), 463–492 (1990)
Kogan, A., Herlihy, M.: The future(s) of shared data structures. In: PODC 2014, pp. 30–39. ACM (2014)
Lamport, L.: How to make a multiprocessor computer that correctly executes multiprocess programs. IEEE Trans. Computers 28(9), 690–691 (1979)
Reif, W., Schellhorn, G., Stenzel, K., Balser, M.: Structured specifications and interactive proofs with KIV. In: Automated Deduction, pp. 13–39. Kluwer (1998)
Schellhorn, G., Wehrheim, H., Derrick, J.: A sound and complete proof technique for linearizability of concurrent data structures. ACM Trans. on Computational Logic, 15(4), 31:1–31:37 (2014)
Sewell, P., Sarkar, S., Owens, S., Nardelli, F.Z., Myreen, M.O.: x86-TSO: a rigorous and usable programmer’s model for x86 multiprocessors. Commun. ACM 53(7), 89–97 (2010)
Shavit, N., Zemach, A.: Diffracting trees. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 14(4), 385–428 (1996)
Smith, G., Derrick, J., Dongol, B.: Admit your weakness: Verifying correctness on TSO architectures. In: Lanese, I., Madelaine, E. (eds.) FACS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8997, pp. 364–383. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)
Sorin, D.J., Hill, M.D., Wood, D.A.: A Primer on Memory Consistency and Cache Coherence. Synthesis Lectures on Computer Architecture. Morgan & Claypool Publishers (2011)
Travkin, O., Mütze, A., Wehrheim, H.: SPIN as a linearizability checker under weak memory models. In: Bertacco, V., Legay, A. (eds.) HVC 2013. LNCS, vol. 8244, pp. 311–326. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
Travkin, O., Wehrheim, H.: Handling TSO in mechanized linearizability proofs. In: Yahav, E. (ed.) HVC 2014. LNCS, vol. 8855, pp. 132–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Derrick, J., Smith, G. (2015). A Framework for Correctness Criteria on Weak Memory Models. In: Bjørner, N., de Boer, F. (eds) FM 2015: Formal Methods. FM 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9109. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19249-9_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19249-9_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-19248-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-19249-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)