Automatic Atomicity Verification for Clients of Concurrent Data Structures

Lesani, Mohsen; Millstein, Todd; Palsberg, Jens

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-08867-9_37

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Work has been done on verifying linearizability for traditional transient objects [16,35,42]. It would be interesting to see if such verification techniques could be extended to verify durable linearizability for persistent objects.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Inherent Cost of Remembering Consistently

Cohen

Guerraoui

Zablotchi

2018

Proceedings of the 30th on Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Non-volatile memory (NVM) promises fast, byte-addressable and durable storage, with raw access latencies in the same order of magnitude as DRAM. But in order to take advantage of the durability of NVM, programmers need to design persistent objects which maintain consistent state across system crashes and restarts. Concurrent implementations of persistent objects typically make heavy use of expensive persistent fence instructions to order NVM accesses, thus negating some of the performance benefits of NVM. This raises the question of the minimal number of persistent fence instructions required to implement a persistent object. We answer this question in the deterministic lock-free case by providing lower and upper bounds on the required number of fence instructions. We obtain our upper bound by presenting a new universal construction that implements durably any object using at most one persistent fence per update operation invoked. Our lower bound states that in the worst case, each process needs to issue at least one persistent fence per update operation invoked.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Inherent Cost of Remembering Consistently

Cohen

Guerraoui

Zablotchi

2018

Proceedings of the 30th on Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There has also been much work on obtaining fully automated proofs of linearizability by static analysis and model checking [Abdulla et al 2013[Abdulla et al , 2018Amit et al 2007;Bouajjani et al 2013Bouajjani et al , 2015Bouajjani et al , 2017Cerný et al 2010;Dragoi et al 2013;Lesani et al 2014;Vafeiadis 2009;Zhu et al 2015]. The proof framework presented in this paper is capable of reasoning about implementations that are beyond the reach of current automatic techniques, via interactive (though still machine-checked) template proofs.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Verifying concurrent multicopy search structures

Patel

Krishna

Shasha

et al. 2021

Proc. ACM Program. Lang.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multicopy search structures such as log-structured merge (LSM) trees are optimized for high insert/update/delete (collectively known as upsert) performance. In such data structures, an upsert on key k , which adds ( k , v ) where v can be a value or a tombstone, is added to the root node even if k is already present in other nodes. Thus there may be multiple copies of k in the search structure. A search on k aims to return the value associated with the most recent upsert. We present a general framework for verifying linearizability of concurrent multicopy search structures that abstracts from the underlying representation of the data structure in memory, enabling proof-reuse across diverse implementations. Based on our framework, we propose template algorithms for (a) LSM structures forming arbitrary directed acyclic graphs and (b) differential file structures, and formally verify these templates in the concurrent separation logic Iris. We also instantiate the LSM template to obtain the first verified concurrent in-memory LSM tree implementation.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Verifying Concurrent Multicopy Search Structures

Patel¹,

Krishna²,

Shasha³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multicopy search structures such as log-structured merge (LSM) trees are optimized for high insert/update/delete (collectively known as upsert) performance. In such data structures, an upsert on key 𝑘, which adds (𝑘, 𝑣) where 𝑣 can be a value or a tombstone, is added to the root node even if 𝑘 is already present in other nodes. Thus there may be multiple copies of 𝑘 in the search structure. A search on 𝑘 aims to return the value associated with the most recent upsert. We present a general framework for verifying linearizability of concurrent multicopy search structures that abstracts from the underlying representation of the data structure in memory, enabling proof-reuse across diverse implementations. Based on our framework, we propose template algorithms for a) LSM structures forming arbitrary directed acyclic graphs and b) differential file structures, and formally verify these templates in the concurrent separation logic Iris. We also instantiate the LSM template to obtain the first verified concurrent in-memory LSM tree implementation.

show abstract

Automatic Atomicity Verification for Clients of Concurrent Data Structures

Cited by 6 publications

References 38 publications

The Inherent Cost of Remembering Consistently

The Inherent Cost of Remembering Consistently

Verifying concurrent multicopy search structures

Verifying Concurrent Multicopy Search Structures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About