Correct program parallelisations

Blom, Stefan; Darabi, Saeed; Huisman, Marieke; Safari, Mohsen

doi:10.1007/s10009-020-00601-z

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We are keen to explore the combination of both approaches. A first step would be to mix Vey-Mont with the VerCors-based work of Blom et al [10] on verification of loop parallelisation. Beyond that, it is interesting to extend VeyMont with complementary techniques.…”

Section: Future Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

VeyMont: Parallelising Verified Programs Instead of Verifying Parallel Programs

Bos

Jongmans²

2023

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present VeyMont: a deductive verification tool that aims to make reasoning about functional correctness and deadlock freedom of parallel programs (relatively complex) as easy as that of sequential programs (relatively simple). The novelty of VeyMont is that it "inverts the workflow": it supports a new method to parallelise verified programs, in contrast to existing methods to verify parallel programs. Inspired by methods for distributed systems, VeyMont targets coarse-grained parallelism among threads (i.e., whole-program parallelisation) instead of fine-grained parallelism among tasks (e.g., loop parallelisation). IntroductionDeductive verification is a classical approach to reason about functional correctness of programs. The idea is to annotate programs with logic assertions about state. A proof system can subsequently be used to statically check whether or not annotations are true (i.e., whether or not state dynamically evolves as asserted).As multicore hardware and multithreaded software have become ubiquitous, deductive verification has been facing an elusive open problem: the approach is much harder to apply to parallel programs than to sequential programs. Towards addressing this issue, in this paper, we present VeyMont. It is a deductive verification tool that aims to make reasoning about functional correctness and deadlock freedom of parallel programs as easy as that of sequential programs. The novelty of VeyMont is that it "inverts the workflow": it supports a new method to parallelise verified programs, in contrast to existing methods to verify parallel programs. Unlike traditional model checkers, VeyMont proves properties generally for all (possibly infinitely many) initial values of variables, instead of specifically for instances. Unlike parallelising compilers, VeyMont targets coarsegrained parallelism among threads (i.e., whole-program parallelisation), instead of fine-grained parallelism among instructions (e.g., loop parallelisation).Background. In the state-of-the-art on verification of sequential and parallel programs, typically, proof systems based on (extensions of) Hoare logic [4,21] and separation logic [40,45] are used to prove properties of annotated programs. To demonstrate the main concepts, Fig. 1 shows four functionally equivalent programs to swap the values of variables x and y:

show abstract

Section: Future Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

VeyMont: Parallelising Verified Programs Instead of Verifying Parallel Programs

Bos

Jongmans²

2023

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Papers [3,18] contribute to the design of correct-by construction high-level models by defining a highlevel modelling formalism [18] and by providing an approach for debugging CPS models [3]. Papers [9,14,22,24,28] contribute to the design and proof of domain-specific abstractions. They provide techniques for ensuring the correctness of randomised consensus protocols [9], program block parallelisation [14], usage control policies [22], and for ensuring optimality of partition schedules [24] and energy consumption [28].…”

Section: This Issuementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, an evolutionary algorithm for parameter exploration is applied that generalises the yes/no verdict of the schedulability question into a numeric fitness evaluation. -The paper "Correct Program Parallelisations" by Blom, Darabi, Huisman, and Safari [14] is an extension of the FASE 2015 and NFM 2017 [13,15] papers by the first three authors. This paper presents a verification technique to reason about the correctness of compiler directives indicating which program blocks may potentially be executed in parallel without changing the behaviour of the program.…”

Section: This Issuementioning

confidence: 99%

On methods and tools for rigorous system design

Bliudze

Katsaros

Bensalem

et al. 2021

Int J Softw Tools Technol Transfer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Full a posteriori verification of the correctness of modern software systems is practically infeasible due to the sheer complexity resulting from their intrinsic concurrent nature. An alternative approach consists of ensuring correctness by construction. We discuss the Rigorous System Design (RSD) approach, which relies on a sequence of semantics-preserving transformations to obtain an implementation of the system from a high-level model while preserving all the properties established along the way. In particular, we highlight some of the key requirements for the feasibility of such an approach, namely availability of (1) methods and tools for the design of correct-by-construction high-level models and (2) definition and proof of the validity of suitable domain-specific abstractions. We summarise the results of the extended versions of seven papers selected among those presented at the $$1\mathrm {st}$$ 1 st and the $$2\mathrm {nd}$$ 2 nd International Workshops on Methods and Tools for Rigorous System Design (MeTRiD 2018–2019), indicating how they contribute to the advancement of the RSD approach.

show abstract

“…Другим примером является специальная конструкция в языке Applicative Common Lisp [24]. Операционная семантика для расширения языка C-like конструкциями OpenMP была предложена в работе [25]. Такая особенность Sisal, как конструкции, подобные break, является преимуществом Sisal-циклов относительно рассмотренных видов итераций.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Towards Automatic Deductive Verification of C Programs with Sisal Loops Using the C-lightVer System

Kondratyev

2021

Model. anal. inf. sist.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The C-lightVer system is developed in IIS SB RAS for C-program deductive verification. C-kernel is an intermediate verification language in this system. Cloud parallel programming system (CPPS) is also developed in IIS SB RAS. Cloud Sisal is an input language of CPPS. The main feature of CPPS is implicit parallel execution based on automatic parallelization of Cloud Sisal loops. Cloud-Sisal-kernel is an intermediate verification language in the CPPS system. Our goal is automatic parallelization of such a superset of C that allows implementing automatic verification. Our solution is such a superset of C-kernel as C-Sisal-kernel. The first result presented in this paper is an extension of C-kernel by Cloud-Sisal-kernel loops. We have obtained the C-Sisal-kernel language. The second result is an extension of C-kernel axiomatic semantics by inference rule for Cloud-Sisal-kernel loops. The paper also presents our approach to the problem of deductive verification automation in the case of finite iterations over data structures. This kind of loops is referred to as definite iterations. Our solution is a composition of symbolic method of verification of definite iterations, verification condition metageneration and mixed axiomatic semantics method. Symbolic method of verification of definite iterations allows defining inference rules for these loops without invariants. Symbolic replacement of definite iterations by recursive functions is the base of this method. Obtained verification conditions with applications of recursive functions correspond to logical base of ACL2 prover. We use ACL2 system based on computable recursive functions. Verification condition metageneration allows simplifying implementation of new inference rules in a verification system. The use of mixed axiomatic semantics results to simpler verification conditions in some cases.

show abstract

Correct program parallelisations

Cited by 9 publications

References 20 publications

VeyMont: Parallelising Verified Programs Instead of Verifying Parallel Programs

VeyMont: Parallelising Verified Programs Instead of Verifying Parallel Programs

On methods and tools for rigorous system design

Towards Automatic Deductive Verification of C Programs with Sisal Loops Using the C-lightVer System

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About