Maximal serializability of iterated transactions

Flé, Marie-Paule; Roucairol, Gérard

doi:10.1016/0304-3975(85)90206-3

Cited by 47 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Cohen et al later extended their safety verification technique [6] to programs with both transactional and nontransactional operations. Our construction of the TM specifications is related to the work of Fle and Roucairol [8]. They investigated the set of concurrent traces that are generated by a finite set of iterating transactions.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Model checking transactional memories

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Model checking transactional memories (TMs) is difficult because of the unbounded number, length, and delay of concurrent transactions, as well as the unbounded size of the memory. We show that, under certain conditions satisfied by most TMs we know of, the model checking problem can be reduced to a finite-state problem, and we illustrate the use of the method by proving the correctness of several TMs, including two-phase locking, DSTM, and TL2. The safety properties we consider include strict serializability and opacity; the liveness properties include obstruction freedom, livelock freedom, and wait freedom. Our main contribution lies in the structure of the proofs, which are largely automated and not restricted to the TMs mentioned above. In a first step we show that every TM that enjoys certain structural properties either violates a requirement on some program with two threads and two shared variables, or satisfies the requirement on all programs. In the second step, we use a model checker to prove the requirement for the TM applied to a most general program with two threads and two variables. In the safety case, the model checker checks language inclusion between two finite-state transition systems, a nondeterministic transition system representing the given TM applied to a most general program, and a deterministic transition system This research was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation. This paper is an extended and revised version of our previous work on model checking transactional memories [11,12].R. Guerraoui representing a most liberal safe TM applied to the same program. The given TM transition system is nondeterministic because a TM can be used with different contention managers, which resolve conflicts differently. In the liveness case, the model checker analyzes fairness conditions on the given TM transition system.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Model checking transactional memories

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The definition (7) of infinite trace has been given by a number of authors [3][4][5][6][7][8][9]13]. They handle its uniqueness in two different ways.…”

Section: Infinite Tracementioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is very naturally extended to yield the definition of an infinite trace. In fact, infinite trace was first defined in this way by Flé and Roucairol [3]. The definition was recently used by Mikulski [13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Infinite Product of Traces Represented by Projections

Redziejowski¹

2010

Fundamenta Informaticae

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We give a first finite state representation for the language of strictly serializable words, when transactions may abort. The idea of maximal serializability was also addressed earlier [FR85] for a bounded number of non-aborting transactions with a bounded number of statements per transaction. The idea was built upon a notion of transitive conflicts, which does not hold when transactions may abort.…”

Section: The Reference Tm Algorithm For Strict Serializabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our construction of the reference TM algorithms is related to the work of Fle and Roucairol [FR85]. They investigated the set of concurrent traces that are generated by a finite set of iterating transactions.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Model checking transactional memories

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Model checking software transactional memories (STMs) is difficult because of the unbounded number, length, and delay of concurrent transactions and the unbounded size of the memory. We show that, under certain conditions, the verification problem can be reduced to a finite-state problem, and we illustrate the use of the method by proving the correctness of several STMs, including two-phase locking, DSTM, TL2, and optimistic concurrency control. The safety properties we consider include strict serializability and opacity; the liveness properties include obstruction freedom, livelock freedom, and wait freedom.Our main contribution lies in the structure of the proofs, which are largely automated and not restricted to the STMs mentioned above. In a first step we show that every STM that enjoys certain structural properties either violates a safety or liveness requirement on some program with two threads and two shared variables, or satisfies the requirement on all programs. In the second step we use a model checker to prove the requirement for the STM applied to a most general program with two threads and two variables. In the safety case, the model checker constructs a simulation relation between two carefully constructed finite-state transition systems, one representing the given STM applied to a most general program, and the other representing a most liberal safe STM applied to the same program. In the liveness case, the model checker analyzes fairness conditions on the given STM transition system.

show abstract

Maximal serializability of iterated transactions

Cited by 47 publications

References 6 publications

Model checking transactional memories

Model checking transactional memories

Infinite Product of Traces Represented by Projections

Model checking transactional memories

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About