PSTM Transaction Scheduler Verification Based on CSP and Testing

Complete formal verification of the PSTM transaction Scheduler

“…However, instead of using test workloads from [23] and [24], they introduced three simplified test workloads: CFW, CW-1 (Conflict Workload 1), and CW-2 (Conflict Workload 2), so a direct comparison of their results with the results of [23] and [24] was not possible. Moreover, the formal verification in [1] was made with some shortcomings, which we discovered and remedied in [25].…”

“…In [25], we tested the CSP# model of the PSTM transaction scheduler introduced in [1] by comparing the model checker PAT results with the manually derived expected results, for the test workloads defined in [1], and we discovered six shortcomings. Next, we extended the CSP# model in order to eliminate the discovered shortcomings.…”

“…In this paper, we conduct a complete formal verification of the PSTM transaction scheduler for the three test workloads similar to those used in [23] and [24], in order to be able to compare the PAT's results with the results in [23] and [24]. More precisely, we first derived complete theoretical schedules for these workloads and tested the CSP# model from [25] with them. We discovered two additional shortcomings of the CSP# model from [25], and we extended the model accordingly.…”

“…More precisely, we first derived complete theoretical schedules for these workloads and tested the CSP# model from [25] with them. We discovered two additional shortcomings of the CSP# model from [25], and we extended the model accordingly. Next, using PAT, we analyzed the performance of the PSTM transaction scheduling algorithms from the perspective of the relative speedup.…”

“…This section presents the testing of the formal models developed in [1] and [25]. The main goal of the testing was to check whether the formal verification results are aligned with the theoretical results.…”