Toward a decidable notion of sequential consistency

Bingham, Jesse; Condon, Anne; Hu, Alan J.

doi:10.1145/777412.777467

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Burckhardt et al [8,11] propose a unifying framework to formalize these models. Many have also studied the complexity of verifying data-type agnostic notions of consistency, including serializability, sequential consistency and linearizability [1,2,4,18,20,22,30], as well as causal consistency [6]. Our definition of the replicated LWW register corresponds to the notion of causal convergence in [6].…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Complexity of Checking Consistency for Replicated Data Types

Biswas

Emmi

Enea

2019

Computer Aided Verification

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent distributed systems have introduced variations of familiar abstract data types (ADTs) like counters, registers, flags, and sets, that provide high availability and partition tolerance. These conflict-free replicated data types (CRDTs) utilize mechanisms to resolve the effects of concurrent updates to replicated data. Naturally these objects weaken their consistency guarantees to achieve availability and partition-tolerance, and various notions of weak consistency capture those guarantees. In this work we study the tractability of CRDT-consistency checking. To capture guarantees precisely, and facilitate symbolic reasoning, we propose novel logical characterizations. By developing novel reductions from propositional satisfiability problems, and novel consistencychecking algorithms, we discover both positive and negative results. In particular, we show intractability for replicated flags, sets, counters, and registers, yet tractability for replicated growable arrays. Furthermore, we demonstrate that tractability can be redeemed for registers when each value is written at most once, for counters when the number of replicas is fixed, and for sets and flags when the number of replicas and variables is fixed.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Complexity of Checking Consistency for Replicated Data Types

Biswas

Emmi

Enea

2019

Computer Aided Verification

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bingham, Condon, and Hu suggested that the original formulation of sequential consistency, which is not prefix-closed, may be a reason why the verification problem is hard, and suggested two alternative variants to sequential consistency, Decisive Sequential Consistency (DSC) and Past-Time Sequential Consistency (PTSC) that are prefix-closed [4].…”

Section: Consistency Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Fault-Tolerant Sequentially Consistent DSM with a Compositional Correctness Proof

Ekström

Haridi

2016

Networked Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. We present the SC-ABD algorithm that implements sequentially consistent distributed shared memory (DSM). The algorithm tolerates that less than half of the processes are faulty (crash-stop). Compared to the multi-writer ABD algorithm, SC-ABD requires one instead of two round-trips of communication to perform a write operation, and an equal number of round-trips (two) to perform a read operation. Although sequential consistency is not a compositional consistency condition, the provided correctness proof is compositional.

show abstract

“…5 we show that if F is expressed in a certain formalism, then we can effectively produce a Q for which these containments hold "by construction". SSC of Q can be checked algorithmically using known methods based on model-checking [10,29,8,7].…”

Section: The Big Picturementioning

confidence: 99%

Automatic Verification of Sequential Consistency for Unbounded Addresses and Data Values

Bingham

Condon

et al. 2004

Computer Aided Verification

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sequential consistency is the archetypal correctness condition for the memory protocols of shared-memory multiprocessors. Typically, such protocols are parameterized by the number of processors, the number of addresses, and the number of distinguishable data values, and typically, automatic protocol verification analyzes only concrete instances of the protocol with small values (generally < 3) for the protocol parameters. This paper presents a fully automatic method for proving the sequential consistency of an entire parameterized family of protocols, with the number of processors fixed, but the number of addresses and data values being unbounded parameters. Using some practical, reasonable assumptions (data independence, processor symmetry, location symmetry, simple store ordering, some syntactic restrictions), the method automatically generates a finite-state abstract protocol from the parameterized protocol description; proving sequential consistency of the abstract model, via known methods, guarantees sequential consistency of the entire protocol family. The method is sound, but incomplete, but we argue that it is likely to apply to most real protocols. We present experimental results showing the effectiveness of our method on parameterized versions of the Piranha shared memory protocol and an extended version of a directory protocol from the University of Wisconsin Multifacet Project.

show abstract

Toward a decidable notion of sequential consistency

Cited by 8 publications

References 22 publications

On the Complexity of Checking Consistency for Replicated Data Types

On the Complexity of Checking Consistency for Replicated Data Types

A Fault-Tolerant Sequentially Consistent DSM with a Compositional Correctness Proof

Automatic Verification of Sequential Consistency for Unbounded Addresses and Data Values

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About