Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Published in:
Probabilistic Horn Clause Verification Read chapter Read first chapter

2017 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

Portability Analysis for Weak Memory Models porthos: One Tool for all Models

Authors : Hernán Ponce-de-León, Florian Furbach, Keijo Heljanko, Roland Meyer

Published in: Static Analysis

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

We present porthos, the first tool that discovers porting bugs in performance-critical code. porthos takes as input a program and the memory models of the source architecture for which the program has been developed and the target model to which it is ported. If the code is not portable, porthos finds a bug in the form of an unexpected execution — an execution that is consistent with the target but inconsistent with the source memory model. Technically, porthos implements a bounded model checking method that reduces the portability analysis problem to satisfiability modulo theories (SMT). There are two main problems in the reduction that we present novel and efficient solutions for. First, the formulation of the portability problem contains a quantifier alternation (consistent + inconsistent). We introduce a formula that encodes both in a single existential query. Second, the supported memory models (e.g., Power) contain recursive definitions. We compute the required least fixed point semantics for recursion (a problem that was left open in [48]) efficiently in SMT. Finally we present the first experimental analysis of portability from TSO to Power.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
previous chapter Quantitative Static Analysis of Communication Protocols Using Abstract Markov Chains
next chapter Template Polyhedra with a Twist
Footnotes
1
Notice that all memory models considered in [8] and in this paper are common ones.
 
Literature
1.
Abdulla, P.A., Aronis, S., Atig, M.F., Jonsson, B., Leonardsson, C., Sagonas, K.: Stateless Model Checking for TSO and PSO. In: Baier, C., Tinelli, C. (eds.) TACAS 2015. LNCS, vol. 9035, pp. 353–367. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi:10.​1007/​978-3-662-46681-0_​28
2.
Abdulla, P.A., Atig, M.F., Jonsson, B., Leonardsson, C.: Stateless model checking for POWER. In: Chaudhuri, S., Farzan, A. (eds.) CAV 2016. LNCS, vol. 9780, pp. 134–156. Springer, Cham (2016). doi:10.​1007/​978-3-319-41540-6_​8
3.
Alglave, J.: A Shared Memory Poetics. Thèse de doctorat, L’université Paris Denis Diderot (2010)
4.
Alglave, J., Cousot, P., Maranget, L.: Syntax and semantics of the weak consistency model specification language CAT. CoRR (2016). abs/1608.07531
5.
Alglave, J., Kroening, D., Nimal, V., Poetzl, D.: Don’t sit on the fence—a static analysis approach to automatic fence insertion. In: CAV, LNCS, vol. 8559, pp. 508–524. Springer, Vienna (2014)
6.
Alglave, J., Kroening, D., Tautschnig, M.: Partial orders for efficient bounded model checking of concurrent software. In: CAV, LNCS, vol. 8044, pp. 141–157. Springer, Saint Petersburg (2013)
7.
8.
Alglave, J., Maranget, L., Tautschnig, M.: Herding cats: Modelling, simulation, testing, and data mining for weak memory. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 36(2), 7:1–7:74 (2014)
9.
Atig, M.F., Bouajjani, A., Burckhardt, S., Musuvathi, M.: On the verification problem for weak memory models. In: POPL, pp. 7–18. ACM, Madrid (2010)
10.
Batty, M., Donaldson, A.F., Wickerson, J.: Overhauling SC atomics in C11 and OpenCL. In: POPL, pp. 634–648. ACM, St. Petersburg (2016)
11.
Batty, M., Owens, S., Sarkar, S., Sewell, P., Weber, T.: Mathematizing C++ concurrency. In: POPL, pp. 55–66. ACM, Austin (2011)
12.
13.
Burckhardt, S., Alur, R., Martin, M.M.K.: CheckFence: checking consistency of concurrent data types on relaxed memory models. In: PLDI, pp. 12–21. ACM, San Diego (2007)
14.
15.
16.
Cantin, J.F., Lipasti, M.H., Smith, J.E.: The complexity of verifying memory coherence and consistency. IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst. 16(7), 663–671 (2005)CrossRef
17.
Collavizza, H., Rueher, M.: Exploration of the capabilities of constraint programming for software verification. In: Hermanns, H., Palsberg, J. (eds.) TACAS 2006. LNCS, vol. 3920, pp. 182–196. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi:10.​1007/​11691372_​12 CrossRef
18.
Collier, W.W.: Reasoning About Parallel Architectures. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (1992)MATH
19.
Cotton, S., Asarin, E., Maler, O., Niebert, P.: Some progress in satisfiability checking for difference logic. In: Lakhnech, Y., Yovine, S. (eds.) FORMATS/FTRTFT -2004. LNCS, vol. 3253, pp. 263–276. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). doi:10.​1007/​978-3-540-30206-3_​19 CrossRef
20.
Dan, A.M., Meshman, Y., Vechev, M., Yahav, E.: Predicate abstraction for relaxed memory models. In: Logozzo, F., Fähndrich, M. (eds.) SAS 2013. LNCS, vol. 7935, pp. 84–104. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.​1007/​978-3-642-38856-9_​7 CrossRef
21.
Dan, A.M., Yuri, M., Yahav, M.T., Eran, Y.: Effective abstractions for verification under relaxed memory models. In: D ’Souza, D., Lal, A., Larsen, K.G. (eds.) VMCAI 2015. LNCS, vol. 8931, pp. 449–466. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi:10.​1007/​978-3-662-46081-8_​25
22.
Derevenetc, E., Meyer, R.: Robustness against power is PSpace-complete. In: Esparza, J., Fraigniaud, P., Husfeldt, T., Koutsoupias, E. (eds.) ICALP 2014. LNCS, vol. 8573, pp. 158–170. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi:10.​1007/​978-3-662-43951-7_​14
23.
Dijkstra, E.W.: Cooperating sequential processes. In: The Origin of Concurrent Programming, pp. 65–138. Springer, New York (2002)
24.
25.
26.
Flur, S., Gray, K.E., Pulte, C., Sarkar, S., Sezgin, A., Maranget, L., Deacon, W., Sewell, P.: Modelling the ARMv8 architecture, operationally: concurrency and ISA. In: POPL, pp. 608–621. ACM, St. Petersburg (2016)
27.
Furbach, F., Meyer, R., Schneider, K., Senftleben, M.: Memory-model-aware testing: a unified complexity analysis. ACM Trans. Embedded Comput. Syst. 14(4), 63 (2015)CrossRef
28.
Gebser, M., Janhunen, T., Rintanen, J.: SAT modulo graphs: Acyclicity. In: Fermé, E., Leite, J. (eds.) JELIA 2014. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8761, pp. 137–151. Springer, Cham (2014). doi:10.​1007/​978-3-319-11558-0_​10
29.
30.
Heljanko, K., Keinänen, M., Lange, M., Niemelä, I.: Solving parity games by a reduction to SAT. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 78(2), 430–440 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
31.
Kuperstein, M., Vechev, M.T., Yahav, E.: Automatic inference of memory fences. SIGACT News 43(2), 108–123 (2012)CrossRef
32.
33.
Lamport, L.: A fast mutual exclusion algorithm. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 5(1), 1–11 (1987)CrossRef
34.
Liu, F., Nedev, N., Prisadnikov, N., Vechev, M.T., Yahav, E.: Dynamic synthesis for relaxed memory models. In: PLDI, pp. 429–440. ACM, Beijing (2012)
35.
Mador-Haim, S., Alur, R., Martin, M.M.K.: Generating litmus tests for contrasting memory consistency models. In: Touili, T., Cook, B., Jackson, P. (eds.) CAV 2010. LNCS, vol. 6174, pp. 273–287. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi:10.​1007/​978-3-642-14295-6_​26 CrossRef
36.
Mador-Haim, S., Maranget, L., Sarkar, S., Memarian, K., Alglave, J., Owens, S., Alur, R., Martin, M.M.K., Sewell, P., Williams, D.: An axiomatic memory model for POWER multiprocessors. In: Madhusudan, P., Seshia, S.A. (eds.) CAV 2012. LNCS, vol. 7358, pp. 495–512. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi:10.​1007/​978-3-642-31424-7_​36 CrossRef
37.
Peterson, G.L.: Myths about the mutual exclusion problem. Inf. Process. Lett. 12(3), 115–116 (1981)CrossRefMATH
38.
Ponce de León, H., Furbach, F., Heljanko, K., Meyer, R.: Portability analysis for axiomatic memory models. PORTHOS: One tool for all models. CoRR (2017). abs/1702.06704
39.
40.
Sarkar, S., Sewell, P., Alglave, J., Maranget, L., Williams, D.: Understanding POWER multiprocessors. In: PLDI, pp. 175–186. ACM, San Jose (2011)
41.
Sarkar, S., Sewell, P., Nardelli, F.Z., Owens, S., Ridge, T., Braibant, T., Myreen, M.O, Alglave, J.: The semantics of x86-CC multiprocessor machine code. In: POPL, pp. 379–391. ACM, Savannah (2009)
42.
43.
Stoltenberg-Hansen, V., Griffor, E.R., Lindstrom, I.: Mathematical Theory of Domains. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1994)CrossRefMATH
44.
Szymanski, B.K.: A simple solution to Lamport’s concurrent programming problem with linear wait. In: ICS, pp. 621–626. ACM, Saint Malo (1988)
45.
Torlak, E., Vaziri, M., Dolby, J.: MemSAT: Checking axiomatic specifications of memory models. In: PLDI, pp. 341–350. ACM, Toronto (2010)
46.
Turon, A., Vafeiadis, V., Dreyer, D.: GPS: Navigating weak memory with ghosts, protocols, and separation. In: OOPSLA, pp. 691–707. ACM, Portland (2014)
47.
Vafeiadis, V., Narayan, C.: Relaxed separation logic: A program logic for C11 concurrency. In: OOPSLA, pp. 867–884. ACM, Indianapolis (2013)
48.
Wickerson, J., Batty, M., Sorensen, T., Constantinides, G.A.: Automatically comparing memory consistency models. In: POPL, pp. 190–204. ACM, Paris (2017)
49.
Yang, Y., Gopalakrishnan, G., Lindstrom, G., Slind, K.: Nemos: A framework for axiomatic and executable specifications of memory consistency models. IEEE Computer Society, In: IPDPS (2004)
Metadata
Title
Portability Analysis for Weak Memory Models porthos: One Tool for all Models
Authors
Hernán Ponce-de-León
Florian Furbach
Keijo Heljanko
Roland Meyer
Copyright Year
2017
Book
Static Analysis

Print ISBN: 978-3-319-66705-8

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-66706-5

Copyright Year: 2017

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66706-5_15

Premium Partner

    Image Credits