Relaxed memory models: an operational approach

ABSTRACT

Memory models define an interface between programs written in some language and their implementation, determining which behaviour the memory (and thus a program) is allowed to have in a given model. A minimal guarantee memory models should provide to the programmer is that well-synchronized, that is, data-race free code has a standard semantics. Traditionally, memory models are defined axiomatically, setting constraints on the order in which memory operations are allowed to occur, and the programming language semantics is implicit as determining some of these constraints. In this work we propose a new approach to formalizing a memory model in which the model itself is part of a weak operational semantics for a (possibly concurrent) programming language. We formalize in this way a model that allows write operations to the store to be buffered. This enables us to derive the ordering constraints from the weak semantics of programs, and to prove, at the programming language level, that the weak semantics implements the usual interleaving semantics for data-race free programs, hence in particular that it implements the usual semantics for sequential code.

References

1. M. Abadi, A. Birrell, T. Harris, M. Isard, Semantics of transactional memory and automatic mutual exclusion POPL'08 (2008) 63--74.
2. S. V. Adve, Designing Memory Consistency Models for Shared-Memory Multiprocessors PhD Thesis, Univ. of Wisconsin (1993).
3. S. A. Adve, K. Gharachorloo, Shared memory consistency models: a tutorial IEEE Computer Vol. 29 No. 12 (1996)66--76.
4. S. Adve, M. D. Hill, Weak ordering -- A new definition ISCA'90 1990 2--14.
5. D. Aspinall, J. Ševčík, Formalising Java's data race free guarantee TPHOLs'07, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. 4732 (2007) 22--37.
6. D. Aspinall, J. Ševčík, Java memory model examples: good, bad and ugly VAMP'07 (2007).
7. G. Berry, J.-J. Lévy, Minimal and optimal computations of recursive programs J. of ACM 26 (1979) 148--175
8. H.-J. Boehm, S. V. Adve, Foundations of the C concurrency model PLDI'08 (2008) 68--78.
9. C. Blundell, E. C. Lewis, M. M. K. Martin, Subtleties of transactional memory atomicity semantics IEEE Comput. Architecture Letters Vol. 5 No. 2 (2006).
10. G. Boudol, Atomic actions INRIA Res. Rep. 1026 and EATCS Bull. 38 (1989) 136--144
11. G. Boudol, I. Castellani, A non-interleaving semantics for CCS based on proved transitions Fundamenta Informaticae XI (1988) 433--452
12. G. Boudol, I. Castellani, Flow models of distributed computations: three equivalent semantics for CCS Information and Computation Vol. 114 No. 2 (1994) 247--314.
13. P. Cenciarelli, A. Knapp, B. Reus, M. Wirsing, An event-based structural operational semantics of multi-threaded Javain Formal Syntax and Semantics of JAVA, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. 1523 (1999) 157--200
14. P. Cenciarelli, A. Knapp, E. Sibilio, The Java memory model: operationally, denotationally, axiomatically ESOP'07, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. 4421 (2007) 331--346.
15. M. Dubois, Ch. Scheurich, F. Briggs, Memory access buffering in multiprocessors ISCA'86 (1986) 434--442.
16. L. Effinger-Dean, M. Kehrt, D. Grossman, Transactional events for MLICFP'08 (2008) 103--114.
17. G. R. Gao, V. Sarkar, Location consistency -- a new memory model and cache consistency protocol IEEE Trans. on Computers Vol. 49 No. 8 (2000) 798--813.
18. G. R. Gao, V. Sarkar, On the importance of an end-to-end view of memory consistency in future computer systems ISHPC'97, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. 1336 (1997) 30--41.
19. K. Gharachorloo, D. Lenoski, J. Laudon, P. Gibbons, A. Gupta, J. Hennessy, Memory consistency and event ordering in scalable shared-memory multiprocessors ACM SIGARCH Computer Architecture News Vol. 18 No. 3a (1990) 15--26.
20. P. B. Gibbons, M. Merritt, K. Gharachorloo, Proving sequential consistency of high-performance shared memories ACM Symp. on Parallel Algorithms and Architectures (1991) 292--303.
21. J. R. Goodman, Cache consistency and sequential consistency Techn. Rep. TR-1006, University of Wisconsin (1991).
22. D. Grossman, J. Manson, W. Pugh, What do high-level memory models mean for transactions? MSPC'06 (2006) 62--69.
23. A. Hobor, A. W. Appel, F. Zappa Nardelli, Oracle semantics for concurrent separation logic ESOP'08, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. 4960 (2008) 353--360.
24. Intel Corp. Intel 64 architecture memory ordering white paper (2007).
25. M. Huisman, G. Petri, The Java memory model: a formal explanation VAMP'07 (2007).
26. L. Lamport, Time, clocks, and the ordering of events in a distributed system CACM Vol. 21 No. 7 (1978) 558--565.
27. L. Lamport, How to make a multiprocessor computer that correctly executes multiprocess programs IEEE Trans. on Computers Vol. 28 No. 9 (1979) 690--691.
28. J.-J. Lévy, Optimal reductions in the lambda calculusin To H. B. Curry: Essays on Combinatory Logic, Lambda Calculus and Formalism (J. P. Seldin, J. R. Hindley, Eds), Academic Press (1980) 159--191.
29. J. Manson, W. Pugh, S. A. Adve, The Java memory model POPL'05 (2005) 378--391
30. K. F. Moore, D. Grossman, High-level small-step operational semantics for transactions POPL'08 (2008) 51--62.
31. J. C. Reynolds, Toward a grainless semantics for shared-variable concurrency FST-TCS'04, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. 3328 (2004) 35--48
32. V. Saraswat, R. Jagadeesan, M. Michael, C. von Praun, A theory of memory models PPOPP'07 (2007) 161--172.
33. X. Shen, Arvind, L. Rudolph, Commit-reconcile & fences (CRF): a new memory model for architects and compiler writers ISCA'99 (1999) 150--161.
34. R. C. Steinke, G. J. Nutt, A unified theory of shared memory consistency JACM Vol. 51 No. 5 (2004) 800--849.

Index Terms

• Software and its engineering

  • Software notations and tools

    • Compilers

• Theory of computation

  • Semantics and reasoning

    • Program semantics