Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1145/2429069.2429110acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagespoplConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Plan B: a buffered memory model for Java

Published: 23 January 2013 Publication History

Abstract

Recent advances in verification have made it possible to envision trusted implementations of real-world languages. Java with its type-safety and fully specified semantics would appear to be an ideal candidate; yet, the complexity of the translation steps used in production virtual machines have made it a challenging target for verifying compiler technology. One of Java's key innovations, its memory model, poses significant obstacles to such an endeavor. The Java Memory Model is an ambitious attempt at specifying the behavior of multithreaded programs in a portable, hardware agnostic, way. While experts have an intuitive grasp of the properties that the model should enjoy, the specification is complex and not well-suited for integration within a verifying compiler infrastructure. Moreover, the specification is given in an axiomatic style that is distant from the intuitive reordering-based reasonings traditionally used to justify or rule out behaviors, and ill suited to the kind of operational reasoning one would expect to employ in a compiler. This paper takes a step back, and introduces a Buffered Memory Model (BMM) for Java. We choose a pragmatic point in the design space sacrificing generality in favor of a model that is fully characterized in terms of the reorderings it allows, amenable to formal reasoning, and which can be efficiently applied to a specific hardware family, namely x86 multiprocessors. Although the BMM restricts the reorderings compilers are allowed to perform, it serves as the key enabling device to achieving a verification pathway from bytecode to machine instructions. Despite its restrictions, we show that it is backwards compatible with the Java Memory Model and that it does not cripple performance on TSO architectures.

Supplementary Material

JPG File (r1d2_talk8.jpg)
MP4 File (r1d2_talk8.mp4)

References

[1]
S. V. Adve and K. Gharachorloo. Shared memory consistency models: A tutorial. Computer, 29(12), 1996.
[2]
S. V. Adve and M. Hill. A Unified Formalization of Four Shared-Memory Models. Par. and Distr. Systems, IEEE Transactions on, 1993.
[3]
J. Alglave, L. Maranget, S. Sarkar, and P. Sewell. Fences in Weak Memory Models. In Proc. of CAV, 2010.
[4]
D. Aspinall and J. Sevc1k. Java Memory Model Examples: Good, Bad and Ugly. In Proc. of VAMP, 2007.
[5]
D. Aspinall and J. Sevc1k. Formalising Java's Data Race Free Guarantee. In Proc. of TPHOLs, 2007.
[6]
H.-J. Boehm and S. V. Adve. Foundations of the C++ concurrency memory model. SIGPLAN Not., 43, 2008.
[7]
G. Boudol and G. Petri. Relaxed Memory Models: an Operational Approach. In Proc. of POPL, 2009.
[8]
G. Boudol and G. Petri. A Theory of Speculative Computation. In Proc. of ESOP, 2010.
[9]
S. Burckhardt, M. Musuvathi, and V. Singh. Verifying Local Transformations on Relaxed Memory Models. In Proc. of CC, 2010.
[10]
P. Cenciarelli, A. Knapp, and E. Sibilio. The Java Memory Model: Operationally, denotationally, axiomatically. In Proc. of ESOP, 2007.
[11]
B. Goetz, T. Peierls, J. Bloch, J. Bowbeer, D. Holmes, and D. Lea. Java Concurrency in Practice. Addison-Wesley Longman, 2006.
[12]
T. Henties, J. Hunt, D. Locke, K. Nilsen, M. Schoeberl, and J. Vitek. Java for safety-critical applications. In SafeCert, 2009.
[13]
L. Higham, J. Kawash, and N. Verwaaland. Defining and Comparing Memory Consistency Models. In Proc. of PDCS, 1997.
[14]
L. Hubert, T. Jensen, V. Monfort, and D. Pichardie. Enforcing Secure Object Initialization in Java. In Proc. of ESORICS, 2010.
[15]
M. Huisman and G. Petri. The Java Memory Model: a Formal Explanation. In Proc. of VAMP, 2007.
[16]
R. Jagadeesan, C. Pitcher, and J. Riely. Generative Operational Semantics for Relaxed Memory Models. In Proc. of ESOP, 2010.
[17]
K. Kawachiya, A. Koseki, and T. Onodera. Lock Reservation: Java Locks can Mostly doWithout Atomic Operations. In Proc. of OOPSLA, 2002.
[18]
G. Klein and T. Nipkow. A Machine-Checked Model for a Java-like Language, Virtual Machine, and Compiler. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst., 28(4), 2006.
[19]
L. Lamport. Time, Clocks, and the Ordering of Events in a Distributed System. Commun. ACM, 21(7), 1978.
[20]
X. Leroy. A Formally Verified Compiler Back-end. J. Autom. Reasoning, 43(4), 2009.
[21]
A. Lochbihler. Java and the Java memory Model -- a Unified, Machine-Checked Formalisation. In Proc. of ESOP, 2012.
[22]
J. Manson, W. Pugh, and S. V. Adve. The Java Memory Model. In Proc. of POPL, 2005.
[23]
D. Marino, A. Singh, T. D. Millstein, M. Musuvathi, and S. Narayanasamy. A Case for an SC-Preserving Compiler. In Proc. of PLDI, 2011.
[24]
A. Mine. Static Analysis of Run-Time Errors in Embedded Critical Parallel C Programs. In Proc. of ESOP, 2011.
[25]
S. Owens, S. Sarkar, and P. Sewell. A Better x86 Memory Model: x86-TSO. In Proc. of TPHOLs, 2009.
[26]
F. Pizlo, L. Ziarek, E. Blanton, P. Maj, and J. Vitek. High-level Programming of Embedded Hard Real-Time Devices. In Proc. of EuroSys, 2010.
[27]
W. Pugh. The Initialization On Demand Holder idiom, 2004. http://www.cs.umd.edu/~pugh/java/memoryModel/jsr-133-faq.html#dcl.
[28]
W. Pugh. Causality test cases for the Java Memory Model, 2004. http://www.cs.umd.edu/~pugh/java/memoryModel/CausalityTestCases.html.
[29]
K. Russell and D. Detlefs. Eliminating Synchronization-Related Atomic Operations with Biased Locking and Bulk Rebiasing. In Proc. of OOPSLA, 2006.
[30]
S. Sarkar, P. Sewell, F. Z. Nardelli, S. Owens, T. Ridge, T. Braibant, M. O. Myreen, and J. Alglave. The Semantics of x86-CC Multiprocessor Machine Code. In Proc. of POPL, 2009.
[31]
S. Sarkar, P. Sewell, J. Alglave, L. Maranget, and D. Williams. Understanding Power Multiprocessors. In Proc. of PLDI, 2011.
[32]
J. Sevc1k. Program Transformations in Weak Memory Models. PhD thesis, The University of Edinburgh, 2009.
[33]
J. Sevc1k. Safe optimisations for shared-memory concurrent programs. In Proc. of PLDI, 2011.
[34]
J. Sevc1k and D. Aspinall. On Validity of Program Transformations in the Java Memory Model. In Proc. of ECOOP, 2008.
[35]
J. Sevc1k, V. Vafeiadis, F. Z. Nardelli, S. Jagannathan, and P. Sewell. Relaxed-memory Concurrency and Verified Compilation. In Proc. of POPL, 2011.
[36]
P. Sewell, S. Sarkar, S. Owens, F. Z. Nardelli, and M. O. Myreen. x86-TSO: A rigorous and usable programmer's model for x86 multiprocessors. Commun. ACM, 53(7), 2010.
[37]
E. Torlak, M. Vaziri, and J. Dolby. MemSAT: Checking Axiomatic Specifications of Memory Models. In Proc. of PLDI, 2010.
[38]
V. Vafeiadis and F. Z. Nardelli. Verifying fence elimination optimisations. In Proc. of SAS, 2011.

Cited By

View all
  • (2022)UTP semantics for the MCA ARMv8 architectureJournal of Systems Architecture: the EUROMICRO Journal10.1016/j.sysarc.2022.102438125:COnline publication date: 18-May-2022
  • (2021)Safe-by-default Concurrency for Modern Programming LanguagesACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems10.1145/346220643:3(1-50)Online publication date: 3-Sep-2021
  • (2020)Pomsets with preconditions: a simple model of relaxed memoryProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/34282624:OOPSLA(1-30)Online publication date: 13-Nov-2020
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
POPL '13: Proceedings of the 40th annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages
January 2013
586 pages
ISBN:9781450318327
DOI:10.1145/2429069
  • cover image ACM SIGPLAN Notices
    ACM SIGPLAN Notices  Volume 48, Issue 1
    POPL '13
    January 2013
    561 pages
    ISSN:0362-1340
    EISSN:1558-1160
    DOI:10.1145/2480359
    Issue’s Table of Contents
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

In-Cooperation

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 23 January 2013

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. concurrency
  2. java
  3. memory model
  4. verified compilation

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

POPL '13
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 824 of 4,130 submissions, 20%

Upcoming Conference

POPL '25

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)4
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 24 Sep 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2022)UTP semantics for the MCA ARMv8 architectureJournal of Systems Architecture: the EUROMICRO Journal10.1016/j.sysarc.2022.102438125:COnline publication date: 18-May-2022
  • (2021)Safe-by-default Concurrency for Modern Programming LanguagesACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems10.1145/346220643:3(1-50)Online publication date: 3-Sep-2021
  • (2020)Pomsets with preconditions: a simple model of relaxed memoryProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/34282624:OOPSLA(1-30)Online publication date: 13-Nov-2020
  • (2019)Accelerating sequential consistency for Java with speculative compilationProceedings of the 40th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation10.1145/3314221.3314611(16-30)Online publication date: 8-Jun-2019
  • (2019)Verifying a Concurrent Garbage Collector with a Rely-Guarantee MethodologyJournal of Automated Reasoning10.1007/s10817-018-9489-x63:2(489-515)Online publication date: 1-Aug-2019
  • (2018)Precise and scalable points-to analysis via data-driven context tunnelingProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/32765102:OOPSLA(1-29)Online publication date: 24-Oct-2018
  • (2018)Incrementalizing lattice-based program analyses in DatalogProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/32765092:OOPSLA(1-29)Online publication date: 24-Oct-2018
  • (2018)Identifying refactoring opportunities for replacing type code with subclass and stateProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/32765082:OOPSLA(1-28)Online publication date: 24-Oct-2018
  • (2018)Persistence semantics for weak memory: integrating epoch persistency with the TSO memory modelProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/32765072:OOPSLA(1-27)Online publication date: 24-Oct-2018
  • (2018)Towards understanding the costs of avoiding out-of-thin-air resultsProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/32765062:OOPSLA(1-29)Online publication date: 24-Oct-2018
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

Get Access

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media