Lock Freedom Research Articles

Composition of synchronous communicating systems

Communication is an essential element of modern software, yet programming and analysing communicating systems are difficult tasks.A reason for this difficulty is the lack of compositional mechanisms that preserve relevant communication properties. This problem has been recently addressed for the well-known model of communicating systems, that is sets of components consisting of finite-state machines capable of exchanging messages. Two communicating systems can be composed by selecting one component per system, and transforming both of them into coupled gateways connecting the two systems. More precisely, a gateway forwards a message received from within its system to the other gateway, which then delivers the message to the other system. Suitable compatibility conditions between gateways have been proved sufficient for this composition mechanism to preserve properties such as deadlock freedom for asynchronous as well as symmetric synchronous communications (where sender and receiver play the same part in determining which message to exchange).The present paper gives a comprehensive treatment of the case of synchronous communications. We consider both symmetric synchronous communications and asymmetric synchronous communications (where senders decide independently which message should be exchanged). The composition mechanism preserves different properties under different conditions depending on the considered type of synchronous communication. We show here that preservation of lock freedom requires an additional condition on gateways for asymmetric communication. Such condition is also needed for preservation of deadlock freedom, lock freedom or strong lock freedom for symmetric communications. This is not needed, instead, for preservation of either deadlock freedom or strong lock freedom with asymmetric interactions.

On Composing Communicating Systems

Communication is an essential element of modern software, yet programming and analysing communicating systems are difficult tasks. A reason for this difficulty is the lack of compositional mechanisms that preserve relevant communication properties. This problem has been recently addressed for the well-known model of communicating systems, that is sets of components consisting of finite-state machines capable of exchanging messages. The main idea of this approach is to take two systems, select a participant from each of them, and derive from those participants a pair of coupled gateways connecting the two systems. More precisely, a message directed to one of the gateways is forwarded to the gateway in the other system, which sends it to the other system. It has been shown that, under some suitable compatibility conditions between gateways, this composition mechanism preserves deadlock freedom for asynchronous as well as symmetric synchronous communications (where sender and receiver play the same part in determining which message to exchange). This paper considers the case of asymmetric synchronous communications where senders decide independently which message should be exchanged. We show here that preservation of lock freedom requires sequentiality of gateways, while this is not needed for preservation of either deadlock freedom or strong lock freedom.

Comparing type systems for deadlock freedom

Message-passing software systems exhibit non-trivial forms of concurrency and distribution; they are expected to follow intended protocols among communicating services, but also to never “get stuck”. This intuitive requirement has been expressed by liveness properties such as progress or (dead)lock freedom and various type systems ensure these properties for concurrent processes. Unfortunately, very little is known about the precise relationship between these type systems and the classes of typed processes they induce.This paper puts forward the first comparative study of different type systems for message-passing processes that guarantee deadlock freedom. We compare two classes of deadlock-free typed processes, here denoted L and K. The class L stands out for its canonicity: it results from Curry-Howard interpretations of classical linear logic propositions as session types. The class K, obtained by encoding session types into Kobayashi's linear types with usages, includes processes not typable in other type systems. We show that L is strictly included in K, and identify the precise conditions under which they coincide. We also provide two type-preserving translations of processes in K into processes in L.

Every data structure deserves lock-free memory reclamation

Memory-management support for lock-free data structures is well known to be a tough problem. Recent work has successfully reduced the overhead of such schemes. However, applying memory-management support to a data structure remains complex and, in many cases, requires redesigning the data structure. In this paper, we present the first lock-free memory-management scheme that is applicable to general (arbitrary) lock-free data structures and that can be applied automatically via a compiler plug-in. In addition to the simplicity of incorporating to data structures, this scheme provides low overhead and does not rely on the lock freedom of any OS services.

Comparing Deadlock-Free Session Typed Processes

Besides respecting prescribed protocols, communication-centric systems should never "get stuck". This requirement has been expressed by liveness properties such as progress or (dead)lock freedom. Several typing disciplines that ensure these properties for mobile processes have been proposed. Unfortunately, very little is known about the precise relationship between these disciplines--and the classes of typed processes they induce. In this paper, we compare L and K, two classes of deadlock-free, session typed concurrent processes. The class L stands out for its canonicity: it results naturally from interpretations of linear logic propositions as session types. The class K, obtained by encoding session types into Kobayashi's usage types, includes processes not typable in other type systems. We show that L is strictly included in K. We also identify the precise condition under which L and K coincide. One key observation is that the degree of sharing between parallel processes determines a new expressiveness hierarchy for typed processes. We also provide a type-preserving rewriting procedure of processes in K into processes in L. This procedure suggests that, while effective, the degree of sharing is a rather subtle criteria for distinguishing typed processes.

From Lock Freedom to Progress Using Session Types

Inspired by Kobayashi's type system for lock freedom, we define a behavioral type system for ensuring progress in a language of binary sessions. The key idea is to annotate actions in session types with priorities representing the urgency with which such actions must be performed and to verify that processes perform such actions with the required priority. Compared to related systems for session-based languages, the presented type system is relatively simpler and establishes progress for a wider range of processes.

Workflow-based semantics for peer-to-peer specifications

In this paper we introduce SMoL, a simplified BPEL-like language for specifying peer and service behaviour in P2P systems. We then define a transformational semantics of SMoL in terms of Yet Another Workflow Language (YAWL) workflows, which enables the simulation (e.g., testing possible execution scenarios) and analysis (e.g., verifying reachability or lock freedom) of the behaviour of P2P peers and services.