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.
A memory model specifies a correctness requirement for a distributed shared memory protocol. Sequential consistency (SC) is the most widely researched model; previous work citealur1996 has shown that, in general, the SC verification problem is undecidable. We identify two aspects of the formulation found in citealur1996 that we consider to be highly unnatural; we call these non-prefix-closedness and prophetic inheritance. We conjecture that preclusion of such behavior yields a decidable version of SC, which we call decisive sequential consistency (DSC). We also introduce a structure called a phview window (VW), which retains information about a protocol's history, and we define the notion of a phVW-bound, which essentially bounds the size of the VWs needed to maintain DSC. We prove that the class of DSC protocols with VW-bound k is decidable; left conjectured is the hypothesis that all DSC protocols have such a bound, and further that the bound is computable from the protocol description. This hypothesis is true for all real protocols known to us; we verify its truth for the Lazy Caching protocol citeafek1993. Modern shared-memory multiprocessors use complex memory system implementations that include a variety of non-trivial and interacting optimizations. More time is spent in verifying the correctness of such implementations than in designing the system. In particular, large-scale Distributed Shared Memory (DSM) systems usually rely on a directory cache-coherence protocol to provide the illusion of a sequentially consistent shar ed address space. Verifying that such a distributed protocol satisfies sequential consistency is a difficult task. Current formal protocol verification techniques [18] complement simulation, but ar e some what nonintuitive to system designers and verifiers, and they do not scale well to practical systems. In this paper, we examine a new reasoning technique that is precise and (we find) intuitive. Our technique is based on Lamport’ s logical clocks, which were originally used in distributed systems. We make modest extensions to Lamport’ s logical clocking scheme to assign timestamps to r elevant protocol events to construct a total ordering of such events. Such total orderings can be used to verify that the requirements of a particular memory consistency model have been satisfied. We apply Lamport clocks to prove that a non-trivial directory protocol implements sequential consistency. T o do this, we describe an SGI Origin 2000-like protocol [12] in detail, provide a timestamping scheme that totally orders all protocol events, and then prove sequential consistency (i.e., a load always returns the value of the “last” stor e to the same address in timestamp order). The concept of one event happening before another in a distributed system is examined, and is shown to define a partial ordering of the events. A distributed algorithm is given for synchronizing a system of logical clocks which can be used to totally order the events. The use of the total ordering is illustrated with a method for solving synchronization problems. The algorithm is then specialized for synchronizing physical clocks, and a bound is derived on how far out of synchrony the clocks can become. A concurrent object is a data object shared by concurrent processes. Linearizability is a correctness condition for concurrent objects that exploits the semantics of abstract data types. It permits a high degree of concurrency, yet it permits programmers to specify and reason about concurrent objects using known techniques from the sequential domain. Linearizability provides the illusion that each operation applied by concurrent processes takes effect instantaneously at some point between its invocation and its response, implying that the meaning of a concurrent object's operations can be given by pre- and post-conditions. This paper defines linearizability, compares it to other correctness conditions, presents and demonstrates a method for proving the correctness of implementations, and shows how to reason about concurrent objects, given they are linearizable. The notions of serializability, linearizability, and sequential consistency are used in the specification of concurrent systems. We show that the model checking problem for each of these properties can be cast in terms of the containment of one regular language in another regular language shuffled using a semicommutative alphabet. The three model checking problems are shown to be, respectively, in Pspace, in Expspace, and undecidable. The power of two well-known consistency conditions for shared-memory multiprocessors, sequential consistency and linearizability , is compared. The cost measure studied is the worst-case response time in distributed implementations of virtual shared memory supporting one of the two conditions. Three types of shared-memory objects are considered: read write objects, FIFO queues, and stacks. If clocks are only approximately synchronized (or do not exist), then for all three object types it is shown that linearizability is more expensive than sequential consistency. We show that, for all three data types, the worst-case response time is very sensitive to the assumptions that are made about the timing information available to the system. Under the strong assumption that processes have perfectly synchronized clocks, it is shown that sequential consistency and linearizability are equally costly. We present upper bounds for linearizability and matching lower bounds for sequential consistency. The upper bounds are shown by presenting algorithms that use atomic broadcast in a modular fashion. The lower-bound proofs for the approximate case use the technique of “shifting,” first introduced for studying the clock synchronization problem.