BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Matthew Parkinson

Matthew Parkinson contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Logic in Computer ScienceDistributed, Parallel, and Cluster ComputingProgramming Languages

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - Baseline
2works
0followers
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2016arXiv

A Generic Logic for Proving Linearizability (Extended Version)

Linearizability is a commonly accepted notion of correctness for libraries of concurrent algorithms, and recent years have seen a number of proposals of program logics for proving it. Although these logics differ in technical details, they embody similar reasoning principles. To explicate these principles, we propose a logic for proving linearizability that is generic: it can be instantiated with different means of compositional reasoning about concurrency, such as separation logic or rely-guarantee. To this end, we generalise the Views framework for reasoning about concurrency to handle relations between programs, required for proving linearizability. We present sample instantiations of our generic logic and show that it is powerful enough to handle concurrent algorithms with challenging features, such as helping.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

New Lace and Arsenic: adventures in weak memory with a program logic

We describe a program logic for weak memory (also known as relaxed memory). The logic is based on Hoare logic within a thread, and rely/guarantee between threads. It is presented via examples, giving proofs of many weak-memory litmus tests. It extends to coherence but not yet to synchronised assignment (compare-and-swap, load-logical/store-conditional). It deals with conditionals and loops but not yet arrays or heap. The logic uses a version of Hoare logic within threads, and a version of rely/guarantee between threads, with five stability rules to handle various kinds of parallelism (external, internal, propagation-free and two kinds of in-flight parallelism). There are $\mathbb{B}$ and $\mathbb{U}$ modalities to regulate propagation, and temporal modalities $\mathsf{since}$, $\mathbb{S}\mathsf{ofar}$ and $\mathbb{O}\mathsf{uat}$ to deal with global coherence (SC per location). The logic is presented by example. Proofs and unproofs of about thirty weak-memory examples, including many litmus tests in various guises, are dealt with in detail. There is a proof of a version of the token ring. In version 2: The correspondence with Herding Cats has been clarified. The stability rules have been simplified: in particular the sat and x= x tests have been eliminated from external stability checks. The embedding is simplified and has a more transparent relation to the mechanisms of the logic. Definitions of U, Sofar and Ouat have been considerably altered. The description of modalities and the treatment of termination has been reworked. Many proofs are reconstructed. A comprehensive summary of the logic is an appendix.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access