Researcher profile

Thorsten Tarrach

Thorsten Tarrach contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - Baseline
3works
0followers
2topics
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

3 published item(s)

preprint2015arXiv

From Non-preemptive to Preemptive Scheduling using Synchronization Synthesis

We present a computer-aided programming approach to concurrency. The approach allows programmers to program assuming a friendly, non-preemptive scheduler, and our synthesis procedure inserts synchronization to ensure that the final program works even with a preemptive scheduler. The correctness specification is implicit, inferred from the non-preemptive behavior. Let us consider sequences of calls that the program makes to an external interface. The specification requires that any such sequence produced under a preemptive scheduler should be included in the set of such sequences produced under a non-preemptive scheduler. The solution is based on a finitary abstraction, an algorithm for bounded language inclusion modulo an independence relation, and rules for inserting synchronization. We apply the approach to device-driver programming, where the driver threads call the software interface of the device and the API provided by the operating system. Our experiments demonstrate that our synthesis method is precise and efficient, and, since it does not require explicit specifications, is more practical than the conventional approach based on user-provided assertions.

preprint2015arXiv

Optimizing Solution Quality in Synchronization Synthesis

Given a multithreaded program written assuming a friendly, non-preemptive scheduler, the goal of synchronization synthesis is to automatically insert synchronization primitives to ensure that the modified program behaves correctly, even with a preemptive scheduler. In this work, we focus on the quality of the synthesized solution: we aim to infer synchronization placements that not only ensure correctness, but also meet some quantitative objectives such as optimal program performance on a given computing platform. The key step that enables solution optimization is the construction of a set of global constraints over synchronization placements such that each model of the constraints set corresponds to a correctness-ensuring synchronization placement. We extract the global constraints from generalizations of counterexample traces and the control-flow graph of the program. The global constraints enable us to choose from among the encoded synchronization solutions using an objective function. We consider two types of objective functions: ones that are solely dependent on the program (e.g., minimizing the size of critical sections) and ones that are also dependent on the computing platform. For the latter, given a program and a computing platform, we construct a performance model based on measuring average contention for critical sections and the average time taken to acquire and release a lock under a given average contention. We empirically evaluated that our approach scales to typical module sizes of many real world concurrent programs such as device drivers and multithreaded servers, and that the performance predictions match reality. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive approach for optimizing the placement of synthesized synchronization.

preprint2014arXiv

Regression-free Synthesis for Concurrency

While fixing concurrency bugs, program repair algorithms may introduce new concurrency bugs. We present an algorithm that avoids such regressions. The solution space is given by a set of program transformations we consider in for repair process. These include reordering of instructions within a thread and inserting atomic sections. The new algorithm learns a constraint on the space of candidate solutions, from both positive examples (error-free traces) and counterexamples (error traces). From each counterexample, the algorithm learns a constraint necessary to remove the errors. From each positive examples, it learns a constraint that is necessary in order to prevent the repair from turning the trace into an error trace. We implemented the algorithm and evaluated it on simplified Linux device drivers with known bugs.