Paper detail

RealityCheck: Bringing Modularity, Hierarchy, and Abstraction to Automated Microarchitectural Memory Consistency Verification

Modern SoCs are heterogeneous parallel systems comprised of components developed by distinct teams and possibly even different vendors. The memory consistency model (MCM) of processors in such SoCs specifies the ordering rules which constrain the values that can be read by load instructions in parallel programs running on such systems. The implementation of required MCM orderings can span components which may be designed and implemented by many different teams. Ideally, each team would be able to specify the orderings enforced by their components independently and then connect them together when conducting MCM verification. However, no prior automated approach for formal hardware MCM verification provided this. To bring automated hardware MCM verification in line with the realities of the design process, we present RealityCheck, a methodology and tool for automated formal MCM verification of modular microarchitectural ordering specifications. RealityCheck allows users to specify their designs as a hierarchy of distinct modules connected to each other rather than a single flat specification. It can then automatically verify litmus test programs against these modular specifications. RealityCheck also provides support for abstraction, which enables scalable verification by breaking up the verification of the entire design into smaller verification problems. We present results for verifying litmus tests on 7 different designs using RealityCheck. These include in-order and out-of-order pipelines, a non-blocking cache, and a heterogeneous processor. Our case studies cover the TSO and RISC-V (RVWMO) weak memory models. RealityCheck is capable of verifying 98 RVWMO litmus tests in under 4 minutes each, and its capability for abstraction enables up to a 32.1% reduction in litmus test verification time for RVWMO.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.