Download
automating commutativity analysis at the design level n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Automating Commutativity Analysis at the Design Level PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Automating Commutativity Analysis at the Design Level

Automating Commutativity Analysis at the Design Level

53 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Automating Commutativity Analysis at the Design Level

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Automating Commutativity Analysis at the Design Level Greg Dennis, Robert Seater, Derek Rayside, Daniel Jackson MIT CSAIL gdennis@mit.edu

  2. Therac-25 (1985-1987) • race conditions when operator typed too quickly • lacked hardware interlocks in previous versions • X-rays delivered without metal target in place • problems eluded testing • 6 major overdoses, 2 deaths

  3. Panama (2001) • déjà vu all over again • unexpected data entry • 20%-100% more radiation than prescribed • 28 overdoses, at least 6 attributable deaths

  4. Northeast Proton Therapy Center • proton therapy machine at MGH • unlike the Therac or Panama • extensive hardware interlocks • abundant runtime checks • thoroughly reviewed and tested

  5. room 2 Master Control Room (MCR) TCR 1 TCR 2 TCR 3 NPTC Overview cyclotron

  6. Automatic Beam Scheduler (ABS) Request Queue allocated room 2 room 3 pending room 3 room 1 room 1

  7. 1 1 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 TCR Operations • RequestBeam • RequestBeamHighPriority • CancelBeamRequest • ReleaseBeam Request(2) Request(1) ReqHigh(3) Cancel(1) Release(3)

  8. 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 3 1 1 3 1 MCR Operations • StepUp • StepDown • Flush • FlushAll StepDown(1) StepUp(1) Flush(3) FlushAll()

  9. 2 Request(1) FlushAll() 3 2 2 3 1 2 2 1 Interfering Commands FlushAll() Request(1) Request(1) FlushAll() ≠

  10. Commutativity • if not, results can be surprising when commands issued simultaneously.

  11. Violations of Commutativity Violation of Diamond Connectivity: Violation of Diamond Equivalence:

  12. What We Did OCL Spec of Beam Scheduler Alloy Model Commutativity Properties Alloy Analyzer commutativity properties for each pair of operations Commutativity Matrix

  13. OCL Spec context BeamScheduler::cancelBeamRequest(req: BeamRequest) pre: -- BeamRequest is inside the pending request queue self.pendingRequests@pre->exists(r | r == req) post: -- BeamRequest is not inside the pending requests queue not self.pendingRequests->exists(r | r == req) key differences between OCL and Alloy?

  14. open util/ordering[OrderID] sig Request { room: Room, priority: Priority } sig Room {} abstract sig Priority {} one sig Service, Normal, High extends Priority {} sig Queue { alloc, pending, requests : set Request, order: requests -> one OrderID }{ requests = alloc + pending } sig OrderID {}

  15. Operations pred CancelBeamRequest(q, q': Queue, req: Request) { preCancelBeamRequest(q, req) q'.pending = q.pending - req q'.alloc = q.alloc q'.order = (q.requests – req) <: (q.order) } pred preCancelBeamRequest(q: Queue, req: Request) { req in q.pending } effect of operation as constraint on pre- and post-state we factored out the precondition of each operation into a separate predicate

  16. Commutativity Properties assert A_B_Equiv { all si, sa, sb, sab, sba: Queue { A(si,sa) && B(sa,sab) && B(si,sb) && A(sb,sba) => sab = sba } } assert Cancel_StepUp_Equiv { all si, sa, sb, sab, sba: Queue, rq1, rq2: Request { (Invariants(si) && CancelBeamRequest(si, sa, rq1) && StepUp(sa, sab, rq2) && StepUp(si, sb, rq2) && CancelBeamRequest(sb, sba, rq1)) => equivQueues(sab, sba) } }

  17. Results TCR Operations TCR Operations MCR Operations 3-100 seconds/analysis, Pentium III 600 MHz, 192 MB RAM

  18. ReqHigh(1) 2 Release(2) 1 2 1 Non-commutativity Example Release(2) ReqHigh(1) ReqHigh(1) Release(2) cannot execute

  19. Pure Logic Modeling • Could we have modeled commutativity in OCL with built-in state transitions? • "Pure Logic Modeling": • explicit states allows us to "rewind" time and ask about different execution traces • Similar difficulty analyzing these properties with traditional model checker.

  20. Conclusions • Practical results from lightweight formal methods • Commutativity analysis is useful • when humans manipulate shared data • Constraint solver effective for this analysis • didn't stretch limits of tool or modelers • Analyzability is important in practice • Pure logic modeling is powerful