1 / 28

An Approach to Formalization and Analysis of Message Passing Libraries

An Approach to Formalization and Analysis of Message Passing Libraries. Robert Palmer Intel Validation Research Labs, Hillsboro, OR (work done at the Univ of Utah as PhD student) Michael DeLisi (undergraduate; his first research paper) Ganesh Gopalakrishnan Robert M. Kirby

wbraga
Download Presentation

An Approach to Formalization and Analysis of Message Passing Libraries

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. An Approach to Formalization and Analysis of Message Passing Libraries Robert Palmer Intel Validation Research Labs, Hillsboro, OR (work done at the Univ of Utah as PhD student) Michael DeLisi (undergraduate; his first research paper) Ganesh Gopalakrishnan Robert M. Kirby School of Computing University of Utah Supported by: Microsoft HPC Institutes NSF CNS 0509379

  2. MPI is the de-facto standard for programming cluster machines  (BlueGene/L - Image courtesy of IBM / LLNL) (Image courtesy of Steve Parker, CSAFE, Utah) Our focus: Eliminate Concurrency Bugs from HPC Programs !An Inconvenient Truth: Bugs  More CO2 , Bad Numbers !

  3. So many ways to eliminate bugs … • Our Contribution: • A Formal Model of 50 (of the 300) MPI functions • An execution environment from which to • check simple “litmus tests” • VisualStudio Integration with Microsoft Phoenix • Compiler Front-end • Has spawned other research • (e.g. develop POR for MPI programs, and • In-Situ model checker for MPI Programs) • Formalization helped reveal omissions in standard • Can potentially help designer understand today’s • complex standards • Recommended for future libraries (APIs)

  4. A Simple MPI /C Program 1/3/2020 /* Add-up integrals calculated by each process */ if (my_rank == 0) { total = integral; for (source = 0; source < p; source++) { MPI_Recv(&integral, 1, MPI_FLOAT,source, tag, MPI_COMM_WORLD, &status); total = total + integral; } } else { MPI_Send(&integral, 1, MPI_FLOAT, dest, tag, MPI_COMM_WORLD); }

  5. Library Semantics Dictates Behaviore.g. mismatched send/recv causing deadlock p0:fr 0 p0:fr 1 p0:fr 2 p1:to 0 p2:to 0 p3:to 0 1/3/2020 /* Add-up integrals calculated by each process */ if (my_rank == 0) { total = integral; for (source = 0; source < p; source++) { MPI_Recv(&integral, 1, MPI_FLOAT,source, tag, MPI_COMM_WORLD, &status); total = total + integral; } } else { MPI_Send(&integral, 1, MPI_FLOAT, dest, tag, MPI_COMM_WORLD); }

  6. Challenges for SW Model Checking • Build Debugging Tools that “understand” • Library Semantics • Perform Static Analysis and Model • Reductions modulo Library Semantics! • A new world-order where the embedding program serves as a ‘control scaffolding’ with the “action” being within library calls 1/3/2020

  7. Library Semantics Modeling Approaches • Natural Language Documents • They alone don’t suffice (obvious drawbacks) • Formal Descriptions • - Use standard notations, ideally executable 1/3/2020

  8. Practitioners must be able to benefit… They must be able to gain deeper understanding of the library thru the spec Must be able to submit “litmus tests” and see outcomes in familiar ways 1/3/2020

  9. Retain the Level of Detail of Interest 1/3/2020

  10. Example: Challenge posed by a 5-line MPI program… p0: { Irecv(rcvbuf1, from p1); Irecv(rcvbuf2, from p1); … } p1: { sendbuf1 = 6; sendbuf2 = 7; Issend(sendbuf1, to p0); Isend (sendbuf2, to p0); … } • In-order message delivery (rcvbuf1 == 6) • Can access the buffers only after a later wait / test • The second receive may complete before the first • When Issend (synch.) is posted, all that is guaranteed • is that Irecv(rcvbuf1,…) has been posted 1/3/2020

  11. Our Contributions Formal Executable Spec of the point-to-point operations of MPI – written in TLA+ Simple MPI / C programs are compiled into TLA+ models and linked with Formal Semantics – all under Microsoft VisualStudio Errors in Litmus Tests generate error traces that can step the Visual-Studio debugger Same Framework includes a customized MPI model checker and soon a Dynamic Execution-based Model Checker with DPOR 1/3/2020

  12. One of our Litmus Tests

  13. Executable Formal Specification and MPIC Model Checker Integration into VS Visual Studio 2005 Verification Environment Phoenix Compiler MPIC IR TLA+ MPI Library Model TLA+ Prog. Model MPIC Program Model TLC Model Checker MPIC Model Checker 1/3/2020

  14. MPI Formal Specification Organization Requests Collective Context Group Communicator Point to Point Operations Collective Operations Constants MPI 1.1 API 1/3/2020

  15. The Histrionics of FV for HPC (1)

  16. The Histrionics of FV for HPC (2)

  17. Error-trace Visualization in VisualStudio

  18. Spec of MPI_Wait (Slide 1 of 2)

  19. Spec of MPI_Wait (Slide 2 of 2)

  20. Related Work (Formalization and tool integration) • Use of TLA+ (or similar notations) to write executable specs is nothing new • Use to model a subset of MPI is new • Integration with VS and VS-debugger (or similar tools) may help designers become comfortable with formal specs

  21. Related Work (MPI formalization) Siegel (VMCAI 2007) has proposed a Promela model for MPI Uses Promela constructions to mimic MPI behavior Uses the Promela / C interface Uses an elaborately hand-crafted state machine Is much faster, and rides on established technology The declarative reading (emphasizing “what”) is lost

  22. Control state machine used in Siegel (VMCAI 2007)

  23. Concluding Remarks (1 of 3) • Quote from Lynn Conway (quote in VLSI, paraphrased): “There are two realities that must be met – - the architecture of a microprocessor, and - the polygons of the layout. Everything in-between is a luxury to be availed depending on our resources.”

  24. Concluding Remarks (2 of 3) • In our world: - The executable formal spec: the “what” (architecture) - An In-Situ Dynamic Partial Order Reduction (ISP) model checker is the “how” (or “polygons”) (paper in EuroPVM / MPI 2007) - The “in-between” is a customized MPI model checker for some of its constructs (PADTAD 2007)

  25. Concluding Remarks (3 of 3) • Formal Spec of Concurrency Libraries is essential for the development of a whole range of FV tools • It helps programmers avoid misunderstandings about the library • It can help during the platform testing of Library Implementations (think about multicores and transactions used in future library implementations The Model Checking Community and the Formal Spec Community must work hand-in-hand in addressing the issues in tomorrow’s Parallel and Distributed Programs

  26. Partial Demo

  27. Questions ? The verification environment is downloadable from http://www.cs.utah.edu/formal_verification/mpic It is at an early stage of development

  28. Answers! • We are extending it to Collective Operations • lesson learned from de Supinski • We may perform Formal Testing of MPI Library Implementations based on the Formal Semantics • We plan to analyze mixed MPI / Threads • That is a very good question – let’s talk!

More Related