Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Efficient Reachability Analysis for Verification of Asynchronous Systems Nishant Sinha.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Efficient Reachability Analysis for Verification of Asynchronous Systems Nishant Sinha."— Presentation transcript:

1 Efficient Reachability Analysis for Verification of Asynchronous Systems Nishant Sinha

2 2 Outline  Formal Verification: Motivation  Reachability for Asynchronous Systems Partitioned Transition Relations  Efficient Reachability Techniques MBFS and Saturation  Saturation: Experimental Results  Conclusions

3 3 Formal Verification: Introduction  Use methods from formal logic Show validity of properties on systems Formal requirements hold on a design Software, circuits, protocol models Alternative to simulation, testing Not all behaviors covered  Model checking Verify concurrent systems Introduced by Clarke et al. (1981) An automated technique

4 4 Model Checking  Finite state-transition model M, Property   Determine if M satisfies   Properties  like: req is always followed by ack No error state is reachable from the initial state  Involves Reachability analysis Generate reachable set of states State space explosion 2K2K.... K

5 5 Asynchronous Systems  Concurrent Systems Consist of several execution units  Synchronous All units take an execution step together  Asynchronous Units may execute independent of each other Interleaved semantics of execution E.g. Concurrent software, asynchronous circuits  Goal: Efficient model checking of asynchronous systems Symbolic Reduced State-Space

6 6 Symbolic Model Checking  Use Ordered Binary Decision Diagrams (BDDs) Canonical, compact, operate on state sets  Encode the system model M with BDDs States encoded by boolean variables V Transition relation also as BDD N(V,V’) s1s1 s0s0 t1t1 t2t2 t3t3 s0s1s0s1 a01a01 (!a Æ a’)  (a Æ !a’)  (a Æ a’) N(a,a’) = a a’ a a < a’ 0 0

7 7 Partial-Order Reduction s0s0’s0s0’ s0s1’s0s1’ s1s0’s1s0’ s1s1’s1s1’ Choose a representative set of paths  Alternative model checking approach Useful if order of execution of transitions is irrelevant  Sufficient to visit a subset of actual reachable state space  Focus of this talk Full state space reachability using BDDs a a b b s0s0 s1s1 s0’s0’s1’s1’ b a

8 8 Reachability Analysis  One-step reachability: Given a set of states S Find which states S’ can be reached in one step  Iteratively apply one-step reachability Until no new states are visited  Breadth-first exploration of graph e a d g b c f R0R0 R1R1 R2R2 e a d g b c f e a d g b c f = R 3

9 9 The Bigger Picture Combinational Circuit Delay o1o1 o 1 = 0 o 2 = 0 o 1 = 1 o 2 = 0 o 1 = 0 o 2 = 1 o 1 = 1 o 2 = 1 ? I1I1 Combinational Circuit Delay o2o2 I2I2

10 10 Symbolic Reachability : Image Computation  Image of a set of states S Transition relation N: one-step reachability Basic operation, hence must be efficient  Symbolic image computation: S(V), N(V,V’) BDDs Img(S,N) = [ 9 v 2 V (S(V) Æ N(V,V’) )]  Reachability (starting from initial S 0 ): Reach(S,N) = S [ Img(S,N) Fixpoint: S. Reach(S,N)Fixpoint: S. Reach(S,N)  Efficiency problem: Large N(V,V’) Large intermediate BDD sizes in image computation

11 11 Illustration: Intermediate BDD Sizes # BddNodes # States Dining Philosophers model Iterations

12 12 Partitioned Transition Relations  Introduced by Burch et al. (BCL91)   : Conjunction ( Æ ) or Disjunction () N(V,V’) = N 1  N 2   N k Typically, each N i much smaller than N  Asynchronous systems with interleaving semantics: N(V,V’) = N 1  N 2   N k N i : only the i th unit executes Img(S, N) = V i Img(S,N i ) [BCL91] J.R. Burch, E.M. Clarke, and D.E. Long. Symbolic model checking with partitioned transition relations. In A. Halaas and P.B. Denyer, editors, International Conference on Very Large Scale Integration, pages 49-58, Edinburgh, Scotland, North-Holland. N1N1 N2N2 N3N3

13 13 BDD blowup  Must consider different intermediate combinations of reachable states of concurrent units Even if they are independent Adds to intermediate BDD sizes  Idea: Explore each unit separately to avoid such correlation [BCL91] Modified Breadth-First Search (MBFS) [BCL91] J.R. Burch, E.M. Clarke, and D.E. Long. Symbolic model checking with partitioned transition relations. In A. Halaas and P.B. Denyer, editors, International Conference on Very Large Scale Integration, pages 49-58, Edinburgh, Scotland, North-Holland.

14 14 Modified Breadth-First Search (MBFS)  Given a disjunctive partition: N 1,...,N k Compute local fixpoints: S. Reach(S,N i ) Stop when: 8 i. Reach(S,N i ) = S  Lower intermediate BDD sizes  Chaotic fixpoint iteration strategy Family of functions: {Reach(S,N i ) j i · k} Apply functions in arbitrary order till convergence Must apply each function sufficiently often  Observation: MBFS strategy may not be able to avoid blowups in some cases N1*N1* N2*N2* N3*N3*

15 15 s = (v 2, v 1,... ) N 1, N 2, N 3,... Illustration: BDD Blowup in MBFS s 1 (11) s 0 (00) N2N2 s 2 (01) s 3 (10) N1N1 N1N1 N 1, N 2 v2v2 v1v MBFS N 1, N 2 N1N1 v2v2 1 0 MBFS N2N2 N3N3... v2v2 v1v N1N1 1 MBFS N3N3 BDD explosion (s 0 ) (s 0,s 2 )(s 0,s 1,s 2 ) (s 0,s 1,s 2,s 3 )

16 16 Saturation: New approach  Assume fixed variable ordering on BDDs: v 1 < v 2... < v k  Define High(N i ): “least” variable that N i might change Low(N i ): “greatest” variable that N i might change  Order transition relations by [High(N i ), Low(N i )] : N j Á N i N j changes only “lower” BDD variables than N i v2v2 v1v N2N2 N1N1 N 1 Á N 2

17 17 Saturation (Contd.)  Saturate (N i ) do Compute S. Reach(S,N i ) /* states reachable by only N i */ 8 N j Á N i. Saturate (N j ) /*explore all N j Á N i */ Until S does not change Visits all possible reachable states using “lower” transition relations than N i  Overall Strategy: K partitions For i= 1 to K. Saturate(N i ) N3*N3* N2*N2* N1*N1*

18 18 Saturation: Discussion  Advantages Exploits independence of concurrent units Lower intermediate BDD sizes than MBFS Faster reachability computation in many cases  Drawbacks May lead to spurious iterations Relies heavily on good variable ordering

19 19 Experimental Results  Implemented Saturation approach in NuSMV model checker Handles designs of industrial strength Comparison with NuSMV with default options OOR: out of resources

20 20 Experimental Results (contd.)  Implemented MBFS approach in NuSMV Comparison with MBFS

21 21 Experimental Results (contd.) Iterations Kanban(20): Comparison of Intermediate BDD sizes

22 22 Conclusions  Efficient methods to compute reachable states of asynchronous systems Based on disjunctive partitions MBFS Alternative approach: Saturation  Experimentally validated on several examples  Future research Heuristics for obtaining good BDD variable ordering automatically Combining Saturation with Partial Order Reduction

23 23 Questions ?


Download ppt "Efficient Reachability Analysis for Verification of Asynchronous Systems Nishant Sinha."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google