• No results found

Separating computation and coordination in the design of parallel and distributed programs

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Separating computation and coordination in the design of parallel and distributed programs"

Copied!
8
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

Separating computation and coordination in the design of parallel and

distributed programs

Chaudron, M.R.V.

Citation

Chaudron, M. R. V. (1998, May 28). Separating computation and coordination in the design of parallel and distributed programs. ASCI dissertation series. Retrieved from

https://hdl.handle.net/1887/26994

Version: Corrected Publisher’s Version

License: Licence agreement concerning inclusion of doctoral thesis in theInstitutional Repository of the University of Leiden Downloaded from: https://hdl.handle.net/1887/26994

(2)

Cover Page

The handle http://hdl.handle.net/1887/26994 holds various files of this Leiden University dissertation

Author: Chaudron, Michel

Title: Separating computation and coordination in the design of parallel and distributed programs

(3)

List of Figures

2.1 Possible execution of the program swap in a multiset M0 =

{(1, D), (2, C), (3, B), (4, A)} . . . 6

2.2 Abstract Syntax of Multiset Transformer Programs . . . 7

2.3 Semantics of Multiset Transformer Programs . . . 10

3.1 Abstract Syntax of the Coordination Language . . . 20

3.2 Structural Congruences for Schedules . . . 23

3.3 Semantics of Schedules . . . 24

4.1 Refinement by Limiting Execution Space . . . 52

4.2 Hasse diagram of the refinements of r1k r2. . . 58

4.3 Transition graphs of (r1; r2)k (r2; r1) (left) and partially of !(r1k r2) (right). . . 59

4.4 Refinement of Lemma 4.4.13 . . . 79

6.1 Lattice of Notions of Refinement . . . 162

7.1 Lattice of Refinements for Summation Schedules . . . 169

7.2 Lattice of Refinements of Prime Sieving Schedules . . . 180

7.3 Lattice of Refinements of Sorting Schedules . . . 208

7.4 Lattice of Refinements of Shortest Path Schedules . . . 223

7.5 Decomposition of Triangular Solve . . . 233

7.6 Block Inner Product Strategy . . . 238

7.7 Block Vector Update Strategy . . . 239

7.8 Lattice of Refinements of Triangular Solve Schedules . . . 241

A.1 Semantic Rule for Nondeterministic Choice . . . 277

(4)

Index

Symbols ∆P . . . 32 ΠP. . . 32 ↑. . . .25 ε . . . 22 µ . . . 33 hs, Mi-derived. . . .33 initially . . . 15 invariant . . . 15 stable . . . 15 unless . . . 15 A action refinement. . . .255, 256 action system . . . 254 algebraic reasoning . . . 75 assignment statement . . . 254 B bisimulation . . . 53, 260 BLAS . . . 239 C capability function for programs . . . 11, 61 for schedules . . . 25 generic . . . 116

chemical abstract machine . . . 23

chromatic typing . . . 272 composite number . . . 170 compositional reasoning . . . 62, 258 and interaction . . . 64 congruence . . . 23, 277 context . . . 72

worst case assumption . . . 72

(5)
(6)

294 INDEX

prefix. . . .54

relation between notions of . . . 162

strong convex . . . 137 strong generic (φ-) . . . 99 strong statebased. . . .56 strong stateless . . . 73 total correctness . . . 70 weak convex . . . 137 weak generic (φ-) . . . 122 weak statebased . . . 67 weak stateless . . . 89 S safety . . . 138 schedule . . . 19 abstract syntax . . . 20 adaptive . . . 192 conditional combinator. . . .20 definition . . . 20 empty . . . 19 ground . . . 19 identifier . . . 19, 20 most general. . . .31 nondeterministic choice . . . 27, 268 oblivious . . . 192 parallel combinator . . . 20 replication operator . . . 20, 48 rule-conditional . . . 19 semantics . . . 24 sequential combinator . . . 20 sort of . . . 39 substitution. . . .19

synchronous parallel composition 269 transition graph . . . 52, 59 shared dataspace. . . .53 simulation . . . 54 prefix. . . .54 statebased . . . 56 stateless . . . 72 strong . . . 56 strong generic (φ-) . . . 97 strong statebased. . . .56 strong stateless . . . 73 up-to . . . 57 weak . . . 66 weak generic (φ-) . . . 118 weak statebased . . . 67 weak stateless . . . 89

single step semantics . . . 271

skeleton . . . 276 sort of a program . . . 39 of a schedule . . . 39 sorting . . . 181 Bubble Sort . . . 183 Heap Sort . . . 195 in-place . . . 181 Insertion Sort . . . 22 Odd-Even Sort . . . 22 Quicksort . . . 200 Ripple Sort . . . 188 Select Sort . . . 193

Straight Selection Sort . . . 200

(7)
(8)

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

The multi-step operational semantics of Figure 2.3 and the single-step operational semantics of [65] endow Gamma programs with different behaviour (in the sense of the

In this section we show that a most general schedule does not describe any behaviour that cannot be displayed by the corresponding Gamma program, we first consider this claim

In general, statebased refinement is not preserved by parallel composition because the interaction of the refined components of the composition may give rise to behaviour that is

In order use the generic theory of refinement to prove that the weak notions of refinement satisfy the properties proposed in previous sections, we need to check that the

With this notion of refinement it is possible to justify refinements using properties of the multiset (just as statebased refinement) and use these in a modular way (because it is

The Selection Sort schedule was derived using convex refinement laws. The first two re- finements were obtained by decomposing the domain of the index variables of the rewrite rule

Initially, a calculus of refinement of action systems was based on weakest precondi- tions [4, 5]. Based on this notion of refinement a step-wise method for the development of

In his thesis [79], De Jong expresses his ideas on how a computational model based on multiset transformations and a separate coordination model based on scheduling can be integrated