Compositional Methods for Probabilistic Systems.pptVIP

Microarchitectural Verification by Compositional Model Checking Microarchitecture VerificationbyCompositional Model Checking Introduction Compositional Model Checking: Decomposing large proofs to a set of automatically provable lemmas Previous Work: Unbounded or infinite state systems: Flash, SGI, Bakery,… Tomasulo’s Algorithm, with just 3 lemmas No need for manually constructed inductive invariant Q: Can the method scale to large and complex systems ? Does the effort grow in reasonable proportion to the complexity Verification of a complete processor microarchitecture Incremental cost of each architectural feature is small Very concise proofs Plan Compositional Model Checking : How to reduce the verification of unbounded systems to a finite state problem Microarchitecture Modeled Important aspects of the proof Proof Decomposition : An example Comparison with other techniques Proof Decomposition reduction to decidable/tractable problems do it in as few (and as simple) steps as possible Functional Decompositions Possible decompositions of problem Structural (by syntax) Temporal (by time steps) Functional (by “units of work”) Functional yields simple intermediate assertions interaction between “units of work” is simpler than between system components Reduction to finite state each “unit of work” uses finite resources identify resources used for a given case abstract away everything else Reduction to Finite State “Circular” Temporal Proofs Let p ?+ q stand for “if p up to time t-1, then q at t” Equivalent in LTL of: ?(p U ?q) : Not the case that q is the first to be false Now we can reason as follows: Using a Reference Model Temporal Case Splitting Combine With Circular Reasoning Abstract Interpretation Problem: variables range over unbounded set U Solution: reduce U to finite set ? by a parameterized abstraction, e.g. where U\i represents all the values in U except i Need a sound abstract interpretation, such that: if f is valid in the abst