Skip Navigation



Journal of Logic and Computation Advance Access published online on February 12, 2009
Journal of Logic and Computation, doi:10.1093/logcom/exp006
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ezekiel, J.
Right arrow Articles by Siminiceanu, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author, 2009. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Original Papers

To Parallelize or to Optimize?

Jonathan Ezekiel

Department of Computing, Imperial College, London, UK.
E-mail: jezekiel{at}doc.ic.ac.uk

Gerald Lüttgen

Department of Computer Science, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK.
E-mail: gerald.luettgen{at}cs.york.ac.uk

Radu Siminiceanu

National Institute of Aerospace, Hampton, Virginia, USA.
E-mail: radu{at}nianet.org

Received 29 February 2008.


  Abstract

Model checking is a popular and successful technique for verifying complex digital systems. Carrying this technique—and its underlying state-space generation algorithms—beyond its current limitations presents itself with a number of alternatives. Our focus is on parallelization which is made attractive by the current trend in hardware architectures towards multi-core, multi-processor systems. The main obstacle in this endeavour is that, in particular, symbolic state-space generation algorithms are notoriously hard to parallelize. In this article, we describe the process of taking a sequential symbolic state-space generation algorithm, namely a generic, symbolic BFS algorithm, through a sequence of optimizations that leads up to the Saturation algorithm and follow the impact these sequential algorithms have on their parallel counterparts. In particular, we develop a parallel version of Saturation, discuss the challenges faced in its design and conduct extensive experimental studies of its implementation. We employ rigorous analysis tools and techniques for measuring and evaluating parallel overheads and the quality of the parallelization. The outcome of these studies is that the performance of a parallel symbolic state-space generation algorithm is almost impossible to predict and highly dependent on the model to which it is applied. In most situations, perceivable speed-ups are hard to achieve, but real-world applications where our technique produces significant improvements do exist. Nevertheless, it appears that time is better invested in optimizing sequential symbolic model checking algorithms rather than parallelizing them.

Keywords: Symbolic state-space generation; Saturation; parallelisation; benchmarking


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.