Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Added Pluscal version of the key-value store with snapshot isolation,… #84

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Aug 22, 2023
46 changes: 44 additions & 2 deletions manifest.json
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -453,7 +453,8 @@
"description": "A simple KVS implementing snapshot isolation",
"source": "",
"authors": [
"Andrew Helwer"
"Andrew Helwer",
"Murat Demirbas"
],
"tags": [],
"modules": [
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -502,7 +503,48 @@
"result": "success"
}
]
}
},
{
"path": "specifications/KeyValueStore/KVsnap.tla",
"communityDependencies": [],
"tlaLanguageVersion": 2,
"features": ["pluscal"],
"models": []
},
{
"path": "specifications/KeyValueStore/MCKVsnap.tla",
"communityDependencies": [],
"tlaLanguageVersion": 2,
"features": [],
"models": [
{
"path": "specifications/KeyValueStore/MCKVsnap.cfg",
"runtime": "00:00:50",
"size": "medium",
"mode": "exhaustive search",
"config": [],
"features": [
"liveness",
"symmetry"
],
"result": "success"
}
]
},
{
"path": "specifications/KeyValueStore/Util.tla",
"communityDependencies": [],
"tlaLanguageVersion": 2,
"features": [],
"models": []
},
{
"path": "specifications/KeyValueStore/ClientCentric.tla",
"communityDependencies": [],
"tlaLanguageVersion": 2,
"features": [],
"models": []
}
]
},
{
Expand Down
185 changes: 185 additions & 0 deletions specifications/KeyValueStore/ClientCentric.tla
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,185 @@
--------------------------- MODULE ClientCentric ---------------------------
EXTENDS Naturals, TLC, Sequences, FiniteSets, Util
VARIABLES Keys, Values
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is it useful to declare these as variable rather than constant parameters? If they were constants, all definitions in this module would be constant level as well, which may avoid trouble further down the line. Also note that the parameters are actually instantiated by constants in module KVsnap.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ClientCentric is not my module, written by Tim, so I am reluctant to make any change there.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Contributor

@TimSoethout TimSoethout Aug 14, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The module is instantiated as seen in: https://github.com/tlaplus/Examples/pull/84/files/adb3d2aa3f62812a2becd5c2f6700d69eb1c5134#diff-ccf178cee4a4265b5f8405a78d596e79973a841e20119a281c19775a1ecae139R14
CC == INSTANCE ClientCentric WITH Keys <- Key, Values <- TxId \union {NoVal}

If something similar is possible with constant parameters, and it is more idiomatic TLA, you should definitely go for constant parameters.

FYI I have no issues in changing/updating the code in any way. Glad that your are using it and/or inspired by my work. :)

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Instantiation is certainly possible for constant as well as variable parameters. Declaring Keys and Values to be variables allows these sets to change during an execution, which might be interesting for some applications, but I don't know what the original paper had in mind. If they are constants, the module is a constant module (since all operator definitions are of constant level as well), which allows operators to be instantiated at constant, variable or action level. Potential complications with non-constant modules are described in section 17.8 of Specifying Systems. However, my comment was just a caveat for later, there is nothing wrong with the modules as they are written, and they are accepted by TLC.

\* TODO InitValue could be bottom (_|_)

\* TLA+ specifications of Client Centric Isolation Specification by Crooks et al: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3087801.3087802
\* TLA+ specifications by Tim Soethout ([email protected])

\* A database `State` is represented by keys with corresponding values
State == [Keys -> Values]

\* An `Operation` is a read or write of a key and value
Operation == [op: {"read", "write"}, key: Keys, value: Values]

\* Helpers representing Reads and Writes
r(k,v) == [op |-> "read", key |-> k, value |-> v]
w(k,v) == [op |-> "write", key |-> k, value |-> v]

\* A `Transaction` is a total order of `Operation`s
\* Transaction == [ops: Seq(Operation), start: TimeStamp, commit: TimeStamp]
Transaction == Seq(Operation)
\* For simplicity we store start and commit in a lookup function
TimeStamp == Nat
TransactionTimes == [t \in Transaction |-> [start: TimeStamp, commit: TimeStamp]]

\* "An execution e for a set of transactions
\* T is a totally ordered set defined by the pair (Se,−−t \in T−→),
\* where Se is the set of states generated by applying,
\* starting from the system’s initial state, a permutation of all the transactions in T ."
ExecutionElem == [parentState: State, transaction: Transaction]
\* resultState is the parentState of the next transaction, but not used in the isolation definitions.
\* ExecutionElem == [parentState: State, transaction: Transaction, resultState: State]
\* We represent an `Execution` as a sequence of `Transaction`s with their corresponding parent state.
\* Note: This execution does therefor not contain the "final state" of the execution, since it is not a parent state of a transaction.
Execution == Seq(ExecutionElem)

\* Seq
executionStates(execution) == [ i \in 1..Len(execution) |-> execution[i].parentState ]
\* Set
executionTransactions(execution) == { ep.transaction : ep \in SeqToSet(execution) }

\* "The parent state is the last state in the execution
\* Definition 1: s -T-> s' ≡ [(k,v) ∈ s ∧ (k,v)􏰍 \notin s'] => k ∈ W_T /\ w(k,v) ∈ Σ_T => (k,v) ∈ s.
muratdem marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
\* We refer to s as the parent state of T (denoted as sp,T ); to the
\* transaction that generated s as Ts ; and to the set of keys in which
\* s and s′ differ as ∆(s,s′)"
parentState(execution, transaction) ==
LET ind == CHOOSE i \in 1..Len(execution): execution[i].transaction = transaction
IN execution[ind].parentState

\* w(k,v) -to-> r(k,v)
\* check reads and writes, implicit because of "write" check in ReadStates
earlierInTransaction(transaction, op1, op2) == Index(transaction, op1) < Index(transaction, op2)

\* state1 -*-> state2
beforeOrEqualInExecution(execution, state1, state2) ==
LET states == executionStates(execution)
IN Index(states, state1) <= Index(states, state2)

\* Read states: from which states can the operation read it's value
ReadStates(execution, operation, transaction) ==
LET Se == SeqToSet(executionStates(execution))
sp == parentState(execution, transaction)
IN { s \in Se:
/\ beforeOrEqualInExecution(execution, s, sp) \* s -*-> s_p: restrict the valid read states for the operations in T to be no later than sp
/\ \/ s[operation.key] = operation.value \* (k,v) \in s
\/ \E write \in SeqToSet(transaction):
/\ write.op = "write" /\ write.key = operation.key /\ write.value = operation.value
/\ earlierInTransaction(transaction, write, operation) \* w(k,v)-to->r(k,v)
\* "By convention, write operations have read states too: for a write operation in T , they include all states in Se up to and including T ’s parent state."
\/ operation.op = "write"
}

Preread(execution, transaction) ==
\A operation \in SeqToSet(transaction): ReadStates(execution, operation, transaction) /= {}

PrereadAll(execution, transactions) ==
\A transaction \in transactions: Preread(execution, transaction)

\* A state `s` is complete for `T` in `e` if every operation in `T` can read from `s`
Complete(execution, transaction, state) ==
LET setOfAllReadStatesOfOperation(transactionOperations) ==
{ ReadStates(execution, operation, transaction) : operation \in SeqToSet(transactionOperations) }
\* also include all states for when the transaction contains no operations
readStatesForEmptyTransaction == { s \in SeqToSet(executionStates(execution)) : beforeOrEqualInExecution(execution, s, parentState(execution, transaction)) }
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't see how this definition (or its use) is restricted to the case "when the transaction contains no operation"? Perhaps rephrase the comment?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ClientCentric is not my module, written by Tim, so I am reluctant to make any change there.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If I remember correctly, this is where I deviated from the original definitions in the paper by Crooks (https://www.cs.cornell.edu/lorenzo/papers/Crooks17Seeing.pdf). The comment is mainly there to upgrade the definition to also allow transactions with an empty operation set, while still satisfying the isolation level.
I personally used when incrementally model checking isolation levels of the Two-Phase Locking and Local-Coordination Avoidance protocols, which contained empty transactions when initializing.
The comment could for example be rephrased to:
"readStatesForEmptyTransaction contains all previous states, in order to make sure that empty transactions do not incorrectly invalidate the checked isolation level."

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Has this conversation been resolved? If yes, it looks like this PR is ready to be merged.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I certainly have no objection to merging the PR, although I don't think that the wording of the comment has been changed (Tim's suggestion clarifies the intent of the definition IMHO).

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@muratdem can you do the finishing touches (wording of this comment + removal [] copy/paste artifact), and the we merge it?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes, I will also pull some global variables to be process local.

IN state \in INTERSECTION(setOfAllReadStatesOfOperation(transaction) \union { readStatesForEmptyTransaction } )

\* "the write set of T comprises the keys that T updates: WT = {k|w(k, v) ∈ ΣT }.
\* For simplicity of exposition, we assume that a transaction only writes a key once."
WriteSet(transaction) ==
LET writes == { operation \in SeqToSet(transaction) : operation.op = "write" }
IN { operation.key : operation \in writes }
\* "Denoting the set of keys in which s and s′ differ as ∆(s, s′), we express this as NO-CONF_T (s) ≡ ∆(s, sp) ∩ WT = ∅"
NoConf(execution, transaction, state) ==
LET Sp == parentState(execution, transaction)
delta == { key \in DOMAIN Sp : Sp[key] /= state[key] }
IN delta \intersect WriteSet(transaction) = {}

\* `t1` comes before `t2` in wall clock/oracle time
ComesStrictBefore(t1, t2, timestamps) == timestamps[t1].commit < timestamps[t2].start

\* Given system state and single transaction (seq of operations), determines new state
effects(state, transaction) ==
ReduceSeq(LAMBDA o, newState: IF o.op = "write" THEN [newState EXCEPT ![o.key] = o.value] ELSE newState, transaction, state)

\* Lists all possible permutations of executions given set of transactions
executions(initialState, transactions) ==
\* All possible permutations
LET orderings == PermSeqs(transactions)
\* initialState == [k \in Keys |-> InitValue] \* makes it level-1 therefor pass it in
accummulator == [ execution |-> <<>>, nextState |-> initialState ]
IN { LET executionAcc == ReduceSeq(
\* store ExecutionElem in accumulator
LAMBDA t, acc: [ execution |-> Append(acc.execution, [parentState |-> acc.nextState, transaction |-> t])
\* calcultate next state
, nextState |-> effects(acc.nextState,t)
],
ordering, accummulator)
\* recover ExecutionElems
IN executionAcc.execution
: ordering \in orderings }

\* Helper: checks if specific execution satisfies given commit test
executionSatisfiesCT(execution, commitTest(_,_)) ==
LET transactions == executionTransactions(execution)
IN \A transaction \in transactions: commitTest(transaction, execution)

\* tests there exists an execution for `transactions`, that satisfies the isolation level given by `commitTest`
\* "Definition 5 Given a set of transactions T and their read states,
\* a storagesystem satisfies an isolation level I iff ∃e:∀t ∈ T :CTI(t,e)."
satisfyIsolationLevel(initialState, transactions, commitTest(_,_)) ==
\E execution \in executions(initialState, transactions): \A transaction \in transactions:
\* PrintT(<<"try execution:",execution>>) =>
commitTest(transaction, execution)

\* Serializability commit test
CT_SER(transaction, execution) ==
Complete(execution, transaction, parentState(execution, transaction))
Serializability(initialState, transactions) == satisfyIsolationLevel(initialState, transactions, CT_SER)

\*SerializabilityDebug(initialState, transactions) ==
\* \* if no executions satify commit test, print all executions
\* \/ (~\E execution \in executions(initialState, transactions): \A transaction \in transactions:
\* CT_SER(transaction, execution)) => \A execution \in executions(initialState, transactions): PrintT(<<"Execution not Serializable:",execution>>)
\* \* fall back to normal check
\* \/ \E execution \in executions(initialState, transactions): \A transaction \in transactions: CT_SER(transaction, execution)

SerializabilityDebug(initialState, transactions) ==
~ Serializability(initialState, transactions) => Print(<<"Executions not Serializable:", executions(initialState, transactions)>>, FALSE)

\* Snapshot Isolation
CT_SI(transaction, execution) == \E state \in SeqToSet(executionStates(execution)):
Complete(execution, transaction, state) /\ NoConf(execution, transaction, state)
SnapshotIsolation(initialState, transactions) == satisfyIsolationLevel(initialState, transactions, CT_SI)

\* Strict Serializability: ∀T ∈T:T <s T => s_T′ -*-> s_T.
CT_SSER(timestamps, transaction, execution) ==
LET Sp == parentState(execution, transaction)
IN /\ Complete(execution, transaction, Sp)
/\ \A otherTransaction \in executionTransactions(execution):
ComesStrictBefore(otherTransaction, transaction, timestamps) =>
beforeOrEqualInExecution(execution, parentState(execution, otherTransaction), Sp)
\* For now inline `satisfyIsolationLevel` instead of `satisfyIsolationLevel(transactions, CT_SSER(timestamps)) because partial functions are not supported/hard`
StrictSerializability(initialState, transactions, timestamps) ==
\E execution \in executions(initialState, transactions): \A transaction \in transactions: CT_SSER(timestamps, transaction, execution)

\* Read Committed
CT_RC(transaction, execution) == Preread(execution, transaction)
ReadCommitted(initialState, transactions) == satisfyIsolationLevel(initialState, transactions, CT_RC)

\* Read Uncommitted
CT_RU(transaction, execution) == TRUE
ReadUncommitted(initialState, transactions) == satisfyIsolationLevel(initialState, transactions, CT_RU)

\* Check types in derived specification
TypeOKT(transactions) ==
\* /\ InitValue \in Values
/\ transactions \subseteq Transaction

TypeOK(transactions, execution) ==
/\ TypeOKT(transactions)
\* /\ PrintT(State)
/\ execution \in Execution

=============================================================================
Loading
Loading