The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Linearizability: a correctness condition for concurrent objects
Open accessAbstract
A concurrent object is a data object shared by concurrent processes. Linearizability is a correctness condition for concurrent objects that exploits the semantics of abstract data types. It permits a high degree of concurrency, yet it permits programmers to specify and reason about concurrent objects using known techniques from the sequential domain. Linearizability provides the illusion that each operation applied by concurrent processes takes effect instantaneously at some point between its invocation and its response, implying that the meaning of a concurrent object's operations can be given by pre- and post-conditions. This paper defines linearizability, compares it to other correctness conditions, presents and demonstrates a method for proving the correctness of implementations, and shows how to reason about concurrent objects, given they are linearizable.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Using Crash Hoare logic for certifying the FSCQ file system
Chen, H., Ziegler, D., Chajed, T., Chlipala, A., Kaashoek, M. F., & Zeldovich, N. (2015) · Proceedings of the 25th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles · doi:10.1145/2815400.2815402 · Cited by 211
A Formal Foundation for Secure Remote Execution of Enclaves
Subramanyan, P., Sinha, R., Lebedev, I., Devadas, S., & Seshia, S. A. (2017) · Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security · doi:10.1145/3133956.3134098 · Cited by 119
Want to scale in centralized systems? Think P2P
Kermarrec, A.-M., & Taïani, F. (2015) · Journal of Internet Services and Applications · doi:10.1186/s13174-015-0029-1 · Cited by 18
Metadata
- Authors
- Herlihy, M. P., & Wing, J. M.
- Venue
- ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems
- Published
- 1990-07
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 463-492
- ISSN
- 0164-0925 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-4593
- OpenAlex
- W2101939036
- Cited by
- 3,176
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 27.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
