Abstract
Computing hardware is designed by refining an abstract specification through various lower levels of abstraction to arrive at a transistor layout implemented in a physical medium. Formalizing the refinements—one task of the mathematical semantics of computation—involves proving that the device described at each level of abstraction does indeed behave as prescribed by the description at the next higher level. One obstacle to this goal that has long been recognized is that certain classes of behaviors can be physically realized only approximately. The notorious problems of metastable operation precludes, for example, the realization on classical principles of flipflops that react in bounded time to arbitrary input signals.
The literature suggests that the difficulty lies ultimately in the specification's requiring that the realizing device react properly in bounded time. We show, however, that a simple-time-unbounded synchronization problem, namely, mutual exclusion by means of an arbiter, cannot be solved with perfect reliability using continuous, i.e., Newtonian, physical phenomena. In particular, for any physical device operating on Newtonian principles that satisfies specific assumptions concerning an arbiter's input—output behavior, there always exist competing requests to which it reacts by granting them all.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
T.J. Chaney and C.E. Molnar. Anomalous behavior of synchronizer and arbiter ciruits.IEEE transactions on Computer, C-22(3):421–422, March 1973.
D. Mayne. Minimize computer ‘crashes’.Electronic Design, 9:168–172, April 1974.
G.R. Couranz and D.F. Wann. Theoretical and experimental behavior of synchronizers operating in the metastable region.IEEE Transactions on Computers, C-24(6):604–616, June 1975.
M. Hurtado and D.L. Elliott. Ambiguous behavior of logic bistable systems. InProceedings of the 13th Annual Allerton Conference on Circuit & Systems Theory, pp. 605–611, Urbana-Champaign, IL, October 1–3, 1975.
M.K. Vosbury and D.N. Arden. Hazards in asynchronous sequential circuits due to unrestricted input changes. Unpublished, State University of New York, 1400 Washington Ave., Albany, New York 12222, 1975.
L.R. Marino. The effect of asynchronous inputs on sequential network reliability.IEEE Transactions on Computers, 26(11):1082–1090, November 1977.
W. Fleischhammer and O. Dörtok. The anomalous behavior of flip-flops in synchronizer circuits.IEEE Transactions on Computers, C-28(3):273–276, March 1979.
T.J. Chaney. Measured flip-flop responses to marginal triggering.IEEE Transactions on Computers, C-32(12):1207–1209, December 1983.
L.R. Marino. General theory of metastable operation.IEEE Transactions on Computers, 30(2):107–115, February 1981.
L. Kleeman and A. Cantoni. On the unavoidability of metastable behavior in digital systems.IEEE Transactions on Computers, 36(1):109–112, January 1987.
H.J. Stucki and J.R. Cox, Jr. Synchronization strategies. InProceedings of the Caltech Conference on VLSI, pp. 375–393, Pasadena, CAL, January 22–24, 1979.
T.J. Chaney and F.U. Rosenberger. Characterization and scaling of MOS flip-flop performance in synchronizer applications. InProceedings of the Caltech Conference on Very Large Scale Integration, pp. 357–374, Pasadena, CAL, January 1979. Caltech Computer Science Department.
J.C. Barros and B.W. Johnson. Equivalence of the arbiter, the synchronizer, the latch and the inertial delay.IEEE Transactions on Computers, C-32(7):603–614, July 1983.
J. Calvo, J.I. Acha, and M. Valencia. Asynchronous modular arbiter.IEEE Transactions on Computers, C-35(1):67–70, January 1986.
N. Siddique and C. Dike. Metastable-free arbitrator coordinates processors.Electronic Design, 14:107–112, April 1988.
M. Pêchouček. Anomalous response times of input synchronizers.IEEE Transactions on Computers, 25(2):133–139, February 1976.
Daniel M. Chapiro.Globally-Asynchronous Locally-Synchronous Systems. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, Report No. STAN-CS-84-1026, October 1984.
R.C. Pearce, J.A. Field and W.D. Little. Asynchronous arbiter module.IEEE Transactions on Computers, 24(9):931–932, September 1975.
W.W. Plummer. Asynchronous arbiters.IEEE Transactions on Computers, 21(1):37–42, January 1972.
Gregor von Bochmann. Hardware specification with temporal logic; an example.IEEE Transactions on Computers, C-31(3):223–231, March 1982.
N.P. Bhatia and G.P. Szegö.Stability Theory of Dynamical Systems, volume 161 ofGrundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften. Springer, Berlin, 1970.
S.H. Unger. Asynchronous sequential switching circuits with unrestricted input changes.IEEE Transactions on Computers, 20(12):1437–1444, December 1971.
B.I. Strom. Proof of the equivalent realization of a time-bounded arbiter and a runt-free inertial delay. InProceedings of the 6th Annual IEEE Symposium on Computer Architecture, pp. 179–181, New York, 1979. IEEE.
D.J. Kinniment and J.V. Woods. Synchronization and arbitration circuits in digital systems.Proceedings of the Institute of Electrical Engineering, 123:961–966, October 1976.
L.R. Marino.Principles of Computer Design. Computer Science Press, Rockwell, 1986.
C. Mead and L. Conway.Introduction to VLSI Systems, 2nd ed. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA, 1980.
Oleg V. Mayevsky.The Behavior of Simple Arbiters and Synchronizers Based on the RS-Latch. Ph. D. thesis, Leningrad Electrical Engineering Institute, Leningrad, 1986. (in Russian).
Oleg V. Mayevsky. Anomalous behavior of a R-S-flip-flop. Extended abstract, personal communication, 1993.
G. Elineau and W. Wiesbeck. A new J-K flip-flop for synchronizers.IEEE Transactions on Computers, C-26(12):1277–1279, December 1977.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mendler, M., Stroup, T. Newtonian arbiters cannot be proven correct. Form Method Syst Des 3, 233–257 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01384075
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01384075