2 imports PrioGDef RTree

     2 imports CpsG

     5 locale valid_trace = 

     5 

     6   fixes s

     6 text {* 

     7   assumes vt : "vt s"

     7   The following two auxiliary lemmas are used to reason about @{term Max}.

     8 

     8 *}

     9 locale valid_trace_e = valid_trace +

     9 lemma image_Max_eqI: 

    10   fixes e

    10   assumes "finite B"

    11   assumes vt_e: "vt (e#s)"

    11   and "b \<in> B"

    12   and "\<forall> x \<in> B. f x \<le> f b"

    13   shows "Max (f ` B) = f b"

    14   using assms

    15   using Max_eqI by blast 

    16 

    17 lemma image_Max_subset:

    18   assumes "finite A"

    19   and "B \<subseteq> A"

    20   and "a \<in> B"

    21   and "Max (f ` A) = f a"

    22   shows "Max (f ` B) = f a"

    23 proof(rule image_Max_eqI)

    24   show "finite B"

    25     using assms(1) assms(2) finite_subset by auto 

    26 next

    27   show "a \<in> B" using assms by simp

    28 next

    29   show "\<forall>x\<in>B. f x \<le> f a"

    30     by (metis Max_ge assms(1) assms(2) assms(4) 

    31             finite_imageI image_eqI subsetCE) 

    32 qed

    33 

    34 text {*

    35   The following locale @{text "highest_gen"} sets the basic context for our

    36   investigation: supposing thread @{text th} holds the highest @{term cp}-value

    37   in state @{text s}, which means the task for @{text th} is the 

    38   most urgent. We want to show that  

    39   @{text th} is treated correctly by PIP, which means

    40   @{text th} will not be blocked unreasonably by other less urgent

    41   threads. 

    42 *}

    43 locale highest_gen =

    44   fixes s th prio tm

    45   assumes vt_s: "vt s"

    46   and threads_s: "th \<in> threads s"

    47   and highest: "preced th s = Max ((cp s)`threads s)"

    48   -- {* The internal structure of @{term th}'s precedence is exposed:*}

    49   and preced_th: "preced th s = Prc prio tm" 

    50 

    51 -- {* @{term s} is a valid trace, so it will inherit all results derived for

    52       a valid trace: *}

    53 sublocale highest_gen < vat_s: valid_trace "s"

    54   by (unfold_locales, insert vt_s, simp)

    55 

    56 context highest_gen

    14 lemma pip_e: "PIP s e"

    59 text {*

    15   using vt_e by (cases, simp)  

    60   @{term tm} is the time when the precedence of @{term th} is set, so 

    61   @{term tm} must be a valid moment index into @{term s}.

    62 *}

    63 lemma lt_tm: "tm < length s"

    64   by (insert preced_tm_lt[OF threads_s preced_th], simp)

    65 

    66 text {*

    67   Since @{term th} holds the highest precedence and @{text "cp"}

    68   is the highest precedence of all threads in the sub-tree of 

    69   @{text "th"} and @{text th} is among these threads, 

    70   its @{term cp} must equal to its precedence:

    71 *}

    72 lemma eq_cp_s_th: "cp s th = preced th s" (is "?L = ?R")

    73 proof -

    74   have "?L \<le> ?R"

    75   by (unfold highest, rule Max_ge, 

    76         auto simp:threads_s finite_threads)

    77   moreover have "?R \<le> ?L"

    78     by (unfold vat_s.cp_rec, rule Max_ge, 

    79         auto simp:the_preced_def vat_s.fsbttRAGs.finite_children)

    80   ultimately show ?thesis by auto

    81 qed

    82 

    83 lemma highest_cp_preced: "cp s th = Max (the_preced s ` threads s)"

    84   using eq_cp_s_th highest max_cp_eq the_preced_def by presburger

    85   

    86 

    87 lemma highest_preced_thread: "preced th s = Max (the_preced s ` threads s)"

    88   by (fold eq_cp_s_th, unfold highest_cp_preced, simp)

    89 

    90 lemma highest': "cp s th = Max (cp s ` threads s)"

    91   by (simp add: eq_cp_s_th highest)

    19 lemma runing_ready: 

    95 locale extend_highest_gen = highest_gen + 

    20   shows "runing s \<subseteq> readys s"

    96   fixes t 

    21   unfolding runing_def readys_def

    97   assumes vt_t: "vt (t@s)"

    22   by auto 

    98   and create_low: "Create th' prio' \<in> set t \<Longrightarrow> prio' \<le> prio"

    23 

    99   and set_diff_low: "Set th' prio' \<in> set t \<Longrightarrow> th' \<noteq> th \<and> prio' \<le> prio"

    24 lemma readys_threads:

   100   and exit_diff: "Exit th' \<in> set t \<Longrightarrow> th' \<noteq> th"

    25   shows "readys s \<subseteq> threads s"

   101 

    26   unfolding readys_def

   102 sublocale extend_highest_gen < vat_t: valid_trace "t@s"

    27   by auto

   103   by (unfold_locales, insert vt_t, simp)

    28 

   104 

    29 lemma wq_v_neq:

   105 lemma step_back_vt_app: 

    30    "cs \<noteq> cs' \<Longrightarrow> wq (V thread cs#s) cs' = wq s cs'"

   106   assumes vt_ts: "vt (t@s)" 

    31   by (auto simp:wq_def Let_def cp_def split:list.splits)

   107   shows "vt s"

    32 

   108 proof -

    33 context valid_trace

   109   from vt_ts show ?thesis

   110   proof(induct t)

   111     case Nil

   112     from Nil show ?case by auto

   113   next

   114     case (Cons e t)

   115     assume ih: " vt (t @ s) \<Longrightarrow> vt s"

   116       and vt_et: "vt ((e # t) @ s)"

   117     show ?case

   118     proof(rule ih)

   119       show "vt (t @ s)"

   120       proof(rule step_back_vt)

   121         from vt_et show "vt (e # t @ s)" by simp

   122       qed

   123     qed

   124   qed

   125 qed

   126 

   127 (* locale red_extend_highest_gen = extend_highest_gen +

   128    fixes i::nat

   129 *)

   130 

   131 (*

   132 sublocale red_extend_highest_gen <   red_moment: extend_highest_gen "s" "th" "prio" "tm" "(moment i t)"

   133   apply (insert extend_highest_gen_axioms, subst (asm) (1) moment_restm_s [of i t, symmetric])

   134   apply (unfold extend_highest_gen_def extend_highest_gen_axioms_def, clarsimp)

   135   by (unfold highest_gen_def, auto dest:step_back_vt_app)

   136 *)

   137 

   138 context extend_highest_gen

    36 lemma ind [consumes 0, case_names Nil Cons, induct type]:

   141  lemma ind [consumes 0, case_names Nil Cons, induct type]:

    37   assumes "PP []"

   142   assumes 

    38      and "(\<And>s e. valid_trace s \<Longrightarrow> valid_trace (e#s) \<Longrightarrow>

   143     h0: "R []"

    39                    PP s \<Longrightarrow> PIP s e \<Longrightarrow> PP (e # s))"

   144   and h2: "\<And> e t. \<lbrakk>vt (t@s); step (t@s) e; 

    40      shows "PP s"

   145                     extend_highest_gen s th prio tm t; 

    41 proof(rule vt.induct[OF vt])

   146                     extend_highest_gen s th prio tm (e#t); R t\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> R (e#t)"

    42   from assms(1) show "PP []" .

   147   shows "R t"

   148 proof -

   149   from vt_t extend_highest_gen_axioms show ?thesis

   150   proof(induct t)

   151     from h0 show "R []" .

   152   next

   153     case (Cons e t')

   154     assume ih: "\<lbrakk>vt (t' @ s); extend_highest_gen s th prio tm t'\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> R t'"

   155       and vt_e: "vt ((e # t') @ s)"

   156       and et: "extend_highest_gen s th prio tm (e # t')"

   157     from vt_e and step_back_step have stp: "step (t'@s) e" by auto

   158     from vt_e and step_back_vt have vt_ts: "vt (t'@s)" by auto

   159     show ?case

   160     proof(rule h2 [OF vt_ts stp _ _ _ ])

   161       show "R t'"

   162       proof(rule ih)

   163         from et show ext': "extend_highest_gen s th prio tm t'"

   164           by (unfold extend_highest_gen_def extend_highest_gen_axioms_def, auto dest:step_back_vt)

   165       next

   166         from vt_ts show "vt (t' @ s)" .

   167       qed

   168     next

   169       from et show "extend_highest_gen s th prio tm (e # t')" .

   170     next

   171       from et show ext': "extend_highest_gen s th prio tm t'"

   172           by (unfold extend_highest_gen_def extend_highest_gen_axioms_def, auto dest:step_back_vt)

   173     qed

   174   qed

   175 qed

   176 

   177 

   178 lemma th_kept: "th \<in> threads (t @ s) \<and> 

   179                  preced th (t@s) = preced th s" (is "?Q t") 

   180 proof -

   181   show ?thesis

   182   proof(induct rule:ind)

   183     case Nil

   184     from threads_s

   185     show ?case

   186       by auto

   187   next

   188     case (Cons e t)

   189     interpret h_e: extend_highest_gen _ _ _ _ "(e # t)" using Cons by auto

   190     interpret h_t: extend_highest_gen _ _ _ _ t using Cons by auto

   191     show ?case

   192     proof(cases e)

   193       case (Create thread prio)

   194       show ?thesis

   195       proof -

   196         from Cons and Create have "step (t@s) (Create thread prio)" by auto

   197         hence "th \<noteq> thread"

   198         proof(cases)

   199           case thread_create

   200           with Cons show ?thesis by auto

   201         qed

   202         hence "preced th ((e # t) @ s)  = preced th (t @ s)"

   203           by (unfold Create, auto simp:preced_def)

   204         moreover note Cons

   205         ultimately show ?thesis

   206           by (auto simp:Create)

   207       qed

   208     next

   209       case (Exit thread)

   210       from h_e.exit_diff and Exit

   211       have neq_th: "thread \<noteq> th" by auto

   212       with Cons

   213       show ?thesis

   214         by (unfold Exit, auto simp:preced_def)

   215     next

   216       case (P thread cs)

   217       with Cons

   218       show ?thesis 

   219         by (auto simp:P preced_def)

   220     next

   221       case (V thread cs)

   222       with Cons

   223       show ?thesis 

   224         by (auto simp:V preced_def)

   225     next

   226       case (Set thread prio')

   227       show ?thesis

   228       proof -

   229         from h_e.set_diff_low and Set

   230         have "th \<noteq> thread" by auto

   231         hence "preced th ((e # t) @ s)  = preced th (t @ s)"

   232           by (unfold Set, auto simp:preced_def)

   233         moreover note Cons

   234         ultimately show ?thesis

   235           by (auto simp:Set)

   236       qed

   237     qed

   238   qed

   239 qed

   240 

   241 text {*

   242   According to @{thm th_kept}, thread @{text "th"} has its living status

   243   and precedence kept along the way of @{text "t"}. The following lemma

   244   shows that this preserved precedence of @{text "th"} remains as the highest

   245   along the way of @{text "t"}.

   246 

   247   The proof goes by induction over @{text "t"} using the specialized

   248   induction rule @{thm ind}, followed by case analysis of each possible 

   249   operations of PIP. All cases follow the same pattern rendered by the 

   250   generalized introduction rule @{thm "image_Max_eqI"}. 

   251 

   252   The very essence is to show that precedences, no matter whether they 

   253   are newly introduced or modified, are always lower than the one held 

   254   by @{term "th"}, which by @{thm th_kept} is preserved along the way.

   255 *}

   256 lemma max_kept: "Max (the_preced (t @ s) ` (threads (t@s))) = preced th s"

   257 proof(induct rule:ind)

   258   case Nil

   259   from highest_preced_thread

   260   show ?case by simp

    44   fix s e

   262   case (Cons e t)

    45   assume h: "vt s" "PP s" "PIP s e"

   263     interpret h_e: extend_highest_gen _ _ _ _ "(e # t)" using Cons by auto

    46   show "PP (e # s)"

   264     interpret h_t: extend_highest_gen _ _ _ _ t using Cons by auto

    47   proof(cases rule:assms(2))

   265   show ?case

    48     from h(1) show v1: "valid_trace s" by (unfold_locales, simp)

   266   proof(cases e)

   267     case (Create thread prio')

   268     show ?thesis (is "Max (?f ` ?A) = ?t")

   269     proof -

   270       -- {* The following is the common pattern of each branch of the case analysis. *}

   271       -- {* The major part is to show that @{text "th"} holds the highest precedence: *}

   272       have "Max (?f ` ?A) = ?f th"

   273       proof(rule image_Max_eqI)

   274         show "finite ?A" using h_e.finite_threads by auto 

   275       next

   276         show "th \<in> ?A" using h_e.th_kept by auto 

   277       next

   278         show "\<forall>x\<in>?A. ?f x \<le> ?f th"

   279         proof 

   280           fix x

   281           assume "x \<in> ?A"

   282           hence "x = thread \<or> x \<in> threads (t@s)" by (auto simp:Create)

   283           thus "?f x \<le> ?f th"

   284           proof

   285             assume "x = thread"

   286             thus ?thesis 

   287               apply (simp add:Create the_preced_def preced_def, fold preced_def)

   288               using Create h_e.create_low h_t.th_kept lt_tm preced_leI2 

   289               preced_th by force

   290           next

   291             assume h: "x \<in> threads (t @ s)"

   292             from Cons(2)[unfolded Create] 

   293             have "x \<noteq> thread" using h by (cases, auto)

   294             hence "?f x = the_preced (t@s) x" 

   295               by (simp add:Create the_preced_def preced_def)

   296             hence "?f x \<le> Max (the_preced (t@s) ` threads (t@s))"

   297               by (simp add: h_t.finite_threads h)

   298             also have "... = ?f th"

   299               by (metis Cons.hyps(5) h_e.th_kept the_preced_def) 

   300             finally show ?thesis .

   301           qed

   302         qed

   303       qed

   304      -- {* The minor part is to show that the precedence of @{text "th"} 

   305            equals to preserved one, given by the foregoing lemma @{thm th_kept} *}

   306       also have "... = ?t" using h_e.th_kept the_preced_def by auto

   307       -- {* Then it follows trivially that the precedence preserved

   308             for @{term "th"} remains the maximum of all living threads along the way. *}

   309       finally show ?thesis .

   310     qed 

   311   next 

   312     case (Exit thread)

   313     show ?thesis (is "Max (?f ` ?A) = ?t")

   314     proof -

   315       have "Max (?f ` ?A) = ?f th"

   316       proof(rule image_Max_eqI)

   317         show "finite ?A" using h_e.finite_threads by auto 

   318       next

   319         show "th \<in> ?A" using h_e.th_kept by auto 

   320       next

   321         show "\<forall>x\<in>?A. ?f x \<le> ?f th"

   322         proof 

   323           fix x

   324           assume "x \<in> ?A"

   325           hence "x \<in> threads (t@s)" by (simp add: Exit) 

   326           hence "?f x \<le> Max (?f ` threads (t@s))" 

   327             by (simp add: h_t.finite_threads) 

   328           also have "... \<le> ?f th" 

   329             apply (simp add:Exit the_preced_def preced_def, fold preced_def)

   330             using Cons.hyps(5) h_t.th_kept the_preced_def by auto

   331           finally show "?f x \<le> ?f th" .

   332         qed

   333       qed

   334       also have "... = ?t" using h_e.th_kept the_preced_def by auto

   335       finally show ?thesis .

   336     qed 

    50     from h(1,3) have "vt (e#s)" by auto

   338     case (P thread cs)

    51     thus "valid_trace (e # s)" by (unfold_locales, simp)

   339     with Cons

    52   qed (insert h, auto)

   340     show ?thesis by (auto simp:preced_def the_preced_def)

    53 qed

   341   next

    54 

   342     case (V thread cs)

    55 lemma wq_distinct: "distinct (wq s cs)"

   343     with Cons

    56 proof(rule ind, simp add:wq_def)

   344     show ?thesis by (auto simp:preced_def the_preced_def)

    57   fix s e

   345   next 

    58   assume h1: "step s e"

   346     case (Set thread prio')

    59   and h2: "distinct (wq s cs)"

   347     show ?thesis (is "Max (?f ` ?A) = ?t")

    60   thus "distinct (wq (e # s) cs)"

    61   proof(induct rule:step.induct, auto simp: wq_def Let_def split:list.splits)

    62     fix thread s

    63     assume h1: "(Cs cs, Th thread) \<notin> (RAG s)\<^sup>+"

    64       and h2: "thread \<in> set (wq_fun (schs s) cs)"

    65       and h3: "thread \<in> runing s"

    66     show "False" 

    68       from h3 have "\<And> cs. thread \<in>  set (wq_fun (schs s) cs) \<Longrightarrow> 

   349       have "Max (?f ` ?A) = ?f th"

    69                              thread = hd ((wq_fun (schs s) cs))" 

   350       proof(rule image_Max_eqI)

    70         by (simp add:runing_def readys_def s_waiting_def wq_def)

   351         show "finite ?A" using h_e.finite_threads by auto 

    71       from this [OF h2] have "thread = hd (wq_fun (schs s) cs)" .

   352       next

    72       with h2

   353         show "th \<in> ?A" using h_e.th_kept by auto 

    73       have "(Cs cs, Th thread) \<in> (RAG s)"

   354       next

    74         by (simp add:s_RAG_def s_holding_def wq_def cs_holding_def)

   355         show "\<forall>x\<in>?A. ?f x \<le> ?f th"

    75       with h1 show False by auto

   356         proof 

   357           fix x

   358           assume h: "x \<in> ?A"

   359           show "?f x \<le> ?f th"

   360           proof(cases "x = thread")

   361             case True

   362             moreover have "the_preced (Set thread prio' # t @ s) thread \<le> the_preced (t @ s) th"

   363             proof -

   364               have "the_preced (t @ s) th = Prc prio tm"  

   365                 using h_t.th_kept preced_th by (simp add:the_preced_def)

   366               moreover have "prio' \<le> prio" using Set h_e.set_diff_low by auto

   367               ultimately show ?thesis by (insert lt_tm, auto simp:the_preced_def preced_def)

   368             qed

   369             ultimately show ?thesis

   370               by (unfold Set, simp add:the_preced_def preced_def)

   371           next

   372             case False

   373             then have "?f x  = the_preced (t@s) x"

   374               by (simp add:the_preced_def preced_def Set)

   375             also have "... \<le> Max (the_preced (t@s) ` threads (t@s))"

   376               using Set h h_t.finite_threads by auto 

   377             also have "... = ?f th" by (metis Cons.hyps(5) h_e.th_kept the_preced_def) 

   378             finally show ?thesis .

   379           qed

   380         qed

   381       qed

   382       also have "... = ?t" using h_e.th_kept the_preced_def by auto

   383       finally show ?thesis .

   384     qed 

   385   qed

   386 qed

   387 

   388 lemma max_preced: "preced th (t@s) = Max (the_preced (t@s) ` (threads (t@s)))"

   389   by (insert th_kept max_kept, auto)

   390 

   391 text {*

   392   The reason behind the following lemma is that:

   393   Since @{term "cp"} is defined as the maximum precedence 

   394   of those threads contained in the sub-tree of node @{term "Th th"} 

   395   in @{term "RAG (t@s)"}, and all these threads are living threads, and 

   396   @{term "th"} is also among them, the maximum precedence of 

   397   them all must be the one for @{text "th"}.

   398 *}

   399 lemma th_cp_max_preced: 

   400   "cp (t@s) th = Max (the_preced (t@s) ` (threads (t@s)))" (is "?L = ?R") 

   401 proof -

   402   let ?f = "the_preced (t@s)"

   403   have "?L = ?f th"

   404   proof(unfold cp_alt_def, rule image_Max_eqI)

   405     show "finite {th'. Th th' \<in> subtree (RAG (t @ s)) (Th th)}"

   406     proof -

   407       have "{th'. Th th' \<in> subtree (RAG (t @ s)) (Th th)} = 

   408             the_thread ` {n . n \<in> subtree (RAG (t @ s)) (Th th) \<and>

   409                             (\<exists> th'. n = Th th')}"

   410       by (smt Collect_cong Setcompr_eq_image mem_Collect_eq the_thread.simps)

   411       moreover have "finite ..." by (simp add: vat_t.fsbtRAGs.finite_subtree) 

   412       ultimately show ?thesis by simp

    78     fix thread s a list

   415     show "th \<in> {th'. Th th' \<in> subtree (RAG (t @ s)) (Th th)}"

    79     assume dst: "distinct list"

   416       by (auto simp:subtree_def)

    80     show "distinct (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set list)"

   417   next

    81     proof(rule someI2)

   418     show "\<forall>x\<in>{th'. Th th' \<in> subtree (RAG (t @ s)) (Th th)}.

    82       from dst show  "distinct list \<and> set list = set list" by auto

   419                the_preced (t @ s) x \<le> the_preced (t @ s) th"

   420     proof

   421       fix th'

   422       assume "th' \<in> {th'. Th th' \<in> subtree (RAG (t @ s)) (Th th)}"

   423       hence "Th th' \<in> subtree (RAG (t @ s)) (Th th)" by auto

   424       moreover have "... \<subseteq> Field (RAG (t @ s)) \<union> {Th th}"

   425         by (meson subtree_Field)

   426       ultimately have "Th th' \<in> ..." by auto

   427       hence "th' \<in> threads (t@s)" 

   428       proof

   429         assume "Th th' \<in> {Th th}"

   430         thus ?thesis using th_kept by auto 

   431       next

   432         assume "Th th' \<in> Field (RAG (t @ s))"

   433         thus ?thesis using vat_t.not_in_thread_isolated by blast 

   434       qed

   435       thus "the_preced (t @ s) th' \<le> the_preced (t @ s) th"

   436         by (metis Max_ge finite_imageI finite_threads image_eqI 

   437                max_kept th_kept the_preced_def)

   438     qed

   439   qed

   440   also have "... = ?R" by (simp add: max_preced the_preced_def) 

   441   finally show ?thesis .

   442 qed

   443 

   444 lemma th_cp_max[simp]: "Max (cp (t@s) ` threads (t@s)) = cp (t@s) th"

   445   using max_cp_eq th_cp_max_preced the_preced_def vt_t by presburger

   446 

   447 lemma [simp]: "Max (cp (t@s) ` threads (t@s)) = Max (the_preced (t@s) ` threads (t@s))"

   448   by (simp add: th_cp_max_preced)

   449   

   450 lemma [simp]: "Max (the_preced (t@s) ` threads (t@s)) = the_preced (t@s) th"

   451   using max_kept th_kept the_preced_def by auto

   452 

   453 lemma [simp]: "the_preced (t@s) th = preced th (t@s)"

   454   using the_preced_def by auto

   455 

   456 lemma [simp]: "preced th (t@s) = preced th s"

   457   by (simp add: th_kept)

   458 

   459 lemma [simp]: "cp s th = preced th s"

   460   by (simp add: eq_cp_s_th)

   461 

   462 lemma th_cp_preced [simp]: "cp (t@s) th = preced th s"

   463   by (fold max_kept, unfold th_cp_max_preced, simp)

   464 

   465 lemma preced_less:

   466   assumes th'_in: "th' \<in> threads s"

   467   and neq_th': "th' \<noteq> th"

   468   shows "preced th' s < preced th s"

   469   using assms

   470 by (metis Max.coboundedI finite_imageI highest not_le order.trans 

   471     preced_linorder rev_image_eqI threads_s vat_s.finite_threads 

   472     vat_s.le_cp)

   473 

   474 section {* The `blocking thread` *}

   475 

   476 text {* 

   477   The purpose of PIP is to ensure that the most 

   478   urgent thread @{term th} is not blocked unreasonably. 

   479   Therefore, a clear picture of the blocking thread is essential 

   480   to assure people that the purpose is fulfilled. 

   481   

   482   In this section, we are going to derive a series of lemmas 

   483   with finally give rise to a picture of the blocking thread. 

   484 

   485   By `blocking thread`, we mean a thread in running state but 

   486   different from thread @{term th}.

   487 *}

   488 

   489 text {*

   490   The following lemmas shows that the @{term cp}-value 

   491   of the blocking thread @{text th'} equals to the highest

   492   precedence in the whole system.

   493 *}

   494 lemma runing_preced_inversion:

   495   assumes runing': "th' \<in> runing (t@s)"

   496   shows "cp (t@s) th' = preced th s" (is "?L = ?R")

   497 proof -

   498   have "?L = Max (cp (t @ s) ` readys (t @ s))" using assms

   499       by (unfold runing_def, auto)

   500   also have "\<dots> = ?R"

   501       by (metis th_cp_max th_cp_preced vat_t.max_cp_readys_threads) 

   502   finally show ?thesis .

   503 qed

   504 

   505 text {*

   506 

   507   The following lemma shows how the counters for @{term "P"} and

   508   @{term "V"} operations relate to the running threads in the states

   509   @{term s} and @{term "t @ s"}.  The lemma shows that if a thread's

   510   @{term "P"}-count equals its @{term "V"}-count (which means it no

   511   longer has any resource in its possession), it cannot be a running

   512   thread.

   513 

   514   The proof is by contraction with the assumption @{text "th' \<noteq> th"}.

   515   The key is the use of @{thm count_eq_dependants} to derive the

   516   emptiness of @{text th'}s @{term dependants}-set from the balance of

   517   its @{term P} and @{term V} counts.  From this, it can be shown

   518   @{text th'}s @{term cp}-value equals to its own precedence.

   519 

   520   On the other hand, since @{text th'} is running, by @{thm

   521   runing_preced_inversion}, its @{term cp}-value equals to the

   522   precedence of @{term th}.

   523 

   524   Combining the above two resukts we have that @{text th'} and @{term

   525   th} have the same precedence. By uniqueness of precedences, we have

   526   @{text "th' = th"}, which is in contradiction with the assumption

   527   @{text "th' \<noteq> th"}.

   528 

   529 *} 

   530                       

   531 lemma eq_pv_blocked: (* ddd *)

   532   assumes neq_th': "th' \<noteq> th"

   533   and eq_pv: "cntP (t@s) th' = cntV (t@s) th'"

   534   shows "th' \<notin> runing (t@s)"

   535 proof

   536   assume otherwise: "th' \<in> runing (t@s)"

   537   show False

   538   proof -

   539     have th'_in: "th' \<in> threads (t@s)"

   540         using otherwise readys_threads runing_def by auto 

   541     have "th' = th"

   542     proof(rule preced_unique)

   543       -- {* The proof goes like this: 

   544             it is first shown that the @{term preced}-value of @{term th'} 

   545             equals to that of @{term th}, then by uniqueness 

   546             of @{term preced}-values (given by lemma @{thm preced_unique}), 

   547             @{term th'} equals to @{term th}: *}

   548       show "preced th' (t @ s) = preced th (t @ s)" (is "?L = ?R")

   549       proof -

   550         -- {* Since the counts of @{term th'} are balanced, the subtree

   551               of it contains only itself, so, its @{term cp}-value

   552               equals its @{term preced}-value: *}

   553         have "?L = cp (t@s) th'"

   554           by (unfold cp_eq_cpreced cpreced_def count_eq_dependants[OF eq_pv], simp)

   555         -- {* Since @{term "th'"} is running, by @{thm runing_preced_inversion},

   556               its @{term cp}-value equals @{term "preced th s"}, 

   557               which equals to @{term "?R"} by simplification: *}

   558         also have "... = ?R" 

   559         thm runing_preced_inversion

   560             using runing_preced_inversion[OF otherwise] by simp

   561         finally show ?thesis .

   562       qed

   563     qed (auto simp: th'_in th_kept)

   564     with `th' \<noteq> th` show ?thesis by simp

   565  qed

   566 qed

   567 

   568 text {*

   569   The following lemma is the extrapolation of @{thm eq_pv_blocked}.

   570   It says if a thread, different from @{term th}, 

   571   does not hold any resource at the very beginning,

   572   it will keep hand-emptied in the future @{term "t@s"}.

   573 *}

   574 lemma eq_pv_persist: (* ddd *)

   575   assumes neq_th': "th' \<noteq> th"

   576   and eq_pv: "cntP s th' = cntV s th'"

   577   shows "cntP (t@s) th' = cntV (t@s) th'"

   578 proof(induction rule:ind) -- {* The proof goes by induction. *}

   579   -- {* The nontrivial case is for the @{term Cons}: *}

   580   case (Cons e t)

   581   -- {* All results derived so far hold for both @{term s} and @{term "t@s"}: *}

   582   interpret vat_t: extend_highest_gen s th prio tm t using Cons by simp

   583   interpret vat_e: extend_highest_gen s th prio tm "(e # t)" using Cons by simp

   584   show ?case

   585   proof -

   586     -- {* It can be proved that @{term cntP}-value of @{term th'} does not change

   587           by the happening of event @{term e}: *}

   588     have "cntP ((e#t)@s) th' = cntP (t@s) th'"

   589     proof(rule ccontr) -- {* Proof by contradiction. *}

   590       -- {* Suppose @{term cntP}-value of @{term th'} is changed by @{term e}: *}

   591       assume otherwise: "cntP ((e # t) @ s) th' \<noteq> cntP (t @ s) th'"

   592       -- {* Then the actor of @{term e} must be @{term th'} and @{term e}

   593             must be a @{term P}-event: *}

   594       hence "isP e" "actor e = th'" by (auto simp:cntP_diff_inv) 

   595       with vat_t.actor_inv[OF Cons(2)]

   596       -- {* According to @{thm actor_inv}, @{term th'} must be running at 

   597             the moment @{term "t@s"}: *}

   598       have "th' \<in> runing (t@s)" by (cases e, auto)

   599       -- {* However, an application of @{thm eq_pv_blocked} to induction hypothesis

   600             shows @{term th'} can not be running at moment  @{term "t@s"}: *}

   601       moreover have "th' \<notin> runing (t@s)" 

   602                using vat_t.eq_pv_blocked[OF neq_th' Cons(5)] .

   603       -- {* Contradiction is finally derived: *}

   604       ultimately show False by simp

   605     qed

   606     -- {* It can also be proved that @{term cntV}-value of @{term th'} does not change

   607           by the happening of event @{term e}: *}

   608     -- {* The proof follows exactly the same pattern as the case for @{term cntP}-value: *}

   609     moreover have "cntV ((e#t)@s) th' = cntV (t@s) th'"

   610     proof(rule ccontr) -- {* Proof by contradiction. *}

   611       assume otherwise: "cntV ((e # t) @ s) th' \<noteq> cntV (t @ s) th'"

   612       hence "isV e" "actor e = th'" by (auto simp:cntV_diff_inv) 

   613       with vat_t.actor_inv[OF Cons(2)]

   614       have "th' \<in> runing (t@s)" by (cases e, auto)

   615       moreover have "th' \<notin> runing (t@s)"

   616           using vat_t.eq_pv_blocked[OF neq_th' Cons(5)] .

   617       ultimately show False by simp

   618     qed

   619     -- {* Finally, it can be shown that the @{term cntP} and @{term cntV} 

   620           value for @{term th'} are still in balance, so @{term th'} 

   621           is still hand-emptied after the execution of event @{term e}: *}

   622     ultimately show ?thesis using Cons(5) by metis

   623   qed

   624 qed (auto simp:eq_pv)

   625 

   626 text {*

   627   By combining @{thm  eq_pv_blocked} and @{thm eq_pv_persist},

   628   it can be derived easily that @{term th'} can not be running in the future:

   629 *}

   630 lemma eq_pv_blocked_persist:

   631   assumes neq_th': "th' \<noteq> th"

   632   and eq_pv: "cntP s th' = cntV s th'"

   633   shows "th' \<notin> runing (t@s)"

   634   using assms

   635   by (simp add: eq_pv_blocked eq_pv_persist) 

   636 

   637 text {*

   638   The following lemma shows the blocking thread @{term th'}

   639   must hold some resource in the very beginning. 

   640 *}

   641 lemma runing_cntP_cntV_inv: (* ddd *)

   642   assumes is_runing: "th' \<in> runing (t@s)"

   643   and neq_th': "th' \<noteq> th"

   644   shows "cntP s th' > cntV s th'"

   645   using assms

   646 proof -

   647   -- {* First, it can be shown that the number of @{term P} and

   648         @{term V} operations can not be equal for thred @{term th'} *}

   649   have "cntP s th' \<noteq> cntV s th'"

   650   proof

   651      -- {* The proof goes by contradiction, suppose otherwise: *}

   652     assume otherwise: "cntP s th' = cntV s th'"

   653     -- {* By applying @{thm  eq_pv_blocked_persist} to this: *}

   654     from eq_pv_blocked_persist[OF neq_th' otherwise] 

   655     -- {* we have that @{term th'} can not be running at moment @{term "t@s"}: *}

   656     have "th' \<notin> runing (t@s)" .

   657     -- {* This is obvious in contradiction with assumption @{thm is_runing}  *}

   658     thus False using is_runing by simp

   659   qed

   660   -- {* However, the number of @{term V} is always less or equal to @{term P}: *}

   661   moreover have "cntV s th' \<le> cntP s th'" using vat_s.cnp_cnv_cncs by auto

   662   -- {* Thesis is finally derived by combining the these two results: *}

   663   ultimately show ?thesis by auto

   664 qed

   665 

   666 

   667 text {*

   668   The following lemmas shows the blocking thread @{text th'} must be live 

   669   at the very beginning, i.e. the moment (or state) @{term s}. 

   670 

   671   The proof is a  simple combination of the results above:

   672 *}

   673 lemma runing_threads_inv: 

   674   assumes runing': "th' \<in> runing (t@s)"

   675   and neq_th': "th' \<noteq> th"

   676   shows "th' \<in> threads s"

   677 proof(rule ccontr) -- {* Proof by contradiction: *}

   678   assume otherwise: "th' \<notin> threads s" 

   679   have "th' \<notin> runing (t @ s)"

   680   proof -

   681     from vat_s.cnp_cnv_eq[OF otherwise]

   682     have "cntP s th' = cntV s th'" .

   683     from eq_pv_blocked_persist[OF neq_th' this]

   684     show ?thesis .

   685   qed

   686   with runing' show False by simp

   687 qed

   688 

   689 text {*

   690   The following lemma summarizes several foregoing 

   691   lemmas to give an overall picture of the blocking thread @{text "th'"}:

   692 *}

   693 lemma runing_inversion: (* ddd, one of the main lemmas to present *)

   694   assumes runing': "th' \<in> runing (t@s)"

   695   and neq_th: "th' \<noteq> th"

   696   shows "th' \<in> threads s"

   697   and    "\<not>detached s th'"

   698   and    "cp (t@s) th' = preced th s"

   699 proof -

   700   from runing_threads_inv[OF assms]

   701   show "th' \<in> threads s" .

   702 next

   703   from runing_cntP_cntV_inv[OF runing' neq_th]

   704   show "\<not>detached s th'" using vat_s.detached_eq by simp

   705 next

   706   from runing_preced_inversion[OF runing']

   707   show "cp (t@s) th' = preced th s" .

   708 qed

   709 

   710 section {* The existence of `blocking thread` *}

   711 

   712 text {* 

   713   Suppose @{term th} is not running, it is first shown that

   714   there is a path in RAG leading from node @{term th} to another thread @{text "th'"} 

   715   in the @{term readys}-set (So @{text "th'"} is an ancestor of @{term th}}).

   716 

   717   Now, since @{term readys}-set is non-empty, there must be

   718   one in it which holds the highest @{term cp}-value, which, by definition, 

   719   is the @{term runing}-thread. However, we are going to show more: this running thread

   720   is exactly @{term "th'"}.

   721      *}

   722 lemma th_blockedE: (* ddd, the other main lemma to be presented: *)

   723   assumes "th \<notin> runing (t@s)"

   724   obtains th' where "Th th' \<in> ancestors (RAG (t @ s)) (Th th)"

   725                     "th' \<in> runing (t@s)"

   726 proof -

   727   -- {* According to @{thm vat_t.th_chain_to_ready}, either 

   728         @{term "th"} is in @{term "readys"} or there is path leading from it to 

   729         one thread in @{term "readys"}. *}

   730   have "th \<in> readys (t @ s) \<or> (\<exists>th'. th' \<in> readys (t @ s) \<and> (Th th, Th th') \<in> (RAG (t @ s))\<^sup>+)" 

   731     using th_kept vat_t.th_chain_to_ready by auto

   732   -- {* However, @{term th} can not be in @{term readys}, because otherwise, since 

   733        @{term th} holds the highest @{term cp}-value, it must be @{term "runing"}. *}

   734   moreover have "th \<notin> readys (t@s)" 

   735     using assms runing_def th_cp_max vat_t.max_cp_readys_threads by auto 

   736   -- {* So, there must be a path from @{term th} to another thread @{text "th'"} in 

   737         term @{term readys}: *}

   738   ultimately obtain th' where th'_in: "th' \<in> readys (t@s)"

   739                           and dp: "(Th th, Th th') \<in> (RAG (t @ s))\<^sup>+" by auto

   740   -- {* We are going to show that this @{term th'} is running. *}

   741   have "th' \<in> runing (t@s)"

   742   proof -

   743     -- {* We only need to show that this @{term th'} holds the highest @{term cp}-value: *}

   744     have "cp (t@s) th' = Max (cp (t@s) ` readys (t@s))" (is "?L = ?R")

   745     proof -

   746       have "?L =  Max ((the_preced (t @ s) \<circ> the_thread) ` subtree (tRAG (t @ s)) (Th th'))"

   747         by (unfold cp_alt_def1, simp)

   748       also have "... = (the_preced (t @ s) \<circ> the_thread) (Th th)"

   749       proof(rule image_Max_subset)

   750         show "finite (Th ` (threads (t@s)))" by (simp add: vat_t.finite_threads)

   751       next

   752         show "subtree (tRAG (t @ s)) (Th th') \<subseteq> Th ` threads (t @ s)"

   753           by (metis Range.intros dp trancl_range vat_t.range_in vat_t.subtree_tRAG_thread) 

   754       next

   755         show "Th th \<in> subtree (tRAG (t @ s)) (Th th')" using dp

   756                     by (unfold tRAG_subtree_eq, auto simp:subtree_def)

   757       next

   758         show "Max ((the_preced (t @ s) \<circ> the_thread) ` Th ` threads (t @ s)) =

   759                       (the_preced (t @ s) \<circ> the_thread) (Th th)" (is "Max ?L = _")

   760         proof -

   761           have "?L = the_preced (t @ s) `  threads (t @ s)" 

   762                      by (unfold image_comp, rule image_cong, auto)

   763           thus ?thesis using max_preced the_preced_def by auto

   764         qed

   765       qed

   766       also have "... = ?R"

   767         using th_cp_max th_cp_preced th_kept 

   768               the_preced_def vat_t.max_cp_readys_threads by auto

   769       finally show ?thesis .

   770     qed 

   771     -- {* Now, since @{term th'} holds the highest @{term cp} 

   772           and we have already show it is in @{term readys},

   773           it is @{term runing} by definition. *}

   774     with `th' \<in> readys (t@s)` show ?thesis by (simp add: runing_def) 

   775   qed

   776   -- {* It is easy to show @{term th'} is an ancestor of @{term th}: *}

   777   moreover have "Th th' \<in> ancestors (RAG (t @ s)) (Th th)" 

   778     using `(Th th, Th th') \<in> (RAG (t @ s))\<^sup>+` by (auto simp:ancestors_def)

   779   ultimately show ?thesis using that by metis

   780 qed

   781 

   782 text {*

   783   Now it is easy to see there is always a thread to run by case analysis

   784   on whether thread @{term th} is running: if the answer is Yes, the 

   785   the running thread is obviously @{term th} itself; otherwise, the running

   786   thread is the @{text th'} given by lemma @{thm th_blockedE}.

   787 *}

   788 lemma live: "runing (t@s) \<noteq> {}"

   789 proof(cases "th \<in> runing (t@s)") 

   790   case True thus ?thesis by auto

   791 next

   792   case False

   793   thus ?thesis using th_blockedE by auto

   794 qed

   795 

   796 

   797 end

   798 end

   799 =======

   800 theory Correctness

   801 imports PIPBasics

   802 begin

   803 

   804 

   805 text {* 

   806   The following two auxiliary lemmas are used to reason about @{term Max}.

   807 *}

   808 lemma image_Max_eqI: 

   809   assumes "finite B"

   810   and "b \<in> B"

   811   and "\<forall> x \<in> B. f x \<le> f b"

   812   shows "Max (f ` B) = f b"

   813   using assms

   814   using Max_eqI by blast 

   815 

   816 lemma image_Max_subset:

   817   assumes "finite A"

   818   and "B \<subseteq> A"

   819   and "a \<in> B"

   820   and "Max (f ` A) = f a"

   821   shows "Max (f ` B) = f a"

   822 proof(rule image_Max_eqI)

   823   show "finite B"

   824     using assms(1) assms(2) finite_subset by auto 

   825 next

   826   show "a \<in> B" using assms by simp

   827 next

   828   show "\<forall>x\<in>B. f x \<le> f a"

   829     by (metis Max_ge assms(1) assms(2) assms(4) 

   830             finite_imageI image_eqI subsetCE) 

   831 qed

   832 

   833 text {*

   834   The following locale @{text "highest_gen"} sets the basic context for our

   835   investigation: supposing thread @{text th} holds the highest @{term cp}-value

   836   in state @{text s}, which means the task for @{text th} is the 

   837   most urgent. We want to show that  

   838   @{text th} is treated correctly by PIP, which means

   839   @{text th} will not be blocked unreasonably by other less urgent

   840   threads. 

   841 *}

   842 locale highest_gen =

   843   fixes s th prio tm

   844   assumes vt_s: "vt s"

   845   and threads_s: "th \<in> threads s"

   846   and highest: "preced th s = Max ((cp s)`threads s)"

   847   -- {* The internal structure of @{term th}'s precedence is exposed:*}

   848   and preced_th: "preced th s = Prc prio tm" 

   849 

   850 -- {* @{term s} is a valid trace, so it will inherit all results derived for

   851       a valid trace: *}

   852 sublocale highest_gen < vat_s: valid_trace "s"

   853   by (unfold_locales, insert vt_s, simp)

   854 

   855 context highest_gen

   856 begin

   857 

   858 text {*

   859   @{term tm} is the time when the precedence of @{term th} is set, so 

   860   @{term tm} must be a valid moment index into @{term s}.

   861 *}

   862 lemma lt_tm: "tm < length s"

   863   by (insert preced_tm_lt[OF threads_s preced_th], simp)

   864 

   865 text {*

   866   Since @{term th} holds the highest precedence and @{text "cp"}

   867   is the highest precedence of all threads in the sub-tree of 

   868   @{text "th"} and @{text th} is among these threads, 

   869   its @{term cp} must equal to its precedence:

   870 *}

   871 lemma eq_cp_s_th: "cp s th = preced th s" (is "?L = ?R")

   872 proof -

   873   have "?L \<le> ?R"

   874   by (unfold highest, rule Max_ge, 

   875         auto simp:threads_s finite_threads)

   876   moreover have "?R \<le> ?L"

   877     by (unfold vat_s.cp_rec, rule Max_ge, 

   878         auto simp:the_preced_def vat_s.fsbttRAGs.finite_children)

   879   ultimately show ?thesis by auto

   880 qed

   881 

   882 lemma highest_cp_preced: "cp s th = Max (the_preced s ` threads s)"

   883   using eq_cp_s_th highest max_cp_eq the_preced_def by presburger

   884   

   885 

   886 lemma highest_preced_thread: "preced th s = Max (the_preced s ` threads s)"

   887   by (fold eq_cp_s_th, unfold highest_cp_preced, simp)

   888 

   889 lemma highest': "cp s th = Max (cp s ` threads s)"

   890   by (simp add: eq_cp_s_th highest)

   891 

   892 end

   893 

   894 locale extend_highest_gen = highest_gen + 

   895   fixes t 

   896   assumes vt_t: "vt (t@s)"

   897   and create_low: "Create th' prio' \<in> set t \<Longrightarrow> prio' \<le> prio"

   898   and set_diff_low: "Set th' prio' \<in> set t \<Longrightarrow> th' \<noteq> th \<and> prio' \<le> prio"

   899   and exit_diff: "Exit th' \<in> set t \<Longrightarrow> th' \<noteq> th"

   900 

   901 sublocale extend_highest_gen < vat_t: valid_trace "t@s"

   902   by (unfold_locales, insert vt_t, simp)

   903 

   904 lemma step_back_vt_app: 

   905   assumes vt_ts: "vt (t@s)" 

   906   shows "vt s"

   907 proof -

   908   from vt_ts show ?thesis

   909   proof(induct t)

   910     case Nil

   911     from Nil show ?case by auto

   912   next

   913     case (Cons e t)

   914     assume ih: " vt (t @ s) \<Longrightarrow> vt s"

   915       and vt_et: "vt ((e # t) @ s)"

   916     show ?case

   917     proof(rule ih)

   918       show "vt (t @ s)"

   919       proof(rule step_back_vt)

   920         from vt_et show "vt (e # t @ s)" by simp

   921       qed

   922     qed

   923   qed

   924 qed

   925 

   926 (* locale red_extend_highest_gen = extend_highest_gen +

   927    fixes i::nat

   928 *)

   929 

   930 (*

   931 sublocale red_extend_highest_gen <   red_moment: extend_highest_gen "s" "th" "prio" "tm" "(moment i t)"

   932   apply (insert extend_highest_gen_axioms, subst (asm) (1) moment_restm_s [of i t, symmetric])

   933   apply (unfold extend_highest_gen_def extend_highest_gen_axioms_def, clarsimp)

   934   by (unfold highest_gen_def, auto dest:step_back_vt_app)

   935 *)

   936 

   937 context extend_highest_gen

   938 begin

   939 

   940  lemma ind [consumes 0, case_names Nil Cons, induct type]:

   941   assumes 

   942     h0: "R []"

   943   and h2: "\<And> e t. \<lbrakk>vt (t@s); step (t@s) e; 

   944                     extend_highest_gen s th prio tm t; 

   945                     extend_highest_gen s th prio tm (e#t); R t\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> R (e#t)"

   946   shows "R t"

   947 proof -

   948   from vt_t extend_highest_gen_axioms show ?thesis

   949   proof(induct t)

   950     from h0 show "R []" .

   951   next

   952     case (Cons e t')

   953     assume ih: "\<lbrakk>vt (t' @ s); extend_highest_gen s th prio tm t'\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> R t'"

   954       and vt_e: "vt ((e # t') @ s)"

   955       and et: "extend_highest_gen s th prio tm (e # t')"

   956     from vt_e and step_back_step have stp: "step (t'@s) e" by auto

   957     from vt_e and step_back_vt have vt_ts: "vt (t'@s)" by auto

   958     show ?case

   959     proof(rule h2 [OF vt_ts stp _ _ _ ])

   960       show "R t'"

   961       proof(rule ih)

   962         from et show ext': "extend_highest_gen s th prio tm t'"

   963           by (unfold extend_highest_gen_def extend_highest_gen_axioms_def, auto dest:step_back_vt)

   964       next

   965         from vt_ts show "vt (t' @ s)" .

   966       qed

    84       fix q assume "distinct q \<and> set q = set list"

   968       from et show "extend_highest_gen s th prio tm (e # t')" .

    85       thus "distinct q" by auto

   969     next

   970       from et show ext': "extend_highest_gen s th prio tm t'"

   971           by (unfold extend_highest_gen_def extend_highest_gen_axioms_def, auto dest:step_back_vt)

    90 end

   976 

    91 

   977 lemma th_kept: "th \<in> threads (t @ s) \<and> 

    92 

   978                  preced th (t@s) = preced th s" (is "?Q t") 

    93 context valid_trace_e

    94 begin

    95 

    96 text {*

    97   The following lemma shows that only the @{text "P"}

    98   operation can add new thread into waiting queues. 

    99   Such kind of lemmas are very obvious, but need to be checked formally.

   100   This is a kind of confirmation that our modelling is correct.

   101 *}

   102 

   103 lemma block_pre: 

   104   assumes s_ni: "thread \<notin>  set (wq s cs)"

   105   and s_i: "thread \<in> set (wq (e#s) cs)"

   106   shows "e = P thread cs"

   109   proof(cases e)

   981   proof(induct rule:ind)

   110     case (P th cs)

   982     case Nil

   111     with assms

   983     from threads_s

   112     show ?thesis

   984     show ?case

   113       by (auto simp:wq_def Let_def split:if_splits)

   985       by auto

   115     case (Create th prio)

   987     case (Cons e t)

   116     with assms show ?thesis

   988     interpret h_e: extend_highest_gen _ _ _ _ "(e # t)" using Cons by auto

   117       by (auto simp:wq_def Let_def split:if_splits)

   989     interpret h_t: extend_highest_gen _ _ _ _ t using Cons by auto

   118   next

   990     show ?case

   119     case (Exit th)

   991     proof(cases e)

   120     with assms show ?thesis

   992       case (Create thread prio)

   121       by (auto simp:wq_def Let_def split:if_splits)

   993       show ?thesis

   122   next

   123     case (Set th prio)

   124     with assms show ?thesis

   125       by (auto simp:wq_def Let_def split:if_splits)

   126   next

   127     case (V th cs)

   128     with vt_e assms show ?thesis

   129       apply (auto simp:wq_def Let_def split:if_splits)

   130     proof -

   131       fix q qs

   132       assume h1: "thread \<notin> set (wq_fun (schs s) cs)"

   133         and h2: "q # qs = wq_fun (schs s) cs"

   134         and h3: "thread \<in> set (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set qs)"

   135         and vt: "vt (V th cs # s)"

   136       from h1 and h2[symmetric] have "thread \<notin> set (q # qs)" by simp

   137       moreover have "thread \<in> set qs"

   139         have "set (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set qs) = set qs"

   995         from Cons and Create have "step (t@s) (Create thread prio)" by auto

   140         proof(rule someI2)

   996         hence "th \<noteq> thread"

   141           from wq_distinct [of cs]

   997         proof(cases)

   142           and h2[symmetric, folded wq_def]

   998           case thread_create

   143           show "distinct qs \<and> set qs = set qs" by auto

   999           with Cons show ?thesis by auto

   144         next

   145           fix x assume "distinct x \<and> set x = set qs"

   146           thus "set x = set qs" by auto

   148         with h3 show ?thesis by simp

  1001         hence "preced th ((e # t) @ s)  = preced th (t @ s)"

   149       qed

  1002           by (unfold Create, auto simp:preced_def)

   150       ultimately show "False" by auto

  1003         moreover note Cons

   151       qed

  1004         ultimately show ?thesis

   152   qed

  1005           by (auto simp:Create)

   153 qed

  1006       qed

   154 

  1007     next

   155 end

  1008       case (Exit thread)

   156 

  1009       from h_e.exit_diff and Exit

   157 text {*

  1010       have neq_th: "thread \<noteq> th" by auto

   158   The following lemmas is also obvious and shallow. It says

  1011       with Cons

   159   that only running thread can request for a critical resource 

  1012       show ?thesis

   160   and that the requested resource must be one which is

  1013         by (unfold Exit, auto simp:preced_def)

   161   not current held by the thread.

  1014     next

   162 *}

  1015       case (P thread cs)

   163 

  1016       with Cons

   164 lemma p_pre: "\<lbrakk>vt ((P thread cs)#s)\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> 

  1017       show ?thesis 

   165   thread \<in> runing s \<and> (Cs cs, Th thread)  \<notin> (RAG s)^+"

  1018         by (auto simp:P preced_def)

   166 apply (ind_cases "vt ((P thread cs)#s)")

  1019     next

   167 apply (ind_cases "step s (P thread cs)")

  1020       case (V thread cs)

   168 by auto

  1021       with Cons

   169 

  1022       show ?thesis 

   170 lemma abs1:

  1023         by (auto simp:V preced_def)

   171   assumes ein: "e \<in> set es"

  1024     next

   172   and neq: "hd es \<noteq> hd (es @ [x])"

  1025       case (Set thread prio')

   173   shows "False"

  1026       show ?thesis

   174 proof -

   175   from ein have "es \<noteq> []" by auto

   176   then obtain e ess where "es = e # ess" by (cases es, auto)

   177   with neq show ?thesis by auto

   178 qed

   179 

   180 lemma q_head: "Q (hd es) \<Longrightarrow> hd es = hd [th\<leftarrow>es . Q th]"

   181   by (cases es, auto)

   182 

   183 inductive_cases evt_cons: "vt (a#s)"

   184 

   185 context valid_trace_e

   186 begin

   187 

   188 lemma abs2:

   189   assumes inq: "thread \<in> set (wq s cs)"

   190   and nh: "thread = hd (wq s cs)"

   191   and qt: "thread \<noteq> hd (wq (e#s) cs)"

   192   and inq': "thread \<in> set (wq (e#s) cs)"

   193   shows "False"

   194 proof -

   195   from vt_e assms show "False"

   196     apply (cases e)

   197     apply ((simp split:if_splits add:Let_def wq_def)[1])+

   198     apply (insert abs1, fast)[1]

   199     apply (auto simp:wq_def simp:Let_def split:if_splits list.splits)

   200   proof -

   201     fix th qs

   202     assume vt: "vt (V th cs # s)"

   203       and th_in: "thread \<in> set (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set qs)"

   204       and eq_wq: "wq_fun (schs s) cs = thread # qs"

   205     show "False"

   206     proof -

   207       from wq_distinct[of cs]

   208         and eq_wq[folded wq_def] have "distinct (thread#qs)" by simp

   209       moreover have "thread \<in> set qs"

   211         have "set (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set qs) = set qs"

  1028         from h_e.set_diff_low and Set

   212         proof(rule someI2)

  1029         have "th \<noteq> thread" by auto

   213           from wq_distinct [of cs]

  1030         hence "preced th ((e # t) @ s)  = preced th (t @ s)"

   214           and eq_wq [folded wq_def]

  1031           by (unfold Set, auto simp:preced_def)

   215           show "distinct qs \<and> set qs = set qs" by auto

  1032         moreover note Cons

   216         next

  1033         ultimately show ?thesis

   217           fix x assume "distinct x \<and> set x = set qs"

  1034           by (auto simp:Set)

   218           thus "set x = set qs" by auto

  1035       qed

   219         qed

   220         with th_in show ?thesis by auto

   221       qed

   222       ultimately show ?thesis by auto

   227 end

  1040 text {*

   228 

  1041   According to @{thm th_kept}, thread @{text "th"} has its living status

   229 context valid_trace

  1042   and precedence kept along the way of @{text "t"}. The following lemma

   230 begin

  1043   shows that this preserved precedence of @{text "th"} remains as the highest

   231 

  1044   along the way of @{text "t"}.

   232 lemma vt_moment: "\<And> t. vt (moment t s)"

  1045 

  1046   The proof goes by induction over @{text "t"} using the specialized

  1047   induction rule @{thm ind}, followed by case analysis of each possible 

  1048   operations of PIP. All cases follow the same pattern rendered by the 

  1049   generalized introduction rule @{thm "image_Max_eqI"}. 

  1050 

  1051   The very essence is to show that precedences, no matter whether they 

  1052   are newly introduced or modified, are always lower than the one held 

  1053   by @{term "th"}, which by @{thm th_kept} is preserved along the way.

  1054 *}

  1055 lemma max_kept: "Max (the_preced (t @ s) ` (threads (t@s))) = preced th s"