--- a/Implementation.thy Fri Jan 29 09:46:07 2016 +0800
+++ b/Implementation.thy Fri Jan 29 10:51:52 2016 +0800
@@ -2,8 +2,8 @@
This file contains lemmas used to guide the recalculation of current precedence
after every system call (or system operation)
*}
-theory Implementation
-imports PIPBasics
+theory ExtGG
+imports CpsG
begin
text {* (* ddd *)
@@ -35,30 +35,7 @@
section {* The @{term Set} operation *}
-text {* (* ddd *)
- The following locale @{text "step_set_cps"} investigates the recalculation
- after the @{text "Set"} operation.
-*}
-locale step_set_cps =
- fixes s' th prio s
- -- {* @{text "s'"} is the system state before the operation *}
- -- {* @{text "s"} is the system state after the operation *}
- defines s_def : "s \<equiv> (Set th prio#s')"
- -- {* @{text "s"} is assumed to be a legitimate state, from which
- the legitimacy of @{text "s"} can be derived. *}
- assumes vt_s: "vt s"
-
-sublocale step_set_cps < vat_s : valid_trace "s"
-proof
- from vt_s show "vt s" .
-qed
-
-sublocale step_set_cps < vat_s' : valid_trace "s'"
-proof
- from step_back_vt[OF vt_s[unfolded s_def]] show "vt s'" .
-qed
-
-context step_set_cps
+context valid_trace_set
begin
text {* (* ddd *)
@@ -67,26 +44,21 @@
of the operation (or event).
*}
+
lemma eq_preced:
assumes "th' \<noteq> th"
- shows "preced th' s = preced th' s'"
+ shows "preced th' (e#s) = preced th' s"
proof -
from assms show ?thesis
- by (unfold s_def, auto simp:preced_def)
+ by (unfold is_set, auto simp:preced_def)
qed
lemma eq_the_preced:
assumes "th' \<noteq> th"
- shows "the_preced s th' = the_preced s' th'"
+ shows "the_preced (e#s) th' = the_preced s th'"
using assms
by (unfold the_preced_def, intro eq_preced, simp)
-text {*
- The following lemma assures that the resetting of priority does not change the RAG.
-*}
-
-lemma eq_dep: "RAG s = RAG s'"
- by (unfold s_def RAG_set_unchanged, auto)
text {* (* ddd *)
Th following lemma @{text "eq_cp_pre"} says that the priority change of @{text "th"}
@@ -97,18 +69,18 @@
*}
lemma eq_cp_pre:
- assumes nd: "Th th \<notin> subtree (RAG s') (Th th')"
- shows "cp s th' = cp s' th'"
+ assumes nd: "Th th \<notin> subtree (RAG s) (Th th')"
+ shows "cp (e#s) th' = cp s th'"
proof -
-- {* After unfolding using the alternative definition, elements
affecting the @{term "cp"}-value of threads become explicit.
We only need to prove the following: *}
- have "Max (the_preced s ` {th'a. Th th'a \<in> subtree (RAG s) (Th th')}) =
- Max (the_preced s' ` {th'a. Th th'a \<in> subtree (RAG s') (Th th')})"
+ have "Max (the_preced (e#s) ` {th'a. Th th'a \<in> subtree (RAG (e#s)) (Th th')}) =
+ Max (the_preced s ` {th'a. Th th'a \<in> subtree (RAG s) (Th th')})"
(is "Max (?f ` ?S1) = Max (?g ` ?S2)")
proof -
-- {* The base sets are equal. *}
- have "?S1 = ?S2" using eq_dep by simp
+ have "?S1 = ?S2" using RAG_unchanged by simp
-- {* The function values on the base set are equal as well. *}
moreover have "\<forall> e \<in> ?S2. ?f e = ?g e"
proof
@@ -116,7 +88,7 @@
assume "th1 \<in> ?S2"
with nd have "th1 \<noteq> th" by (auto)
from eq_the_preced[OF this]
- show "the_preced s th1 = the_preced s' th1" .
+ show "the_preced (e#s) th1 = the_preced s th1" .
qed
-- {* Therefore, the image of the functions are equal. *}
ultimately have "(?f ` ?S1) = (?g ` ?S2)" by (auto intro!:f_image_eq)
@@ -131,16 +103,9 @@
*}
lemma th_in_no_subtree:
assumes "th' \<noteq> th"
- shows "Th th \<notin> subtree (RAG s') (Th th')"
+ shows "Th th \<notin> subtree (RAG s) (Th th')"
proof -
- have "th \<in> readys s'"
- proof -
- from step_back_step [OF vt_s[unfolded s_def]]
- have "step s' (Set th prio)" .
- hence "th \<in> runing s'" by (cases, simp)
- thus ?thesis by (simp add:readys_def runing_def)
- qed
- from vat_s'.readys_in_no_subtree[OF this assms(1)]
+ from readys_in_no_subtree[OF th_ready_s assms(1)]
show ?thesis by blast
qed
@@ -151,7 +116,7 @@
*}
lemma eq_cp:
assumes "th' \<noteq> th"
- shows "cp s th' = cp s' th'"
+ shows "cp (e#s) th' = cp s th'"
by (rule eq_cp_pre[OF th_in_no_subtree[OF assms]])
end
@@ -162,73 +127,33 @@
The following @{text "step_v_cps"} is the locale for @{text "V"}-operation.
*}
-locale step_v_cps =
- -- {* @{text "th"} is the initiating thread *}
- -- {* @{text "cs"} is the critical resource release by the @{text "V"}-operation *}
- fixes s' th cs s -- {* @{text "s'"} is the state before operation*}
- defines s_def : "s \<equiv> (V th cs#s')" -- {* @{text "s"} is the state after operation*}
- -- {* @{text "s"} is assumed to be valid, which implies the validity of @{text "s'"} *}
- assumes vt_s: "vt s"
-sublocale step_v_cps < vat_s : valid_trace "s"
-proof
- from vt_s show "vt s" .
-qed
-
-sublocale step_v_cps < vat_s' : valid_trace "s'"
-proof
- from step_back_vt[OF vt_s[unfolded s_def]] show "vt s'" .
-qed
-
-context step_v_cps
+context valid_trace_v
begin
-lemma ready_th_s': "th \<in> readys s'"
- using step_back_step[OF vt_s[unfolded s_def]]
- by (cases, simp add:runing_def)
-
-lemma ancestors_th: "ancestors (RAG s') (Th th) = {}"
+lemma ancestors_th: "ancestors (RAG s) (Th th) = {}"
proof -
- from vat_s'.readys_root[OF ready_th_s']
+ from readys_root[OF th_ready_s]
show ?thesis
by (unfold root_def, simp)
qed
-lemma holding_th: "holding s' th cs"
+lemma edge_of_th:
+ "(Cs cs, Th th) \<in> RAG s"
proof -
- from vt_s[unfolded s_def]
- have " PIP s' (V th cs)" by (cases, simp)
- thus ?thesis by (cases, auto)
-qed
-
-lemma edge_of_th:
- "(Cs cs, Th th) \<in> RAG s'"
-proof -
- from holding_th
+ from holding_th_cs_s
show ?thesis
by (unfold s_RAG_def holding_eq, auto)
qed
lemma ancestors_cs:
- "ancestors (RAG s') (Cs cs) = {Th th}"
+ "ancestors (RAG s) (Cs cs) = {Th th}"
proof -
- have "ancestors (RAG s') (Cs cs) = ancestors (RAG s') (Th th) \<union> {Th th}"
- proof(rule vat_s'.rtree_RAG.ancestors_accum)
- from vt_s[unfolded s_def]
- have " PIP s' (V th cs)" by (cases, simp)
- thus "(Cs cs, Th th) \<in> RAG s'"
- proof(cases)
- assume "holding s' th cs"
- from this[unfolded holding_eq]
- show ?thesis by (unfold s_RAG_def, auto)
- qed
- qed
+ have "ancestors (RAG s) (Cs cs) = ancestors (RAG s) (Th th) \<union> {Th th}"
+ by (rule rtree_RAG.ancestors_accum[OF edge_of_th])
from this[unfolded ancestors_th] show ?thesis by simp
qed
-lemma preced_kept: "the_preced s = the_preced s'"
- by (auto simp: s_def the_preced_def preced_def)
-
end
text {*
@@ -236,147 +161,99 @@
which represents the case when there is another thread @{text "th'"}
to take over the critical resource released by the initiating thread @{text "th"}.
*}
-locale step_v_cps_nt = step_v_cps +
- fixes th'
- -- {* @{text "th'"} is assumed to take over @{text "cs"} *}
- assumes nt: "next_th s' th cs th'"
-context step_v_cps_nt
+context valid_trace_v_n
begin
-text {*
- Lemma @{text "RAG_s"} confirms the change of RAG:
- two edges removed and one added, as shown by the following diagram.
-*}
-
-(*
- RAG before the V-operation
- th1 ----|
- |
- th' ----|
- |----> cs -----|
- th2 ----| |
- | |
- th3 ----| |
- |------> th
- th4 ----| |
- | |
- th5 ----| |
- |----> cs'-----|
- th6 ----|
- |
- th7 ----|
-
- RAG after the V-operation
- th1 ----|
- |
- |----> cs ----> th'
- th2 ----|
- |
- th3 ----|
-
- th4 ----|
- |
- th5 ----|
- |----> cs'----> th
- th6 ----|
- |
- th7 ----|
-*)
-
-lemma sub_RAGs': "{(Cs cs, Th th), (Th th', Cs cs)} \<subseteq> RAG s'"
- using next_th_RAG[OF nt] .
+lemma sub_RAGs':
+ "{(Cs cs, Th th), (Th taker, Cs cs)} \<subseteq> RAG s"
+ using next_th_RAG[OF next_th_taker] .
lemma ancestors_th':
- "ancestors (RAG s') (Th th') = {Th th, Cs cs}"
+ "ancestors (RAG s) (Th taker) = {Th th, Cs cs}"
proof -
- have "ancestors (RAG s') (Th th') = ancestors (RAG s') (Cs cs) \<union> {Cs cs}"
- proof(rule vat_s'.rtree_RAG.ancestors_accum)
- from sub_RAGs' show "(Th th', Cs cs) \<in> RAG s'" by auto
+ have "ancestors (RAG s) (Th taker) = ancestors (RAG s) (Cs cs) \<union> {Cs cs}"
+ proof(rule rtree_RAG.ancestors_accum)
+ from sub_RAGs' show "(Th taker, Cs cs) \<in> RAG s" by auto
qed
thus ?thesis using ancestors_th ancestors_cs by auto
qed
lemma RAG_s:
- "RAG s = (RAG s' - {(Cs cs, Th th), (Th th', Cs cs)}) \<union>
- {(Cs cs, Th th')}"
-proof -
- from step_RAG_v[OF vt_s[unfolded s_def], folded s_def]
- and nt show ?thesis by (auto intro:next_th_unique)
-qed
+ "RAG (e#s) = (RAG s - {(Cs cs, Th th), (Th taker, Cs cs)}) \<union>
+ {(Cs cs, Th taker)}"
+ by (unfold RAG_es waiting_set_eq holding_set_eq, auto)
lemma subtree_kept: (* ddd *)
- assumes "th1 \<notin> {th, th'}"
- shows "subtree (RAG s) (Th th1) = subtree (RAG s') (Th th1)" (is "_ = ?R")
+ assumes "th1 \<notin> {th, taker}"
+ shows "subtree (RAG (e#s)) (Th th1) =
+ subtree (RAG s) (Th th1)" (is "_ = ?R")
proof -
- let ?RAG' = "(RAG s' - {(Cs cs, Th th), (Th th', Cs cs)})"
- let ?RAG'' = "?RAG' \<union> {(Cs cs, Th th')}"
+ let ?RAG' = "(RAG s - {(Cs cs, Th th), (Th taker, Cs cs)})"
+ let ?RAG'' = "?RAG' \<union> {(Cs cs, Th taker)}"
have "subtree ?RAG' (Th th1) = ?R"
proof(rule subset_del_subtree_outside)
- show "Range {(Cs cs, Th th), (Th th', Cs cs)} \<inter> subtree (RAG s') (Th th1) = {}"
+ show "Range {(Cs cs, Th th), (Th taker, Cs cs)} \<inter> subtree (RAG s) (Th th1) = {}"
proof -
- have "(Th th) \<notin> subtree (RAG s') (Th th1)"
+ have "(Th th) \<notin> subtree (RAG s) (Th th1)"
proof(rule subtree_refute)
- show "Th th1 \<notin> ancestors (RAG s') (Th th)"
+ show "Th th1 \<notin> ancestors (RAG s) (Th th)"
by (unfold ancestors_th, simp)
next
from assms show "Th th1 \<noteq> Th th" by simp
qed
- moreover have "(Cs cs) \<notin> subtree (RAG s') (Th th1)"
+ moreover have "(Cs cs) \<notin> subtree (RAG s) (Th th1)"
proof(rule subtree_refute)
- show "Th th1 \<notin> ancestors (RAG s') (Cs cs)"
+ show "Th th1 \<notin> ancestors (RAG s) (Cs cs)"
by (unfold ancestors_cs, insert assms, auto)
qed simp
- ultimately have "{Th th, Cs cs} \<inter> subtree (RAG s') (Th th1) = {}" by auto
+ ultimately have "{Th th, Cs cs} \<inter> subtree (RAG s) (Th th1) = {}" by auto
thus ?thesis by simp
qed
qed
moreover have "subtree ?RAG'' (Th th1) = subtree ?RAG' (Th th1)"
proof(rule subtree_insert_next)
- show "Th th' \<notin> subtree (RAG s' - {(Cs cs, Th th), (Th th', Cs cs)}) (Th th1)"
+ show "Th taker \<notin> subtree (RAG s - {(Cs cs, Th th), (Th taker, Cs cs)}) (Th th1)"
proof(rule subtree_refute)
- show "Th th1 \<notin> ancestors (RAG s' - {(Cs cs, Th th), (Th th', Cs cs)}) (Th th')"
+ show "Th th1 \<notin> ancestors (RAG s - {(Cs cs, Th th), (Th taker, Cs cs)}) (Th taker)"
(is "_ \<notin> ?R")
proof -
- have "?R \<subseteq> ancestors (RAG s') (Th th')" by (rule ancestors_mono, auto)
+ have "?R \<subseteq> ancestors (RAG s) (Th taker)" by (rule ancestors_mono, auto)
moreover have "Th th1 \<notin> ..." using ancestors_th' assms by simp
ultimately show ?thesis by auto
qed
next
- from assms show "Th th1 \<noteq> Th th'" by simp
+ from assms show "Th th1 \<noteq> Th taker" by simp
qed
qed
ultimately show ?thesis by (unfold RAG_s, simp)
qed
lemma cp_kept:
- assumes "th1 \<notin> {th, th'}"
- shows "cp s th1 = cp s' th1"
- by (unfold cp_alt_def preced_kept subtree_kept[OF assms], simp)
+ assumes "th1 \<notin> {th, taker}"
+ shows "cp (e#s) th1 = cp s th1"
+ by (unfold cp_alt_def the_preced_es subtree_kept[OF assms], simp)
end
-locale step_v_cps_nnt = step_v_cps +
- assumes nnt: "\<And> th'. (\<not> next_th s' th cs th')"
-context step_v_cps_nnt
+context valid_trace_v_e
begin
-lemma RAG_s: "RAG s = RAG s' - {(Cs cs, Th th)}"
-proof -
- from nnt and step_RAG_v[OF vt_s[unfolded s_def], folded s_def]
- show ?thesis by auto
-qed
+find_theorems RAG s e
+
+lemma RAG_s: "RAG (e#s) = RAG s - {(Cs cs, Th th)}"
+ by (unfold RAG_es waiting_set_eq holding_set_eq, simp)
lemma subtree_kept:
assumes "th1 \<noteq> th"
- shows "subtree (RAG s) (Th th1) = subtree (RAG s') (Th th1)"
+ shows "subtree (RAG (e#s)) (Th th1) = subtree (RAG s) (Th th1)"
proof(unfold RAG_s, rule subset_del_subtree_outside)
- show "Range {(Cs cs, Th th)} \<inter> subtree (RAG s') (Th th1) = {}"
+ show "Range {(Cs cs, Th th)} \<inter> subtree (RAG s) (Th th1) = {}"
proof -
- have "(Th th) \<notin> subtree (RAG s') (Th th1)"
+ have "(Th th) \<notin> subtree (RAG s) (Th th1)"
proof(rule subtree_refute)
- show "Th th1 \<notin> ancestors (RAG s') (Th th)"
+ show "Th th1 \<notin> ancestors (RAG s) (Th th)"
by (unfold ancestors_th, simp)
next
from assms show "Th th1 \<noteq> Th th" by simp
@@ -387,94 +264,72 @@
lemma cp_kept_1:
assumes "th1 \<noteq> th"
- shows "cp s th1 = cp s' th1"
- by (unfold cp_alt_def preced_kept subtree_kept[OF assms], simp)
+ shows "cp (e#s) th1 = cp s th1"
+ by (unfold cp_alt_def the_preced_es subtree_kept[OF assms], simp)
-lemma subtree_cs: "subtree (RAG s') (Cs cs) = {Cs cs}"
+lemma subtree_cs: "subtree (RAG s) (Cs cs) = {Cs cs}"
proof -
{ fix n
- have "(Cs cs) \<notin> ancestors (RAG s') n"
+ have "(Cs cs) \<notin> ancestors (RAG s) n"
proof
- assume "Cs cs \<in> ancestors (RAG s') n"
- hence "(n, Cs cs) \<in> (RAG s')^+" by (auto simp:ancestors_def)
- from tranclE[OF this] obtain nn where h: "(nn, Cs cs) \<in> RAG s'" by auto
+ assume "Cs cs \<in> ancestors (RAG s) n"
+ hence "(n, Cs cs) \<in> (RAG s)^+" by (auto simp:ancestors_def)
+ from tranclE[OF this] obtain nn where h: "(nn, Cs cs) \<in> RAG s" by auto
then obtain th' where "nn = Th th'"
by (unfold s_RAG_def, auto)
- from h[unfolded this] have "(Th th', Cs cs) \<in> RAG s'" .
+ from h[unfolded this] have "(Th th', Cs cs) \<in> RAG s" .
from this[unfolded s_RAG_def]
- have "waiting (wq s') th' cs" by auto
+ have "waiting (wq s) th' cs" by auto
from this[unfolded cs_waiting_def]
- have "1 < length (wq s' cs)"
- by (cases "wq s' cs", auto)
- from holding_next_thI[OF holding_th this]
- obtain th' where "next_th s' th cs th'" by auto
- with nnt show False by auto
+ have "1 < length (wq s cs)"
+ by (cases "wq s cs", auto)
+ from holding_next_thI[OF holding_th_cs_s this]
+ obtain th' where "next_th s th cs th'" by auto
+ thus False using no_taker by blast
qed
} note h = this
{ fix n
- assume "n \<in> subtree (RAG s') (Cs cs)"
+ assume "n \<in> subtree (RAG s) (Cs cs)"
hence "n = (Cs cs)"
by (elim subtreeE, insert h, auto)
- } moreover have "(Cs cs) \<in> subtree (RAG s') (Cs cs)"
+ } moreover have "(Cs cs) \<in> subtree (RAG s) (Cs cs)"
by (auto simp:subtree_def)
ultimately show ?thesis by auto
qed
lemma subtree_th:
- "subtree (RAG s) (Th th) = subtree (RAG s') (Th th) - {Cs cs}"
-proof(unfold RAG_s, fold subtree_cs, rule vat_s'.rtree_RAG.subtree_del_inside)
+ "subtree (RAG (e#s)) (Th th) = subtree (RAG s) (Th th) - {Cs cs}"
+proof(unfold RAG_s, fold subtree_cs, rule rtree_RAG.subtree_del_inside)
from edge_of_th
- show "(Cs cs, Th th) \<in> edges_in (RAG s') (Th th)"
+ show "(Cs cs, Th th) \<in> edges_in (RAG s) (Th th)"
by (unfold edges_in_def, auto simp:subtree_def)
qed
lemma cp_kept_2:
- shows "cp s th = cp s' th"
- by (unfold cp_alt_def subtree_th preced_kept, auto)
+ shows "cp (e#s) th = cp s th"
+ by (unfold cp_alt_def subtree_th the_preced_es, auto)
lemma eq_cp:
- shows "cp s th' = cp s' th'"
+ shows "cp (e#s) th' = cp s th'"
using cp_kept_1 cp_kept_2
by (cases "th' = th", auto)
+
end
-locale step_P_cps =
- fixes s' th cs s
- defines s_def : "s \<equiv> (P th cs#s')"
- assumes vt_s: "vt s"
-
-sublocale step_P_cps < vat_s : valid_trace "s"
-proof
- from vt_s show "vt s" .
-qed
-
section {* The @{term P} operation *}
-sublocale step_P_cps < vat_s' : valid_trace "s'"
-proof
- from step_back_vt[OF vt_s[unfolded s_def]] show "vt s'" .
-qed
-
-context step_P_cps
+context valid_trace_p
begin
-lemma readys_th: "th \<in> readys s'"
-proof -
- from step_back_step [OF vt_s[unfolded s_def]]
- have "PIP s' (P th cs)" .
- hence "th \<in> runing s'" by (cases, simp)
- thus ?thesis by (simp add:readys_def runing_def)
-qed
-
-lemma root_th: "root (RAG s') (Th th)"
- using readys_root[OF readys_th] .
+lemma root_th: "root (RAG s) (Th th)"
+ by (simp add: ready_th_s readys_root)
lemma in_no_others_subtree:
assumes "th' \<noteq> th"
- shows "Th th \<notin> subtree (RAG s') (Th th')"
+ shows "Th th \<notin> subtree (RAG s) (Th th')"
proof
- assume "Th th \<in> subtree (RAG s') (Th th')"
+ assume "Th th \<in> subtree (RAG s) (Th th')"
thus False
proof(cases rule:subtreeE)
case 1
@@ -485,162 +340,140 @@
qed
qed
-lemma preced_kept: "the_preced s = the_preced s'"
- by (auto simp: s_def the_preced_def preced_def)
+lemma preced_kept: "the_preced (e#s) = the_preced s"
+proof
+ fix th'
+ show "the_preced (e # s) th' = the_preced s th'"
+ by (unfold the_preced_def is_p preced_def, simp)
+qed
end
-locale step_P_cps_ne =step_P_cps +
- fixes th'
- assumes ne: "wq s' cs \<noteq> []"
- defines th'_def: "th' \<equiv> hd (wq s' cs)"
-locale step_P_cps_e =step_P_cps +
- assumes ee: "wq s' cs = []"
-
-context step_P_cps_e
+context valid_trace_p_h
begin
-lemma RAG_s: "RAG s = RAG s' \<union> {(Cs cs, Th th)}"
-proof -
- from ee and step_RAG_p[OF vt_s[unfolded s_def], folded s_def]
- show ?thesis by auto
-qed
-
lemma subtree_kept:
assumes "th' \<noteq> th"
- shows "subtree (RAG s) (Th th') = subtree (RAG s') (Th th')"
-proof(unfold RAG_s, rule subtree_insert_next)
+ shows "subtree (RAG (e#s)) (Th th') = subtree (RAG s) (Th th')"
+proof(unfold RAG_es, rule subtree_insert_next)
from in_no_others_subtree[OF assms]
- show "Th th \<notin> subtree (RAG s') (Th th')" .
+ show "Th th \<notin> subtree (RAG s) (Th th')" .
qed
lemma cp_kept:
assumes "th' \<noteq> th"
- shows "cp s th' = cp s' th'"
+ shows "cp (e#s) th' = cp s th'"
proof -
- have "(the_preced s ` {th'a. Th th'a \<in> subtree (RAG s) (Th th')}) =
- (the_preced s' ` {th'a. Th th'a \<in> subtree (RAG s') (Th th')})"
+ have "(the_preced (e#s) ` {th'a. Th th'a \<in> subtree (RAG (e#s)) (Th th')}) =
+ (the_preced s ` {th'a. Th th'a \<in> subtree (RAG s) (Th th')})"
by (unfold preced_kept subtree_kept[OF assms], simp)
thus ?thesis by (unfold cp_alt_def, simp)
qed
end
-context step_P_cps_ne
+context valid_trace_p_w
begin
-lemma RAG_s: "RAG s = RAG s' \<union> {(Th th, Cs cs)}"
-proof -
- from step_RAG_p[OF vt_s[unfolded s_def]] and ne
- show ?thesis by (simp add:s_def)
-qed
+interpretation vat_e: valid_trace "e#s"
+ by (unfold_locales, insert vt_e, simp)
-lemma cs_held: "(Cs cs, Th th') \<in> RAG s'"
-proof -
- have "(Cs cs, Th th') \<in> hRAG s'"
- proof -
- from ne
- have " holding s' th' cs"
- by (unfold th'_def holding_eq cs_holding_def, auto)
- thus ?thesis
- by (unfold hRAG_def, auto)
- qed
- thus ?thesis by (unfold RAG_split, auto)
-qed
+lemma cs_held: "(Cs cs, Th holder) \<in> RAG s"
+ using holding_s_holder
+ by (unfold s_RAG_def, fold holding_eq, auto)
lemma tRAG_s:
- "tRAG s = tRAG s' \<union> {(Th th, Th th')}"
- using RAG_tRAG_transfer[OF RAG_s cs_held] .
+ "tRAG (e#s) = tRAG s \<union> {(Th th, Th holder)}"
+ using local.RAG_tRAG_transfer[OF RAG_es cs_held] .
lemma cp_kept:
- assumes "Th th'' \<notin> ancestors (tRAG s) (Th th)"
- shows "cp s th'' = cp s' th''"
+ assumes "Th th'' \<notin> ancestors (tRAG (e#s)) (Th th)"
+ shows "cp (e#s) th'' = cp s th''"
proof -
- have h: "subtree (tRAG s) (Th th'') = subtree (tRAG s') (Th th'')"
+ have h: "subtree (tRAG (e#s)) (Th th'') = subtree (tRAG s) (Th th'')"
proof -
- have "Th th' \<notin> subtree (tRAG s') (Th th'')"
+ have "Th holder \<notin> subtree (tRAG s) (Th th'')"
proof
- assume "Th th' \<in> subtree (tRAG s') (Th th'')"
+ assume "Th holder \<in> subtree (tRAG s) (Th th'')"
thus False
proof(rule subtreeE)
- assume "Th th' = Th th''"
+ assume "Th holder = Th th''"
from assms[unfolded tRAG_s ancestors_def, folded this]
show ?thesis by auto
next
- assume "Th th'' \<in> ancestors (tRAG s') (Th th')"
- moreover have "... \<subseteq> ancestors (tRAG s) (Th th')"
+ assume "Th th'' \<in> ancestors (tRAG s) (Th holder)"
+ moreover have "... \<subseteq> ancestors (tRAG (e#s)) (Th holder)"
proof(rule ancestors_mono)
- show "tRAG s' \<subseteq> tRAG s" by (unfold tRAG_s, auto)
+ show "tRAG s \<subseteq> tRAG (e#s)" by (unfold tRAG_s, auto)
qed
- ultimately have "Th th'' \<in> ancestors (tRAG s) (Th th')" by auto
- moreover have "Th th' \<in> ancestors (tRAG s) (Th th)"
+ ultimately have "Th th'' \<in> ancestors (tRAG (e#s)) (Th holder)" by auto
+ moreover have "Th holder \<in> ancestors (tRAG (e#s)) (Th th)"
by (unfold tRAG_s, auto simp:ancestors_def)
- ultimately have "Th th'' \<in> ancestors (tRAG s) (Th th)"
+ ultimately have "Th th'' \<in> ancestors (tRAG (e#s)) (Th th)"
by (auto simp:ancestors_def)
with assms show ?thesis by auto
qed
qed
from subtree_insert_next[OF this]
- have "subtree (tRAG s' \<union> {(Th th, Th th')}) (Th th'') = subtree (tRAG s') (Th th'')" .
+ have "subtree (tRAG s \<union> {(Th th, Th holder)}) (Th th'') = subtree (tRAG s) (Th th'')" .
from this[folded tRAG_s] show ?thesis .
qed
show ?thesis by (unfold cp_alt_def1 h preced_kept, simp)
qed
lemma cp_gen_update_stop: (* ddd *)
- assumes "u \<in> ancestors (tRAG s) (Th th)"
- and "cp_gen s u = cp_gen s' u"
- and "y \<in> ancestors (tRAG s) u"
- shows "cp_gen s y = cp_gen s' y"
+ assumes "u \<in> ancestors (tRAG (e#s)) (Th th)"
+ and "cp_gen (e#s) u = cp_gen s u"
+ and "y \<in> ancestors (tRAG (e#s)) u"
+ shows "cp_gen (e#s) y = cp_gen s y"
using assms(3)
-proof(induct rule:wf_induct[OF vat_s.fsbttRAGs.wf])
+proof(induct rule:wf_induct[OF vat_e.fsbttRAGs.wf])
case (1 x)
show ?case (is "?L = ?R")
proof -
from tRAG_ancestorsE[OF 1(2)]
obtain th2 where eq_x: "x = Th th2" by blast
- from vat_s.cp_gen_rec[OF this]
+ from vat_e.cp_gen_rec[OF this]
have "?L =
- Max ({the_preced s th2} \<union> cp_gen s ` RTree.children (tRAG s) x)" .
+ Max ({the_preced (e#s) th2} \<union> cp_gen (e#s) ` RTree.children (tRAG (e#s)) x)" .
also have "... =
- Max ({the_preced s' th2} \<union> cp_gen s' ` RTree.children (tRAG s') x)"
-
+ Max ({the_preced s th2} \<union> cp_gen s ` RTree.children (tRAG s) x)"
proof -
- from preced_kept have "the_preced s th2 = the_preced s' th2" by simp
- moreover have "cp_gen s ` RTree.children (tRAG s) x =
- cp_gen s' ` RTree.children (tRAG s') x"
+ from preced_kept have "the_preced (e#s) th2 = the_preced s th2" by simp
+ moreover have "cp_gen (e#s) ` RTree.children (tRAG (e#s)) x =
+ cp_gen s ` RTree.children (tRAG s) x"
proof -
- have "RTree.children (tRAG s) x = RTree.children (tRAG s') x"
+ have "RTree.children (tRAG (e#s)) x = RTree.children (tRAG s) x"
proof(unfold tRAG_s, rule children_union_kept)
- have start: "(Th th, Th th') \<in> tRAG s"
+ have start: "(Th th, Th holder) \<in> tRAG (e#s)"
by (unfold tRAG_s, auto)
note x_u = 1(2)
- show "x \<notin> Range {(Th th, Th th')}"
+ show "x \<notin> Range {(Th th, Th holder)}"
proof
- assume "x \<in> Range {(Th th, Th th')}"
- hence eq_x: "x = Th th'" using RangeE by auto
+ assume "x \<in> Range {(Th th, Th holder)}"
+ hence eq_x: "x = Th holder" using RangeE by auto
show False
- proof(cases rule:vat_s.rtree_s.ancestors_headE[OF assms(1) start])
+ proof(cases rule:vat_e.ancestors_headE[OF assms(1) start])
case 1
- from x_u[folded this, unfolded eq_x] vat_s.acyclic_tRAG
+ from x_u[folded this, unfolded eq_x] vat_e.acyclic_tRAG
show ?thesis by (auto simp:ancestors_def acyclic_def)
next
case 2
with x_u[unfolded eq_x]
- have "(Th th', Th th') \<in> (tRAG s)^+" by (auto simp:ancestors_def)
- with vat_s.acyclic_tRAG show ?thesis by (auto simp:acyclic_def)
+ have "(Th holder, Th holder) \<in> (tRAG (e#s))^+" by (auto simp:ancestors_def)
+ with vat_e.acyclic_tRAG show ?thesis by (auto simp:acyclic_def)
qed
qed
qed
- moreover have "cp_gen s ` RTree.children (tRAG s) x =
- cp_gen s' ` RTree.children (tRAG s) x" (is "?f ` ?A = ?g ` ?A")
+ moreover have "cp_gen (e#s) ` RTree.children (tRAG (e#s)) x =
+ cp_gen s ` RTree.children (tRAG (e#s)) x" (is "?f ` ?A = ?g ` ?A")
proof(rule f_image_eq)
fix a
assume a_in: "a \<in> ?A"
from 1(2)
show "?f a = ?g a"
- proof(cases rule:vat_s.rtree_s.ancestors_childrenE[case_names in_ch out_ch])
+ proof(cases rule:vat_e.rtree_s.ancestors_childrenE[case_names in_ch out_ch])
case in_ch
show ?thesis
proof(cases "a = u")
@@ -648,58 +481,58 @@
from assms(2)[folded this] show ?thesis .
next
case False
- have a_not_in: "a \<notin> ancestors (tRAG s) (Th th)"
+ have a_not_in: "a \<notin> ancestors (tRAG (e#s)) (Th th)"
proof
- assume a_in': "a \<in> ancestors (tRAG s) (Th th)"
+ assume a_in': "a \<in> ancestors (tRAG (e#s)) (Th th)"
have "a = u"
- proof(rule vat_s.rtree_s.ancestors_children_unique)
- from a_in' a_in show "a \<in> ancestors (tRAG s) (Th th) \<inter>
- RTree.children (tRAG s) x" by auto
+ proof(rule vat_e.rtree_s.ancestors_children_unique)
+ from a_in' a_in show "a \<in> ancestors (tRAG (e#s)) (Th th) \<inter>
+ RTree.children (tRAG (e#s)) x" by auto
next
- from assms(1) in_ch show "u \<in> ancestors (tRAG s) (Th th) \<inter>
- RTree.children (tRAG s) x" by auto
+ from assms(1) in_ch show "u \<in> ancestors (tRAG (e#s)) (Th th) \<inter>
+ RTree.children (tRAG (e#s)) x" by auto
qed
with False show False by simp
qed
from a_in obtain th_a where eq_a: "a = Th th_a"
by (unfold RTree.children_def tRAG_alt_def, auto)
from cp_kept[OF a_not_in[unfolded eq_a]]
- have "cp s th_a = cp s' th_a" .
+ have "cp (e#s) th_a = cp s th_a" .
from this [unfolded cp_gen_def_cond[OF eq_a], folded eq_a]
show ?thesis .
qed
next
case (out_ch z)
- hence h: "z \<in> ancestors (tRAG s) u" "z \<in> RTree.children (tRAG s) x" by auto
+ hence h: "z \<in> ancestors (tRAG (e#s)) u" "z \<in> RTree.children (tRAG (e#s)) x" by auto
show ?thesis
proof(cases "a = z")
case True
- from h(2) have zx_in: "(z, x) \<in> (tRAG s)" by (auto simp:RTree.children_def)
+ from h(2) have zx_in: "(z, x) \<in> (tRAG (e#s))" by (auto simp:RTree.children_def)
from 1(1)[rule_format, OF this h(1)]
- have eq_cp_gen: "cp_gen s z = cp_gen s' z" .
+ have eq_cp_gen: "cp_gen (e#s) z = cp_gen s z" .
with True show ?thesis by metis
next
case False
from a_in obtain th_a where eq_a: "a = Th th_a"
by (auto simp:RTree.children_def tRAG_alt_def)
- have "a \<notin> ancestors (tRAG s) (Th th)"
+ have "a \<notin> ancestors (tRAG (e#s)) (Th th)"
proof
- assume a_in': "a \<in> ancestors (tRAG s) (Th th)"
+ assume a_in': "a \<in> ancestors (tRAG (e#s)) (Th th)"
have "a = z"
- proof(rule vat_s.rtree_s.ancestors_children_unique)
- from assms(1) h(1) have "z \<in> ancestors (tRAG s) (Th th)"
+ proof(rule vat_e.rtree_s.ancestors_children_unique)
+ from assms(1) h(1) have "z \<in> ancestors (tRAG (e#s)) (Th th)"
by (auto simp:ancestors_def)
- with h(2) show " z \<in> ancestors (tRAG s) (Th th) \<inter>
- RTree.children (tRAG s) x" by auto
+ with h(2) show " z \<in> ancestors (tRAG (e#s)) (Th th) \<inter>
+ RTree.children (tRAG (e#s)) x" by auto
next
from a_in a_in'
- show "a \<in> ancestors (tRAG s) (Th th) \<inter> RTree.children (tRAG s) x"
+ show "a \<in> ancestors (tRAG (e#s)) (Th th) \<inter> RTree.children (tRAG (e#s)) x"
by auto
qed
with False show False by auto
qed
from cp_kept[OF this[unfolded eq_a]]
- have "cp s th_a = cp s' th_a" .
+ have "cp (e#s) th_a = cp s th_a" .
from this[unfolded cp_gen_def_cond[OF eq_a], folded eq_a]
show ?thesis .
qed
@@ -710,21 +543,21 @@
ultimately show ?thesis by simp
qed
also have "... = ?R"
- by (fold vat_s'.cp_gen_rec[OF eq_x], simp)
+ by (fold cp_gen_rec[OF eq_x], simp)
finally show ?thesis .
qed
qed
lemma cp_up:
- assumes "(Th th') \<in> ancestors (tRAG s) (Th th)"
- and "cp s th' = cp s' th'"
- and "(Th th'') \<in> ancestors (tRAG s) (Th th')"
- shows "cp s th'' = cp s' th''"
+ assumes "(Th th') \<in> ancestors (tRAG (e#s)) (Th th)"
+ and "cp (e#s) th' = cp s th'"
+ and "(Th th'') \<in> ancestors (tRAG (e#s)) (Th th')"
+ shows "cp (e#s) th'' = cp s th''"
proof -
- have "cp_gen s (Th th'') = cp_gen s' (Th th'')"
+ have "cp_gen (e#s) (Th th'') = cp_gen s (Th th'')"
proof(rule cp_gen_update_stop[OF assms(1) _ assms(3)])
from assms(2) cp_gen_def_cond[OF refl[of "Th th'"]]
- show "cp_gen s (Th th') = cp_gen s' (Th th')" by metis
+ show "cp_gen (e#s) (Th th') = cp_gen s (Th th')" by metis
qed
with cp_gen_def_cond[OF refl[of "Th th''"]]
show ?thesis by metis
@@ -734,50 +567,32 @@
section {* The @{term Create} operation *}
-locale step_create_cps =
- fixes s' th prio s
- defines s_def : "s \<equiv> (Create th prio#s')"
- assumes vt_s: "vt s"
-
-sublocale step_create_cps < vat_s: valid_trace "s"
- by (unfold_locales, insert vt_s, simp)
+context valid_trace_create
+begin
-sublocale step_create_cps < vat_s': valid_trace "s'"
- by (unfold_locales, insert step_back_vt[OF vt_s[unfolded s_def]], simp)
-
-context step_create_cps
-begin
+interpretation vat_e: valid_trace "e#s"
+ by (unfold_locales, insert vt_e, simp)
-lemma RAG_kept: "RAG s = RAG s'"
- by (unfold s_def RAG_create_unchanged, auto)
-
-lemma tRAG_kept: "tRAG s = tRAG s'"
- by (unfold tRAG_alt_def RAG_kept, auto)
+lemma tRAG_kept: "tRAG (e#s) = tRAG s"
+ by (unfold tRAG_alt_def RAG_unchanged, auto)
lemma preced_kept:
assumes "th' \<noteq> th"
- shows "the_preced s th' = the_preced s' th'"
- by (unfold s_def the_preced_def preced_def, insert assms, auto)
+ shows "the_preced (e#s) th' = the_preced s th'"
+ by (unfold the_preced_def preced_def is_create, insert assms, auto)
-lemma th_not_in: "Th th \<notin> Field (tRAG s')"
-proof -
- from vt_s[unfolded s_def]
- have "PIP s' (Create th prio)" by (cases, simp)
- hence "th \<notin> threads s'" by(cases, simp)
- from vat_s'.not_in_thread_isolated[OF this]
- have "Th th \<notin> Field (RAG s')" .
- with tRAG_Field show ?thesis by auto
-qed
+lemma th_not_in: "Th th \<notin> Field (tRAG s)"
+ by (meson not_in_thread_isolated subsetCE tRAG_Field th_not_live_s)
lemma eq_cp:
assumes neq_th: "th' \<noteq> th"
- shows "cp s th' = cp s' th'"
+ shows "cp (e#s) th' = cp s th'"
proof -
- have "(the_preced s \<circ> the_thread) ` subtree (tRAG s) (Th th') =
- (the_preced s' \<circ> the_thread) ` subtree (tRAG s') (Th th')"
+ have "(the_preced (e#s) \<circ> the_thread) ` subtree (tRAG (e#s)) (Th th') =
+ (the_preced s \<circ> the_thread) ` subtree (tRAG s) (Th th')"
proof(unfold tRAG_kept, rule f_image_eq)
fix a
- assume a_in: "a \<in> subtree (tRAG s') (Th th')"
+ assume a_in: "a \<in> subtree (tRAG s) (Th th')"
then obtain th_a where eq_a: "a = Th th_a"
proof(cases rule:subtreeE)
case 2
@@ -786,9 +601,9 @@
qed auto
have neq_th_a: "th_a \<noteq> th"
proof -
- have "(Th th) \<notin> subtree (tRAG s') (Th th')"
+ have "(Th th) \<notin> subtree (tRAG s) (Th th')"
proof
- assume "Th th \<in> subtree (tRAG s') (Th th')"
+ assume "Th th \<in> subtree (tRAG s) (Th th')"
thus False
proof(cases rule:subtreeE)
case 2
@@ -800,99 +615,72 @@
with a_in[unfolded eq_a] show ?thesis by auto
qed
from preced_kept[OF this]
- show "(the_preced s \<circ> the_thread) a = (the_preced s' \<circ> the_thread) a"
+ show "(the_preced (e#s) \<circ> the_thread) a = (the_preced s \<circ> the_thread) a"
by (unfold eq_a, simp)
qed
thus ?thesis by (unfold cp_alt_def1, simp)
qed
-lemma children_of_th: "RTree.children (tRAG s) (Th th) = {}"
+lemma children_of_th: "RTree.children (tRAG (e#s)) (Th th) = {}"
proof -
{ fix a
- assume "a \<in> RTree.children (tRAG s) (Th th)"
- hence "(a, Th th) \<in> tRAG s" by (auto simp:RTree.children_def)
+ assume "a \<in> RTree.children (tRAG (e#s)) (Th th)"
+ hence "(a, Th th) \<in> tRAG (e#s)" by (auto simp:RTree.children_def)
with th_not_in have False
by (unfold Field_def tRAG_kept, auto)
} thus ?thesis by auto
qed
-lemma eq_cp_th: "cp s th = preced th s"
- by (unfold vat_s.cp_rec children_of_th, simp add:the_preced_def)
+lemma eq_cp_th: "cp (e#s) th = preced th (e#s)"
+ by (unfold vat_e.cp_rec children_of_th, simp add:the_preced_def)
end
-locale step_exit_cps =
- fixes s' th prio s
- defines s_def : "s \<equiv> Exit th # s'"
- assumes vt_s: "vt s"
-sublocale step_exit_cps < vat_s: valid_trace "s"
- by (unfold_locales, insert vt_s, simp)
-
-sublocale step_exit_cps < vat_s': valid_trace "s'"
- by (unfold_locales, insert step_back_vt[OF vt_s[unfolded s_def]], simp)
-
-context step_exit_cps
+context valid_trace_exit
begin
lemma preced_kept:
assumes "th' \<noteq> th"
- shows "the_preced s th' = the_preced s' th'"
- by (unfold s_def the_preced_def preced_def, insert assms, auto)
-
-lemma RAG_kept: "RAG s = RAG s'"
- by (unfold s_def RAG_exit_unchanged, auto)
-
-lemma tRAG_kept: "tRAG s = tRAG s'"
- by (unfold tRAG_alt_def RAG_kept, auto)
+ shows "the_preced (e#s) th' = the_preced s th'"
+ using assms
+ by (unfold the_preced_def is_exit preced_def, simp)
-lemma th_ready: "th \<in> readys s'"
-proof -
- from vt_s[unfolded s_def]
- have "PIP s' (Exit th)" by (cases, simp)
- hence h: "th \<in> runing s' \<and> holdents s' th = {}" by (cases, metis)
- thus ?thesis by (unfold runing_def, auto)
-qed
+lemma tRAG_kept: "tRAG (e#s) = tRAG s"
+ by (unfold tRAG_alt_def RAG_unchanged, auto)
-lemma th_holdents: "holdents s' th = {}"
+lemma th_RAG: "Th th \<notin> Field (RAG s)"
proof -
- from vt_s[unfolded s_def]
- have "PIP s' (Exit th)" by (cases, simp)
- thus ?thesis by (cases, metis)
-qed
-
-lemma th_RAG: "Th th \<notin> Field (RAG s')"
-proof -
- have "Th th \<notin> Range (RAG s')"
+ have "Th th \<notin> Range (RAG s)"
proof
- assume "Th th \<in> Range (RAG s')"
- then obtain cs where "holding (wq s') th cs"
+ assume "Th th \<in> Range (RAG s)"
+ then obtain cs where "holding (wq s) th cs"
by (unfold Range_iff s_RAG_def, auto)
- with th_holdents[unfolded holdents_def]
- show False by (unfold eq_holding, auto)
+ with holdents_th_s[unfolded holdents_def]
+ show False by (unfold holding_eq, auto)
qed
- moreover have "Th th \<notin> Domain (RAG s')"
+ moreover have "Th th \<notin> Domain (RAG s)"
proof
- assume "Th th \<in> Domain (RAG s')"
- then obtain cs where "waiting (wq s') th cs"
+ assume "Th th \<in> Domain (RAG s)"
+ then obtain cs where "waiting (wq s) th cs"
by (unfold Domain_iff s_RAG_def, auto)
- with th_ready show False by (unfold readys_def eq_waiting, auto)
+ with th_ready_s show False by (unfold readys_def waiting_eq, auto)
qed
ultimately show ?thesis by (auto simp:Field_def)
qed
-lemma th_tRAG: "(Th th) \<notin> Field (tRAG s')"
- using th_RAG tRAG_Field[of s'] by auto
+lemma th_tRAG: "(Th th) \<notin> Field (tRAG s)"
+ using th_RAG tRAG_Field by auto
lemma eq_cp:
assumes neq_th: "th' \<noteq> th"
- shows "cp s th' = cp s' th'"
+ shows "cp (e#s) th' = cp s th'"
proof -
- have "(the_preced s \<circ> the_thread) ` subtree (tRAG s) (Th th') =
- (the_preced s' \<circ> the_thread) ` subtree (tRAG s') (Th th')"
+ have "(the_preced (e#s) \<circ> the_thread) ` subtree (tRAG (e#s)) (Th th') =
+ (the_preced s \<circ> the_thread) ` subtree (tRAG s) (Th th')"
proof(unfold tRAG_kept, rule f_image_eq)
fix a
- assume a_in: "a \<in> subtree (tRAG s') (Th th')"
+ assume a_in: "a \<in> subtree (tRAG s) (Th th')"
then obtain th_a where eq_a: "a = Th th_a"
proof(cases rule:subtreeE)
case 2
@@ -901,14 +689,14 @@
qed auto
have neq_th_a: "th_a \<noteq> th"
proof -
- from vat_s'.readys_in_no_subtree[OF th_ready assms]
- have "(Th th) \<notin> subtree (RAG s') (Th th')" .
- with tRAG_subtree_RAG[of s' "Th th'"]
- have "(Th th) \<notin> subtree (tRAG s') (Th th')" by auto
+ from readys_in_no_subtree[OF th_ready_s assms]
+ have "(Th th) \<notin> subtree (RAG s) (Th th')" .
+ with tRAG_subtree_RAG[of s "Th th'"]
+ have "(Th th) \<notin> subtree (tRAG s) (Th th')" by auto
with a_in[unfolded eq_a] show ?thesis by auto
qed
from preced_kept[OF this]
- show "(the_preced s \<circ> the_thread) a = (the_preced s' \<circ> the_thread) a"
+ show "(the_preced (e#s) \<circ> the_thread) a = (the_preced s \<circ> the_thread) a"
by (unfold eq_a, simp)
qed
thus ?thesis by (unfold cp_alt_def1, simp)
@@ -918,3 +706,924 @@
end
+=======
+theory ExtGG
+imports PrioG CpsG
+begin
+
+text {*
+ The following two auxiliary lemmas are used to reason about @{term Max}.
+*}
+lemma image_Max_eqI:
+ assumes "finite B"
+ and "b \<in> B"
+ and "\<forall> x \<in> B. f x \<le> f b"
+ shows "Max (f ` B) = f b"
+ using assms
+ using Max_eqI by blast
+
+lemma image_Max_subset:
+ assumes "finite A"
+ and "B \<subseteq> A"
+ and "a \<in> B"
+ and "Max (f ` A) = f a"
+ shows "Max (f ` B) = f a"
+proof(rule image_Max_eqI)
+ show "finite B"
+ using assms(1) assms(2) finite_subset by auto
+next
+ show "a \<in> B" using assms by simp
+next
+ show "\<forall>x\<in>B. f x \<le> f a"
+ by (metis Max_ge assms(1) assms(2) assms(4)
+ finite_imageI image_eqI subsetCE)
+qed
+
+text {*
+ The following locale @{text "highest_gen"} sets the basic context for our
+ investigation: supposing thread @{text th} holds the highest @{term cp}-value
+ in state @{text s}, which means the task for @{text th} is the
+ most urgent. We want to show that
+ @{text th} is treated correctly by PIP, which means
+ @{text th} will not be blocked unreasonably by other less urgent
+ threads.
+*}
+locale highest_gen =
+ fixes s th prio tm
+ assumes vt_s: "vt s"
+ and threads_s: "th \<in> threads s"
+ and highest: "preced th s = Max ((cp s)`threads s)"
+ -- {* The internal structure of @{term th}'s precedence is exposed:*}
+ and preced_th: "preced th s = Prc prio tm"
+
+-- {* @{term s} is a valid trace, so it will inherit all results derived for
+ a valid trace: *}
+sublocale highest_gen < vat_s: valid_trace "s"
+ by (unfold_locales, insert vt_s, simp)
+
+context highest_gen
+begin
+
+text {*
+ @{term tm} is the time when the precedence of @{term th} is set, so
+ @{term tm} must be a valid moment index into @{term s}.
+*}
+lemma lt_tm: "tm < length s"
+ by (insert preced_tm_lt[OF threads_s preced_th], simp)
+
+text {*
+ Since @{term th} holds the highest precedence and @{text "cp"}
+ is the highest precedence of all threads in the sub-tree of
+ @{text "th"} and @{text th} is among these threads,
+ its @{term cp} must equal to its precedence:
+*}
+lemma eq_cp_s_th: "cp s th = preced th s" (is "?L = ?R")
+proof -
+ have "?L \<le> ?R"
+ by (unfold highest, rule Max_ge,
+ auto simp:threads_s finite_threads)
+ moreover have "?R \<le> ?L"
+ by (unfold vat_s.cp_rec, rule Max_ge,
+ auto simp:the_preced_def vat_s.fsbttRAGs.finite_children)
+ ultimately show ?thesis by auto
+qed
+
+(* ccc *)
+lemma highest_cp_preced: "cp s th = Max ((\<lambda> th'. preced th' s) ` threads s)"
+ by (fold max_cp_eq, unfold eq_cp_s_th, insert highest, simp)
+
+lemma highest_preced_thread: "preced th s = Max ((\<lambda> th'. preced th' s) ` threads s)"
+ by (fold eq_cp_s_th, unfold highest_cp_preced, simp)
+
+lemma highest': "cp s th = Max (cp s ` threads s)"
+proof -
+ from highest_cp_preced max_cp_eq[symmetric]
+ show ?thesis by simp
+qed
+
+end
+
+locale extend_highest_gen = highest_gen +
+ fixes t
+ assumes vt_t: "vt (t@s)"
+ and create_low: "Create th' prio' \<in> set t \<Longrightarrow> prio' \<le> prio"
+ and set_diff_low: "Set th' prio' \<in> set t \<Longrightarrow> th' \<noteq> th \<and> prio' \<le> prio"
+ and exit_diff: "Exit th' \<in> set t \<Longrightarrow> th' \<noteq> th"
+
+sublocale extend_highest_gen < vat_t: valid_trace "t@s"
+ by (unfold_locales, insert vt_t, simp)
+
+lemma step_back_vt_app:
+ assumes vt_ts: "vt (t@s)"
+ shows "vt s"
+proof -
+ from vt_ts show ?thesis
+ proof(induct t)
+ case Nil
+ from Nil show ?case by auto
+ next
+ case (Cons e t)
+ assume ih: " vt (t @ s) \<Longrightarrow> vt s"
+ and vt_et: "vt ((e # t) @ s)"
+ show ?case
+ proof(rule ih)
+ show "vt (t @ s)"
+ proof(rule step_back_vt)
+ from vt_et show "vt (e # t @ s)" by simp
+ qed
+ qed
+ qed
+qed
+
+
+locale red_extend_highest_gen = extend_highest_gen +
+ fixes i::nat
+
+sublocale red_extend_highest_gen < red_moment: extend_highest_gen "s" "th" "prio" "tm" "(moment i t)"
+ apply (insert extend_highest_gen_axioms, subst (asm) (1) moment_restm_s [of i t, symmetric])
+ apply (unfold extend_highest_gen_def extend_highest_gen_axioms_def, clarsimp)
+ by (unfold highest_gen_def, auto dest:step_back_vt_app)
+
+
+context extend_highest_gen
+begin
+
+ lemma ind [consumes 0, case_names Nil Cons, induct type]:
+ assumes
+ h0: "R []"
+ and h2: "\<And> e t. \<lbrakk>vt (t@s); step (t@s) e;
+ extend_highest_gen s th prio tm t;
+ extend_highest_gen s th prio tm (e#t); R t\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> R (e#t)"
+ shows "R t"
+proof -
+ from vt_t extend_highest_gen_axioms show ?thesis
+ proof(induct t)
+ from h0 show "R []" .
+ next
+ case (Cons e t')
+ assume ih: "\<lbrakk>vt (t' @ s); extend_highest_gen s th prio tm t'\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> R t'"
+ and vt_e: "vt ((e # t') @ s)"
+ and et: "extend_highest_gen s th prio tm (e # t')"
+ from vt_e and step_back_step have stp: "step (t'@s) e" by auto
+ from vt_e and step_back_vt have vt_ts: "vt (t'@s)" by auto
+ show ?case
+ proof(rule h2 [OF vt_ts stp _ _ _ ])
+ show "R t'"
+ proof(rule ih)
+ from et show ext': "extend_highest_gen s th prio tm t'"
+ by (unfold extend_highest_gen_def extend_highest_gen_axioms_def, auto dest:step_back_vt)
+ next
+ from vt_ts show "vt (t' @ s)" .
+ qed
+ next
+ from et show "extend_highest_gen s th prio tm (e # t')" .
+ next
+ from et show ext': "extend_highest_gen s th prio tm t'"
+ by (unfold extend_highest_gen_def extend_highest_gen_axioms_def, auto dest:step_back_vt)
+ qed
+ qed
+qed
+
+
+lemma th_kept: "th \<in> threads (t @ s) \<and>
+ preced th (t@s) = preced th s" (is "?Q t")
+proof -
+ show ?thesis
+ proof(induct rule:ind)
+ case Nil
+ from threads_s
+ show ?case
+ by auto
+ next
+ case (Cons e t)
+ interpret h_e: extend_highest_gen _ _ _ _ "(e # t)" using Cons by auto
+ interpret h_t: extend_highest_gen _ _ _ _ t using Cons by auto
+ show ?case
+ proof(cases e)
+ case (Create thread prio)
+ show ?thesis
+ proof -
+ from Cons and Create have "step (t@s) (Create thread prio)" by auto
+ hence "th \<noteq> thread"
+ proof(cases)
+ case thread_create
+ with Cons show ?thesis by auto
+ qed
+ hence "preced th ((e # t) @ s) = preced th (t @ s)"
+ by (unfold Create, auto simp:preced_def)
+ moreover note Cons
+ ultimately show ?thesis
+ by (auto simp:Create)
+ qed
+ next
+ case (Exit thread)
+ from h_e.exit_diff and Exit
+ have neq_th: "thread \<noteq> th" by auto
+ with Cons
+ show ?thesis
+ by (unfold Exit, auto simp:preced_def)
+ next
+ case (P thread cs)
+ with Cons
+ show ?thesis
+ by (auto simp:P preced_def)
+ next
+ case (V thread cs)
+ with Cons
+ show ?thesis
+ by (auto simp:V preced_def)
+ next
+ case (Set thread prio')
+ show ?thesis
+ proof -
+ from h_e.set_diff_low and Set
+ have "th \<noteq> thread" by auto
+ hence "preced th ((e # t) @ s) = preced th (t @ s)"
+ by (unfold Set, auto simp:preced_def)
+ moreover note Cons
+ ultimately show ?thesis
+ by (auto simp:Set)
+ qed
+ qed
+ qed
+qed
+
+text {*
+ According to @{thm th_kept}, thread @{text "th"} has its living status
+ and precedence kept along the way of @{text "t"}. The following lemma
+ shows that this preserved precedence of @{text "th"} remains as the highest
+ along the way of @{text "t"}.
+
+ The proof goes by induction over @{text "t"} using the specialized
+ induction rule @{thm ind}, followed by case analysis of each possible
+ operations of PIP. All cases follow the same pattern rendered by the
+ generalized introduction rule @{thm "image_Max_eqI"}.
+
+ The very essence is to show that precedences, no matter whether they are newly introduced
+ or modified, are always lower than the one held by @{term "th"},
+ which by @{thm th_kept} is preserved along the way.
+*}
+lemma max_kept: "Max (the_preced (t @ s) ` (threads (t@s))) = preced th s"
+proof(induct rule:ind)
+ case Nil
+ from highest_preced_thread
+ show ?case
+ by (unfold the_preced_def, simp)
+next
+ case (Cons e t)
+ interpret h_e: extend_highest_gen _ _ _ _ "(e # t)" using Cons by auto
+ interpret h_t: extend_highest_gen _ _ _ _ t using Cons by auto
+ show ?case
+ proof(cases e)
+ case (Create thread prio')
+ show ?thesis (is "Max (?f ` ?A) = ?t")
+ proof -
+ -- {* The following is the common pattern of each branch of the case analysis. *}
+ -- {* The major part is to show that @{text "th"} holds the highest precedence: *}
+ have "Max (?f ` ?A) = ?f th"
+ proof(rule image_Max_eqI)
+ show "finite ?A" using h_e.finite_threads by auto
+ next
+ show "th \<in> ?A" using h_e.th_kept by auto
+ next
+ show "\<forall>x\<in>?A. ?f x \<le> ?f th"
+ proof
+ fix x
+ assume "x \<in> ?A"
+ hence "x = thread \<or> x \<in> threads (t@s)" by (auto simp:Create)
+ thus "?f x \<le> ?f th"
+ proof
+ assume "x = thread"
+ thus ?thesis
+ apply (simp add:Create the_preced_def preced_def, fold preced_def)
+ using Create h_e.create_low h_t.th_kept lt_tm preced_leI2 preced_th by force
+ next
+ assume h: "x \<in> threads (t @ s)"
+ from Cons(2)[unfolded Create]
+ have "x \<noteq> thread" using h by (cases, auto)
+ hence "?f x = the_preced (t@s) x"
+ by (simp add:Create the_preced_def preced_def)
+ hence "?f x \<le> Max (the_preced (t@s) ` threads (t@s))"
+ by (simp add: h_t.finite_threads h)
+ also have "... = ?f th"
+ by (metis Cons.hyps(5) h_e.th_kept the_preced_def)
+ finally show ?thesis .
+ qed
+ qed
+ qed
+ -- {* The minor part is to show that the precedence of @{text "th"}
+ equals to preserved one, given by the foregoing lemma @{thm th_kept} *}
+ also have "... = ?t" using h_e.th_kept the_preced_def by auto
+ -- {* Then it follows trivially that the precedence preserved
+ for @{term "th"} remains the maximum of all living threads along the way. *}
+ finally show ?thesis .
+ qed
+ next
+ case (Exit thread)
+ show ?thesis (is "Max (?f ` ?A) = ?t")
+ proof -
+ have "Max (?f ` ?A) = ?f th"
+ proof(rule image_Max_eqI)
+ show "finite ?A" using h_e.finite_threads by auto
+ next
+ show "th \<in> ?A" using h_e.th_kept by auto
+ next
+ show "\<forall>x\<in>?A. ?f x \<le> ?f th"
+ proof
+ fix x
+ assume "x \<in> ?A"
+ hence "x \<in> threads (t@s)" by (simp add: Exit)
+ hence "?f x \<le> Max (?f ` threads (t@s))"
+ by (simp add: h_t.finite_threads)
+ also have "... \<le> ?f th"
+ apply (simp add:Exit the_preced_def preced_def, fold preced_def)
+ using Cons.hyps(5) h_t.th_kept the_preced_def by auto
+ finally show "?f x \<le> ?f th" .
+ qed
+ qed
+ also have "... = ?t" using h_e.th_kept the_preced_def by auto
+ finally show ?thesis .
+ qed
+ next
+ case (P thread cs)
+ with Cons
+ show ?thesis by (auto simp:preced_def the_preced_def)
+ next
+ case (V thread cs)
+ with Cons
+ show ?thesis by (auto simp:preced_def the_preced_def)
+ next
+ case (Set thread prio')
+ show ?thesis (is "Max (?f ` ?A) = ?t")
+ proof -
+ have "Max (?f ` ?A) = ?f th"
+ proof(rule image_Max_eqI)
+ show "finite ?A" using h_e.finite_threads by auto
+ next
+ show "th \<in> ?A" using h_e.th_kept by auto
+ next
+ show "\<forall>x\<in>?A. ?f x \<le> ?f th"
+ proof
+ fix x
+ assume h: "x \<in> ?A"
+ show "?f x \<le> ?f th"
+ proof(cases "x = thread")
+ case True
+ moreover have "the_preced (Set thread prio' # t @ s) thread \<le> the_preced (t @ s) th"
+ proof -
+ have "the_preced (t @ s) th = Prc prio tm"
+ using h_t.th_kept preced_th by (simp add:the_preced_def)
+ moreover have "prio' \<le> prio" using Set h_e.set_diff_low by auto
+ ultimately show ?thesis by (insert lt_tm, auto simp:the_preced_def preced_def)
+ qed
+ ultimately show ?thesis
+ by (unfold Set, simp add:the_preced_def preced_def)
+ next
+ case False
+ then have "?f x = the_preced (t@s) x"
+ by (simp add:the_preced_def preced_def Set)
+ also have "... \<le> Max (the_preced (t@s) ` threads (t@s))"
+ using Set h h_t.finite_threads by auto
+ also have "... = ?f th" by (metis Cons.hyps(5) h_e.th_kept the_preced_def)
+ finally show ?thesis .
+ qed
+ qed
+ qed
+ also have "... = ?t" using h_e.th_kept the_preced_def by auto
+ finally show ?thesis .
+ qed
+ qed
+qed
+
+lemma max_preced: "preced th (t@s) = Max (the_preced (t@s) ` (threads (t@s)))"
+ by (insert th_kept max_kept, auto)
+
+text {*
+ The reason behind the following lemma is that:
+ Since @{term "cp"} is defined as the maximum precedence
+ of those threads contained in the sub-tree of node @{term "Th th"}
+ in @{term "RAG (t@s)"}, and all these threads are living threads, and
+ @{term "th"} is also among them, the maximum precedence of
+ them all must be the one for @{text "th"}.
+*}
+lemma th_cp_max_preced:
+ "cp (t@s) th = Max (the_preced (t@s) ` (threads (t@s)))" (is "?L = ?R")
+proof -
+ let ?f = "the_preced (t@s)"
+ have "?L = ?f th"
+ proof(unfold cp_alt_def, rule image_Max_eqI)
+ show "finite {th'. Th th' \<in> subtree (RAG (t @ s)) (Th th)}"
+ proof -
+ have "{th'. Th th' \<in> subtree (RAG (t @ s)) (Th th)} =
+ the_thread ` {n . n \<in> subtree (RAG (t @ s)) (Th th) \<and>
+ (\<exists> th'. n = Th th')}"
+ by (smt Collect_cong Setcompr_eq_image mem_Collect_eq the_thread.simps)
+ moreover have "finite ..." by (simp add: vat_t.fsbtRAGs.finite_subtree)
+ ultimately show ?thesis by simp
+ qed
+ next
+ show "th \<in> {th'. Th th' \<in> subtree (RAG (t @ s)) (Th th)}"
+ by (auto simp:subtree_def)
+ next
+ show "\<forall>x\<in>{th'. Th th' \<in> subtree (RAG (t @ s)) (Th th)}.
+ the_preced (t @ s) x \<le> the_preced (t @ s) th"
+ proof
+ fix th'
+ assume "th' \<in> {th'. Th th' \<in> subtree (RAG (t @ s)) (Th th)}"
+ hence "Th th' \<in> subtree (RAG (t @ s)) (Th th)" by auto
+ moreover have "... \<subseteq> Field (RAG (t @ s)) \<union> {Th th}"
+ by (meson subtree_Field)
+ ultimately have "Th th' \<in> ..." by auto
+ hence "th' \<in> threads (t@s)"
+ proof
+ assume "Th th' \<in> {Th th}"
+ thus ?thesis using th_kept by auto
+ next
+ assume "Th th' \<in> Field (RAG (t @ s))"
+ thus ?thesis using vat_t.not_in_thread_isolated by blast
+ qed
+ thus "the_preced (t @ s) th' \<le> the_preced (t @ s) th"
+ by (metis Max_ge finite_imageI finite_threads image_eqI
+ max_kept th_kept the_preced_def)
+ qed
+ qed
+ also have "... = ?R" by (simp add: max_preced the_preced_def)
+ finally show ?thesis .
+qed
+
+lemma th_cp_max: "cp (t@s) th = Max (cp (t@s) ` threads (t@s))"
+ using max_cp_eq th_cp_max_preced the_preced_def vt_t by presburger
+
+lemma th_cp_preced: "cp (t@s) th = preced th s"
+ by (fold max_kept, unfold th_cp_max_preced, simp)
+
+lemma preced_less:
+ assumes th'_in: "th' \<in> threads s"
+ and neq_th': "th' \<noteq> th"
+ shows "preced th' s < preced th s"
+ using assms
+by (metis Max.coboundedI finite_imageI highest not_le order.trans
+ preced_linorder rev_image_eqI threads_s vat_s.finite_threads
+ vat_s.le_cp)
+
+text {*
+ Counting of the number of @{term "P"} and @{term "V"} operations
+ is the cornerstone of a large number of the following proofs.
+ The reason is that this counting is quite easy to calculate and
+ convenient to use in the reasoning.
+
+ The following lemma shows that the counting controls whether
+ a thread is running or not.
+*}
+
+lemma pv_blocked_pre:
+ assumes th'_in: "th' \<in> threads (t@s)"
+ and neq_th': "th' \<noteq> th"
+ and eq_pv: "cntP (t@s) th' = cntV (t@s) th'"
+ shows "th' \<notin> runing (t@s)"
+proof
+ assume otherwise: "th' \<in> runing (t@s)"
+ show False
+ proof -
+ have "th' = th"
+ proof(rule preced_unique)
+ show "preced th' (t @ s) = preced th (t @ s)" (is "?L = ?R")
+ proof -
+ have "?L = cp (t@s) th'"
+ by (unfold cp_eq_cpreced cpreced_def count_eq_dependants[OF eq_pv], simp)
+ also have "... = cp (t @ s) th" using otherwise
+ by (metis (mono_tags, lifting) mem_Collect_eq
+ runing_def th_cp_max vat_t.max_cp_readys_threads)
+ also have "... = ?R" by (metis th_cp_preced th_kept)
+ finally show ?thesis .
+ qed
+ qed (auto simp: th'_in th_kept)
+ moreover have "th' \<noteq> th" using neq_th' .
+ ultimately show ?thesis by simp
+ qed
+qed
+
+lemmas pv_blocked = pv_blocked_pre[folded detached_eq]
+
+lemma runing_precond_pre:
+ fixes th'
+ assumes th'_in: "th' \<in> threads s"
+ and eq_pv: "cntP s th' = cntV s th'"
+ and neq_th': "th' \<noteq> th"
+ shows "th' \<in> threads (t@s) \<and>
+ cntP (t@s) th' = cntV (t@s) th'"
+proof(induct rule:ind)
+ case (Cons e t)
+ interpret vat_t: extend_highest_gen s th prio tm t using Cons by simp
+ interpret vat_e: extend_highest_gen s th prio tm "(e # t)" using Cons by simp
+ show ?case
+ proof(cases e)
+ case (P thread cs)
+ show ?thesis
+ proof -
+ have "cntP ((e # t) @ s) th' = cntV ((e # t) @ s) th'"
+ proof -
+ have "thread \<noteq> th'"
+ proof -
+ have "step (t@s) (P thread cs)" using Cons P by auto
+ thus ?thesis
+ proof(cases)
+ assume "thread \<in> runing (t@s)"
+ moreover have "th' \<notin> runing (t@s)" using Cons(5)
+ by (metis neq_th' vat_t.pv_blocked_pre)
+ ultimately show ?thesis by auto
+ qed
+ qed with Cons show ?thesis
+ by (unfold P, simp add:cntP_def cntV_def count_def)
+ qed
+ moreover have "th' \<in> threads ((e # t) @ s)" using Cons by (unfold P, simp)
+ ultimately show ?thesis by auto
+ qed
+ next
+ case (V thread cs)
+ show ?thesis
+ proof -
+ have "cntP ((e # t) @ s) th' = cntV ((e # t) @ s) th'"
+ proof -
+ have "thread \<noteq> th'"
+ proof -
+ have "step (t@s) (V thread cs)" using Cons V by auto
+ thus ?thesis
+ proof(cases)
+ assume "thread \<in> runing (t@s)"
+ moreover have "th' \<notin> runing (t@s)" using Cons(5)
+ by (metis neq_th' vat_t.pv_blocked_pre)
+ ultimately show ?thesis by auto
+ qed
+ qed with Cons show ?thesis
+ by (unfold V, simp add:cntP_def cntV_def count_def)
+ qed
+ moreover have "th' \<in> threads ((e # t) @ s)" using Cons by (unfold V, simp)
+ ultimately show ?thesis by auto
+ qed
+ next
+ case (Create thread prio')
+ show ?thesis
+ proof -
+ have "cntP ((e # t) @ s) th' = cntV ((e # t) @ s) th'"
+ proof -
+ have "thread \<noteq> th'"
+ proof -
+ have "step (t@s) (Create thread prio')" using Cons Create by auto
+ thus ?thesis using Cons(5) by (cases, auto)
+ qed with Cons show ?thesis
+ by (unfold Create, simp add:cntP_def cntV_def count_def)
+ qed
+ moreover have "th' \<in> threads ((e # t) @ s)" using Cons by (unfold Create, simp)
+ ultimately show ?thesis by auto
+ qed
+ next
+ case (Exit thread)
+ show ?thesis
+ proof -
+ have neq_thread: "thread \<noteq> th'"
+ proof -
+ have "step (t@s) (Exit thread)" using Cons Exit by auto
+ thus ?thesis apply (cases) using Cons(5)
+ by (metis neq_th' vat_t.pv_blocked_pre)
+ qed
+ hence "cntP ((e # t) @ s) th' = cntV ((e # t) @ s) th'" using Cons
+ by (unfold Exit, simp add:cntP_def cntV_def count_def)
+ moreover have "th' \<in> threads ((e # t) @ s)" using Cons neq_thread
+ by (unfold Exit, simp)
+ ultimately show ?thesis by auto
+ qed
+ next
+ case (Set thread prio')
+ with Cons
+ show ?thesis
+ by (auto simp:cntP_def cntV_def count_def)
+ qed
+next
+ case Nil
+ with assms
+ show ?case by auto
+qed
+
+text {* Changing counting balance to detachedness *}
+lemmas runing_precond_pre_dtc = runing_precond_pre
+ [folded vat_t.detached_eq vat_s.detached_eq]
+
+lemma runing_precond:
+ fixes th'
+ assumes th'_in: "th' \<in> threads s"
+ and neq_th': "th' \<noteq> th"
+ and is_runing: "th' \<in> runing (t@s)"
+ shows "cntP s th' > cntV s th'"
+ using assms
+proof -
+ have "cntP s th' \<noteq> cntV s th'"
+ by (metis is_runing neq_th' pv_blocked_pre runing_precond_pre th'_in)
+ moreover have "cntV s th' \<le> cntP s th'" using vat_s.cnp_cnv_cncs by auto
+ ultimately show ?thesis by auto
+qed
+
+lemma moment_blocked_pre:
+ assumes neq_th': "th' \<noteq> th"
+ and th'_in: "th' \<in> threads ((moment i t)@s)"
+ and eq_pv: "cntP ((moment i t)@s) th' = cntV ((moment i t)@s) th'"
+ shows "cntP ((moment (i+j) t)@s) th' = cntV ((moment (i+j) t)@s) th' \<and>
+ th' \<in> threads ((moment (i+j) t)@s)"
+proof -
+ interpret h_i: red_extend_highest_gen _ _ _ _ _ i
+ by (unfold_locales)
+ interpret h_j: red_extend_highest_gen _ _ _ _ _ "i+j"
+ by (unfold_locales)
+ interpret h: extend_highest_gen "((moment i t)@s)" th prio tm "moment j (restm i t)"
+ proof(unfold_locales)
+ show "vt (moment i t @ s)" by (metis h_i.vt_t)
+ next
+ show "th \<in> threads (moment i t @ s)" by (metis h_i.th_kept)
+ next
+ show "preced th (moment i t @ s) =
+ Max (cp (moment i t @ s) ` threads (moment i t @ s))"
+ by (metis h_i.th_cp_max h_i.th_cp_preced h_i.th_kept)
+ next
+ show "preced th (moment i t @ s) = Prc prio tm" by (metis h_i.th_kept preced_th)
+ next
+ show "vt (moment j (restm i t) @ moment i t @ s)"
+ using moment_plus_split by (metis add.commute append_assoc h_j.vt_t)
+ next
+ fix th' prio'
+ assume "Create th' prio' \<in> set (moment j (restm i t))"
+ thus "prio' \<le> prio" using assms
+ by (metis Un_iff add.commute h_j.create_low moment_plus_split set_append)
+ next
+ fix th' prio'
+ assume "Set th' prio' \<in> set (moment j (restm i t))"
+ thus "th' \<noteq> th \<and> prio' \<le> prio"
+ by (metis Un_iff add.commute h_j.set_diff_low moment_plus_split set_append)
+ next
+ fix th'
+ assume "Exit th' \<in> set (moment j (restm i t))"
+ thus "th' \<noteq> th"
+ by (metis Un_iff add.commute h_j.exit_diff moment_plus_split set_append)
+ qed
+ show ?thesis
+ by (metis add.commute append_assoc eq_pv h.runing_precond_pre
+ moment_plus_split neq_th' th'_in)
+qed
+
+lemma moment_blocked_eqpv:
+ assumes neq_th': "th' \<noteq> th"
+ and th'_in: "th' \<in> threads ((moment i t)@s)"
+ and eq_pv: "cntP ((moment i t)@s) th' = cntV ((moment i t)@s) th'"
+ and le_ij: "i \<le> j"
+ shows "cntP ((moment j t)@s) th' = cntV ((moment j t)@s) th' \<and>
+ th' \<in> threads ((moment j t)@s) \<and>
+ th' \<notin> runing ((moment j t)@s)"
+proof -
+ from moment_blocked_pre [OF neq_th' th'_in eq_pv, of "j-i"] and le_ij
+ have h1: "cntP ((moment j t)@s) th' = cntV ((moment j t)@s) th'"
+ and h2: "th' \<in> threads ((moment j t)@s)" by auto
+ moreover have "th' \<notin> runing ((moment j t)@s)"
+ proof -
+ interpret h: red_extend_highest_gen _ _ _ _ _ j by (unfold_locales)
+ show ?thesis
+ using h.pv_blocked_pre h1 h2 neq_th' by auto
+ qed
+ ultimately show ?thesis by auto
+qed
+
+(* The foregoing two lemmas are preparation for this one, but
+ in long run can be combined. Maybe I am wrong.
+*)
+lemma moment_blocked:
+ assumes neq_th': "th' \<noteq> th"
+ and th'_in: "th' \<in> threads ((moment i t)@s)"
+ and dtc: "detached (moment i t @ s) th'"
+ and le_ij: "i \<le> j"
+ shows "detached (moment j t @ s) th' \<and>
+ th' \<in> threads ((moment j t)@s) \<and>
+ th' \<notin> runing ((moment j t)@s)"
+proof -
+ interpret h_i: red_extend_highest_gen _ _ _ _ _ i by (unfold_locales)
+ interpret h_j: red_extend_highest_gen _ _ _ _ _ j by (unfold_locales)
+ have cnt_i: "cntP (moment i t @ s) th' = cntV (moment i t @ s) th'"
+ by (metis dtc h_i.detached_elim)
+ from moment_blocked_eqpv[OF neq_th' th'_in cnt_i le_ij]
+ show ?thesis by (metis h_j.detached_intro)
+qed
+
+lemma runing_preced_inversion:
+ assumes runing': "th' \<in> runing (t@s)"
+ shows "cp (t@s) th' = preced th s" (is "?L = ?R")
+proof -
+ have "?L = Max (cp (t @ s) ` readys (t @ s))" using assms
+ by (unfold runing_def, auto)
+ also have "\<dots> = ?R"
+ by (metis th_cp_max th_cp_preced vat_t.max_cp_readys_threads)
+ finally show ?thesis .
+qed
+
+text {*
+ The situation when @{term "th"} is blocked is analyzed by the following lemmas.
+*}
+
+text {*
+ The following lemmas shows the running thread @{text "th'"}, if it is different from
+ @{term th}, must be live at the very beginning. By the term {\em the very beginning},
+ we mean the moment where the formal investigation starts, i.e. the moment (or state)
+ @{term s}.
+*}
+
+lemma runing_inversion_0:
+ assumes neq_th': "th' \<noteq> th"
+ and runing': "th' \<in> runing (t@s)"
+ shows "th' \<in> threads s"
+proof -
+ -- {* The proof is by contradiction: *}
+ { assume otherwise: "\<not> ?thesis"
+ have "th' \<notin> runing (t @ s)"
+ proof -
+ -- {* Since @{term "th'"} is running at time @{term "t@s"}, so it exists that time. *}
+ have th'_in: "th' \<in> threads (t@s)" using runing' by (simp add:runing_def readys_def)
+ -- {* However, @{text "th'"} does not exist at very beginning. *}
+ have th'_notin: "th' \<notin> threads (moment 0 t @ s)" using otherwise
+ by (metis append.simps(1) moment_zero)
+ -- {* Therefore, there must be a moment during @{text "t"}, when
+ @{text "th'"} came into being. *}
+ -- {* Let us suppose the moment being @{text "i"}: *}
+ from p_split_gen[OF th'_in th'_notin]
+ obtain i where lt_its: "i < length t"
+ and le_i: "0 \<le> i"
+ and pre: " th' \<notin> threads (moment i t @ s)" (is "th' \<notin> threads ?pre")
+ and post: "(\<forall>i'>i. th' \<in> threads (moment i' t @ s))" by (auto)
+ interpret h_i: red_extend_highest_gen _ _ _ _ _ i by (unfold_locales)
+ interpret h_i': red_extend_highest_gen _ _ _ _ _ "(Suc i)" by (unfold_locales)
+ from lt_its have "Suc i \<le> length t" by auto
+ -- {* Let us also suppose the event which makes this change is @{text e}: *}
+ from moment_head[OF this] obtain e where
+ eq_me: "moment (Suc i) t = e # moment i t" by blast
+ hence "vt (e # (moment i t @ s))" by (metis append_Cons h_i'.vt_t)
+ hence "PIP (moment i t @ s) e" by (cases, simp)
+ -- {* It can be derived that this event @{text "e"}, which
+ gives birth to @{term "th'"} must be a @{term "Create"}: *}
+ from create_pre[OF this, of th']
+ obtain prio where eq_e: "e = Create th' prio"
+ by (metis append_Cons eq_me lessI post pre)
+ have h1: "th' \<in> threads (moment (Suc i) t @ s)" using post by auto
+ have h2: "cntP (moment (Suc i) t @ s) th' = cntV (moment (Suc i) t@ s) th'"
+ proof -
+ have "cntP (moment i t@s) th' = cntV (moment i t@s) th'"
+ by (metis h_i.cnp_cnv_eq pre)
+ thus ?thesis by (simp add:eq_me eq_e cntP_def cntV_def count_def)
+ qed
+ show ?thesis
+ using moment_blocked_eqpv [OF neq_th' h1 h2, of "length t"] lt_its moment_ge
+ by auto
+ qed
+ with `th' \<in> runing (t@s)`
+ have False by simp
+ } thus ?thesis by auto
+qed
+
+text {*
+ The second lemma says, if the running thread @{text th'} is different from
+ @{term th}, then this @{text th'} must in the possession of some resources
+ at the very beginning.
+
+ To ease the reasoning of resource possession of one particular thread,
+ we used two auxiliary functions @{term cntV} and @{term cntP},
+ which are the counters of @{term P}-operations and
+ @{term V}-operations respectively.
+ If the number of @{term V}-operation is less than the number of
+ @{term "P"}-operations, the thread must have some unreleased resource.
+*}
+
+lemma runing_inversion_1: (* ddd *)
+ assumes neq_th': "th' \<noteq> th"
+ and runing': "th' \<in> runing (t@s)"
+ -- {* thread @{term "th'"} is a live on in state @{term "s"} and
+ it has some unreleased resource. *}
+ shows "th' \<in> threads s \<and> cntV s th' < cntP s th'"
+proof -
+ -- {* The proof is a simple composition of @{thm runing_inversion_0} and
+ @{thm runing_precond}: *}
+ -- {* By applying @{thm runing_inversion_0} to assumptions,
+ it can be shown that @{term th'} is live in state @{term s}: *}
+ have "th' \<in> threads s" using runing_inversion_0[OF assms(1,2)] .
+ -- {* Then the thesis is derived easily by applying @{thm runing_precond}: *}
+ with runing_precond [OF this neq_th' runing'] show ?thesis by simp
+qed
+
+text {*
+ The following lemma is just a rephrasing of @{thm runing_inversion_1}:
+*}
+lemma runing_inversion_2:
+ assumes runing': "th' \<in> runing (t@s)"
+ shows "th' = th \<or> (th' \<noteq> th \<and> th' \<in> threads s \<and> cntV s th' < cntP s th')"
+proof -
+ from runing_inversion_1[OF _ runing']
+ show ?thesis by auto
+qed
+
+lemma runing_inversion_3:
+ assumes runing': "th' \<in> runing (t@s)"
+ and neq_th: "th' \<noteq> th"
+ shows "th' \<in> threads s \<and> (cntV s th' < cntP s th' \<and> cp (t@s) th' = preced th s)"
+ by (metis neq_th runing' runing_inversion_2 runing_preced_inversion)
+
+lemma runing_inversion_4:
+ assumes runing': "th' \<in> runing (t@s)"
+ and neq_th: "th' \<noteq> th"
+ shows "th' \<in> threads s"
+ and "\<not>detached s th'"
+ and "cp (t@s) th' = preced th s"
+ apply (metis neq_th runing' runing_inversion_2)
+ apply (metis neq_th pv_blocked runing' runing_inversion_2 runing_precond_pre_dtc)
+ by (metis neq_th runing' runing_inversion_3)
+
+
+text {*
+ Suppose @{term th} is not running, it is first shown that
+ there is a path in RAG leading from node @{term th} to another thread @{text "th'"}
+ in the @{term readys}-set (So @{text "th'"} is an ancestor of @{term th}}).
+
+ Now, since @{term readys}-set is non-empty, there must be
+ one in it which holds the highest @{term cp}-value, which, by definition,
+ is the @{term runing}-thread. However, we are going to show more: this running thread
+ is exactly @{term "th'"}.
+ *}
+lemma th_blockedE: (* ddd *)
+ assumes "th \<notin> runing (t@s)"
+ obtains th' where "Th th' \<in> ancestors (RAG (t @ s)) (Th th)"
+ "th' \<in> runing (t@s)"
+proof -
+ -- {* According to @{thm vat_t.th_chain_to_ready}, either
+ @{term "th"} is in @{term "readys"} or there is path leading from it to
+ one thread in @{term "readys"}. *}
+ have "th \<in> readys (t @ s) \<or> (\<exists>th'. th' \<in> readys (t @ s) \<and> (Th th, Th th') \<in> (RAG (t @ s))\<^sup>+)"
+ using th_kept vat_t.th_chain_to_ready by auto
+ -- {* However, @{term th} can not be in @{term readys}, because otherwise, since
+ @{term th} holds the highest @{term cp}-value, it must be @{term "runing"}. *}
+ moreover have "th \<notin> readys (t@s)"
+ using assms runing_def th_cp_max vat_t.max_cp_readys_threads by auto
+ -- {* So, there must be a path from @{term th} to another thread @{text "th'"} in
+ term @{term readys}: *}
+ ultimately obtain th' where th'_in: "th' \<in> readys (t@s)"
+ and dp: "(Th th, Th th') \<in> (RAG (t @ s))\<^sup>+" by auto
+ -- {* We are going to show that this @{term th'} is running. *}
+ have "th' \<in> runing (t@s)"
+ proof -
+ -- {* We only need to show that this @{term th'} holds the highest @{term cp}-value: *}
+ have "cp (t@s) th' = Max (cp (t@s) ` readys (t@s))" (is "?L = ?R")
+ proof -
+ have "?L = Max ((the_preced (t @ s) \<circ> the_thread) ` subtree (tRAG (t @ s)) (Th th'))"
+ by (unfold cp_alt_def1, simp)
+ also have "... = (the_preced (t @ s) \<circ> the_thread) (Th th)"
+ proof(rule image_Max_subset)
+ show "finite (Th ` (threads (t@s)))" by (simp add: vat_t.finite_threads)
+ next
+ show "subtree (tRAG (t @ s)) (Th th') \<subseteq> Th ` threads (t @ s)"
+ by (metis Range.intros dp trancl_range vat_t.range_in vat_t.subtree_tRAG_thread)
+ next
+ show "Th th \<in> subtree (tRAG (t @ s)) (Th th')" using dp
+ by (unfold tRAG_subtree_eq, auto simp:subtree_def)
+ next
+ show "Max ((the_preced (t @ s) \<circ> the_thread) ` Th ` threads (t @ s)) =
+ (the_preced (t @ s) \<circ> the_thread) (Th th)" (is "Max ?L = _")
+ proof -
+ have "?L = the_preced (t @ s) ` threads (t @ s)"
+ by (unfold image_comp, rule image_cong, auto)
+ thus ?thesis using max_preced the_preced_def by auto
+ qed
+ qed
+ also have "... = ?R"
+ using th_cp_max th_cp_preced th_kept
+ the_preced_def vat_t.max_cp_readys_threads by auto
+ finally show ?thesis .
+ qed
+ -- {* Now, since @{term th'} holds the highest @{term cp}
+ and we have already show it is in @{term readys},
+ it is @{term runing} by definition. *}
+ with `th' \<in> readys (t@s)` show ?thesis by (simp add: runing_def)
+ qed
+ -- {* It is easy to show @{term th'} is an ancestor of @{term th}: *}
+ moreover have "Th th' \<in> ancestors (RAG (t @ s)) (Th th)"
+ using `(Th th, Th th') \<in> (RAG (t @ s))\<^sup>+` by (auto simp:ancestors_def)
+ ultimately show ?thesis using that by metis
+qed
+
+text {*
+ Now it is easy to see there is always a thread to run by case analysis
+ on whether thread @{term th} is running: if the answer is Yes, the
+ the running thread is obviously @{term th} itself; otherwise, the running
+ thread is the @{text th'} given by lemma @{thm th_blockedE}.
+*}
+lemma live: "runing (t@s) \<noteq> {}"
+proof(cases "th \<in> runing (t@s)")
+ case True thus ?thesis by auto
+next
+ case False
+ thus ?thesis using th_blockedE by auto
+qed
+
+end
+end
+
--- a/PIPBasics.thy Fri Jan 29 09:46:07 2016 +0800
+++ b/PIPBasics.thy Fri Jan 29 10:51:52 2016 +0800
@@ -1,7 +1,160 @@
-theory PIPBasics
-imports PIPDefs
+theory CpsG
+imports PIPDefs
begin
+lemma f_image_eq:
+ assumes h: "\<And> a. a \<in> A \<Longrightarrow> f a = g a"
+ shows "f ` A = g ` A"
+proof
+ show "f ` A \<subseteq> g ` A"
+ by(rule image_subsetI, auto intro:h)
+next
+ show "g ` A \<subseteq> f ` A"
+ by (rule image_subsetI, auto intro:h[symmetric])
+qed
+
+lemma Max_fg_mono:
+ assumes "finite A"
+ and "\<forall> a \<in> A. f a \<le> g a"
+ shows "Max (f ` A) \<le> Max (g ` A)"
+proof(cases "A = {}")
+ case True
+ thus ?thesis by auto
+next
+ case False
+ show ?thesis
+ proof(rule Max.boundedI)
+ from assms show "finite (f ` A)" by auto
+ next
+ from False show "f ` A \<noteq> {}" by auto
+ next
+ fix fa
+ assume "fa \<in> f ` A"
+ then obtain a where h_fa: "a \<in> A" "fa = f a" by auto
+ show "fa \<le> Max (g ` A)"
+ proof(rule Max_ge_iff[THEN iffD2])
+ from assms show "finite (g ` A)" by auto
+ next
+ from False show "g ` A \<noteq> {}" by auto
+ next
+ from h_fa have "g a \<in> g ` A" by auto
+ moreover have "fa \<le> g a" using h_fa assms(2) by auto
+ ultimately show "\<exists>a\<in>g ` A. fa \<le> a" by auto
+ qed
+ qed
+qed
+
+lemma Max_f_mono:
+ assumes seq: "A \<subseteq> B"
+ and np: "A \<noteq> {}"
+ and fnt: "finite B"
+ shows "Max (f ` A) \<le> Max (f ` B)"
+proof(rule Max_mono)
+ from seq show "f ` A \<subseteq> f ` B" by auto
+next
+ from np show "f ` A \<noteq> {}" by auto
+next
+ from fnt and seq show "finite (f ` B)" by auto
+qed
+
+lemma Max_UNION:
+ assumes "finite A"
+ and "A \<noteq> {}"
+ and "\<forall> M \<in> f ` A. finite M"
+ and "\<forall> M \<in> f ` A. M \<noteq> {}"
+ shows "Max (\<Union>x\<in> A. f x) = Max (Max ` f ` A)" (is "?L = ?R")
+ using assms[simp]
+proof -
+ have "?L = Max (\<Union>(f ` A))"
+ by (fold Union_image_eq, simp)
+ also have "... = ?R"
+ by (subst Max_Union, simp+)
+ finally show ?thesis .
+qed
+
+lemma max_Max_eq:
+ assumes "finite A"
+ and "A \<noteq> {}"
+ and "x = y"
+ shows "max x (Max A) = Max ({y} \<union> A)" (is "?L = ?R")
+proof -
+ have "?R = Max (insert y A)" by simp
+ also from assms have "... = ?L"
+ by (subst Max.insert, simp+)
+ finally show ?thesis by simp
+qed
+
+lemma birth_time_lt:
+ assumes "s \<noteq> []"
+ shows "last_set th s < length s"
+ using assms
+proof(induct s)
+ case (Cons a s)
+ show ?case
+ proof(cases "s \<noteq> []")
+ case False
+ thus ?thesis
+ by (cases a, auto)
+ next
+ case True
+ show ?thesis using Cons(1)[OF True]
+ by (cases a, auto)
+ qed
+qed simp
+
+lemma th_in_ne: "th \<in> threads s \<Longrightarrow> s \<noteq> []"
+ by (induct s, auto)
+
+lemma preced_tm_lt: "th \<in> threads s \<Longrightarrow> preced th s = Prc x y \<Longrightarrow> y < length s"
+ by (drule_tac th_in_ne, unfold preced_def, auto intro: birth_time_lt)
+
+lemma eq_RAG:
+ "RAG (wq s) = RAG s"
+ by (unfold cs_RAG_def s_RAG_def, auto)
+
+lemma waiting_holding:
+ assumes "waiting (s::state) th cs"
+ obtains th' where "holding s th' cs"
+proof -
+ from assms[unfolded s_waiting_def, folded wq_def]
+ obtain th' where "th' \<in> set (wq s cs)" "th' = hd (wq s cs)"
+ by (metis empty_iff hd_in_set list.set(1))
+ hence "holding s th' cs"
+ by (unfold s_holding_def, fold wq_def, auto)
+ from that[OF this] show ?thesis .
+qed
+
+lemma cp_eq_cpreced: "cp s th = cpreced (wq s) s th"
+unfolding cp_def wq_def
+apply(induct s rule: schs.induct)
+apply(simp add: Let_def cpreced_initial)
+apply(simp add: Let_def)
+apply(simp add: Let_def)
+apply(simp add: Let_def)
+apply(subst (2) schs.simps)
+apply(simp add: Let_def)
+apply(subst (2) schs.simps)
+apply(simp add: Let_def)
+done
+
+lemma cp_alt_def:
+ "cp s th =
+ Max ((the_preced s) ` {th'. Th th' \<in> (subtree (RAG s) (Th th))})"
+proof -
+ have "Max (the_preced s ` ({th} \<union> dependants (wq s) th)) =
+ Max (the_preced s ` {th'. Th th' \<in> subtree (RAG s) (Th th)})"
+ (is "Max (_ ` ?L) = Max (_ ` ?R)")
+ proof -
+ have "?L = ?R"
+ by (auto dest:rtranclD simp:cs_dependants_def cs_RAG_def s_RAG_def subtree_def)
+ thus ?thesis by simp
+ qed
+ thus ?thesis by (unfold cp_eq_cpreced cpreced_def, fold the_preced_def, simp)
+qed
+
+(* ccc *)
+
+
locale valid_trace =
fixes s
assumes vt : "vt s"
@@ -16,6 +169,105 @@
end
+locale valid_trace_create = valid_trace_e +
+ fixes th prio
+ assumes is_create: "e = Create th prio"
+
+locale valid_trace_exit = valid_trace_e +
+ fixes th
+ assumes is_exit: "e = Exit th"
+
+locale valid_trace_p = valid_trace_e +
+ fixes th cs
+ assumes is_p: "e = P th cs"
+
+locale valid_trace_v = valid_trace_e +
+ fixes th cs
+ assumes is_v: "e = V th cs"
+begin
+ definition "rest = tl (wq s cs)"
+ definition "wq' = (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set rest)"
+end
+
+locale valid_trace_v_n = valid_trace_v +
+ assumes rest_nnl: "rest \<noteq> []"
+
+locale valid_trace_v_e = valid_trace_v +
+ assumes rest_nil: "rest = []"
+
+locale valid_trace_set= valid_trace_e +
+ fixes th prio
+ assumes is_set: "e = Set th prio"
+
+context valid_trace
+begin
+
+lemma ind [consumes 0, case_names Nil Cons, induct type]:
+ assumes "PP []"
+ and "(\<And>s e. valid_trace_e s e \<Longrightarrow>
+ PP s \<Longrightarrow> PIP s e \<Longrightarrow> PP (e # s))"
+ shows "PP s"
+proof(induct rule:vt.induct[OF vt, case_names Init Step])
+ case Init
+ from assms(1) show ?case .
+next
+ case (Step s e)
+ show ?case
+ proof(rule assms(2))
+ show "valid_trace_e s e" using Step by (unfold_locales, auto)
+ next
+ show "PP s" using Step by simp
+ next
+ show "PIP s e" using Step by simp
+ qed
+qed
+
+lemma vt_moment: "\<And> t. vt (moment t s)"
+proof(induct rule:ind)
+ case Nil
+ thus ?case by (simp add:vt_nil)
+next
+ case (Cons s e t)
+ show ?case
+ proof(cases "t \<ge> length (e#s)")
+ case True
+ from True have "moment t (e#s) = e#s" by simp
+ thus ?thesis using Cons
+ by (simp add:valid_trace_def valid_trace_e_def, auto)
+ next
+ case False
+ from Cons have "vt (moment t s)" by simp
+ moreover have "moment t (e#s) = moment t s"
+ proof -
+ from False have "t \<le> length s" by simp
+ from moment_app [OF this, of "[e]"]
+ show ?thesis by simp
+ qed
+ ultimately show ?thesis by simp
+ qed
+qed
+
+lemma finite_threads:
+ shows "finite (threads s)"
+using vt by (induct) (auto elim: step.cases)
+
+end
+
+lemma RAG_target_th: "(Th th, x) \<in> RAG (s::state) \<Longrightarrow> \<exists> cs. x = Cs cs"
+ by (unfold s_RAG_def, auto)
+
+locale valid_moment = valid_trace +
+ fixes i :: nat
+
+sublocale valid_moment < vat_moment: valid_trace "(moment i s)"
+ by (unfold_locales, insert vt_moment, auto)
+
+lemma waiting_eq: "waiting s th cs = waiting (wq s) th cs"
+ by (unfold s_waiting_def cs_waiting_def wq_def, auto)
+
+lemma holding_eq: "holding (s::state) th cs = holding (wq s) th cs"
+ by (unfold s_holding_def wq_def cs_holding_def, simp)
+
lemma runing_ready:
shows "runing s \<subseteq> readys s"
unfolding runing_def readys_def
@@ -26,7 +278,7 @@
unfolding readys_def
by auto
-lemma wq_v_neq:
+lemma wq_v_neq [simp]:
"cs \<noteq> cs' \<Longrightarrow> wq (V thread cs#s) cs' = wq s cs'"
by (auto simp:wq_def Let_def cp_def split:list.splits)
@@ -40,6 +292,210 @@
context valid_trace
begin
+lemma runing_wqE:
+ assumes "th \<in> runing s"
+ and "th \<in> set (wq s cs)"
+ obtains rest where "wq s cs = th#rest"
+proof -
+ from assms(2) obtain th' rest where eq_wq: "wq s cs = th'#rest"
+ by (meson list.set_cases)
+ have "th' = th"
+ proof(rule ccontr)
+ assume "th' \<noteq> th"
+ hence "th \<noteq> hd (wq s cs)" using eq_wq by auto
+ with assms(2)
+ have "waiting s th cs"
+ by (unfold s_waiting_def, fold wq_def, auto)
+ with assms show False
+ by (unfold runing_def readys_def, auto)
+ qed
+ with eq_wq that show ?thesis by metis
+qed
+
+end
+
+context valid_trace_create
+begin
+
+lemma wq_neq_simp [simp]:
+ shows "wq (e#s) cs' = wq s cs'"
+ using assms unfolding is_create wq_def
+ by (auto simp:Let_def)
+
+lemma wq_distinct_kept:
+ assumes "distinct (wq s cs')"
+ shows "distinct (wq (e#s) cs')"
+ using assms by simp
+end
+
+context valid_trace_exit
+begin
+
+lemma wq_neq_simp [simp]:
+ shows "wq (e#s) cs' = wq s cs'"
+ using assms unfolding is_exit wq_def
+ by (auto simp:Let_def)
+
+lemma wq_distinct_kept:
+ assumes "distinct (wq s cs')"
+ shows "distinct (wq (e#s) cs')"
+ using assms by simp
+end
+
+context valid_trace_p
+begin
+
+lemma wq_neq_simp [simp]:
+ assumes "cs' \<noteq> cs"
+ shows "wq (e#s) cs' = wq s cs'"
+ using assms unfolding is_p wq_def
+ by (auto simp:Let_def)
+
+lemma runing_th_s:
+ shows "th \<in> runing s"
+proof -
+ from pip_e[unfolded is_p]
+ show ?thesis by (cases, simp)
+qed
+
+lemma ready_th_s: "th \<in> readys s"
+ using runing_th_s
+ by (unfold runing_def, auto)
+
+lemma live_th_s: "th \<in> threads s"
+ using readys_threads ready_th_s by auto
+
+lemma live_th_es: "th \<in> threads (e#s)"
+ using live_th_s
+ by (unfold is_p, simp)
+
+lemma th_not_waiting:
+ "\<not> waiting s th c"
+proof -
+ have "th \<in> readys s"
+ using runing_ready runing_th_s by blast
+ thus ?thesis
+ by (unfold readys_def, auto)
+qed
+
+lemma waiting_neq_th:
+ assumes "waiting s t c"
+ shows "t \<noteq> th"
+ using assms using th_not_waiting by blast
+
+lemma th_not_in_wq:
+ shows "th \<notin> set (wq s cs)"
+proof
+ assume otherwise: "th \<in> set (wq s cs)"
+ from runing_wqE[OF runing_th_s this]
+ obtain rest where eq_wq: "wq s cs = th#rest" by blast
+ with otherwise
+ have "holding s th cs"
+ by (unfold s_holding_def, fold wq_def, simp)
+ hence cs_th_RAG: "(Cs cs, Th th) \<in> RAG s"
+ by (unfold s_RAG_def, fold holding_eq, auto)
+ from pip_e[unfolded is_p]
+ show False
+ proof(cases)
+ case (thread_P)
+ with cs_th_RAG show ?thesis by auto
+ qed
+qed
+
+lemma wq_es_cs:
+ "wq (e#s) cs = wq s cs @ [th]"
+ by (unfold is_p wq_def, auto simp:Let_def)
+
+lemma wq_distinct_kept:
+ assumes "distinct (wq s cs')"
+ shows "distinct (wq (e#s) cs')"
+proof(cases "cs' = cs")
+ case True
+ show ?thesis using True assms th_not_in_wq
+ by (unfold True wq_es_cs, auto)
+qed (insert assms, simp)
+
+end
+
+context valid_trace_v
+begin
+
+lemma wq_neq_simp [simp]:
+ assumes "cs' \<noteq> cs"
+ shows "wq (e#s) cs' = wq s cs'"
+ using assms unfolding is_v wq_def
+ by (auto simp:Let_def)
+
+lemma runing_th_s:
+ shows "th \<in> runing s"
+proof -
+ from pip_e[unfolded is_v]
+ show ?thesis by (cases, simp)
+qed
+
+lemma th_not_waiting:
+ "\<not> waiting s th c"
+proof -
+ have "th \<in> readys s"
+ using runing_ready runing_th_s by blast
+ thus ?thesis
+ by (unfold readys_def, auto)
+qed
+
+lemma waiting_neq_th:
+ assumes "waiting s t c"
+ shows "t \<noteq> th"
+ using assms using th_not_waiting by blast
+
+lemma wq_s_cs:
+ "wq s cs = th#rest"
+proof -
+ from pip_e[unfolded is_v]
+ show ?thesis
+ proof(cases)
+ case (thread_V)
+ from this(2) show ?thesis
+ by (unfold rest_def s_holding_def, fold wq_def,
+ metis empty_iff list.collapse list.set(1))
+ qed
+qed
+
+lemma wq_es_cs:
+ "wq (e#s) cs = wq'"
+ using wq_s_cs[unfolded wq_def]
+ by (auto simp:Let_def wq_def rest_def wq'_def is_v, simp)
+
+lemma wq_distinct_kept:
+ assumes "distinct (wq s cs')"
+ shows "distinct (wq (e#s) cs')"
+proof(cases "cs' = cs")
+ case True
+ show ?thesis
+ proof(unfold True wq_es_cs wq'_def, rule someI2)
+ show "distinct rest \<and> set rest = set rest"
+ using assms[unfolded True wq_s_cs] by auto
+ qed simp
+qed (insert assms, simp)
+
+end
+
+context valid_trace_set
+begin
+
+lemma wq_neq_simp [simp]:
+ shows "wq (e#s) cs' = wq s cs'"
+ using assms unfolding is_set wq_def
+ by (auto simp:Let_def)
+
+lemma wq_distinct_kept:
+ assumes "distinct (wq s cs')"
+ shows "distinct (wq (e#s) cs')"
+ using assms by simp
+end
+
+context valid_trace
+begin
+
lemma actor_inv:
assumes "PIP s e"
and "\<not> isCreate e"
@@ -47,94 +503,49 @@
using assms
by (induct, auto)
-lemma ind [consumes 0, case_names Nil Cons, induct type]:
- assumes "PP []"
- and "(\<And>s e. valid_trace s \<Longrightarrow> valid_trace (e#s) \<Longrightarrow>
- PP s \<Longrightarrow> PIP s e \<Longrightarrow> PP (e # s))"
- shows "PP s"
-proof(rule vt.induct[OF vt])
- from assms(1) show "PP []" .
-next
- fix s e
- assume h: "vt s" "PP s" "PIP s e"
- show "PP (e # s)"
- proof(cases rule:assms(2))
- from h(1) show v1: "valid_trace s" by (unfold_locales, simp)
- next
- from h(1,3) have "vt (e#s)" by auto
- thus "valid_trace (e # s)" by (unfold_locales, simp)
- qed (insert h, auto)
-qed
+lemma isP_E:
+ assumes "isP e"
+ obtains cs where "e = P (actor e) cs"
+ using assms by (cases e, auto)
+
+lemma isV_E:
+ assumes "isV e"
+ obtains cs where "e = V (actor e) cs"
+ using assms by (cases e, auto)
lemma wq_distinct: "distinct (wq s cs)"
proof(induct rule:ind)
case (Cons s e)
- from Cons(4,3)
+ interpret vt_e: valid_trace_e s e using Cons by simp
show ?case
- proof(induct)
- case (thread_P th s cs1)
- show ?case
- proof(cases "cs = cs1")
- case True
- thus ?thesis (is "distinct ?L")
- proof -
- have "?L = wq_fun (schs s) cs1 @ [th]" using True
- by (simp add:wq_def wf_def Let_def split:list.splits)
- moreover have "distinct ..."
- proof -
- have "th \<notin> set (wq_fun (schs s) cs1)"
- proof
- assume otherwise: "th \<in> set (wq_fun (schs s) cs1)"
- from runing_head[OF thread_P(1) this]
- have "th = hd (wq_fun (schs s) cs1)" .
- hence "(Cs cs1, Th th) \<in> (RAG s)" using otherwise
- by (simp add:s_RAG_def s_holding_def wq_def cs_holding_def)
- with thread_P(2) show False by auto
- qed
- moreover have "distinct (wq_fun (schs s) cs1)"
- using True thread_P wq_def by auto
- ultimately show ?thesis by auto
- qed
- ultimately show ?thesis by simp
- qed
- next
- case False
- with thread_P(3)
- show ?thesis
- by (auto simp:wq_def wf_def Let_def split:list.splits)
- qed
+ proof(cases e)
+ case (Create th prio)
+ interpret vt_create: valid_trace_create s e th prio
+ using Create by (unfold_locales, simp)
+ show ?thesis using Cons by (simp add: vt_create.wq_distinct_kept)
+ next
+ case (Exit th)
+ interpret vt_exit: valid_trace_exit s e th
+ using Exit by (unfold_locales, simp)
+ show ?thesis using Cons by (simp add: vt_exit.wq_distinct_kept)
next
- case (thread_V th s cs1)
- thus ?case
- proof(cases "cs = cs1")
- case True
- show ?thesis (is "distinct ?L")
- proof(cases "(wq s cs)")
- case Nil
- thus ?thesis
- by (auto simp:wq_def wf_def Let_def split:list.splits)
- next
- case (Cons w_hd w_tl)
- moreover have "distinct (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set w_tl)"
- proof(rule someI2)
- from thread_V(3)[unfolded Cons]
- show "distinct w_tl \<and> set w_tl = set w_tl" by auto
- qed auto
- ultimately show ?thesis
- by (auto simp:wq_def wf_def Let_def True split:list.splits)
- qed
- next
- case False
- with thread_V(3)
- show ?thesis
- by (auto simp:wq_def wf_def Let_def split:list.splits)
- qed
- qed (insert Cons, auto simp: wq_def Let_def split:list.splits)
+ case (P th cs)
+ interpret vt_p: valid_trace_p s e th cs using P by (unfold_locales, simp)
+ show ?thesis using Cons by (simp add: vt_p.wq_distinct_kept)
+ next
+ case (V th cs)
+ interpret vt_v: valid_trace_v s e th cs using V by (unfold_locales, simp)
+ show ?thesis using Cons by (simp add: vt_v.wq_distinct_kept)
+ next
+ case (Set th prio)
+ interpret vt_set: valid_trace_set s e th prio
+ using Set by (unfold_locales, simp)
+ show ?thesis using Cons by (simp add: vt_set.wq_distinct_kept)
+ qed
qed (unfold wq_def Let_def, simp)
end
-
context valid_trace_e
begin
@@ -145,7 +556,7 @@
This is a kind of confirmation that our modelling is correct.
*}
-lemma block_pre:
+lemma wq_in_inv:
assumes s_ni: "thread \<notin> set (wq s cs)"
and s_i: "thread \<in> set (wq (e#s) cs)"
shows "e = P thread cs"
@@ -175,117 +586,44 @@
thus ?thesis by auto
qed (insert assms, auto simp:wq_def Let_def split:if_splits)
-end
-
-text {*
- The following lemmas is also obvious and shallow. It says
- that only running thread can request for a critical resource
- and that the requested resource must be one which is
- not current held by the thread.
-*}
-
-lemma p_pre: "\<lbrakk>vt ((P thread cs)#s)\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow>
- thread \<in> runing s \<and> (Cs cs, Th thread) \<notin> (RAG s)^+"
-apply (ind_cases "vt ((P thread cs)#s)")
-apply (ind_cases "step s (P thread cs)")
-by auto
-
-lemma abs1:
- assumes ein: "e \<in> set es"
- and neq: "hd es \<noteq> hd (es @ [x])"
- shows "False"
-proof -
- from ein have "es \<noteq> []" by auto
- then obtain e ess where "es = e # ess" by (cases es, auto)
- with neq show ?thesis by auto
-qed
-
-lemma q_head: "Q (hd es) \<Longrightarrow> hd es = hd [th\<leftarrow>es . Q th]"
- by (cases es, auto)
-
-inductive_cases evt_cons: "vt (a#s)"
-
-context valid_trace_e
-begin
-
-lemma abs2:
- assumes inq: "thread \<in> set (wq s cs)"
- and nh: "thread = hd (wq s cs)"
- and qt: "thread \<noteq> hd (wq (e#s) cs)"
- and inq': "thread \<in> set (wq (e#s) cs)"
- shows "False"
-proof -
- from vt_e assms show "False"
- apply (cases e)
- apply ((simp split:if_splits add:Let_def wq_def)[1])+
- apply (insert abs1, fast)[1]
- apply (auto simp:wq_def simp:Let_def split:if_splits list.splits)
- proof -
- fix th qs
- assume vt: "vt (V th cs # s)"
- and th_in: "thread \<in> set (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set qs)"
- and eq_wq: "wq_fun (schs s) cs = thread # qs"
- show "False"
- proof -
- from wq_distinct[of cs]
- and eq_wq[folded wq_def] have "distinct (thread#qs)" by simp
- moreover have "thread \<in> set qs"
- proof -
- have "set (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set qs) = set qs"
- proof(rule someI2)
- from wq_distinct [of cs]
- and eq_wq [folded wq_def]
- show "distinct qs \<and> set qs = set qs" by auto
- next
- fix x assume "distinct x \<and> set x = set qs"
- thus "set x = set qs" by auto
- qed
- with th_in show ?thesis by auto
- qed
- ultimately show ?thesis by auto
+lemma wq_out_inv:
+ assumes s_in: "thread \<in> set (wq s cs)"
+ and s_hd: "thread = hd (wq s cs)"
+ and s_i: "thread \<noteq> hd (wq (e#s) cs)"
+ shows "e = V thread cs"
+proof(cases e)
+-- {* There are only two non-trivial cases: *}
+ case (V th cs1)
+ show ?thesis
+ proof(cases "cs1 = cs")
+ case True
+ have "PIP s (V th cs)" using pip_e[unfolded V[unfolded True]] .
+ thus ?thesis
+ proof(cases)
+ case (thread_V)
+ moreover have "th = thread" using thread_V(2) s_hd
+ by (unfold s_holding_def wq_def, simp)
+ ultimately show ?thesis using V True by simp
qed
- qed
-qed
+ qed (insert assms V, auto simp:wq_def Let_def split:if_splits)
+next
+ case (P th cs1)
+ show ?thesis
+ proof(cases "cs1 = cs")
+ case True
+ with P have "wq (e#s) cs = wq_fun (schs s) cs @ [th]"
+ by (auto simp:wq_def Let_def split:if_splits)
+ with s_i s_hd s_in have False
+ by (metis empty_iff hd_append2 list.set(1) wq_def)
+ thus ?thesis by simp
+ qed (insert assms P, auto simp:wq_def Let_def split:if_splits)
+qed (insert assms, auto simp:wq_def Let_def split:if_splits)
end
context valid_trace
begin
-lemma vt_moment: "\<And> t. vt (moment t s)"
-proof(induct rule:ind)
- case Nil
- thus ?case by (simp add:vt_nil)
-next
- case (Cons s e t)
- show ?case
- proof(cases "t \<ge> length (e#s)")
- case True
- from True have "moment t (e#s) = e#s" by simp
- thus ?thesis using Cons
- by (simp add:valid_trace_def)
- next
- case False
- from Cons have "vt (moment t s)" by simp
- moreover have "moment t (e#s) = moment t s"
- proof -
- from False have "t \<le> length s" by simp
- from moment_app [OF this, of "[e]"]
- show ?thesis by simp
- qed
- ultimately show ?thesis by simp
- qed
-qed
-end
-
-locale valid_moment = valid_trace +
- fixes i :: nat
-
-sublocale valid_moment < vat_moment: valid_trace "(moment i s)"
- by (unfold_locales, insert vt_moment, auto)
-
-context valid_trace
-begin
text {* (* ddd *)
@@ -321,7 +659,7 @@
make any request and get blocked the second time: Contradiction.
*}
-lemma waiting_unique_pre: (* ccc *)
+lemma waiting_unique_pre: (* ddd *)
assumes h11: "thread \<in> set (wq s cs1)"
and h12: "thread \<noteq> hd (wq s cs1)"
assumes h21: "thread \<in> set (wq s cs2)"
@@ -329,35 +667,101 @@
and neq12: "cs1 \<noteq> cs2"
shows "False"
proof -
- let "?Q cs s" = "thread \<in> set (wq s cs) \<and> thread \<noteq> hd (wq s cs)"
+ let "?Q" = "\<lambda> cs s. thread \<in> set (wq s cs) \<and> thread \<noteq> hd (wq s cs)"
from h11 and h12 have q1: "?Q cs1 s" by simp
from h21 and h22 have q2: "?Q cs2 s" by simp
have nq1: "\<not> ?Q cs1 []" by (simp add:wq_def)
have nq2: "\<not> ?Q cs2 []" by (simp add:wq_def)
from p_split [of "?Q cs1", OF q1 nq1]
obtain t1 where lt1: "t1 < length s"
- and np1: "\<not>(thread \<in> set (wq (moment t1 s) cs1) \<and>
- thread \<noteq> hd (wq (moment t1 s) cs1))"
- and nn1: "(\<forall>i'>t1. thread \<in> set (wq (moment i' s) cs1) \<and>
- thread \<noteq> hd (wq (moment i' s) cs1))" by auto
+ and np1: "\<not> ?Q cs1 (moment t1 s)"
+ and nn1: "(\<forall>i'>t1. ?Q cs1 (moment i' s))" by auto
from p_split [of "?Q cs2", OF q2 nq2]
obtain t2 where lt2: "t2 < length s"
- and np2: "\<not>(thread \<in> set (wq (moment t2 s) cs2) \<and>
- thread \<noteq> hd (wq (moment t2 s) cs2))"
- and nn2: "(\<forall>i'>t2. thread \<in> set (wq (moment i' s) cs2) \<and>
- thread \<noteq> hd (wq (moment i' s) cs2))" by auto
+ and np2: "\<not> ?Q cs2 (moment t2 s)"
+ and nn2: "(\<forall>i'>t2. ?Q cs2 (moment i' s))" by auto
+ { fix s cs
+ assume q: "?Q cs s"
+ have "thread \<notin> runing s"
+ proof
+ assume "thread \<in> runing s"
+ hence " \<forall>cs. \<not> (thread \<in> set (wq_fun (schs s) cs) \<and>
+ thread \<noteq> hd (wq_fun (schs s) cs))"
+ by (unfold runing_def s_waiting_def readys_def, auto)
+ from this[rule_format, of cs] q
+ show False by (simp add: wq_def)
+ qed
+ } note q_not_runing = this
+ { fix t1 t2 cs1 cs2
+ assume lt1: "t1 < length s"
+ and np1: "\<not> ?Q cs1 (moment t1 s)"
+ and nn1: "(\<forall>i'>t1. ?Q cs1 (moment i' s))"
+ and lt2: "t2 < length s"
+ and np2: "\<not> ?Q cs2 (moment t2 s)"
+ and nn2: "(\<forall>i'>t2. ?Q cs2 (moment i' s))"
+ and lt12: "t1 < t2"
+ let ?t3 = "Suc t2"
+ from lt2 have le_t3: "?t3 \<le> length s" by auto
+ from moment_plus [OF this]
+ obtain e where eq_m: "moment ?t3 s = e#moment t2 s" by auto
+ have "t2 < ?t3" by simp
+ from nn2 [rule_format, OF this] and eq_m
+ have h1: "thread \<in> set (wq (e#moment t2 s) cs2)" and
+ h2: "thread \<noteq> hd (wq (e#moment t2 s) cs2)" by auto
+ have "vt (e#moment t2 s)"
+ proof -
+ from vt_moment
+ have "vt (moment ?t3 s)" .
+ with eq_m show ?thesis by simp
+ qed
+ then interpret vt_e: valid_trace_e "moment t2 s" "e"
+ by (unfold_locales, auto, cases, simp)
+ have ?thesis
+ proof -
+ have "thread \<in> runing (moment t2 s)"
+ proof(cases "thread \<in> set (wq (moment t2 s) cs2)")
+ case True
+ have "e = V thread cs2"
+ proof -
+ have eq_th: "thread = hd (wq (moment t2 s) cs2)"
+ using True and np2 by auto
+ from vt_e.wq_out_inv[OF True this h2]
+ show ?thesis .
+ qed
+ thus ?thesis using vt_e.actor_inv[OF vt_e.pip_e] by auto
+ next
+ case False
+ have "e = P thread cs2" using vt_e.wq_in_inv[OF False h1] .
+ with vt_e.actor_inv[OF vt_e.pip_e]
+ show ?thesis by auto
+ qed
+ moreover have "thread \<notin> runing (moment t2 s)"
+ by (rule q_not_runing[OF nn1[rule_format, OF lt12]])
+ ultimately show ?thesis by simp
+ qed
+ } note lt_case = this
show ?thesis
proof -
- {
- assume lt12: "t1 < t2"
+ { assume "t1 < t2"
+ from lt_case[OF lt1 np1 nn1 lt2 np2 nn2 this]
+ have ?thesis .
+ } moreover {
+ assume "t2 < t1"
+ from lt_case[OF lt2 np2 nn2 lt1 np1 nn1 this]
+ have ?thesis .
+ } moreover {
+ assume eq_12: "t1 = t2"
let ?t3 = "Suc t2"
from lt2 have le_t3: "?t3 \<le> length s" by auto
from moment_plus [OF this]
obtain e where eq_m: "moment ?t3 s = e#moment t2 s" by auto
- have "t2 < ?t3" by simp
+ have lt_2: "t2 < ?t3" by simp
from nn2 [rule_format, OF this] and eq_m
have h1: "thread \<in> set (wq (e#moment t2 s) cs2)" and
- h2: "thread \<noteq> hd (wq (e#moment t2 s) cs2)" by auto
+ h2: "thread \<noteq> hd (wq (e#moment t2 s) cs2)" by auto
+ from nn1[rule_format, OF lt_2[folded eq_12]] eq_m[folded eq_12]
+ have g1: "thread \<in> set (wq (e#moment t1 s) cs1)" and
+ g2: "thread \<noteq> hd (wq (e#moment t1 s) cs1)" by auto
have "vt (e#moment t2 s)"
proof -
from vt_moment
@@ -365,119 +769,38 @@
with eq_m show ?thesis by simp
qed
then interpret vt_e: valid_trace_e "moment t2 s" "e"
- by (unfold_locales, auto, cases, simp)
- have ?thesis
+ by (unfold_locales, auto, cases, simp)
+ have "e = V thread cs2 \<or> e = P thread cs2"
proof(cases "thread \<in> set (wq (moment t2 s) cs2)")
case True
- from True and np2 have eq_th: "thread = hd (wq (moment t2 s) cs2)"
- by auto
- from vt_e.abs2 [OF True eq_th h2 h1]
- show ?thesis by auto
- next
- case False
- from vt_e.block_pre[OF False h1]
- have "e = P thread cs2" .
- with vt_e.vt_e have "vt ((P thread cs2)# moment t2 s)" by simp
- from p_pre [OF this] have "thread \<in> runing (moment t2 s)" by simp
- with runing_ready have "thread \<in> readys (moment t2 s)" by auto
- with nn1 [rule_format, OF lt12]
- show ?thesis by (simp add:readys_def wq_def s_waiting_def, auto)
- qed
- } moreover {
- assume lt12: "t2 < t1"
- let ?t3 = "Suc t1"
- from lt1 have le_t3: "?t3 \<le> length s" by auto
- from moment_plus [OF this]
- obtain e where eq_m: "moment ?t3 s = e#moment t1 s" by auto
- have lt_t3: "t1 < ?t3" by simp
- from nn1 [rule_format, OF this] and eq_m
- have h1: "thread \<in> set (wq (e#moment t1 s) cs1)" and
- h2: "thread \<noteq> hd (wq (e#moment t1 s) cs1)" by auto
- have "vt (e#moment t1 s)"
- proof -
- from vt_moment
- have "vt (moment ?t3 s)" .
- with eq_m show ?thesis by simp
- qed
- then interpret vt_e: valid_trace_e "moment t1 s" e
- by (unfold_locales, auto, cases, auto)
- have ?thesis
- proof(cases "thread \<in> set (wq (moment t1 s) cs1)")
- case True
- from True and np1 have eq_th: "thread = hd (wq (moment t1 s) cs1)"
- by auto
- from vt_e.abs2 True eq_th h2 h1
- show ?thesis by auto
+ have "e = V thread cs2"
+ proof -
+ have eq_th: "thread = hd (wq (moment t2 s) cs2)"
+ using True and np2 by auto
+ from vt_e.wq_out_inv[OF True this h2]
+ show ?thesis .
+ qed
+ thus ?thesis by auto
next
case False
- from vt_e.block_pre [OF False h1]
- have "e = P thread cs1" .
- with vt_e.vt_e have "vt ((P thread cs1)# moment t1 s)" by simp
- from p_pre [OF this] have "thread \<in> runing (moment t1 s)" by simp
- with runing_ready have "thread \<in> readys (moment t1 s)" by auto
- with nn2 [rule_format, OF lt12]
- show ?thesis by (simp add:readys_def wq_def s_waiting_def, auto)
+ have "e = P thread cs2" using vt_e.wq_in_inv[OF False h1] .
+ thus ?thesis by auto
qed
- } moreover {
- assume eqt12: "t1 = t2"
- let ?t3 = "Suc t1"
- from lt1 have le_t3: "?t3 \<le> length s" by auto
- from moment_plus [OF this]
- obtain e where eq_m: "moment ?t3 s = e#moment t1 s" by auto
- have lt_t3: "t1 < ?t3" by simp
- from nn1 [rule_format, OF this] and eq_m
- have h1: "thread \<in> set (wq (e#moment t1 s) cs1)" and
- h2: "thread \<noteq> hd (wq (e#moment t1 s) cs1)" by auto
- have vt_e: "vt (e#moment t1 s)"
- proof -
- from vt_moment
- have "vt (moment ?t3 s)" .
- with eq_m show ?thesis by simp
- qed
- then interpret vt_e: valid_trace_e "moment t1 s" e
- by (unfold_locales, auto, cases, auto)
- have ?thesis
+ moreover have "e = V thread cs1 \<or> e = P thread cs1"
proof(cases "thread \<in> set (wq (moment t1 s) cs1)")
case True
- from True and np1 have eq_th: "thread = hd (wq (moment t1 s) cs1)"
- by auto
- from vt_e.abs2 [OF True eq_th h2 h1]
- show ?thesis by auto
+ have eq_th: "thread = hd (wq (moment t1 s) cs1)"
+ using True and np1 by auto
+ from vt_e.wq_out_inv[folded eq_12, OF True this g2]
+ have "e = V thread cs1" .
+ thus ?thesis by auto
next
case False
- from vt_e.block_pre [OF False h1]
- have eq_e1: "e = P thread cs1" .
- have lt_t3: "t1 < ?t3" by simp
- with eqt12 have "t2 < ?t3" by simp
- from nn2 [rule_format, OF this] and eq_m and eqt12
- have h1: "thread \<in> set (wq (e#moment t2 s) cs2)" and
- h2: "thread \<noteq> hd (wq (e#moment t2 s) cs2)" by auto
- show ?thesis
- proof(cases "thread \<in> set (wq (moment t2 s) cs2)")
- case True
- from True and np2 have eq_th: "thread = hd (wq (moment t2 s) cs2)"
- by auto
- from vt_e and eqt12 have "vt (e#moment t2 s)" by simp
- then interpret vt_e2: valid_trace_e "moment t2 s" e
- by (unfold_locales, auto, cases, auto)
- from vt_e2.abs2 [OF True eq_th h2 h1]
- show ?thesis .
- next
- case False
- have "vt (e#moment t2 s)"
- proof -
- from vt_moment eqt12
- have "vt (moment (Suc t2) s)" by auto
- with eq_m eqt12 show ?thesis by simp
- qed
- then interpret vt_e2: valid_trace_e "moment t2 s" e
- by (unfold_locales, auto, cases, auto)
- from vt_e2.block_pre [OF False h1]
- have "e = P thread cs2" .
- with eq_e1 neq12 show ?thesis by auto
- qed
+ have "e = P thread cs1" using vt_e.wq_in_inv[folded eq_12, OF False g1] .
+ thus ?thesis by auto
qed
- } ultimately show ?thesis by arith
+ ultimately have ?thesis using neq12 by auto
+ } ultimately show ?thesis using nat_neq_iff by blast
qed
qed
@@ -489,9 +812,9 @@
assumes "waiting s th cs1"
and "waiting s th cs2"
shows "cs1 = cs2"
-using waiting_unique_pre assms
-unfolding wq_def s_waiting_def
-by auto
+ using waiting_unique_pre assms
+ unfolding wq_def s_waiting_def
+ by auto
end
@@ -507,7 +830,6 @@
shows "th1 = th2"
by (insert assms, unfold s_holding_def, auto)
-
lemma last_set_lt: "th \<in> threads s \<Longrightarrow> last_set th s < length s"
apply (induct s, auto)
by (case_tac a, auto split:if_splits)
@@ -528,7 +850,7 @@
from last_set_unique [OF this th_in1 th_in2]
show ?thesis .
qed
-
+
lemma preced_linorder:
assumes neq_12: "th1 \<noteq> th2"
and th_in1: "th1 \<in> threads s"
@@ -540,98 +862,6 @@
thus ?thesis by auto
qed
-(* An aux lemma used later *)
-lemma unique_minus:
- assumes unique: "\<And> a b c. \<lbrakk>(a, b) \<in> r; (a, c) \<in> r\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> b = c"
- and xy: "(x, y) \<in> r"
- and xz: "(x, z) \<in> r^+"
- and neq: "y \<noteq> z"
- shows "(y, z) \<in> r^+"
-proof -
- from xz and neq show ?thesis
- proof(induct)
- case (base ya)
- have "(x, ya) \<in> r" by fact
- from unique [OF xy this] have "y = ya" .
- with base show ?case by auto
- next
- case (step ya z)
- show ?case
- proof(cases "y = ya")
- case True
- from step True show ?thesis by simp
- next
- case False
- from step False
- show ?thesis by auto
- qed
- qed
-qed
-
-lemma unique_base:
- assumes unique: "\<And> a b c. \<lbrakk>(a, b) \<in> r; (a, c) \<in> r\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> b = c"
- and xy: "(x, y) \<in> r"
- and xz: "(x, z) \<in> r^+"
- and neq_yz: "y \<noteq> z"
- shows "(y, z) \<in> r^+"
-proof -
- from xz neq_yz show ?thesis
- proof(induct)
- case (base ya)
- from xy unique base show ?case by auto
- next
- case (step ya z)
- show ?case
- proof(cases "y = ya")
- case True
- from True step show ?thesis by auto
- next
- case False
- from False step
- have "(y, ya) \<in> r\<^sup>+" by auto
- with step show ?thesis by auto
- qed
- qed
-qed
-
-lemma unique_chain:
- assumes unique: "\<And> a b c. \<lbrakk>(a, b) \<in> r; (a, c) \<in> r\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> b = c"
- and xy: "(x, y) \<in> r^+"
- and xz: "(x, z) \<in> r^+"
- and neq_yz: "y \<noteq> z"
- shows "(y, z) \<in> r^+ \<or> (z, y) \<in> r^+"
-proof -
- from xy xz neq_yz show ?thesis
- proof(induct)
- case (base y)
- have h1: "(x, y) \<in> r" and h2: "(x, z) \<in> r\<^sup>+" and h3: "y \<noteq> z" using base by auto
- from unique_base [OF _ h1 h2 h3] and unique show ?case by auto
- next
- case (step y za)
- show ?case
- proof(cases "y = z")
- case True
- from True step show ?thesis by auto
- next
- case False
- from False step have "(y, z) \<in> r\<^sup>+ \<or> (z, y) \<in> r\<^sup>+" by auto
- thus ?thesis
- proof
- assume "(z, y) \<in> r\<^sup>+"
- with step have "(z, za) \<in> r\<^sup>+" by auto
- thus ?thesis by auto
- next
- assume h: "(y, z) \<in> r\<^sup>+"
- from step have yza: "(y, za) \<in> r" by simp
- from step have "za \<noteq> z" by simp
- from unique_minus [OF _ yza h this] and unique
- have "(za, z) \<in> r\<^sup>+" by auto
- thus ?thesis by auto
- qed
- qed
- qed
-qed
-
text {*
The following three lemmas show that @{text "RAG"} does not change
by the happening of @{text "Set"}, @{text "Create"} and @{text "Exit"}
@@ -642,598 +872,1404 @@
apply (unfold s_RAG_def s_waiting_def wq_def)
by (simp add:Let_def)
+lemma (in valid_trace_set)
+ RAG_unchanged: "(RAG (e # s)) = RAG s"
+ by (unfold is_set RAG_set_unchanged, simp)
+
lemma RAG_create_unchanged: "(RAG (Create th prio # s)) = RAG s"
apply (unfold s_RAG_def s_waiting_def wq_def)
by (simp add:Let_def)
+lemma (in valid_trace_create)
+ RAG_unchanged: "(RAG (e # s)) = RAG s"
+ by (unfold is_create RAG_create_unchanged, simp)
+
lemma RAG_exit_unchanged: "(RAG (Exit th # s)) = RAG s"
apply (unfold s_RAG_def s_waiting_def wq_def)
by (simp add:Let_def)
-
-text {*
- The following lemmas are used in the proof of
- lemma @{text "step_RAG_v"}, which characterizes how the @{text "RAG"} is changed
- by @{text "V"}-events.
- However, since our model is very concise, such seemingly obvious lemmas need to be derived from scratch,
- starting from the model definitions.
-*}
-lemma step_v_hold_inv[elim_format]:
- "\<And>c t. \<lbrakk>vt (V th cs # s);
- \<not> holding (wq s) t c; holding (wq (V th cs # s)) t c\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow>
- next_th s th cs t \<and> c = cs"
+lemma (in valid_trace_exit)
+ RAG_unchanged: "(RAG (e # s)) = RAG s"
+ by (unfold is_exit RAG_exit_unchanged, simp)
+
+context valid_trace_v
+begin
+
+lemma distinct_rest: "distinct rest"
+ by (simp add: distinct_tl rest_def wq_distinct)
+
+lemma holding_cs_eq_th:
+ assumes "holding s t cs"
+ shows "t = th"
proof -
- fix c t
- assume vt: "vt (V th cs # s)"
- and nhd: "\<not> holding (wq s) t c"
- and hd: "holding (wq (V th cs # s)) t c"
- show "next_th s th cs t \<and> c = cs"
- proof(cases "c = cs")
- case False
- with nhd hd show ?thesis
- by (unfold cs_holding_def wq_def, auto simp:Let_def)
- next
- case True
- with step_back_step [OF vt]
- have "step s (V th c)" by simp
- hence "next_th s th cs t"
- proof(cases)
- assume "holding s th c"
- with nhd hd show ?thesis
- apply (unfold s_holding_def cs_holding_def wq_def next_th_def,
- auto simp:Let_def split:list.splits if_splits)
- proof -
- assume " hd (SOME q. distinct q \<and> q = []) \<in> set (SOME q. distinct q \<and> q = [])"
- moreover have "\<dots> = set []"
- proof(rule someI2)
- show "distinct [] \<and> [] = []" by auto
- next
- fix x assume "distinct x \<and> x = []"
- thus "set x = set []" by auto
- qed
- ultimately show False by auto
- next
- assume " hd (SOME q. distinct q \<and> q = []) \<in> set (SOME q. distinct q \<and> q = [])"
- moreover have "\<dots> = set []"
- proof(rule someI2)
- show "distinct [] \<and> [] = []" by auto
- next
- fix x assume "distinct x \<and> x = []"
- thus "set x = set []" by auto
- qed
- ultimately show False by auto
- qed
- qed
- with True show ?thesis by auto
+ from pip_e[unfolded is_v]
+ show ?thesis
+ proof(cases)
+ case (thread_V)
+ from held_unique[OF this(2) assms]
+ show ?thesis by simp
qed
qed
-text {*
- The following @{text "step_v_wait_inv"} is also an obvious lemma, which, however, needs to be
- derived from scratch, which confirms the correctness of the definition of @{text "next_th"}.
-*}
-lemma step_v_wait_inv[elim_format]:
- "\<And>t c. \<lbrakk>vt (V th cs # s); \<not> waiting (wq (V th cs # s)) t c; waiting (wq s) t c
- \<rbrakk>
- \<Longrightarrow> (next_th s th cs t \<and> cs = c)"
-proof -
- fix t c
- assume vt: "vt (V th cs # s)"
- and nw: "\<not> waiting (wq (V th cs # s)) t c"
- and wt: "waiting (wq s) t c"
- from vt interpret vt_v: valid_trace_e s "V th cs"
- by (cases, unfold_locales, simp)
- show "next_th s th cs t \<and> cs = c"
- proof(cases "cs = c")
- case False
- with nw wt show ?thesis
- by (auto simp:cs_waiting_def wq_def Let_def)
- next
+lemma distinct_wq': "distinct wq'"
+ by (metis (mono_tags, lifting) distinct_rest some_eq_ex wq'_def)
+
+lemma set_wq': "set wq' = set rest"
+ by (metis (mono_tags, lifting) distinct_rest rest_def
+ some_eq_ex wq'_def)
+
+lemma th'_in_inv:
+ assumes "th' \<in> set wq'"
+ shows "th' \<in> set rest"
+ using assms set_wq' by simp
+
+lemma neq_t_th:
+ assumes "waiting (e#s) t c"
+ shows "t \<noteq> th"
+proof
+ assume otherwise: "t = th"
+ show False
+ proof(cases "c = cs")
case True
- from nw[folded True] wt[folded True]
- have "next_th s th cs t"
- apply (unfold next_th_def, auto simp:cs_waiting_def wq_def Let_def split:list.splits)
- proof -
- fix a list
- assume t_in: "t \<in> set list"
- and t_ni: "t \<notin> set (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set list)"
- and eq_wq: "wq_fun (schs s) cs = a # list"
- have " set (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set list) = set list"
- proof(rule someI2)
- from vt_v.wq_distinct[of cs] and eq_wq[folded wq_def]
- show "distinct list \<and> set list = set list" by auto
- next
- show "\<And>x. distinct x \<and> set x = set list \<Longrightarrow> set x = set list"
- by auto
- qed
- with t_ni and t_in show "a = th" by auto
- next
- fix a list
- assume t_in: "t \<in> set list"
- and t_ni: "t \<notin> set (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set list)"
- and eq_wq: "wq_fun (schs s) cs = a # list"
- have " set (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set list) = set list"
- proof(rule someI2)
- from vt_v.wq_distinct[of cs] and eq_wq[folded wq_def]
- show "distinct list \<and> set list = set list" by auto
- next
- show "\<And>x. distinct x \<and> set x = set list \<Longrightarrow> set x = set list"
- by auto
- qed
- with t_ni and t_in show "t = hd (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set list)" by auto
- next
- fix a list
- assume eq_wq: "wq_fun (schs s) cs = a # list"
- from step_back_step[OF vt]
- show "a = th"
- proof(cases)
- assume "holding s th cs"
- with eq_wq show ?thesis
- by (unfold s_holding_def wq_def, auto)
- qed
- qed
- with True show ?thesis by simp
+ have "t \<in> set wq'"
+ using assms[unfolded True s_waiting_def, folded wq_def, unfolded wq_es_cs]
+ by simp
+ from th'_in_inv[OF this] have "t \<in> set rest" .
+ with wq_s_cs[folded otherwise] wq_distinct[of cs]
+ show ?thesis by simp
+ next
+ case False
+ have "wq (e#s) c = wq s c" using False
+ by (unfold is_v, simp)
+ hence "waiting s t c" using assms
+ by (simp add: cs_waiting_def waiting_eq)
+ hence "t \<notin> readys s" by (unfold readys_def, auto)
+ hence "t \<notin> runing s" using runing_ready by auto
+ with runing_th_s[folded otherwise] show ?thesis by auto
qed
qed
-lemma step_v_not_wait[consumes 3]:
- "\<lbrakk>vt (V th cs # s); next_th s th cs t; waiting (wq (V th cs # s)) t cs\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> False"
- by (unfold next_th_def cs_waiting_def wq_def, auto simp:Let_def)
-
-lemma step_v_release:
- "\<lbrakk>vt (V th cs # s); holding (wq (V th cs # s)) th cs\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> False"
+lemma waiting_esI1:
+ assumes "waiting s t c"
+ and "c \<noteq> cs"
+ shows "waiting (e#s) t c"
+proof -
+ have "wq (e#s) c = wq s c"
+ using assms(2) is_v by auto
+ with assms(1) show ?thesis
+ using cs_waiting_def waiting_eq by auto
+qed
+
+lemma holding_esI2:
+ assumes "c \<noteq> cs"
+ and "holding s t c"
+ shows "holding (e#s) t c"
+proof -
+ from assms(1) have "wq (e#s) c = wq s c" using is_v by auto
+ from assms(2)[unfolded s_holding_def, folded wq_def,
+ folded this, unfolded wq_def, folded s_holding_def]
+ show ?thesis .
+qed
+
+lemma holding_esI1:
+ assumes "holding s t c"
+ and "t \<noteq> th"
+ shows "holding (e#s) t c"
+proof -
+ have "c \<noteq> cs" using assms using holding_cs_eq_th by blast
+ from holding_esI2[OF this assms(1)]
+ show ?thesis .
+qed
+
+end
+
+context valid_trace_v_n
+begin
+
+lemma neq_wq': "wq' \<noteq> []"
+proof (unfold wq'_def, rule someI2)
+ show "distinct rest \<and> set rest = set rest"
+ by (simp add: distinct_rest)
+next
+ fix x
+ assume " distinct x \<and> set x = set rest"
+ thus "x \<noteq> []" using rest_nnl by auto
+qed
+
+definition "taker = hd wq'"
+
+definition "rest' = tl wq'"
+
+lemma eq_wq': "wq' = taker # rest'"
+ by (simp add: neq_wq' rest'_def taker_def)
+
+lemma next_th_taker:
+ shows "next_th s th cs taker"
+ using rest_nnl taker_def wq'_def wq_s_cs
+ by (auto simp:next_th_def)
+
+lemma taker_unique:
+ assumes "next_th s th cs taker'"
+ shows "taker' = taker"
+proof -
+ from assms
+ obtain rest' where
+ h: "wq s cs = th # rest'"
+ "taker' = hd (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set rest')"
+ by (unfold next_th_def, auto)
+ with wq_s_cs have "rest' = rest" by auto
+ thus ?thesis using h(2) taker_def wq'_def by auto
+qed
+
+lemma waiting_set_eq:
+ "{(Th th', Cs cs) |th'. next_th s th cs th'} = {(Th taker, Cs cs)}"
+ by (smt all_not_in_conv bot.extremum insertI1 insert_subset
+ mem_Collect_eq next_th_taker subsetI subset_antisym taker_def taker_unique)
+
+lemma holding_set_eq:
+ "{(Cs cs, Th th') |th'. next_th s th cs th'} = {(Cs cs, Th taker)}"
+ using next_th_taker taker_def waiting_set_eq
+ by fastforce
+
+lemma holding_taker:
+ shows "holding (e#s) taker cs"
+ by (unfold s_holding_def, fold wq_def, unfold wq_es_cs,
+ auto simp:neq_wq' taker_def)
+
+lemma waiting_esI2:
+ assumes "waiting s t cs"
+ and "t \<noteq> taker"
+ shows "waiting (e#s) t cs"
proof -
- assume vt: "vt (V th cs # s)"
- and hd: "holding (wq (V th cs # s)) th cs"
- from vt interpret vt_v: valid_trace_e s "V th cs"
- by (cases, unfold_locales, simp+)
- from step_back_step [OF vt] and hd
- show "False"
- proof(cases)
- assume "holding (wq (V th cs # s)) th cs" and "holding s th cs"
- thus ?thesis
- apply (unfold s_holding_def wq_def cs_holding_def)
- apply (auto simp:Let_def split:list.splits)
- proof -
- fix list
- assume eq_wq[folded wq_def]:
- "wq_fun (schs s) cs = hd (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set list) # list"
- and hd_in: "hd (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set list)
- \<in> set (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set list)"
- have "set (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set list) = set list"
- proof(rule someI2)
- from vt_v.wq_distinct[of cs] and eq_wq
- show "distinct list \<and> set list = set list" by auto
+ have "t \<in> set wq'"
+ proof(unfold wq'_def, rule someI2)
+ show "distinct rest \<and> set rest = set rest"
+ by (simp add: distinct_rest)
+ next
+ fix x
+ assume "distinct x \<and> set x = set rest"
+ moreover have "t \<in> set rest"
+ using assms(1) cs_waiting_def waiting_eq wq_s_cs by auto
+ ultimately show "t \<in> set x" by simp
+ qed
+ moreover have "t \<noteq> hd wq'"
+ using assms(2) taker_def by auto
+ ultimately show ?thesis
+ by (unfold s_waiting_def, fold wq_def, unfold wq_es_cs, simp)
+qed
+
+lemma waiting_esE:
+ assumes "waiting (e#s) t c"
+ obtains "c \<noteq> cs" "waiting s t c"
+ | "c = cs" "t \<noteq> taker" "waiting s t cs" "t \<in> set rest'"
+proof(cases "c = cs")
+ case False
+ hence "wq (e#s) c = wq s c" using is_v by auto
+ with assms have "waiting s t c" using cs_waiting_def waiting_eq by auto
+ from that(1)[OF False this] show ?thesis .
+next
+ case True
+ from assms[unfolded s_waiting_def True, folded wq_def, unfolded wq_es_cs]
+ have "t \<noteq> hd wq'" "t \<in> set wq'" by auto
+ hence "t \<noteq> taker" by (simp add: taker_def)
+ moreover hence "t \<noteq> th" using assms neq_t_th by blast
+ moreover have "t \<in> set rest" by (simp add: `t \<in> set wq'` th'_in_inv)
+ ultimately have "waiting s t cs"
+ by (metis cs_waiting_def list.distinct(2) list.sel(1)
+ list.set_sel(2) rest_def waiting_eq wq_s_cs)
+ show ?thesis using that(2)
+ using True `t \<in> set wq'` `t \<noteq> taker` `waiting s t cs` eq_wq' by auto
+qed
+
+lemma holding_esI1:
+ assumes "c = cs"
+ and "t = taker"
+ shows "holding (e#s) t c"
+ by (unfold assms, simp add: holding_taker)
+
+lemma holding_esE:
+ assumes "holding (e#s) t c"
+ obtains "c = cs" "t = taker"
+ | "c \<noteq> cs" "holding s t c"
+proof(cases "c = cs")
+ case True
+ from assms[unfolded True, unfolded s_holding_def,
+ folded wq_def, unfolded wq_es_cs]
+ have "t = taker" by (simp add: taker_def)
+ from that(1)[OF True this] show ?thesis .
+next
+ case False
+ hence "wq (e#s) c = wq s c" using is_v by auto
+ from assms[unfolded s_holding_def, folded wq_def,
+ unfolded this, unfolded wq_def, folded s_holding_def]
+ have "holding s t c" .
+ from that(2)[OF False this] show ?thesis .
+qed
+
+end
+
+
+context valid_trace_v_e
+begin
+
+lemma nil_wq': "wq' = []"
+proof (unfold wq'_def, rule someI2)
+ show "distinct rest \<and> set rest = set rest"
+ by (simp add: distinct_rest)
+next
+ fix x
+ assume " distinct x \<and> set x = set rest"
+ thus "x = []" using rest_nil by auto
+qed
+
+lemma no_taker:
+ assumes "next_th s th cs taker"
+ shows "False"
+proof -
+ from assms[unfolded next_th_def]
+ obtain rest' where "wq s cs = th # rest'" "rest' \<noteq> []"
+ by auto
+ thus ?thesis using rest_def rest_nil by auto
+qed
+
+lemma waiting_set_eq:
+ "{(Th th', Cs cs) |th'. next_th s th cs th'} = {}"
+ using no_taker by auto
+
+lemma holding_set_eq:
+ "{(Cs cs, Th th') |th'. next_th s th cs th'} = {}"
+ using no_taker by auto
+
+lemma no_holding:
+ assumes "holding (e#s) taker cs"
+ shows False
+proof -
+ from wq_es_cs[unfolded nil_wq']
+ have " wq (e # s) cs = []" .
+ from assms[unfolded s_holding_def, folded wq_def, unfolded this]
+ show ?thesis by auto
+qed
+
+lemma no_waiting:
+ assumes "waiting (e#s) t cs"
+ shows False
+proof -
+ from wq_es_cs[unfolded nil_wq']
+ have " wq (e # s) cs = []" .
+ from assms[unfolded s_waiting_def, folded wq_def, unfolded this]
+ show ?thesis by auto
+qed
+
+lemma waiting_esI2:
+ assumes "waiting s t c"
+ shows "waiting (e#s) t c"
+proof -
+ have "c \<noteq> cs" using assms
+ using cs_waiting_def rest_nil waiting_eq wq_s_cs by auto
+ from waiting_esI1[OF assms this]
+ show ?thesis .
+qed
+
+lemma waiting_esE:
+ assumes "waiting (e#s) t c"
+ obtains "c \<noteq> cs" "waiting s t c"
+proof(cases "c = cs")
+ case False
+ hence "wq (e#s) c = wq s c" using is_v by auto
+ with assms have "waiting s t c" using cs_waiting_def waiting_eq by auto
+ from that(1)[OF False this] show ?thesis .
+next
+ case True
+ from no_waiting[OF assms[unfolded True]]
+ show ?thesis by auto
+qed
+
+lemma holding_esE:
+ assumes "holding (e#s) t c"
+ obtains "c \<noteq> cs" "holding s t c"
+proof(cases "c = cs")
+ case True
+ from no_holding[OF assms[unfolded True]]
+ show ?thesis by auto
+next
+ case False
+ hence "wq (e#s) c = wq s c" using is_v by auto
+ from assms[unfolded s_holding_def, folded wq_def,
+ unfolded this, unfolded wq_def, folded s_holding_def]
+ have "holding s t c" .
+ from that[OF False this] show ?thesis .
+qed
+
+end
+
+lemma rel_eqI:
+ assumes "\<And> x y. (x,y) \<in> A \<Longrightarrow> (x,y) \<in> B"
+ and "\<And> x y. (x,y) \<in> B \<Longrightarrow> (x, y) \<in> A"
+ shows "A = B"
+ using assms by auto
+
+lemma in_RAG_E:
+ assumes "(n1, n2) \<in> RAG (s::state)"
+ obtains (waiting) th cs where "n1 = Th th" "n2 = Cs cs" "waiting s th cs"
+ | (holding) th cs where "n1 = Cs cs" "n2 = Th th" "holding s th cs"
+ using assms[unfolded s_RAG_def, folded waiting_eq holding_eq]
+ by auto
+
+context valid_trace_v
+begin
+
+lemma RAG_es:
+ "RAG (e # s) =
+ RAG s - {(Cs cs, Th th)} -
+ {(Th th', Cs cs) |th'. next_th s th cs th'} \<union>
+ {(Cs cs, Th th') |th'. next_th s th cs th'}" (is "?L = ?R")
+proof(rule rel_eqI)
+ fix n1 n2
+ assume "(n1, n2) \<in> ?L"
+ thus "(n1, n2) \<in> ?R"
+ proof(cases rule:in_RAG_E)
+ case (waiting th' cs')
+ show ?thesis
+ proof(cases "rest = []")
+ case False
+ interpret h_n: valid_trace_v_n s e th cs
+ by (unfold_locales, insert False, simp)
+ from waiting(3)
+ show ?thesis
+ proof(cases rule:h_n.waiting_esE)
+ case 1
+ with waiting(1,2)
+ show ?thesis
+ by (unfold h_n.waiting_set_eq h_n.holding_set_eq s_RAG_def,
+ fold waiting_eq, auto)
next
- show "\<And>x. distinct x \<and> set x = set list \<Longrightarrow> set x = set list"
- by auto
+ case 2
+ with waiting(1,2)
+ show ?thesis
+ by (unfold h_n.waiting_set_eq h_n.holding_set_eq s_RAG_def,
+ fold waiting_eq, auto)
+ qed
+ next
+ case True
+ interpret h_e: valid_trace_v_e s e th cs
+ by (unfold_locales, insert True, simp)
+ from waiting(3)
+ show ?thesis
+ proof(cases rule:h_e.waiting_esE)
+ case 1
+ with waiting(1,2)
+ show ?thesis
+ by (unfold h_e.waiting_set_eq h_e.holding_set_eq s_RAG_def,
+ fold waiting_eq, auto)
qed
- moreover have "distinct (hd (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set list) # list)"
- proof -
- from vt_v.wq_distinct[of cs] and eq_wq
- show ?thesis by auto
+ qed
+ next
+ case (holding th' cs')
+ show ?thesis
+ proof(cases "rest = []")
+ case False
+ interpret h_n: valid_trace_v_n s e th cs
+ by (unfold_locales, insert False, simp)
+ from holding(3)
+ show ?thesis
+ proof(cases rule:h_n.holding_esE)
+ case 1
+ with holding(1,2)
+ show ?thesis
+ by (unfold h_n.waiting_set_eq h_n.holding_set_eq s_RAG_def,
+ fold waiting_eq, auto)
+ next
+ case 2
+ with holding(1,2)
+ show ?thesis
+ by (unfold h_n.waiting_set_eq h_n.holding_set_eq s_RAG_def,
+ fold holding_eq, auto)
qed
- moreover note eq_wq and hd_in
- ultimately show "False" by auto
+ next
+ case True
+ interpret h_e: valid_trace_v_e s e th cs
+ by (unfold_locales, insert True, simp)
+ from holding(3)
+ show ?thesis
+ proof(cases rule:h_e.holding_esE)
+ case 1
+ with holding(1,2)
+ show ?thesis
+ by (unfold h_e.waiting_set_eq h_e.holding_set_eq s_RAG_def,
+ fold holding_eq, auto)
+ qed
qed
qed
-qed
-
-lemma step_v_get_hold:
- "\<And>th'. \<lbrakk>vt (V th cs # s); \<not> holding (wq (V th cs # s)) th' cs; next_th s th cs th'\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> False"
- apply (unfold cs_holding_def next_th_def wq_def,
- auto simp:Let_def)
-proof -
- fix rest
- assume vt: "vt (V th cs # s)"
- and eq_wq[folded wq_def]: " wq_fun (schs s) cs = th # rest"
- and nrest: "rest \<noteq> []"
- and ni: "hd (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set rest)
- \<notin> set (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set rest)"
- from vt interpret vt_v: valid_trace_e s "V th cs"
- by (cases, unfold_locales, simp+)
- have "(SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set rest) \<noteq> []"
- proof(rule someI2)
- from vt_v.wq_distinct[of cs] and eq_wq
- show "distinct rest \<and> set rest = set rest" by auto
- next
- fix x assume "distinct x \<and> set x = set rest"
- hence "set x = set rest" by auto
- with nrest
- show "x \<noteq> []" by (case_tac x, auto)
- qed
- with ni show "False" by auto
-qed
-
-lemma step_v_release_inv[elim_format]:
-"\<And>c t. \<lbrakk>vt (V th cs # s); \<not> holding (wq (V th cs # s)) t c; holding (wq s) t c\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow>
- c = cs \<and> t = th"
- apply (unfold cs_holding_def wq_def, auto simp:Let_def split:if_splits list.splits)
- proof -
- fix a list
- assume vt: "vt (V th cs # s)" and eq_wq: "wq_fun (schs s) cs = a # list"
- from step_back_step [OF vt] show "a = th"
- proof(cases)
- assume "holding s th cs" with eq_wq
- show ?thesis
- by (unfold s_holding_def wq_def, auto)
- qed
- next
- fix a list
- assume vt: "vt (V th cs # s)" and eq_wq: "wq_fun (schs s) cs = a # list"
- from step_back_step [OF vt] show "a = th"
- proof(cases)
- assume "holding s th cs" with eq_wq
- show ?thesis
- by (unfold s_holding_def wq_def, auto)
+next
+ fix n1 n2
+ assume h: "(n1, n2) \<in> ?R"
+ show "(n1, n2) \<in> ?L"
+ proof(cases "rest = []")
+ case False
+ interpret h_n: valid_trace_v_n s e th cs
+ by (unfold_locales, insert False, simp)
+ from h[unfolded h_n.waiting_set_eq h_n.holding_set_eq]
+ have "((n1, n2) \<in> RAG s \<and> (n1 \<noteq> Cs cs \<or> n2 \<noteq> Th th)
+ \<and> (n1 \<noteq> Th h_n.taker \<or> n2 \<noteq> Cs cs)) \<or>
+ (n2 = Th h_n.taker \<and> n1 = Cs cs)"
+ by auto
+ thus ?thesis
+ proof
+ assume "n2 = Th h_n.taker \<and> n1 = Cs cs"
+ with h_n.holding_taker
+ show ?thesis
+ by (unfold s_RAG_def, fold holding_eq, auto)
+ next
+ assume h: "(n1, n2) \<in> RAG s \<and>
+ (n1 \<noteq> Cs cs \<or> n2 \<noteq> Th th) \<and> (n1 \<noteq> Th h_n.taker \<or> n2 \<noteq> Cs cs)"
+ hence "(n1, n2) \<in> RAG s" by simp
+ thus ?thesis
+ proof(cases rule:in_RAG_E)
+ case (waiting th' cs')
+ from h and this(1,2)
+ have "th' \<noteq> h_n.taker \<or> cs' \<noteq> cs" by auto
+ hence "waiting (e#s) th' cs'"
+ proof
+ assume "cs' \<noteq> cs"
+ from waiting_esI1[OF waiting(3) this]
+ show ?thesis .
+ next
+ assume neq_th': "th' \<noteq> h_n.taker"
+ show ?thesis
+ proof(cases "cs' = cs")
+ case False
+ from waiting_esI1[OF waiting(3) this]
+ show ?thesis .
+ next
+ case True
+ from h_n.waiting_esI2[OF waiting(3)[unfolded True] neq_th', folded True]
+ show ?thesis .
+ qed
+ qed
+ thus ?thesis using waiting(1,2)
+ by (unfold s_RAG_def, fold waiting_eq, auto)
+ next
+ case (holding th' cs')
+ from h this(1,2)
+ have "cs' \<noteq> cs \<or> th' \<noteq> th" by auto
+ hence "holding (e#s) th' cs'"
+ proof
+ assume "cs' \<noteq> cs"
+ from holding_esI2[OF this holding(3)]
+ show ?thesis .
+ next
+ assume "th' \<noteq> th"
+ from holding_esI1[OF holding(3) this]
+ show ?thesis .
+ qed
+ thus ?thesis using holding(1,2)
+ by (unfold s_RAG_def, fold holding_eq, auto)
qed
- qed
-
-lemma step_v_waiting_mono:
- "\<And>t c. \<lbrakk>vt (V th cs # s); waiting (wq (V th cs # s)) t c\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> waiting (wq s) t c"
-proof -
- fix t c
- let ?s' = "(V th cs # s)"
- assume vt: "vt ?s'"
- and wt: "waiting (wq ?s') t c"
- from vt interpret vt_v: valid_trace_e s "V th cs"
- by (cases, unfold_locales, simp+)
- show "waiting (wq s) t c"
- proof(cases "c = cs")
- case False
- assume neq_cs: "c \<noteq> cs"
- hence "waiting (wq ?s') t c = waiting (wq s) t c"
- by (unfold cs_waiting_def wq_def, auto simp:Let_def)
- with wt show ?thesis by simp
- next
- case True
- with wt show ?thesis
- apply (unfold cs_waiting_def wq_def, auto simp:Let_def split:list.splits)
- proof -
- fix a list
- assume not_in: "t \<notin> set list"
- and is_in: "t \<in> set (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set list)"
- and eq_wq: "wq_fun (schs s) cs = a # list"
- have "set (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set list) = set list"
- proof(rule someI2)
- from vt_v.wq_distinct [of cs]
- and eq_wq[folded wq_def]
- show "distinct list \<and> set list = set list" by auto
- next
- fix x assume "distinct x \<and> set x = set list"
- thus "set x = set list" by auto
- qed
- with not_in is_in show "t = a" by auto
+ qed
+ next
+ case True
+ interpret h_e: valid_trace_v_e s e th cs
+ by (unfold_locales, insert True, simp)
+ from h[unfolded h_e.waiting_set_eq h_e.holding_set_eq]
+ have h_s: "(n1, n2) \<in> RAG s" "(n1, n2) \<noteq> (Cs cs, Th th)"
+ by auto
+ from h_s(1)
+ show ?thesis
+ proof(cases rule:in_RAG_E)
+ case (waiting th' cs')
+ from h_e.waiting_esI2[OF this(3)]
+ show ?thesis using waiting(1,2)
+ by (unfold s_RAG_def, fold waiting_eq, auto)
+ next
+ case (holding th' cs')
+ with h_s(2)
+ have "cs' \<noteq> cs \<or> th' \<noteq> th" by auto
+ thus ?thesis
+ proof
+ assume neq_cs: "cs' \<noteq> cs"
+ from holding_esI2[OF this holding(3)]
+ show ?thesis using holding(1,2)
+ by (unfold s_RAG_def, fold holding_eq, auto)
next
- fix list
- assume is_waiting: "waiting (wq (V th cs # s)) t cs"
- and eq_wq: "wq_fun (schs s) cs = t # list"
- hence "t \<in> set list"
- apply (unfold wq_def, auto simp:Let_def cs_waiting_def)
- proof -
- assume " t \<in> set (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set list)"
- moreover have "\<dots> = set list"
- proof(rule someI2)
- from vt_v.wq_distinct [of cs]
- and eq_wq[folded wq_def]
- show "distinct list \<and> set list = set list" by auto
- next
- fix x assume "distinct x \<and> set x = set list"
- thus "set x = set list" by auto
- qed
- ultimately show "t \<in> set list" by simp
- qed
- with eq_wq and vt_v.wq_distinct [of cs, unfolded wq_def]
- show False by auto
+ assume "th' \<noteq> th"
+ from holding_esI1[OF holding(3) this]
+ show ?thesis using holding(1,2)
+ by (unfold s_RAG_def, fold holding_eq, auto)
qed
- qed
+ qed
+ qed
qed
-text {* (* ddd *)
- The following @{text "step_RAG_v"} lemma charaterizes how @{text "RAG"} is changed
- with the happening of @{text "V"}-events:
-*}
-lemma step_RAG_v:
+end
+
+lemma step_RAG_v:
assumes vt:
"vt (V th cs#s)"
shows "
RAG (V th cs # s) =
RAG s - {(Cs cs, Th th)} -
{(Th th', Cs cs) |th'. next_th s th cs th'} \<union>
- {(Cs cs, Th th') |th'. next_th s th cs th'}"
- apply (insert vt, unfold s_RAG_def)
- apply (auto split:if_splits list.splits simp:Let_def)
- apply (auto elim: step_v_waiting_mono step_v_hold_inv
- step_v_release step_v_wait_inv
- step_v_get_hold step_v_release_inv)
- apply (erule_tac step_v_not_wait, auto)
- done
-
-text {*
- The following @{text "step_RAG_p"} lemma charaterizes how @{text "RAG"} is changed
- with the happening of @{text "P"}-events:
-*}
-lemma step_RAG_p:
- "vt (P th cs#s) \<Longrightarrow>
- RAG (P th cs # s) = (if (wq s cs = []) then RAG s \<union> {(Cs cs, Th th)}
- else RAG s \<union> {(Th th, Cs cs)})"
- apply(simp only: s_RAG_def wq_def)
- apply (auto split:list.splits prod.splits simp:Let_def wq_def cs_waiting_def cs_holding_def)
- apply(case_tac "csa = cs", auto)
- apply(fold wq_def)
- apply(drule_tac step_back_step)
- apply(ind_cases " step s (P (hd (wq s cs)) cs)")
- apply(simp add:s_RAG_def wq_def cs_holding_def)
- apply(auto)
- done
-
-
-lemma RAG_target_th: "(Th th, x) \<in> RAG (s::state) \<Longrightarrow> \<exists> cs. x = Cs cs"
- by (unfold s_RAG_def, auto)
+ {(Cs cs, Th th') |th'. next_th s th cs th'}" (is "?L = ?R")
+proof -
+ interpret vt_v: valid_trace_v s "V th cs"
+ using assms step_back_vt by (unfold_locales, auto)
+ show ?thesis using vt_v.RAG_es .
+qed
+
+lemma (in valid_trace_create)
+ th_not_in_threads: "th \<notin> threads s"
+proof -
+ from pip_e[unfolded is_create]
+ show ?thesis by (cases, simp)
+qed
+
+lemma (in valid_trace_create)
+ threads_es [simp]: "threads (e#s) = threads s \<union> {th}"
+ by (unfold is_create, simp)
+
+lemma (in valid_trace_exit)
+ threads_es [simp]: "threads (e#s) = threads s - {th}"
+ by (unfold is_exit, simp)
+
+lemma (in valid_trace_p)
+ threads_es [simp]: "threads (e#s) = threads s"
+ by (unfold is_p, simp)
+
+lemma (in valid_trace_v)
+ threads_es [simp]: "threads (e#s) = threads s"
+ by (unfold is_v, simp)
+
+lemma (in valid_trace_v)
+ th_not_in_rest[simp]: "th \<notin> set rest"
+proof
+ assume otherwise: "th \<in> set rest"
+ have "distinct (wq s cs)" by (simp add: wq_distinct)
+ from this[unfolded wq_s_cs] and otherwise
+ show False by auto
+qed
+
+lemma (in valid_trace_v)
+ set_wq_es_cs [simp]: "set (wq (e#s) cs) = set (wq s cs) - {th}"
+proof(unfold wq_es_cs wq'_def, rule someI2)
+ show "distinct rest \<and> set rest = set rest"
+ by (simp add: distinct_rest)
+next
+ fix x
+ assume "distinct x \<and> set x = set rest"
+ thus "set x = set (wq s cs) - {th}"
+ by (unfold wq_s_cs, simp)
+qed
+
+lemma (in valid_trace_exit)
+ th_not_in_wq: "th \<notin> set (wq s cs)"
+proof -
+ from pip_e[unfolded is_exit]
+ show ?thesis
+ by (cases, unfold holdents_def s_holding_def, fold wq_def,
+ auto elim!:runing_wqE)
+qed
+
+lemma (in valid_trace) wq_threads:
+ assumes "th \<in> set (wq s cs)"
+ shows "th \<in> threads s"
+ using assms
+proof(induct rule:ind)
+ case (Nil)
+ thus ?case by (auto simp:wq_def)
+next
+ case (Cons s e)
+ interpret vt_e: valid_trace_e s e using Cons by simp
+ show ?case
+ proof(cases e)
+ case (Create th' prio')
+ interpret vt: valid_trace_create s e th' prio'
+ using Create by (unfold_locales, simp)
+ show ?thesis
+ using Cons.hyps(2) Cons.prems by auto
+ next
+ case (Exit th')
+ interpret vt: valid_trace_exit s e th'
+ using Exit by (unfold_locales, simp)
+ show ?thesis
+ using Cons.hyps(2) Cons.prems vt.th_not_in_wq by auto
+ next
+ case (P th' cs')
+ interpret vt: valid_trace_p s e th' cs'
+ using P by (unfold_locales, simp)
+ show ?thesis
+ using Cons.hyps(2) Cons.prems readys_threads
+ runing_ready vt.is_p vt.runing_th_s vt_e.wq_in_inv
+ by fastforce
+ next
+ case (V th' cs')
+ interpret vt: valid_trace_v s e th' cs'
+ using V by (unfold_locales, simp)
+ show ?thesis using Cons
+ using vt.is_v vt.threads_es vt_e.wq_in_inv by blast
+ next
+ case (Set th' prio)
+ interpret vt: valid_trace_set s e th' prio
+ using Set by (unfold_locales, simp)
+ show ?thesis using Cons.hyps(2) Cons.prems vt.is_set
+ by (auto simp:wq_def Let_def)
+ qed
+qed
context valid_trace
begin
-text {*
- The following lemma shows that @{text "RAG"} is acyclic.
- The overall structure is by induction on the formation of @{text "vt s"}
- and then case analysis on event @{text "e"}, where the non-trivial cases
- for those for @{text "V"} and @{text "P"} events.
-*}
-lemma acyclic_RAG:
- shows "acyclic (RAG s)"
-using vt
-proof(induct)
- case (vt_cons s e)
- interpret vt_s: valid_trace s using vt_cons(1)
+lemma dm_RAG_threads:
+ assumes in_dom: "(Th th) \<in> Domain (RAG s)"
+ shows "th \<in> threads s"
+proof -
+ from in_dom obtain n where "(Th th, n) \<in> RAG s" by auto
+ moreover from RAG_target_th[OF this] obtain cs where "n = Cs cs" by auto
+ ultimately have "(Th th, Cs cs) \<in> RAG s" by simp
+ hence "th \<in> set (wq s cs)"
+ by (unfold s_RAG_def, auto simp:cs_waiting_def)
+ from wq_threads [OF this] show ?thesis .
+qed
+
+lemma rg_RAG_threads:
+ assumes "(Th th) \<in> Range (RAG s)"
+ shows "th \<in> threads s"
+ using assms
+ by (unfold s_RAG_def cs_waiting_def cs_holding_def,
+ auto intro:wq_threads)
+
+lemma RAG_threads:
+ assumes "(Th th) \<in> Field (RAG s)"
+ shows "th \<in> threads s"
+ using assms
+ by (metis Field_def UnE dm_RAG_threads rg_RAG_threads)
+
+end
+
+lemma (in valid_trace_v)
+ preced_es [simp]: "preced th (e#s) = preced th s"
+ by (unfold is_v preced_def, simp)
+
+lemma the_preced_v[simp]: "the_preced (V th cs#s) = the_preced s"
+proof
+ fix th'
+ show "the_preced (V th cs # s) th' = the_preced s th'"
+ by (unfold the_preced_def preced_def, simp)
+qed
+
+lemma (in valid_trace_v)
+ the_preced_es: "the_preced (e#s) = the_preced s"
+ by (unfold is_v preced_def, simp)
+
+context valid_trace_p
+begin
+
+lemma not_holding_s_th_cs: "\<not> holding s th cs"
+proof
+ assume otherwise: "holding s th cs"
+ from pip_e[unfolded is_p]
+ show False
+ proof(cases)
+ case (thread_P)
+ moreover have "(Cs cs, Th th) \<in> RAG s"
+ using otherwise cs_holding_def
+ holding_eq th_not_in_wq by auto
+ ultimately show ?thesis by auto
+ qed
+qed
+
+lemma waiting_kept:
+ assumes "waiting s th' cs'"
+ shows "waiting (e#s) th' cs'"
+ using assms
+ by (metis cs_waiting_def hd_append2 list.sel(1) list.set_intros(2)
+ rotate1.simps(2) self_append_conv2 set_rotate1
+ th_not_in_wq waiting_eq wq_es_cs wq_neq_simp)
+
+lemma holding_kept:
+ assumes "holding s th' cs'"
+ shows "holding (e#s) th' cs'"
+proof(cases "cs' = cs")
+ case False
+ hence "wq (e#s) cs' = wq s cs'" by simp
+ with assms show ?thesis using cs_holding_def holding_eq by auto
+next
+ case True
+ from assms[unfolded s_holding_def, folded wq_def]
+ obtain rest where eq_wq: "wq s cs' = th'#rest"
+ by (metis empty_iff list.collapse list.set(1))
+ hence "wq (e#s) cs' = th'#(rest@[th])"
+ by (simp add: True wq_es_cs)
+ thus ?thesis
+ by (simp add: cs_holding_def holding_eq)
+qed
+
+end
+
+locale valid_trace_p_h = valid_trace_p +
+ assumes we: "wq s cs = []"
+
+locale valid_trace_p_w = valid_trace_p +
+ assumes wne: "wq s cs \<noteq> []"
+begin
+
+definition "holder = hd (wq s cs)"
+definition "waiters = tl (wq s cs)"
+definition "waiters' = waiters @ [th]"
+
+lemma wq_s_cs: "wq s cs = holder#waiters"
+ by (simp add: holder_def waiters_def wne)
+
+lemma wq_es_cs': "wq (e#s) cs = holder#waiters@[th]"
+ by (simp add: wq_es_cs wq_s_cs)
+
+lemma waiting_es_th_cs: "waiting (e#s) th cs"
+ using cs_waiting_def th_not_in_wq waiting_eq wq_es_cs' wq_s_cs by auto
+
+lemma RAG_edge: "(Th th, Cs cs) \<in> RAG (e#s)"
+ by (unfold s_RAG_def, fold waiting_eq, insert waiting_es_th_cs, auto)
+
+lemma holding_esE:
+ assumes "holding (e#s) th' cs'"
+ obtains "holding s th' cs'"
+ using assms
+proof(cases "cs' = cs")
+ case False
+ hence "wq (e#s) cs' = wq s cs'" by simp
+ with assms show ?thesis
+ using cs_holding_def holding_eq that by auto
+next
+ case True
+ with assms show ?thesis
+ by (metis cs_holding_def holding_eq list.sel(1) list.set_intros(1) that
+ wq_es_cs' wq_s_cs)
+qed
+
+lemma waiting_esE:
+ assumes "waiting (e#s) th' cs'"
+ obtains "th' \<noteq> th" "waiting s th' cs'"
+ | "th' = th" "cs' = cs"
+proof(cases "waiting s th' cs'")
+ case True
+ have "th' \<noteq> th"
+ proof
+ assume otherwise: "th' = th"
+ from True[unfolded this]
+ show False by (simp add: th_not_waiting)
+ qed
+ from that(1)[OF this True] show ?thesis .
+next
+ case False
+ hence "th' = th \<and> cs' = cs"
+ by (metis assms cs_waiting_def holder_def list.sel(1) rotate1.simps(2)
+ set_ConsD set_rotate1 waiting_eq wq_es_cs wq_es_cs' wq_neq_simp)
+ with that(2) show ?thesis by metis
+qed
+
+lemma RAG_es: "RAG (e # s) = RAG s \<union> {(Th th, Cs cs)}" (is "?L = ?R")
+proof(rule rel_eqI)
+ fix n1 n2
+ assume "(n1, n2) \<in> ?L"
+ thus "(n1, n2) \<in> ?R"
+ proof(cases rule:in_RAG_E)
+ case (waiting th' cs')
+ from this(3)
+ show ?thesis
+ proof(cases rule:waiting_esE)
+ case 1
+ thus ?thesis using waiting(1,2)
+ by (unfold s_RAG_def, fold waiting_eq, auto)
+ next
+ case 2
+ thus ?thesis using waiting(1,2) by auto
+ qed
+ next
+ case (holding th' cs')
+ from this(3)
+ show ?thesis
+ proof(cases rule:holding_esE)
+ case 1
+ with holding(1,2)
+ show ?thesis by (unfold s_RAG_def, fold holding_eq, auto)
+ qed
+ qed
+next
+ fix n1 n2
+ assume "(n1, n2) \<in> ?R"
+ hence "(n1, n2) \<in> RAG s \<or> (n1 = Th th \<and> n2 = Cs cs)" by auto
+ thus "(n1, n2) \<in> ?L"
+ proof
+ assume "(n1, n2) \<in> RAG s"
+ thus ?thesis
+ proof(cases rule:in_RAG_E)
+ case (waiting th' cs')
+ from waiting_kept[OF this(3)]
+ show ?thesis using waiting(1,2)
+ by (unfold s_RAG_def, fold waiting_eq, auto)
+ next
+ case (holding th' cs')
+ from holding_kept[OF this(3)]
+ show ?thesis using holding(1,2)
+ by (unfold s_RAG_def, fold holding_eq, auto)
+ qed
+ next
+ assume "n1 = Th th \<and> n2 = Cs cs"
+ thus ?thesis using RAG_edge by auto
+ qed
+qed
+
+end
+
+context valid_trace_p_h
+begin
+
+lemma wq_es_cs': "wq (e#s) cs = [th]"
+ using wq_es_cs[unfolded we] by simp
+
+lemma holding_es_th_cs:
+ shows "holding (e#s) th cs"
+proof -
+ from wq_es_cs'
+ have "th \<in> set (wq (e#s) cs)" "th = hd (wq (e#s) cs)" by auto
+ thus ?thesis using cs_holding_def holding_eq by blast
+qed
+
+lemma RAG_edge: "(Cs cs, Th th) \<in> RAG (e#s)"
+ by (unfold s_RAG_def, fold holding_eq, insert holding_es_th_cs, auto)
+
+lemma waiting_esE:
+ assumes "waiting (e#s) th' cs'"
+ obtains "waiting s th' cs'"
+ using assms
+ by (metis cs_waiting_def event.distinct(15) is_p list.sel(1)
+ set_ConsD waiting_eq we wq_es_cs' wq_neq_simp wq_out_inv)
+
+lemma holding_esE:
+ assumes "holding (e#s) th' cs'"
+ obtains "cs' \<noteq> cs" "holding s th' cs'"
+ | "cs' = cs" "th' = th"
+proof(cases "cs' = cs")
+ case True
+ from held_unique[OF holding_es_th_cs assms[unfolded True]]
+ have "th' = th" by simp
+ from that(2)[OF True this] show ?thesis .
+next
+ case False
+ have "holding s th' cs'" using assms
+ using False cs_holding_def holding_eq by auto
+ from that(1)[OF False this] show ?thesis .
+qed
+
+lemma RAG_es: "RAG (e # s) = RAG s \<union> {(Cs cs, Th th)}" (is "?L = ?R")
+proof(rule rel_eqI)
+ fix n1 n2
+ assume "(n1, n2) \<in> ?L"
+ thus "(n1, n2) \<in> ?R"
+ proof(cases rule:in_RAG_E)
+ case (waiting th' cs')
+ from this(3)
+ show ?thesis
+ proof(cases rule:waiting_esE)
+ case 1
+ thus ?thesis using waiting(1,2)
+ by (unfold s_RAG_def, fold waiting_eq, auto)
+ qed
+ next
+ case (holding th' cs')
+ from this(3)
+ show ?thesis
+ proof(cases rule:holding_esE)
+ case 1
+ with holding(1,2)
+ show ?thesis by (unfold s_RAG_def, fold holding_eq, auto)
+ next
+ case 2
+ with holding(1,2) show ?thesis by auto
+ qed
+ qed
+next
+ fix n1 n2
+ assume "(n1, n2) \<in> ?R"
+ hence "(n1, n2) \<in> RAG s \<or> (n1 = Cs cs \<and> n2 = Th th)" by auto
+ thus "(n1, n2) \<in> ?L"
+ proof
+ assume "(n1, n2) \<in> RAG s"
+ thus ?thesis
+ proof(cases rule:in_RAG_E)
+ case (waiting th' cs')
+ from waiting_kept[OF this(3)]
+ show ?thesis using waiting(1,2)
+ by (unfold s_RAG_def, fold waiting_eq, auto)
+ next
+ case (holding th' cs')
+ from holding_kept[OF this(3)]
+ show ?thesis using holding(1,2)
+ by (unfold s_RAG_def, fold holding_eq, auto)
+ qed
+ next
+ assume "n1 = Cs cs \<and> n2 = Th th"
+ with holding_es_th_cs
+ show ?thesis
+ by (unfold s_RAG_def, fold holding_eq, auto)
+ qed
+qed
+
+end
+
+context valid_trace_p
+begin
+
+lemma RAG_es': "RAG (e # s) = (if (wq s cs = []) then RAG s \<union> {(Cs cs, Th th)}
+ else RAG s \<union> {(Th th, Cs cs)})"
+proof(cases "wq s cs = []")
+ case True
+ interpret vt_p: valid_trace_p_h using True
by (unfold_locales, simp)
- assume ih: "acyclic (RAG s)"
- and stp: "step s e"
- and vt: "vt s"
+ show ?thesis by (simp add: vt_p.RAG_es vt_p.we)
+next
+ case False
+ interpret vt_p: valid_trace_p_w using False
+ by (unfold_locales, simp)
+ show ?thesis by (simp add: vt_p.RAG_es vt_p.wne)
+qed
+
+end
+
+lemma (in valid_trace_v_n) finite_waiting_set:
+ "finite {(Th th', Cs cs) |th'. next_th s th cs th'}"
+ by (simp add: waiting_set_eq)
+
+lemma (in valid_trace_v_n) finite_holding_set:
+ "finite {(Cs cs, Th th') |th'. next_th s th cs th'}"
+ by (simp add: holding_set_eq)
+
+lemma (in valid_trace_v_e) finite_waiting_set:
+ "finite {(Th th', Cs cs) |th'. next_th s th cs th'}"
+ by (simp add: waiting_set_eq)
+
+lemma (in valid_trace_v_e) finite_holding_set:
+ "finite {(Cs cs, Th th') |th'. next_th s th cs th'}"
+ by (simp add: holding_set_eq)
+
+context valid_trace_v
+begin
+
+lemma
+ finite_RAG_kept:
+ assumes "finite (RAG s)"
+ shows "finite (RAG (e#s))"
+proof(cases "rest = []")
+ case True
+ interpret vt: valid_trace_v_e using True
+ by (unfold_locales, simp)
+ show ?thesis using assms
+ by (unfold RAG_es vt.waiting_set_eq vt.holding_set_eq, simp)
+next
+ case False
+ interpret vt: valid_trace_v_n using False
+ by (unfold_locales, simp)
+ show ?thesis using assms
+ by (unfold RAG_es vt.waiting_set_eq vt.holding_set_eq, simp)
+qed
+
+end
+
+context valid_trace_v_e
+begin
+
+lemma
+ acylic_RAG_kept:
+ assumes "acyclic (RAG s)"
+ shows "acyclic (RAG (e#s))"
+proof(rule acyclic_subset[OF assms])
+ show "RAG (e # s) \<subseteq> RAG s"
+ by (unfold RAG_es waiting_set_eq holding_set_eq, auto)
+qed
+
+end
+
+context valid_trace_v_n
+begin
+
+lemma waiting_taker: "waiting s taker cs"
+ apply (unfold s_waiting_def, fold wq_def, unfold wq_s_cs taker_def)
+ using eq_wq' th'_in_inv wq'_def by fastforce
+
+lemma
+ acylic_RAG_kept:
+ assumes "acyclic (RAG s)"
+ shows "acyclic (RAG (e#s))"
+proof -
+ have "acyclic ((RAG s - {(Cs cs, Th th)} - {(Th taker, Cs cs)}) \<union>
+ {(Cs cs, Th taker)})" (is "acyclic (?A \<union> _)")
+ proof -
+ from assms
+ have "acyclic ?A"
+ by (rule acyclic_subset, auto)
+ moreover have "(Th taker, Cs cs) \<notin> ?A^*"
+ proof
+ assume otherwise: "(Th taker, Cs cs) \<in> ?A^*"
+ hence "(Th taker, Cs cs) \<in> ?A^+"
+ by (unfold rtrancl_eq_or_trancl, auto)
+ from tranclD[OF this]
+ obtain cs' where h: "(Th taker, Cs cs') \<in> ?A"
+ "(Th taker, Cs cs') \<in> RAG s"
+ by (unfold s_RAG_def, auto)
+ from this(2) have "waiting s taker cs'"
+ by (unfold s_RAG_def, fold waiting_eq, auto)
+ from waiting_unique[OF this waiting_taker]
+ have "cs' = cs" .
+ from h(1)[unfolded this] show False by auto
+ qed
+ ultimately show ?thesis by auto
+ qed
+ thus ?thesis
+ by (unfold RAG_es waiting_set_eq holding_set_eq, simp)
+qed
+
+end
+
+context valid_trace_p_h
+begin
+
+lemma
+ acylic_RAG_kept:
+ assumes "acyclic (RAG s)"
+ shows "acyclic (RAG (e#s))"
+proof -
+ have "acyclic (RAG s \<union> {(Cs cs, Th th)})" (is "acyclic (?A \<union> _)")
+ proof -
+ from assms
+ have "acyclic ?A"
+ by (rule acyclic_subset, auto)
+ moreover have "(Th th, Cs cs) \<notin> ?A^*"
+ proof
+ assume otherwise: "(Th th, Cs cs) \<in> ?A^*"
+ hence "(Th th, Cs cs) \<in> ?A^+"
+ by (unfold rtrancl_eq_or_trancl, auto)
+ from tranclD[OF this]
+ obtain cs' where h: "(Th th, Cs cs') \<in> RAG s"
+ by (unfold s_RAG_def, auto)
+ hence "waiting s th cs'"
+ by (unfold s_RAG_def, fold waiting_eq, auto)
+ with th_not_waiting show False by auto
+ qed
+ ultimately show ?thesis by auto
+ qed
+ thus ?thesis by (unfold RAG_es, simp)
+qed
+
+end
+
+context valid_trace_p_w
+begin
+
+lemma
+ acylic_RAG_kept:
+ assumes "acyclic (RAG s)"
+ shows "acyclic (RAG (e#s))"
+proof -
+ have "acyclic (RAG s \<union> {(Th th, Cs cs)})" (is "acyclic (?A \<union> _)")
+ proof -
+ from assms
+ have "acyclic ?A"
+ by (rule acyclic_subset, auto)
+ moreover have "(Cs cs, Th th) \<notin> ?A^*"
+ proof
+ assume otherwise: "(Cs cs, Th th) \<in> ?A^*"
+ from pip_e[unfolded is_p]
+ show False
+ proof(cases)
+ case (thread_P)
+ moreover from otherwise have "(Cs cs, Th th) \<in> ?A^+"
+ by (unfold rtrancl_eq_or_trancl, auto)
+ ultimately show ?thesis by auto
+ qed
+ qed
+ ultimately show ?thesis by auto
+ qed
+ thus ?thesis by (unfold RAG_es, simp)
+qed
+
+end
+
+context valid_trace
+begin
+
+lemma finite_RAG:
+ shows "finite (RAG s)"
+proof(induct rule:ind)
+ case Nil
+ show ?case
+ by (auto simp: s_RAG_def cs_waiting_def
+ cs_holding_def wq_def acyclic_def)
+next
+ case (Cons s e)
+ interpret vt_e: valid_trace_e s e using Cons by simp
show ?case
proof(cases e)
case (Create th prio)
- with ih
- show ?thesis by (simp add:RAG_create_unchanged)
+ interpret vt: valid_trace_create s e th prio using Create
+ by (unfold_locales, simp)
+ show ?thesis using Cons by (simp add: vt.RAG_unchanged)
next
case (Exit th)
- with ih show ?thesis by (simp add:RAG_exit_unchanged)
+ interpret vt: valid_trace_exit s e th using Exit
+ by (unfold_locales, simp)
+ show ?thesis using Cons by (simp add: vt.RAG_unchanged)
+ next
+ case (P th cs)
+ interpret vt: valid_trace_p s e th cs using P
+ by (unfold_locales, simp)
+ show ?thesis using Cons using vt.RAG_es' by auto
next
case (V th cs)
- from V vt stp have vtt: "vt (V th cs#s)" by auto
- from step_RAG_v [OF this]
- have eq_de:
- "RAG (e # s) =
- RAG s - {(Cs cs, Th th)} - {(Th th', Cs cs) |th'. next_th s th cs th'} \<union>
- {(Cs cs, Th th') |th'. next_th s th cs th'}"
- (is "?L = (?A - ?B - ?C) \<union> ?D") by (simp add:V)
- from ih have ac: "acyclic (?A - ?B - ?C)" by (auto elim:acyclic_subset)
- from step_back_step [OF vtt]
- have "step s (V th cs)" .
- thus ?thesis
- proof(cases)
- assume "holding s th cs"
- hence th_in: "th \<in> set (wq s cs)" and
- eq_hd: "th = hd (wq s cs)" unfolding s_holding_def wq_def by auto
- then obtain rest where
- eq_wq: "wq s cs = th#rest"
- by (cases "wq s cs", auto)
- show ?thesis
- proof(cases "rest = []")
- case False
- let ?th' = "hd (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set rest)"
- from eq_wq False have eq_D: "?D = {(Cs cs, Th ?th')}"
- by (unfold next_th_def, auto)
- let ?E = "(?A - ?B - ?C)"
- have "(Th ?th', Cs cs) \<notin> ?E\<^sup>*"
- proof
- assume "(Th ?th', Cs cs) \<in> ?E\<^sup>*"
- hence " (Th ?th', Cs cs) \<in> ?E\<^sup>+" by (simp add: rtrancl_eq_or_trancl)
- from tranclD [OF this]
- obtain x where th'_e: "(Th ?th', x) \<in> ?E" by blast
- hence th_d: "(Th ?th', x) \<in> ?A" by simp
- from RAG_target_th [OF this]
- obtain cs' where eq_x: "x = Cs cs'" by auto
- with th_d have "(Th ?th', Cs cs') \<in> ?A" by simp
- hence wt_th': "waiting s ?th' cs'"
- unfolding s_RAG_def s_waiting_def cs_waiting_def wq_def by simp
- hence "cs' = cs"
- proof(rule vt_s.waiting_unique)
- from eq_wq vt_s.wq_distinct[of cs]
- show "waiting s ?th' cs"
- apply (unfold s_waiting_def wq_def, auto)
- proof -
- assume hd_in: "hd (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set rest) \<notin> set rest"
- and eq_wq: "wq_fun (schs s) cs = th # rest"
- have "(SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set rest) \<noteq> []"
- proof(rule someI2)
- from vt_s.wq_distinct[of cs] and eq_wq
- show "distinct rest \<and> set rest = set rest" unfolding wq_def by auto
- next
- fix x assume "distinct x \<and> set x = set rest"
- with False show "x \<noteq> []" by auto
- qed
- hence "hd (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set rest) \<in>
- set (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set rest)" by auto
- moreover have "\<dots> = set rest"
- proof(rule someI2)
- from vt_s.wq_distinct[of cs] and eq_wq
- show "distinct rest \<and> set rest = set rest" unfolding wq_def by auto
- next
- show "\<And>x. distinct x \<and> set x = set rest \<Longrightarrow> set x = set rest" by auto
- qed
- moreover note hd_in
- ultimately show "hd (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set rest) = th" by auto
- next
- assume hd_in: "hd (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set rest) \<notin> set rest"
- and eq_wq: "wq s cs = hd (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set rest) # rest"
- have "(SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set rest) \<noteq> []"
- proof(rule someI2)
- from vt_s.wq_distinct[of cs] and eq_wq
- show "distinct rest \<and> set rest = set rest" by auto
- next
- fix x assume "distinct x \<and> set x = set rest"
- with False show "x \<noteq> []" by auto
- qed
- hence "hd (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set rest) \<in>
- set (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set rest)" by auto
- moreover have "\<dots> = set rest"
- proof(rule someI2)
- from vt_s.wq_distinct[of cs] and eq_wq
- show "distinct rest \<and> set rest = set rest" by auto
- next
- show "\<And>x. distinct x \<and> set x = set rest \<Longrightarrow> set x = set rest" by auto
- qed
- moreover note hd_in
- ultimately show False by auto
- qed
- qed
- with th'_e eq_x have "(Th ?th', Cs cs) \<in> ?E" by simp
- with False
- show "False" by (auto simp: next_th_def eq_wq)
- qed
- with acyclic_insert[symmetric] and ac
- and eq_de eq_D show ?thesis by auto
- next
- case True
- with eq_wq
- have eq_D: "?D = {}"
- by (unfold next_th_def, auto)
- with eq_de ac
- show ?thesis by auto
- qed
- qed
+ interpret vt: valid_trace_v s e th cs using V
+ by (unfold_locales, simp)
+ show ?thesis using Cons by (simp add: vt.finite_RAG_kept)
+ next
+ case (Set th prio)
+ interpret vt: valid_trace_set s e th prio using Set
+ by (unfold_locales, simp)
+ show ?thesis using Cons by (simp add: vt.RAG_unchanged)
+ qed
+qed
+
+lemma acyclic_RAG:
+ shows "acyclic (RAG s)"
+proof(induct rule:ind)
+ case Nil
+ show ?case
+ by (auto simp: s_RAG_def cs_waiting_def
+ cs_holding_def wq_def acyclic_def)
+next
+ case (Cons s e)
+ interpret vt_e: valid_trace_e s e using Cons by simp
+ show ?case
+ proof(cases e)
+ case (Create th prio)
+ interpret vt: valid_trace_create s e th prio using Create
+ by (unfold_locales, simp)
+ show ?thesis using Cons by (simp add: vt.RAG_unchanged)
+ next
+ case (Exit th)
+ interpret vt: valid_trace_exit s e th using Exit
+ by (unfold_locales, simp)
+ show ?thesis using Cons by (simp add: vt.RAG_unchanged)
next
case (P th cs)
- from P vt stp have vtt: "vt (P th cs#s)" by auto
- from step_RAG_p [OF this] P
- have "RAG (e # s) =
- (if wq s cs = [] then RAG s \<union> {(Cs cs, Th th)} else
- RAG s \<union> {(Th th, Cs cs)})" (is "?L = ?R")
- by simp
- moreover have "acyclic ?R"
+ interpret vt: valid_trace_p s e th cs using P
+ by (unfold_locales, simp)
+ show ?thesis
proof(cases "wq s cs = []")
case True
- hence eq_r: "?R = RAG s \<union> {(Cs cs, Th th)}" by simp
- have "(Th th, Cs cs) \<notin> (RAG s)\<^sup>*"
- proof
- assume "(Th th, Cs cs) \<in> (RAG s)\<^sup>*"
- hence "(Th th, Cs cs) \<in> (RAG s)\<^sup>+" by (simp add: rtrancl_eq_or_trancl)
- from tranclD2 [OF this]
- obtain x where "(x, Cs cs) \<in> RAG s" by auto
- with True show False by (auto simp:s_RAG_def cs_waiting_def)
- qed
- with acyclic_insert ih eq_r show ?thesis by auto
+ then interpret vt_h: valid_trace_p_h s e th cs
+ by (unfold_locales, simp)
+ show ?thesis using Cons by (simp add: vt_h.acylic_RAG_kept)
next
case False
- hence eq_r: "?R = RAG s \<union> {(Th th, Cs cs)}" by simp
- have "(Cs cs, Th th) \<notin> (RAG s)\<^sup>*"
- proof
- assume "(Cs cs, Th th) \<in> (RAG s)\<^sup>*"
- hence "(Cs cs, Th th) \<in> (RAG s)\<^sup>+" by (simp add: rtrancl_eq_or_trancl)
- moreover from step_back_step [OF vtt] have "step s (P th cs)" .
- ultimately show False
- proof -
- show " \<lbrakk>(Cs cs, Th th) \<in> (RAG s)\<^sup>+; step s (P th cs)\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> False"
- by (ind_cases "step s (P th cs)", simp)
- qed
- qed
- with acyclic_insert ih eq_r show ?thesis by auto
- qed
- ultimately show ?thesis by simp
+ then interpret vt_w: valid_trace_p_w s e th cs
+ by (unfold_locales, simp)
+ show ?thesis using Cons by (simp add: vt_w.acylic_RAG_kept)
+ qed
+ next
+ case (V th cs)
+ interpret vt: valid_trace_v s e th cs using V
+ by (unfold_locales, simp)
+ show ?thesis
+ proof(cases "vt.rest = []")
+ case True
+ then interpret vt_e: valid_trace_v_e s e th cs
+ by (unfold_locales, simp)
+ show ?thesis by (simp add: Cons.hyps(2) vt_e.acylic_RAG_kept)
next
- case (Set thread prio)
- with ih
- thm RAG_set_unchanged
- show ?thesis by (simp add:RAG_set_unchanged)
+ case False
+ then interpret vt_n: valid_trace_v_n s e th cs
+ by (unfold_locales, simp)
+ show ?thesis by (simp add: Cons.hyps(2) vt_n.acylic_RAG_kept)
qed
next
- case vt_nil
- show "acyclic (RAG ([]::state))"
- by (auto simp: s_RAG_def cs_waiting_def
- cs_holding_def wq_def acyclic_def)
-qed
-
-
-lemma finite_RAG:
- shows "finite (RAG s)"
-proof -
- from vt show ?thesis
- proof(induct)
- case (vt_cons s e)
- interpret vt_s: valid_trace s using vt_cons(1)
+ case (Set th prio)
+ interpret vt: valid_trace_set s e th prio using Set
by (unfold_locales, simp)
- assume ih: "finite (RAG s)"
- and stp: "step s e"
- and vt: "vt s"
- show ?case
- proof(cases e)
- case (Create th prio)
- with ih
- show ?thesis by (simp add:RAG_create_unchanged)
- next
- case (Exit th)
- with ih show ?thesis by (simp add:RAG_exit_unchanged)
- next
- case (V th cs)
- from V vt stp have vtt: "vt (V th cs#s)" by auto
- from step_RAG_v [OF this]
- have eq_de: "RAG (e # s) =
- RAG s - {(Cs cs, Th th)} - {(Th th', Cs cs) |th'. next_th s th cs th'} \<union>
- {(Cs cs, Th th') |th'. next_th s th cs th'}
-"
- (is "?L = (?A - ?B - ?C) \<union> ?D") by (simp add:V)
- moreover from ih have ac: "finite (?A - ?B - ?C)" by simp
- moreover have "finite ?D"
- proof -
- have "?D = {} \<or> (\<exists> a. ?D = {a})"
- by (unfold next_th_def, auto)
- thus ?thesis
- proof
- assume h: "?D = {}"
- show ?thesis by (unfold h, simp)
- next
- assume "\<exists> a. ?D = {a}"
- thus ?thesis
- by (metis finite.simps)
- qed
- qed
- ultimately show ?thesis by simp
- next
- case (P th cs)
- from P vt stp have vtt: "vt (P th cs#s)" by auto
- from step_RAG_p [OF this] P
- have "RAG (e # s) =
- (if wq s cs = [] then RAG s \<union> {(Cs cs, Th th)} else
- RAG s \<union> {(Th th, Cs cs)})" (is "?L = ?R")
- by simp
- moreover have "finite ?R"
- proof(cases "wq s cs = []")
- case True
- hence eq_r: "?R = RAG s \<union> {(Cs cs, Th th)}" by simp
- with True and ih show ?thesis by auto
- next
- case False
- hence "?R = RAG s \<union> {(Th th, Cs cs)}" by simp
- with False and ih show ?thesis by auto
- qed
- ultimately show ?thesis by auto
- next
- case (Set thread prio)
- with ih
- show ?thesis by (simp add:RAG_set_unchanged)
+ show ?thesis using Cons by (simp add: vt.RAG_unchanged)
+ qed
+qed
+
+lemma wf_RAG: "wf (RAG s)"
+proof(rule finite_acyclic_wf)
+ from finite_RAG show "finite (RAG s)" .
+next
+ from acyclic_RAG show "acyclic (RAG s)" .
+qed
+
+lemma sgv_wRAG: "single_valued (wRAG s)"
+ using waiting_unique
+ by (unfold single_valued_def wRAG_def, auto)
+
+lemma sgv_hRAG: "single_valued (hRAG s)"
+ using held_unique
+ by (unfold single_valued_def hRAG_def, auto)
+
+lemma sgv_tRAG: "single_valued (tRAG s)"
+ by (unfold tRAG_def, rule single_valued_relcomp,
+ insert sgv_wRAG sgv_hRAG, auto)
+
+lemma acyclic_tRAG: "acyclic (tRAG s)"
+proof(unfold tRAG_def, rule acyclic_compose)
+ show "acyclic (RAG s)" using acyclic_RAG .
+next
+ show "wRAG s \<subseteq> RAG s" unfolding RAG_split by auto
+next
+ show "hRAG s \<subseteq> RAG s" unfolding RAG_split by auto
+qed
+
+lemma unique_RAG: "\<lbrakk>(n, n1) \<in> RAG s; (n, n2) \<in> RAG s\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> n1 = n2"
+ apply(unfold s_RAG_def, auto, fold waiting_eq holding_eq)
+ by(auto elim:waiting_unique held_unique)
+
+lemma sgv_RAG: "single_valued (RAG s)"
+ using unique_RAG by (auto simp:single_valued_def)
+
+lemma rtree_RAG: "rtree (RAG s)"
+ using sgv_RAG acyclic_RAG
+ by (unfold rtree_def rtree_axioms_def sgv_def, auto)
+
+end
+
+sublocale valid_trace < rtree_RAG: rtree "RAG s"
+proof
+ show "single_valued (RAG s)"
+ apply (intro_locales)
+ by (unfold single_valued_def,
+ auto intro:unique_RAG)
+
+ show "acyclic (RAG s)"
+ by (rule acyclic_RAG)
+qed
+
+sublocale valid_trace < rtree_s: rtree "tRAG s"
+proof(unfold_locales)
+ from sgv_tRAG show "single_valued (tRAG s)" .
+next
+ from acyclic_tRAG show "acyclic (tRAG s)" .
+qed
+
+sublocale valid_trace < fsbtRAGs : fsubtree "RAG s"
+proof -
+ show "fsubtree (RAG s)"
+ proof(intro_locales)
+ show "fbranch (RAG s)" using finite_fbranchI[OF finite_RAG] .
+ next
+ show "fsubtree_axioms (RAG s)"
+ proof(unfold fsubtree_axioms_def)
+ from wf_RAG show "wf (RAG s)" .
qed
- next
- case vt_nil
- show "finite (RAG ([]::state))"
- by (auto simp: s_RAG_def cs_waiting_def
- cs_holding_def wq_def acyclic_def)
qed
qed
-text {* Several useful lemmas *}
-
-lemma wf_dep_converse:
+lemma tRAG_alt_def:
+ "tRAG s = {(Th th1, Th th2) | th1 th2.
+ \<exists> cs. (Th th1, Cs cs) \<in> RAG s \<and> (Cs cs, Th th2) \<in> RAG s}"
+ by (auto simp:tRAG_def RAG_split wRAG_def hRAG_def)
+
+sublocale valid_trace < fsbttRAGs: fsubtree "tRAG s"
+proof -
+ have "fsubtree (tRAG s)"
+ proof -
+ have "fbranch (tRAG s)"
+ proof(unfold tRAG_def, rule fbranch_compose)
+ show "fbranch (wRAG s)"
+ proof(rule finite_fbranchI)
+ from finite_RAG show "finite (wRAG s)"
+ by (unfold RAG_split, auto)
+ qed
+ next
+ show "fbranch (hRAG s)"
+ proof(rule finite_fbranchI)
+ from finite_RAG
+ show "finite (hRAG s)" by (unfold RAG_split, auto)
+ qed
+ qed
+ moreover have "wf (tRAG s)"
+ proof(rule wf_subset)
+ show "wf (RAG s O RAG s)" using wf_RAG
+ by (fold wf_comp_self, simp)
+ next
+ show "tRAG s \<subseteq> (RAG s O RAG s)"
+ by (unfold tRAG_alt_def, auto)
+ qed
+ ultimately show ?thesis
+ by (unfold fsubtree_def fsubtree_axioms_def,auto)
+ qed
+ from this[folded tRAG_def] show "fsubtree (tRAG s)" .
+qed
+
+
+context valid_trace
+begin
+
+lemma finite_subtree_threads:
+ "finite {th'. Th th' \<in> subtree (RAG s) (Th th)}" (is "finite ?A")
+proof -
+ have "?A = the_thread ` {Th th' | th' . Th th' \<in> subtree (RAG s) (Th th)}"
+ by (auto, insert image_iff, fastforce)
+ moreover have "finite {Th th' | th' . Th th' \<in> subtree (RAG s) (Th th)}"
+ (is "finite ?B")
+ proof -
+ have "?B = (subtree (RAG s) (Th th)) \<inter> {Th th' | th'. True}"
+ by auto
+ moreover have "... \<subseteq> (subtree (RAG s) (Th th))" by auto
+ moreover have "finite ..." by (simp add: fsbtRAGs.finite_subtree)
+ ultimately show ?thesis by auto
+ qed
+ ultimately show ?thesis by auto
+qed
+
+lemma le_cp:
+ shows "preced th s \<le> cp s th"
+ proof(unfold cp_alt_def, rule Max_ge)
+ show "finite (the_preced s ` {th'. Th th' \<in> subtree (RAG s) (Th th)})"
+ by (simp add: finite_subtree_threads)
+ next
+ show "preced th s \<in> the_preced s ` {th'. Th th' \<in> subtree (RAG s) (Th th)}"
+ by (simp add: subtree_def the_preced_def)
+ qed
+
+lemma cp_le:
+ assumes th_in: "th \<in> threads s"
+ shows "cp s th \<le> Max (the_preced s ` threads s)"
+proof(unfold cp_alt_def, rule Max_f_mono)
+ show "finite (threads s)" by (simp add: finite_threads)
+next
+ show " {th'. Th th' \<in> subtree (RAG s) (Th th)} \<noteq> {}"
+ using subtree_def by fastforce
+next
+ show "{th'. Th th' \<in> subtree (RAG s) (Th th)} \<subseteq> threads s"
+ using assms
+ by (smt Domain.DomainI dm_RAG_threads mem_Collect_eq
+ node.inject(1) rtranclD subsetI subtree_def trancl_domain)
+qed
+
+lemma max_cp_eq:
+ shows "Max ((cp s) ` threads s) = Max (the_preced s ` threads s)"
+ (is "?L = ?R")
+proof -
+ have "?L \<le> ?R"
+ proof(cases "threads s = {}")
+ case False
+ show ?thesis
+ by (rule Max.boundedI,
+ insert cp_le,
+ auto simp:finite_threads False)
+ qed auto
+ moreover have "?R \<le> ?L"
+ by (rule Max_fg_mono,
+ simp add: finite_threads,
+ simp add: le_cp the_preced_def)
+ ultimately show ?thesis by auto
+qed
+
+lemma wf_RAG_converse:
shows "wf ((RAG s)^-1)"
proof(rule finite_acyclic_wf_converse)
from finite_RAG
@@ -1243,208 +2279,47 @@
show "acyclic (RAG s)" .
qed
-end
-
-lemma hd_np_in: "x \<in> set l \<Longrightarrow> hd l \<in> set l"
- by (induct l, auto)
-
-lemma th_chasing: "(Th th, Cs cs) \<in> RAG (s::state) \<Longrightarrow> \<exists> th'. (Cs cs, Th th') \<in> RAG s"
- by (auto simp:s_RAG_def s_holding_def cs_holding_def cs_waiting_def wq_def dest:hd_np_in)
-
-context valid_trace
-begin
-
-lemma wq_threads:
- assumes h: "th \<in> set (wq s cs)"
- shows "th \<in> threads s"
+lemma chain_building:
+ assumes "node \<in> Domain (RAG s)"
+ obtains th' where "th' \<in> readys s" "(node, Th th') \<in> (RAG s)^+"
proof -
- from vt and h show ?thesis
- proof(induct arbitrary: th cs)
- case (vt_cons s e)
- interpret vt_s: valid_trace s
- using vt_cons(1) by (unfold_locales, auto)
- assume ih: "\<And>th cs. th \<in> set (wq s cs) \<Longrightarrow> th \<in> threads s"
- and stp: "step s e"
- and vt: "vt s"
- and h: "th \<in> set (wq (e # s) cs)"
- show ?case
- proof(cases e)
- case (Create th' prio)
- with ih h show ?thesis
- by (auto simp:wq_def Let_def)
- next
- case (Exit th')
- with stp ih h show ?thesis
- apply (auto simp:wq_def Let_def)
- apply (ind_cases "step s (Exit th')")
- apply (auto simp:runing_def readys_def s_holding_def s_waiting_def holdents_def
- s_RAG_def s_holding_def cs_holding_def)
- done
- next
- case (V th' cs')
- show ?thesis
- proof(cases "cs' = cs")
- case False
- with h
- show ?thesis
- apply(unfold wq_def V, auto simp:Let_def V split:prod.splits, fold wq_def)
- by (drule_tac ih, simp)
- next
- case True
- from h
- show ?thesis
- proof(unfold V wq_def)
- assume th_in: "th \<in> set (wq_fun (schs (V th' cs' # s)) cs)" (is "th \<in> set ?l")
- show "th \<in> threads (V th' cs' # s)"
- proof(cases "cs = cs'")
- case False
- hence "?l = wq_fun (schs s) cs" by (simp add:Let_def)
- with th_in have " th \<in> set (wq s cs)"
- by (fold wq_def, simp)
- from ih [OF this] show ?thesis by simp
- next
- case True
- show ?thesis
- proof(cases "wq_fun (schs s) cs'")
- case Nil
- with h V show ?thesis
- apply (auto simp:wq_def Let_def split:if_splits)
- by (fold wq_def, drule_tac ih, simp)
- next
- case (Cons a rest)
- assume eq_wq: "wq_fun (schs s) cs' = a # rest"
- with h V show ?thesis
- apply (auto simp:Let_def wq_def split:if_splits)
- proof -
- assume th_in: "th \<in> set (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set rest)"
- have "set (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set rest) = set rest"
- proof(rule someI2)
- from vt_s.wq_distinct[of cs'] and eq_wq[folded wq_def]
- show "distinct rest \<and> set rest = set rest" by auto
- next
- show "\<And>x. distinct x \<and> set x = set rest \<Longrightarrow> set x = set rest"
- by auto
- qed
- with eq_wq th_in have "th \<in> set (wq_fun (schs s) cs')" by auto
- from ih[OF this[folded wq_def]] show "th \<in> threads s" .
- next
- assume th_in: "th \<in> set (wq_fun (schs s) cs)"
- from ih[OF this[folded wq_def]]
- show "th \<in> threads s" .
- qed
- qed
- qed
- qed
- qed
- next
- case (P th' cs')
- from h stp
- show ?thesis
- apply (unfold P wq_def)
- apply (auto simp:Let_def split:if_splits, fold wq_def)
- apply (auto intro:ih)
- apply(ind_cases "step s (P th' cs')")
- by (unfold runing_def readys_def, auto)
- next
- case (Set thread prio)
- with ih h show ?thesis
- by (auto simp:wq_def Let_def)
+ from assms have "node \<in> Range ((RAG s)^-1)" by auto
+ from wf_base[OF wf_RAG_converse this]
+ obtain b where h_b: "(b, node) \<in> ((RAG s)\<inverse>)\<^sup>+" "\<forall>c. (c, b) \<notin> (RAG s)\<inverse>" by auto
+ obtain th' where eq_b: "b = Th th'"
+ proof(cases b)
+ case (Cs cs)
+ from h_b(1)[unfolded trancl_converse]
+ have "(node, b) \<in> ((RAG s)\<^sup>+)" by auto
+ from tranclE[OF this]
+ obtain n where "(n, b) \<in> RAG s" by auto
+ from this[unfolded Cs]
+ obtain th1 where "waiting s th1 cs"
+ by (unfold s_RAG_def, fold waiting_eq, auto)
+ from waiting_holding[OF this]
+ obtain th2 where "holding s th2 cs" .
+ hence "(Cs cs, Th th2) \<in> RAG s"
+ by (unfold s_RAG_def, fold holding_eq, auto)
+ with h_b(2)[unfolded Cs, rule_format]
+ have False by auto
+ thus ?thesis by auto
+ qed auto
+ have "th' \<in> readys s"
+ proof -
+ from h_b(2)[unfolded eq_b]
+ have "\<forall>cs. \<not> waiting s th' cs"
+ by (unfold s_RAG_def, fold waiting_eq, auto)
+ moreover have "th' \<in> threads s"
+ proof(rule rg_RAG_threads)
+ from tranclD[OF h_b(1), unfolded eq_b]
+ obtain z where "(z, Th th') \<in> (RAG s)" by auto
+ thus "Th th' \<in> Range (RAG s)" by auto
qed
- next
- case vt_nil
- thus ?case by (auto simp:wq_def)
+ ultimately show ?thesis by (auto simp:readys_def)
qed
-qed
-
-lemma range_in: "\<lbrakk>(Th th) \<in> Range (RAG (s::state))\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> th \<in> threads s"
- apply(unfold s_RAG_def cs_waiting_def cs_holding_def)
- by (auto intro:wq_threads)
-
-lemma readys_v_eq:
- assumes neq_th: "th \<noteq> thread"
- and eq_wq: "wq s cs = thread#rest"
- and not_in: "th \<notin> set rest"
- shows "(th \<in> readys (V thread cs#s)) = (th \<in> readys s)"
-proof -
- from assms show ?thesis
- apply (auto simp:readys_def)
- apply(simp add:s_waiting_def[folded wq_def])
- apply (erule_tac x = csa in allE)
- apply (simp add:s_waiting_def wq_def Let_def split:if_splits)
- apply (case_tac "csa = cs", simp)
- apply (erule_tac x = cs in allE)
- apply(auto simp add: s_waiting_def[folded wq_def] Let_def split: list.splits)
- apply(auto simp add: wq_def)
- apply (auto simp:s_waiting_def wq_def Let_def split:list.splits)
- proof -
- assume th_nin: "th \<notin> set rest"
- and th_in: "th \<in> set (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set rest)"
- and eq_wq: "wq_fun (schs s) cs = thread # rest"
- have "set (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set rest) = set rest"
- proof(rule someI2)
- from wq_distinct[of cs, unfolded wq_def] and eq_wq[unfolded wq_def]
- show "distinct rest \<and> set rest = set rest" by auto
- next
- show "\<And>x. distinct x \<and> set x = set rest \<Longrightarrow> set x = set rest" by auto
- qed
- with th_nin th_in show False by auto
- qed
-qed
-
-text {* \noindent
- The following lemmas shows that: starting from any node in @{text "RAG"},
- by chasing out-going edges, it is always possible to reach a node representing a ready
- thread. In this lemma, it is the @{text "th'"}.
-*}
-
-lemma chain_building:
- shows "node \<in> Domain (RAG s) \<longrightarrow> (\<exists> th'. th' \<in> readys s \<and> (node, Th th') \<in> (RAG s)^+)"
-proof -
- from wf_dep_converse
- have h: "wf ((RAG s)\<inverse>)" .
- show ?thesis
- proof(induct rule:wf_induct [OF h])
- fix x
- assume ih [rule_format]:
- "\<forall>y. (y, x) \<in> (RAG s)\<inverse> \<longrightarrow>
- y \<in> Domain (RAG s) \<longrightarrow> (\<exists>th'. th' \<in> readys s \<and> (y, Th th') \<in> (RAG s)\<^sup>+)"
- show "x \<in> Domain (RAG s) \<longrightarrow> (\<exists>th'. th' \<in> readys s \<and> (x, Th th') \<in> (RAG s)\<^sup>+)"
- proof
- assume x_d: "x \<in> Domain (RAG s)"
- show "\<exists>th'. th' \<in> readys s \<and> (x, Th th') \<in> (RAG s)\<^sup>+"
- proof(cases x)
- case (Th th)
- from x_d Th obtain cs where x_in: "(Th th, Cs cs) \<in> RAG s" by (auto simp:s_RAG_def)
- with Th have x_in_r: "(Cs cs, x) \<in> (RAG s)^-1" by simp
- from th_chasing [OF x_in] obtain th' where "(Cs cs, Th th') \<in> RAG s" by blast
- hence "Cs cs \<in> Domain (RAG s)" by auto
- from ih [OF x_in_r this] obtain th'
- where th'_ready: " th' \<in> readys s" and cs_in: "(Cs cs, Th th') \<in> (RAG s)\<^sup>+" by auto
- have "(x, Th th') \<in> (RAG s)\<^sup>+" using Th x_in cs_in by auto
- with th'_ready show ?thesis by auto
- next
- case (Cs cs)
- from x_d Cs obtain th' where th'_d: "(Th th', x) \<in> (RAG s)^-1" by (auto simp:s_RAG_def)
- show ?thesis
- proof(cases "th' \<in> readys s")
- case True
- from True and th'_d show ?thesis by auto
- next
- case False
- from th'_d and range_in have "th' \<in> threads s" by auto
- with False have "Th th' \<in> Domain (RAG s)"
- by (auto simp:readys_def wq_def s_waiting_def s_RAG_def cs_waiting_def Domain_def)
- from ih [OF th'_d this]
- obtain th'' where
- th''_r: "th'' \<in> readys s" and
- th''_in: "(Th th', Th th'') \<in> (RAG s)\<^sup>+" by auto
- from th'_d and th''_in
- have "(x, Th th'') \<in> (RAG s)\<^sup>+" by auto
- with th''_r show ?thesis by auto
- qed
- qed
- qed
- qed
+ moreover have "(node, Th th') \<in> (RAG s)^+"
+ using h_b(1)[unfolded trancl_converse] eq_b by auto
+ ultimately show ?thesis using that by metis
qed
text {* \noindent
@@ -1466,182 +2341,6 @@
end
-lemma waiting_eq: "waiting s th cs = waiting (wq s) th cs"
- by (unfold s_waiting_def cs_waiting_def wq_def, auto)
-
-lemma holding_eq: "holding (s::state) th cs = holding (wq s) th cs"
- by (unfold s_holding_def wq_def cs_holding_def, simp)
-
-lemma holding_unique: "\<lbrakk>holding (s::state) th1 cs; holding s th2 cs\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> th1 = th2"
- by (unfold s_holding_def cs_holding_def, auto)
-
-context valid_trace
-begin
-
-lemma unique_RAG: "\<lbrakk>(n, n1) \<in> RAG s; (n, n2) \<in> RAG s\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> n1 = n2"
- apply(unfold s_RAG_def, auto, fold waiting_eq holding_eq)
- by(auto elim:waiting_unique holding_unique)
-
-end
-
-
-lemma trancl_split: "(a, b) \<in> r^+ \<Longrightarrow> \<exists> c. (a, c) \<in> r"
-by (induct rule:trancl_induct, auto)
-
-context valid_trace
-begin
-
-lemma dchain_unique:
- assumes th1_d: "(n, Th th1) \<in> (RAG s)^+"
- and th1_r: "th1 \<in> readys s"
- and th2_d: "(n, Th th2) \<in> (RAG s)^+"
- and th2_r: "th2 \<in> readys s"
- shows "th1 = th2"
-proof -
- { assume neq: "th1 \<noteq> th2"
- hence "Th th1 \<noteq> Th th2" by simp
- from unique_chain [OF _ th1_d th2_d this] and unique_RAG
- have "(Th th1, Th th2) \<in> (RAG s)\<^sup>+ \<or> (Th th2, Th th1) \<in> (RAG s)\<^sup>+" by auto
- hence "False"
- proof
- assume "(Th th1, Th th2) \<in> (RAG s)\<^sup>+"
- from trancl_split [OF this]
- obtain n where dd: "(Th th1, n) \<in> RAG s" by auto
- then obtain cs where eq_n: "n = Cs cs"
- by (auto simp:s_RAG_def s_holding_def cs_holding_def cs_waiting_def wq_def dest:hd_np_in)
- from dd eq_n have "th1 \<notin> readys s"
- by (auto simp:readys_def s_RAG_def wq_def s_waiting_def cs_waiting_def)
- with th1_r show ?thesis by auto
- next
- assume "(Th th2, Th th1) \<in> (RAG s)\<^sup>+"
- from trancl_split [OF this]
- obtain n where dd: "(Th th2, n) \<in> RAG s" by auto
- then obtain cs where eq_n: "n = Cs cs"
- by (auto simp:s_RAG_def s_holding_def cs_holding_def cs_waiting_def wq_def dest:hd_np_in)
- from dd eq_n have "th2 \<notin> readys s"
- by (auto simp:readys_def wq_def s_RAG_def s_waiting_def cs_waiting_def)
- with th2_r show ?thesis by auto
- qed
- } thus ?thesis by auto
-qed
-
-end
-
-
-lemma step_holdents_p_add:
- assumes vt: "vt (P th cs#s)"
- and "wq s cs = []"
- shows "holdents (P th cs#s) th = holdents s th \<union> {cs}"
-proof -
- from assms show ?thesis
- unfolding holdents_test step_RAG_p[OF vt] by (auto)
-qed
-
-lemma step_holdents_p_eq:
- assumes vt: "vt (P th cs#s)"
- and "wq s cs \<noteq> []"
- shows "holdents (P th cs#s) th = holdents s th"
-proof -
- from assms show ?thesis
- unfolding holdents_test step_RAG_p[OF vt] by auto
-qed
-
-
-lemma (in valid_trace) finite_holding :
- shows "finite (holdents s th)"
-proof -
- let ?F = "\<lambda> (x, y). the_cs x"
- from finite_RAG
- have "finite (RAG s)" .
- hence "finite (?F `(RAG s))" by simp
- moreover have "{cs . (Cs cs, Th th) \<in> RAG s} \<subseteq> \<dots>"
- proof -
- { have h: "\<And> a A f. a \<in> A \<Longrightarrow> f a \<in> f ` A" by auto
- fix x assume "(Cs x, Th th) \<in> RAG s"
- hence "?F (Cs x, Th th) \<in> ?F `(RAG s)" by (rule h)
- moreover have "?F (Cs x, Th th) = x" by simp
- ultimately have "x \<in> (\<lambda>(x, y). the_cs x) ` RAG s" by simp
- } thus ?thesis by auto
- qed
- ultimately show ?thesis by (unfold holdents_test, auto intro:finite_subset)
-qed
-
-lemma cntCS_v_dec:
- assumes vtv: "vt (V thread cs#s)"
- shows "(cntCS (V thread cs#s) thread + 1) = cntCS s thread"
-proof -
- from vtv interpret vt_s: valid_trace s
- by (cases, unfold_locales, simp)
- from vtv interpret vt_v: valid_trace "V thread cs#s"
- by (unfold_locales, simp)
- from step_back_step[OF vtv]
- have cs_in: "cs \<in> holdents s thread"
- apply (cases, unfold holdents_test s_RAG_def, simp)
- by (unfold cs_holding_def s_holding_def wq_def, auto)
- moreover have cs_not_in:
- "(holdents (V thread cs#s) thread) = holdents s thread - {cs}"
- apply (insert vt_s.wq_distinct[of cs])
- apply (unfold holdents_test, unfold step_RAG_v[OF vtv],
- auto simp:next_th_def)
- proof -
- fix rest
- assume dst: "distinct (rest::thread list)"
- and ne: "rest \<noteq> []"
- and hd_ni: "hd (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set rest) \<notin> set rest"
- moreover have "set (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set rest) = set rest"
- proof(rule someI2)
- from dst show "distinct rest \<and> set rest = set rest" by auto
- next
- show "\<And>x. distinct x \<and> set x = set rest \<Longrightarrow> set x = set rest" by auto
- qed
- ultimately have "hd (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set rest) \<notin>
- set (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set rest)" by simp
- moreover have "(SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set rest) \<noteq> []"
- proof(rule someI2)
- from dst show "distinct rest \<and> set rest = set rest" by auto
- next
- fix x assume " distinct x \<and> set x = set rest" with ne
- show "x \<noteq> []" by auto
- qed
- ultimately
- show "(Cs cs, Th (hd (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set rest))) \<in> RAG s"
- by auto
- next
- fix rest
- assume dst: "distinct (rest::thread list)"
- and ne: "rest \<noteq> []"
- and hd_ni: "hd (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set rest) \<notin> set rest"
- moreover have "set (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set rest) = set rest"
- proof(rule someI2)
- from dst show "distinct rest \<and> set rest = set rest" by auto
- next
- show "\<And>x. distinct x \<and> set x = set rest \<Longrightarrow> set x = set rest" by auto
- qed
- ultimately have "hd (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set rest) \<notin>
- set (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set rest)" by simp
- moreover have "(SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set rest) \<noteq> []"
- proof(rule someI2)
- from dst show "distinct rest \<and> set rest = set rest" by auto
- next
- fix x assume " distinct x \<and> set x = set rest" with ne
- show "x \<noteq> []" by auto
- qed
- ultimately show "False" by auto
- qed
- ultimately
- have "holdents s thread = insert cs (holdents (V thread cs#s) thread)"
- by auto
- moreover have "card \<dots> =
- Suc (card ((holdents (V thread cs#s) thread) - {cs}))"
- proof(rule card_insert)
- from vt_v.finite_holding
- show " finite (holdents (V thread cs # s) thread)" .
- qed
- moreover from cs_not_in
- have "cs \<notin> (holdents (V thread cs#s) thread)" by auto
- ultimately show ?thesis by (simp add:cntCS_def)
-qed
-
lemma count_rec1 [simp]:
assumes "Q e"
shows "count Q (e#es) = Suc (count Q es)"
@@ -1657,7 +2356,39 @@
lemma count_rec3 [simp]:
shows "count Q [] = 0"
by (unfold count_def, auto)
-
+
+lemma cntP_simp1[simp]:
+ "cntP (P th cs'#s) th = cntP s th + 1"
+ by (unfold cntP_def, simp)
+
+lemma cntP_simp2[simp]:
+ assumes "th' \<noteq> th"
+ shows "cntP (P th cs'#s) th' = cntP s th'"
+ using assms
+ by (unfold cntP_def, simp)
+
+lemma cntP_simp3[simp]:
+ assumes "\<not> isP e"
+ shows "cntP (e#s) th' = cntP s th'"
+ using assms
+ by (unfold cntP_def, cases e, simp+)
+
+lemma cntV_simp1[simp]:
+ "cntV (V th cs'#s) th = cntV s th + 1"
+ by (unfold cntV_def, simp)
+
+lemma cntV_simp2[simp]:
+ assumes "th' \<noteq> th"
+ shows "cntV (V th cs'#s) th' = cntV s th'"
+ using assms
+ by (unfold cntV_def, simp)
+
+lemma cntV_simp3[simp]:
+ assumes "\<not> isV e"
+ shows "cntV (e#s) th' = cntV s th'"
+ using assms
+ by (unfold cntV_def, cases e, simp+)
+
lemma cntP_diff_inv:
assumes "cntP (e#s) th \<noteq> cntP s th"
shows "isP e \<and> actor e = th"
@@ -1667,17 +2398,7 @@
by (cases "(\<lambda>e. \<exists>cs. e = P th cs) (P th' pty)",
insert assms P, auto simp:cntP_def)
qed (insert assms, auto simp:cntP_def)
-
-lemma isP_E:
- assumes "isP e"
- obtains cs where "e = P (actor e) cs"
- using assms by (cases e, auto)
-
-lemma isV_E:
- assumes "isV e"
- obtains cs where "e = V (actor e) cs"
- using assms by (cases e, auto) (* ccc *)
-
+
lemma cntV_diff_inv:
assumes "cntV (e#s) th \<noteq> cntV s th"
shows "isV e \<and> actor e = th"
@@ -1688,659 +2409,1256 @@
insert assms V, auto simp:cntV_def)
qed (insert assms, auto simp:cntV_def)
+lemma children_RAG_alt_def:
+ "children (RAG (s::state)) (Th th) = Cs ` {cs. holding s th cs}"
+ by (unfold s_RAG_def, auto simp:children_def holding_eq)
+
+lemma holdents_alt_def:
+ "holdents s th = the_cs ` (children (RAG (s::state)) (Th th))"
+ by (unfold children_RAG_alt_def holdents_def, simp add: image_image)
+
+lemma cntCS_alt_def:
+ "cntCS s th = card (children (RAG s) (Th th))"
+ apply (unfold children_RAG_alt_def cntCS_def holdents_def)
+ by (rule card_image[symmetric], auto simp:inj_on_def)
+
context valid_trace
begin
-text {* (* ddd *) \noindent
- The relationship between @{text "cntP"}, @{text "cntV"} and @{text "cntCS"}
- of one particular thread.
-*}
-
-lemma cnp_cnv_cncs:
- shows "cntP s th = cntV s th + (if (th \<in> readys s \<or> th \<notin> threads s)
- then cntCS s th else cntCS s th + 1)"
+lemma finite_holdents: "finite (holdents s th)"
+ by (unfold holdents_alt_def, insert fsbtRAGs.finite_children, auto)
+
+end
+
+context valid_trace_p_w
+begin
+
+lemma holding_s_holder: "holding s holder cs"
+ by (unfold s_holding_def, fold wq_def, unfold wq_s_cs, auto)
+
+lemma holding_es_holder: "holding (e#s) holder cs"
+ by (unfold s_holding_def, fold wq_def, unfold wq_es_cs wq_s_cs, auto)
+
+lemma holdents_es:
+ shows "holdents (e#s) th' = holdents s th'" (is "?L = ?R")
proof -
- from vt show ?thesis
- proof(induct arbitrary:th)
- case (vt_cons s e)
- interpret vt_s: valid_trace s using vt_cons(1) by (unfold_locales, simp)
- assume vt: "vt s"
- and ih: "\<And>th. cntP s th = cntV s th +
- (if (th \<in> readys s \<or> th \<notin> threads s) then cntCS s th else cntCS s th + 1)"
- and stp: "step s e"
- from stp show ?case
- proof(cases)
- case (thread_create thread prio)
- assume eq_e: "e = Create thread prio"
- and not_in: "thread \<notin> threads s"
+ { fix cs'
+ assume "cs' \<in> ?L"
+ hence h: "holding (e#s) th' cs'" by (auto simp:holdents_def)
+ have "holding s th' cs'"
+ proof(cases "cs' = cs")
+ case True
+ from held_unique[OF h[unfolded True] holding_es_holder]
+ have "th' = holder" .
+ thus ?thesis
+ by (unfold True holdents_def, insert holding_s_holder, simp)
+ next
+ case False
+ hence "wq (e#s) cs' = wq s cs'" by simp
+ from h[unfolded s_holding_def, folded wq_def, unfolded this]
+ show ?thesis
+ by (unfold s_holding_def, fold wq_def, auto)
+ qed
+ hence "cs' \<in> ?R" by (auto simp:holdents_def)
+ } moreover {
+ fix cs'
+ assume "cs' \<in> ?R"
+ hence h: "holding s th' cs'" by (auto simp:holdents_def)
+ have "holding (e#s) th' cs'"
+ proof(cases "cs' = cs")
+ case True
+ from held_unique[OF h[unfolded True] holding_s_holder]
+ have "th' = holder" .
+ thus ?thesis
+ by (unfold True holdents_def, insert holding_es_holder, simp)
+ next
+ case False
+ hence "wq s cs' = wq (e#s) cs'" by simp
+ from h[unfolded s_holding_def, folded wq_def, unfolded this]
show ?thesis
- proof -
- { fix cs
- assume "thread \<in> set (wq s cs)"
- from vt_s.wq_threads [OF this] have "thread \<in> threads s" .
- with not_in have "False" by simp
- } with eq_e have eq_readys: "readys (e#s) = readys s \<union> {thread}"
- by (auto simp:readys_def threads.simps s_waiting_def
- wq_def cs_waiting_def Let_def)
- from eq_e have eq_cnp: "cntP (e#s) th = cntP s th" by (simp add:cntP_def count_def)
- from eq_e have eq_cnv: "cntV (e#s) th = cntV s th" by (simp add:cntV_def count_def)
- have eq_cncs: "cntCS (e#s) th = cntCS s th"
- unfolding cntCS_def holdents_test
- by (simp add:RAG_create_unchanged eq_e)
- { assume "th \<noteq> thread"
- with eq_readys eq_e
- have "(th \<in> readys (e # s) \<or> th \<notin> threads (e # s)) =
- (th \<in> readys (s) \<or> th \<notin> threads (s))"
- by (simp add:threads.simps)
- with eq_cnp eq_cnv eq_cncs ih not_in
- have ?thesis by simp
- } moreover {
- assume eq_th: "th = thread"
- with not_in ih have " cntP s th = cntV s th + cntCS s th" by simp
- moreover from eq_th and eq_readys have "th \<in> readys (e#s)" by simp
- moreover note eq_cnp eq_cnv eq_cncs
- ultimately have ?thesis by auto
- } ultimately show ?thesis by blast
- qed
+ by (unfold s_holding_def, fold wq_def, auto)
+ qed
+ hence "cs' \<in> ?L" by (auto simp:holdents_def)
+ } ultimately show ?thesis by auto
+qed
+
+lemma cntCS_es_th[simp]: "cntCS (e#s) th' = cntCS s th'"
+ by (unfold cntCS_def holdents_es, simp)
+
+lemma th_not_ready_es:
+ shows "th \<notin> readys (e#s)"
+ using waiting_es_th_cs
+ by (unfold readys_def, auto)
+
+end
+
+context valid_trace_p_h
+begin
+
+lemma th_not_waiting':
+ "\<not> waiting (e#s) th cs'"
+proof(cases "cs' = cs")
+ case True
+ show ?thesis
+ by (unfold True s_waiting_def, fold wq_def, unfold wq_es_cs', auto)
+next
+ case False
+ from th_not_waiting[of cs', unfolded s_waiting_def, folded wq_def]
+ show ?thesis
+ by (unfold s_waiting_def, fold wq_def, insert False, simp)
+qed
+
+lemma ready_th_es:
+ shows "th \<in> readys (e#s)"
+ using th_not_waiting'
+ by (unfold readys_def, insert live_th_es, auto)
+
+lemma holdents_es_th:
+ "holdents (e#s) th = (holdents s th) \<union> {cs}" (is "?L = ?R")
+proof -
+ { fix cs'
+ assume "cs' \<in> ?L"
+ hence "holding (e#s) th cs'"
+ by (unfold holdents_def, auto)
+ hence "cs' \<in> ?R"
+ by (cases rule:holding_esE, auto simp:holdents_def)
+ } moreover {
+ fix cs'
+ assume "cs' \<in> ?R"
+ hence "holding s th cs' \<or> cs' = cs"
+ by (auto simp:holdents_def)
+ hence "cs' \<in> ?L"
+ proof
+ assume "holding s th cs'"
+ from holding_kept[OF this]
+ show ?thesis by (auto simp:holdents_def)
next
- case (thread_exit thread)
- assume eq_e: "e = Exit thread"
- and is_runing: "thread \<in> runing s"
- and no_hold: "holdents s thread = {}"
- from eq_e have eq_cnp: "cntP (e#s) th = cntP s th" by (simp add:cntP_def count_def)
- from eq_e have eq_cnv: "cntV (e#s) th = cntV s th" by (simp add:cntV_def count_def)
- have eq_cncs: "cntCS (e#s) th = cntCS s th"
- unfolding cntCS_def holdents_test
- by (simp add:RAG_exit_unchanged eq_e)
- { assume "th \<noteq> thread"
- with eq_e
- have "(th \<in> readys (e # s) \<or> th \<notin> threads (e # s)) =
- (th \<in> readys (s) \<or> th \<notin> threads (s))"
- apply (simp add:threads.simps readys_def)
- apply (subst s_waiting_def)
- apply (simp add:Let_def)
- apply (subst s_waiting_def, simp)
- done
- with eq_cnp eq_cnv eq_cncs ih
- have ?thesis by simp
- } moreover {
- assume eq_th: "th = thread"
- with ih is_runing have " cntP s th = cntV s th + cntCS s th"
- by (simp add:runing_def)
- moreover from eq_th eq_e have "th \<notin> threads (e#s)"
- by simp
- moreover note eq_cnp eq_cnv eq_cncs
- ultimately have ?thesis by auto
- } ultimately show ?thesis by blast
+ assume "cs' = cs"
+ thus ?thesis using holding_es_th_cs
+ by (unfold holdents_def, auto)
+ qed
+ } ultimately show ?thesis by auto
+qed
+
+lemma cntCS_es_th: "cntCS (e#s) th = cntCS s th + 1"
+proof -
+ have "card (holdents s th \<union> {cs}) = card (holdents s th) + 1"
+ proof(subst card_Un_disjoint)
+ show "holdents s th \<inter> {cs} = {}"
+ using not_holding_s_th_cs by (auto simp:holdents_def)
+ qed (auto simp:finite_holdents)
+ thus ?thesis
+ by (unfold cntCS_def holdents_es_th, simp)
+qed
+
+lemma no_holder:
+ "\<not> holding s th' cs"
+proof
+ assume otherwise: "holding s th' cs"
+ from this[unfolded s_holding_def, folded wq_def, unfolded we]
+ show False by auto
+qed
+
+lemma holdents_es_th':
+ assumes "th' \<noteq> th"
+ shows "holdents (e#s) th' = holdents s th'" (is "?L = ?R")
+proof -
+ { fix cs'
+ assume "cs' \<in> ?L"
+ hence h_e: "holding (e#s) th' cs'" by (auto simp:holdents_def)
+ have "cs' \<noteq> cs"
+ proof
+ assume "cs' = cs"
+ from held_unique[OF h_e[unfolded this] holding_es_th_cs]
+ have "th' = th" .
+ with assms show False by simp
+ qed
+ from h_e[unfolded s_holding_def, folded wq_def, unfolded wq_neq_simp[OF this]]
+ have "th' \<in> set (wq s cs') \<and> th' = hd (wq s cs')" .
+ hence "cs' \<in> ?R"
+ by (unfold holdents_def s_holding_def, fold wq_def, auto)
+ } moreover {
+ fix cs'
+ assume "cs' \<in> ?R"
+ hence "holding s th' cs'" by (auto simp:holdents_def)
+ from holding_kept[OF this]
+ have "holding (e # s) th' cs'" .
+ hence "cs' \<in> ?L"
+ by (unfold holdents_def, auto)
+ } ultimately show ?thesis by auto
+qed
+
+lemma cntCS_es_th'[simp]:
+ assumes "th' \<noteq> th"
+ shows "cntCS (e#s) th' = cntCS s th'"
+ by (unfold cntCS_def holdents_es_th'[OF assms], simp)
+
+end
+
+context valid_trace_p
+begin
+
+lemma readys_kept1:
+ assumes "th' \<noteq> th"
+ and "th' \<in> readys (e#s)"
+ shows "th' \<in> readys s"
+proof -
+ { fix cs'
+ assume wait: "waiting s th' cs'"
+ have n_wait: "\<not> waiting (e#s) th' cs'"
+ using assms(2)[unfolded readys_def] by auto
+ have False
+ proof(cases "cs' = cs")
+ case False
+ with n_wait wait
+ show ?thesis
+ by (unfold s_waiting_def, fold wq_def, auto)
next
- case (thread_P thread cs)
- assume eq_e: "e = P thread cs"
- and is_runing: "thread \<in> runing s"
- and no_dep: "(Cs cs, Th thread) \<notin> (RAG s)\<^sup>+"
- from thread_P vt stp ih have vtp: "vt (P thread cs#s)" by auto
- then interpret vt_p: valid_trace "(P thread cs#s)"
- by (unfold_locales, simp)
+ case True
+ show ?thesis
+ proof(cases "wq s cs = []")
+ case True
+ then interpret vt: valid_trace_p_h
+ by (unfold_locales, simp)
+ show ?thesis using n_wait wait waiting_kept by auto
+ next
+ case False
+ then interpret vt: valid_trace_p_w by (unfold_locales, simp)
+ show ?thesis using n_wait wait waiting_kept by blast
+ qed
+ qed
+ } with assms(2) show ?thesis
+ by (unfold readys_def, auto)
+qed
+
+lemma readys_kept2:
+ assumes "th' \<noteq> th"
+ and "th' \<in> readys s"
+ shows "th' \<in> readys (e#s)"
+proof -
+ { fix cs'
+ assume wait: "waiting (e#s) th' cs'"
+ have n_wait: "\<not> waiting s th' cs'"
+ using assms(2)[unfolded readys_def] by auto
+ have False
+ proof(cases "cs' = cs")
+ case False
+ with n_wait wait
show ?thesis
- proof -
- { have hh: "\<And> A B C. (B = C) \<Longrightarrow> (A \<and> B) = (A \<and> C)" by blast
- assume neq_th: "th \<noteq> thread"
- with eq_e
- have eq_readys: "(th \<in> readys (e#s)) = (th \<in> readys (s))"
- apply (simp add:readys_def s_waiting_def wq_def Let_def)
- apply (rule_tac hh)
- apply (intro iffI allI, clarify)
- apply (erule_tac x = csa in allE, auto)
- apply (subgoal_tac "wq_fun (schs s) cs \<noteq> []", auto)
- apply (erule_tac x = cs in allE, auto)
- by (case_tac "(wq_fun (schs s) cs)", auto)
- moreover from neq_th eq_e have "cntCS (e # s) th = cntCS s th"
- apply (simp add:cntCS_def holdents_test)
- by (unfold step_RAG_p [OF vtp], auto)
- moreover from eq_e neq_th have "cntP (e # s) th = cntP s th"
- by (simp add:cntP_def count_def)
- moreover from eq_e neq_th have "cntV (e#s) th = cntV s th"
- by (simp add:cntV_def count_def)
- moreover from eq_e neq_th have "threads (e#s) = threads s" by simp
- moreover note ih [of th]
- ultimately have ?thesis by simp
- } moreover {
- assume eq_th: "th = thread"
- have ?thesis
- proof -
- from eq_e eq_th have eq_cnp: "cntP (e # s) th = 1 + (cntP s th)"
- by (simp add:cntP_def count_def)
- from eq_e eq_th have eq_cnv: "cntV (e#s) th = cntV s th"
- by (simp add:cntV_def count_def)
- show ?thesis
- proof (cases "wq s cs = []")
- case True
- with is_runing
- have "th \<in> readys (e#s)"
- apply (unfold eq_e wq_def, unfold readys_def s_RAG_def)
- apply (simp add: wq_def[symmetric] runing_def eq_th s_waiting_def)
- by (auto simp:readys_def wq_def Let_def s_waiting_def wq_def)
- moreover have "cntCS (e # s) th = 1 + cntCS s th"
- proof -
- have "card {csa. csa = cs \<or> (Cs csa, Th thread) \<in> RAG s} =
- Suc (card {cs. (Cs cs, Th thread) \<in> RAG s})" (is "card ?L = Suc (card ?R)")
- proof -
- have "?L = insert cs ?R" by auto
- moreover have "card \<dots> = Suc (card (?R - {cs}))"
- proof(rule card_insert)
- from vt_s.finite_holding [of thread]
- show " finite {cs. (Cs cs, Th thread) \<in> RAG s}"
- by (unfold holdents_test, simp)
- qed
- moreover have "?R - {cs} = ?R"
- proof -
- have "cs \<notin> ?R"
- proof
- assume "cs \<in> {cs. (Cs cs, Th thread) \<in> RAG s}"
- with no_dep show False by auto
- qed
- thus ?thesis by auto
- qed
- ultimately show ?thesis by auto
- qed
- thus ?thesis
- apply (unfold eq_e eq_th cntCS_def)
- apply (simp add: holdents_test)
- by (unfold step_RAG_p [OF vtp], auto simp:True)
- qed
- moreover from is_runing have "th \<in> readys s"
- by (simp add:runing_def eq_th)
- moreover note eq_cnp eq_cnv ih [of th]
- ultimately show ?thesis by auto
- next
- case False
- have eq_wq: "wq (e#s) cs = wq s cs @ [th]"
- by (unfold eq_th eq_e wq_def, auto simp:Let_def)
- have "th \<notin> readys (e#s)"
- proof
- assume "th \<in> readys (e#s)"
- hence "\<forall>cs. \<not> waiting (e # s) th cs" by (simp add:readys_def)
- from this[rule_format, of cs] have " \<not> waiting (e # s) th cs" .
- hence "th \<in> set (wq (e#s) cs) \<Longrightarrow> th = hd (wq (e#s) cs)"
- by (simp add:s_waiting_def wq_def)
- moreover from eq_wq have "th \<in> set (wq (e#s) cs)" by auto
- ultimately have "th = hd (wq (e#s) cs)" by blast
- with eq_wq have "th = hd (wq s cs @ [th])" by simp
- hence "th = hd (wq s cs)" using False by auto
- with False eq_wq vt_p.wq_distinct [of cs]
- show False by (fold eq_e, auto)
- qed
- moreover from is_runing have "th \<in> threads (e#s)"
- by (unfold eq_e, auto simp:runing_def readys_def eq_th)
- moreover have "cntCS (e # s) th = cntCS s th"
- apply (unfold cntCS_def holdents_test eq_e step_RAG_p[OF vtp])
- by (auto simp:False)
- moreover note eq_cnp eq_cnv ih[of th]
- moreover from is_runing have "th \<in> readys s"
- by (simp add:runing_def eq_th)
- ultimately show ?thesis by auto
- qed
- qed
- } ultimately show ?thesis by blast
+ by (unfold s_waiting_def, fold wq_def, auto)
+ next
+ case True
+ show ?thesis
+ proof(cases "wq s cs = []")
+ case True
+ then interpret vt: valid_trace_p_h
+ by (unfold_locales, simp)
+ show ?thesis using n_wait vt.waiting_esE wait by blast
+ next
+ case False
+ then interpret vt: valid_trace_p_w by (unfold_locales, simp)
+ show ?thesis using assms(1) n_wait vt.waiting_esE wait by auto
qed
+ qed
+ } with assms(2) show ?thesis
+ by (unfold readys_def, auto)
+qed
+
+lemma readys_simp [simp]:
+ assumes "th' \<noteq> th"
+ shows "(th' \<in> readys (e#s)) = (th' \<in> readys s)"
+ using readys_kept1[OF assms] readys_kept2[OF assms]
+ by metis
+
+lemma cnp_cnv_cncs_kept: (* ddd *)
+ assumes "cntP s th' = cntV s th' + cntCS s th' + pvD s th'"
+ shows "cntP (e#s) th' = cntV (e#s) th' + cntCS (e#s) th' + pvD (e#s) th'"
+proof(cases "th' = th")
+ case True
+ note eq_th' = this
+ show ?thesis
+ proof(cases "wq s cs = []")
+ case True
+ then interpret vt: valid_trace_p_h by (unfold_locales, simp)
+ show ?thesis
+ using assms eq_th' is_p ready_th_s vt.cntCS_es_th vt.ready_th_es pvD_def by auto
+ next
+ case False
+ then interpret vt: valid_trace_p_w by (unfold_locales, simp)
+ show ?thesis
+ using add.commute add.left_commute assms eq_th' is_p live_th_s
+ ready_th_s vt.th_not_ready_es pvD_def
+ apply (auto)
+ by (fold is_p, simp)
+ qed
+next
+ case False
+ note h_False = False
+ thus ?thesis
+ proof(cases "wq s cs = []")
+ case True
+ then interpret vt: valid_trace_p_h by (unfold_locales, simp)
+ show ?thesis using assms
+ by (insert True h_False pvD_def, auto split:if_splits,unfold is_p, auto)
+ next
+ case False
+ then interpret vt: valid_trace_p_w by (unfold_locales, simp)
+ show ?thesis using assms
+ by (insert False h_False pvD_def, auto split:if_splits,unfold is_p, auto)
+ qed
+qed
+
+end
+
+
+context valid_trace_v (* ccc *)
+begin
+
+lemma holding_th_cs_s:
+ "holding s th cs"
+ by (unfold s_holding_def, fold wq_def, unfold wq_s_cs, auto)
+
+lemma th_ready_s [simp]: "th \<in> readys s"
+ using runing_th_s
+ by (unfold runing_def readys_def, auto)
+
+lemma th_live_s [simp]: "th \<in> threads s"
+ using th_ready_s by (unfold readys_def, auto)
+
+lemma th_ready_es [simp]: "th \<in> readys (e#s)"
+ using runing_th_s neq_t_th
+ by (unfold is_v runing_def readys_def, auto)
+
+lemma th_live_es [simp]: "th \<in> threads (e#s)"
+ using th_ready_es by (unfold readys_def, auto)
+
+lemma pvD_th_s[simp]: "pvD s th = 0"
+ by (unfold pvD_def, simp)
+
+lemma pvD_th_es[simp]: "pvD (e#s) th = 0"
+ by (unfold pvD_def, simp)
+
+lemma cntCS_s_th [simp]: "cntCS s th > 0"
+proof -
+ have "cs \<in> holdents s th" using holding_th_cs_s
+ by (unfold holdents_def, simp)
+ moreover have "finite (holdents s th)" using finite_holdents
+ by simp
+ ultimately show ?thesis
+ by (unfold cntCS_def,
+ auto intro!:card_gt_0_iff[symmetric, THEN iffD1])
+qed
+
+end
+
+context valid_trace_v_n
+begin
+
+lemma not_ready_taker_s[simp]:
+ "taker \<notin> readys s"
+ using waiting_taker
+ by (unfold readys_def, auto)
+
+lemma taker_live_s [simp]: "taker \<in> threads s"
+proof -
+ have "taker \<in> set wq'" by (simp add: eq_wq')
+ from th'_in_inv[OF this]
+ have "taker \<in> set rest" .
+ hence "taker \<in> set (wq s cs)" by (simp add: wq_s_cs)
+ thus ?thesis using wq_threads by auto
+qed
+
+lemma taker_live_es [simp]: "taker \<in> threads (e#s)"
+ using taker_live_s threads_es by blast
+
+lemma taker_ready_es [simp]:
+ shows "taker \<in> readys (e#s)"
+proof -
+ { fix cs'
+ assume "waiting (e#s) taker cs'"
+ hence False
+ proof(cases rule:waiting_esE)
+ case 1
+ thus ?thesis using waiting_taker waiting_unique by auto
+ qed simp
+ } thus ?thesis by (unfold readys_def, auto)
+qed
+
+lemma neq_taker_th: "taker \<noteq> th"
+ using th_not_waiting waiting_taker by blast
+
+lemma not_holding_taker_s_cs:
+ shows "\<not> holding s taker cs"
+ using holding_cs_eq_th neq_taker_th by auto
+
+lemma holdents_es_taker:
+ "holdents (e#s) taker = holdents s taker \<union> {cs}" (is "?L = ?R")
+proof -
+ { fix cs'
+ assume "cs' \<in> ?L"
+ hence "holding (e#s) taker cs'" by (auto simp:holdents_def)
+ hence "cs' \<in> ?R"
+ proof(cases rule:holding_esE)
+ case 2
+ thus ?thesis by (auto simp:holdents_def)
+ qed auto
+ } moreover {
+ fix cs'
+ assume "cs' \<in> ?R"
+ hence "holding s taker cs' \<or> cs' = cs" by (auto simp:holdents_def)
+ hence "cs' \<in> ?L"
+ proof
+ assume "holding s taker cs'"
+ hence "holding (e#s) taker cs'"
+ using holding_esI2 holding_taker by fastforce
+ thus ?thesis by (auto simp:holdents_def)
next
- case (thread_V thread cs)
- from assms vt stp ih thread_V have vtv: "vt (V thread cs # s)" by auto
- then interpret vt_v: valid_trace "(V thread cs # s)" by (unfold_locales, simp)
- assume eq_e: "e = V thread cs"
- and is_runing: "thread \<in> runing s"
- and hold: "holding s thread cs"
- from hold obtain rest
- where eq_wq: "wq s cs = thread # rest"
- by (case_tac "wq s cs", auto simp: wq_def s_holding_def)
- have eq_threads: "threads (e#s) = threads s" by (simp add: eq_e)
- have eq_set: "set (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set rest) = set rest"
- proof(rule someI2)
- from vt_v.wq_distinct[of cs] and eq_wq
- show "distinct rest \<and> set rest = set rest"
- by (metis distinct.simps(2) vt_s.wq_distinct)
- next
- show "\<And>x. distinct x \<and> set x = set rest \<Longrightarrow> set x = set rest"
- by auto
- qed
+ assume "cs' = cs"
+ with holding_taker
+ show ?thesis by (auto simp:holdents_def)
+ qed
+ } ultimately show ?thesis by auto
+qed
+
+lemma cntCS_es_taker [simp]: "cntCS (e#s) taker = cntCS s taker + 1"
+proof -
+ have "card (holdents s taker \<union> {cs}) = card (holdents s taker) + 1"
+ proof(subst card_Un_disjoint)
+ show "holdents s taker \<inter> {cs} = {}"
+ using not_holding_taker_s_cs by (auto simp:holdents_def)
+ qed (auto simp:finite_holdents)
+ thus ?thesis
+ by (unfold cntCS_def, insert holdents_es_taker, simp)
+qed
+
+lemma pvD_taker_s[simp]: "pvD s taker = 1"
+ by (unfold pvD_def, simp)
+
+lemma pvD_taker_es[simp]: "pvD (e#s) taker = 0"
+ by (unfold pvD_def, simp)
+
+lemma pvD_th_s[simp]: "pvD s th = 0"
+ by (unfold pvD_def, simp)
+
+lemma pvD_th_es[simp]: "pvD (e#s) th = 0"
+ by (unfold pvD_def, simp)
+
+lemma holdents_es_th:
+ "holdents (e#s) th = holdents s th - {cs}" (is "?L = ?R")
+proof -
+ { fix cs'
+ assume "cs' \<in> ?L"
+ hence "holding (e#s) th cs'" by (auto simp:holdents_def)
+ hence "cs' \<in> ?R"
+ proof(cases rule:holding_esE)
+ case 2
+ thus ?thesis by (auto simp:holdents_def)
+ qed (insert neq_taker_th, auto)
+ } moreover {
+ fix cs'
+ assume "cs' \<in> ?R"
+ hence "cs' \<noteq> cs" "holding s th cs'" by (auto simp:holdents_def)
+ from holding_esI2[OF this]
+ have "cs' \<in> ?L" by (auto simp:holdents_def)
+ } ultimately show ?thesis by auto
+qed
+
+lemma cntCS_es_th [simp]: "cntCS (e#s) th = cntCS s th - 1"
+proof -
+ have "card (holdents s th - {cs}) = card (holdents s th) - 1"
+ proof -
+ have "cs \<in> holdents s th" using holding_th_cs_s
+ by (auto simp:holdents_def)
+ moreover have "finite (holdents s th)"
+ by (simp add: finite_holdents)
+ ultimately show ?thesis by auto
+ qed
+ thus ?thesis by (unfold cntCS_def holdents_es_th)
+qed
+
+lemma holdents_kept:
+ assumes "th' \<noteq> taker"
+ and "th' \<noteq> th"
+ shows "holdents (e#s) th' = holdents s th'" (is "?L = ?R")
+proof -
+ { fix cs'
+ assume h: "cs' \<in> ?L"
+ have "cs' \<in> ?R"
+ proof(cases "cs' = cs")
+ case False
+ hence eq_wq: "wq (e#s) cs' = wq s cs'" by simp
+ from h have "holding (e#s) th' cs'" by (auto simp:holdents_def)
+ from this[unfolded s_holding_def, folded wq_def, unfolded eq_wq]
+ show ?thesis
+ by (unfold holdents_def s_holding_def, fold wq_def, auto)
+ next
+ case True
+ from h[unfolded this]
+ have "holding (e#s) th' cs" by (auto simp:holdents_def)
+ from held_unique[OF this holding_taker]
+ have "th' = taker" .
+ with assms show ?thesis by auto
+ qed
+ } moreover {
+ fix cs'
+ assume h: "cs' \<in> ?R"
+ have "cs' \<in> ?L"
+ proof(cases "cs' = cs")
+ case False
+ hence eq_wq: "wq (e#s) cs' = wq s cs'" by simp
+ from h have "holding s th' cs'" by (auto simp:holdents_def)
+ from this[unfolded s_holding_def, folded wq_def, unfolded eq_wq]
show ?thesis
- proof -
- { assume eq_th: "th = thread"
- from eq_th have eq_cnp: "cntP (e # s) th = cntP s th"
- by (unfold eq_e, simp add:cntP_def count_def)
- moreover from eq_th have eq_cnv: "cntV (e#s) th = 1 + cntV s th"
- by (unfold eq_e, simp add:cntV_def count_def)
- moreover from cntCS_v_dec [OF vtv]
- have "cntCS (e # s) thread + 1 = cntCS s thread"
- by (simp add:eq_e)
- moreover from is_runing have rd_before: "thread \<in> readys s"
- by (unfold runing_def, simp)
- moreover have "thread \<in> readys (e # s)"
- proof -
- from is_runing
- have "thread \<in> threads (e#s)"
- by (unfold eq_e, auto simp:runing_def readys_def)
- moreover have "\<forall> cs1. \<not> waiting (e#s) thread cs1"
- proof
- fix cs1
- { assume eq_cs: "cs1 = cs"
- have "\<not> waiting (e # s) thread cs1"
- proof -
- from eq_wq
- have "thread \<notin> set (wq (e#s) cs1)"
- apply(unfold eq_e wq_def eq_cs s_holding_def)
- apply (auto simp:Let_def)
- proof -
- assume "thread \<in> set (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set rest)"
- with eq_set have "thread \<in> set rest" by simp
- with vt_v.wq_distinct[of cs]
- and eq_wq show False
- by (metis distinct.simps(2) vt_s.wq_distinct)
- qed
- thus ?thesis by (simp add:wq_def s_waiting_def)
- qed
- } moreover {
- assume neq_cs: "cs1 \<noteq> cs"
- have "\<not> waiting (e # s) thread cs1"
- proof -
- from wq_v_neq [OF neq_cs[symmetric]]
- have "wq (V thread cs # s) cs1 = wq s cs1" .
- moreover have "\<not> waiting s thread cs1"
- proof -
- from runing_ready and is_runing
- have "thread \<in> readys s" by auto
- thus ?thesis by (simp add:readys_def)
- qed
- ultimately show ?thesis
- by (auto simp:wq_def s_waiting_def eq_e)
- qed
- } ultimately show "\<not> waiting (e # s) thread cs1" by blast
- qed
- ultimately show ?thesis by (simp add:readys_def)
- qed
- moreover note eq_th ih
- ultimately have ?thesis by auto
- } moreover {
- assume neq_th: "th \<noteq> thread"
- from neq_th eq_e have eq_cnp: "cntP (e # s) th = cntP s th"
- by (simp add:cntP_def count_def)
- from neq_th eq_e have eq_cnv: "cntV (e # s) th = cntV s th"
- by (simp add:cntV_def count_def)
- have ?thesis
- proof(cases "th \<in> set rest")
- case False
- have "(th \<in> readys (e # s)) = (th \<in> readys s)"
- apply (insert step_back_vt[OF vtv])
- by (simp add: False eq_e eq_wq neq_th vt_s.readys_v_eq)
- moreover have "cntCS (e#s) th = cntCS s th"
- apply (insert neq_th, unfold eq_e cntCS_def holdents_test step_RAG_v[OF vtv], auto)
- proof -
- have "{csa. (Cs csa, Th th) \<in> RAG s \<or> csa = cs \<and> next_th s thread cs th} =
- {cs. (Cs cs, Th th) \<in> RAG s}"
- proof -
- from False eq_wq
- have " next_th s thread cs th \<Longrightarrow> (Cs cs, Th th) \<in> RAG s"
- apply (unfold next_th_def, auto)
- proof -
- assume ne: "rest \<noteq> []"
- and ni: "hd (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set rest) \<notin> set rest"
- and eq_wq: "wq s cs = thread # rest"
- from eq_set ni have "hd (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set rest) \<notin>
- set (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set rest)
- " by simp
- moreover have "(SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set rest) \<noteq> []"
- proof(rule someI2)
- from vt_s.wq_distinct[ of cs] and eq_wq
- show "distinct rest \<and> set rest = set rest" by auto
- next
- fix x assume "distinct x \<and> set x = set rest"
- with ne show "x \<noteq> []" by auto
- qed
- ultimately show
- "(Cs cs, Th (hd (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set rest))) \<in> RAG s"
- by auto
- qed
- thus ?thesis by auto
- qed
- thus "card {csa. (Cs csa, Th th) \<in> RAG s \<or> csa = cs \<and> next_th s thread cs th} =
- card {cs. (Cs cs, Th th) \<in> RAG s}" by simp
- qed
- moreover note ih eq_cnp eq_cnv eq_threads
- ultimately show ?thesis by auto
- next
- case True
- assume th_in: "th \<in> set rest"
- show ?thesis
- proof(cases "next_th s thread cs th")
- case False
- with eq_wq and th_in have
- neq_hd: "th \<noteq> hd (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set rest)" (is "th \<noteq> hd ?rest")
- by (auto simp:next_th_def)
- have "(th \<in> readys (e # s)) = (th \<in> readys s)"
- proof -
- from eq_wq and th_in
- have "\<not> th \<in> readys s"
- apply (auto simp:readys_def s_waiting_def)
- apply (rule_tac x = cs in exI, auto)
- by (insert vt_s.wq_distinct[of cs], auto simp add: wq_def)
- moreover
- from eq_wq and th_in and neq_hd
- have "\<not> (th \<in> readys (e # s))"
- apply (auto simp:readys_def s_waiting_def eq_e wq_def Let_def split:list.splits)
- by (rule_tac x = cs in exI, auto simp:eq_set)
- ultimately show ?thesis by auto
- qed
- moreover have "cntCS (e#s) th = cntCS s th"
- proof -
- from eq_wq and th_in and neq_hd
- have "(holdents (e # s) th) = (holdents s th)"
- apply (unfold eq_e step_RAG_v[OF vtv],
- auto simp:next_th_def eq_set s_RAG_def holdents_test wq_def
- Let_def cs_holding_def)
- by (insert vt_s.wq_distinct[of cs], auto simp:wq_def)
- thus ?thesis by (simp add:cntCS_def)
- qed
- moreover note ih eq_cnp eq_cnv eq_threads
- ultimately show ?thesis by auto
- next
- case True
- let ?rest = " (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set rest)"
- let ?t = "hd ?rest"
- from True eq_wq th_in neq_th
- have "th \<in> readys (e # s)"
- apply (auto simp:eq_e readys_def s_waiting_def wq_def
- Let_def next_th_def)
- proof -
- assume eq_wq: "wq_fun (schs s) cs = thread # rest"
- and t_in: "?t \<in> set rest"
- show "?t \<in> threads s"
- proof(rule vt_s.wq_threads)
- from eq_wq and t_in
- show "?t \<in> set (wq s cs)" by (auto simp:wq_def)
- qed
- next
- fix csa
- assume eq_wq: "wq_fun (schs s) cs = thread # rest"
- and t_in: "?t \<in> set rest"
- and neq_cs: "csa \<noteq> cs"
- and t_in': "?t \<in> set (wq_fun (schs s) csa)"
- show "?t = hd (wq_fun (schs s) csa)"
- proof -
- { assume neq_hd': "?t \<noteq> hd (wq_fun (schs s) csa)"
- from vt_s.wq_distinct[of cs] and
- eq_wq[folded wq_def] and t_in eq_wq
- have "?t \<noteq> thread" by auto
- with eq_wq and t_in
- have w1: "waiting s ?t cs"
- by (auto simp:s_waiting_def wq_def)
- from t_in' neq_hd'
- have w2: "waiting s ?t csa"
- by (auto simp:s_waiting_def wq_def)
- from vt_s.waiting_unique[OF w1 w2]
- and neq_cs have "False" by auto
- } thus ?thesis by auto
- qed
- qed
- moreover have "cntP s th = cntV s th + cntCS s th + 1"
- proof -
- have "th \<notin> readys s"
- proof -
- from True eq_wq neq_th th_in
- show ?thesis
- apply (unfold readys_def s_waiting_def, auto)
- by (rule_tac x = cs in exI, auto simp add: wq_def)
- qed
- moreover have "th \<in> threads s"
- proof -
- from th_in eq_wq
- have "th \<in> set (wq s cs)" by simp
- from vt_s.wq_threads [OF this]
- show ?thesis .
- qed
- ultimately show ?thesis using ih by auto
- qed
- moreover from True neq_th have "cntCS (e # s) th = 1 + cntCS s th"
- apply (unfold cntCS_def holdents_test eq_e step_RAG_v[OF vtv], auto)
- proof -
- show "card {csa. (Cs csa, Th th) \<in> RAG s \<or> csa = cs} =
- Suc (card {cs. (Cs cs, Th th) \<in> RAG s})"
- (is "card ?A = Suc (card ?B)")
- proof -
- have "?A = insert cs ?B" by auto
- hence "card ?A = card (insert cs ?B)" by simp
- also have "\<dots> = Suc (card ?B)"
- proof(rule card_insert_disjoint)
- have "?B \<subseteq> ((\<lambda> (x, y). the_cs x) ` RAG s)"
- apply (auto simp:image_def)
- by (rule_tac x = "(Cs x, Th th)" in bexI, auto)
- with vt_s.finite_RAG
- show "finite {cs. (Cs cs, Th th) \<in> RAG s}" by (auto intro:finite_subset)
- next
- show "cs \<notin> {cs. (Cs cs, Th th) \<in> RAG s}"
- proof
- assume "cs \<in> {cs. (Cs cs, Th th) \<in> RAG s}"
- hence "(Cs cs, Th th) \<in> RAG s" by simp
- with True neq_th eq_wq show False
- by (auto simp:next_th_def s_RAG_def cs_holding_def)
- qed
- qed
- finally show ?thesis .
- qed
- qed
- moreover note eq_cnp eq_cnv
- ultimately show ?thesis by simp
- qed
- qed
- } ultimately show ?thesis by blast
- qed
+ by (unfold holdents_def s_holding_def, fold wq_def, insert eq_wq, simp)
+ next
+ case True
+ from h[unfolded this]
+ have "holding s th' cs" by (auto simp:holdents_def)
+ from held_unique[OF this holding_th_cs_s]
+ have "th' = th" .
+ with assms show ?thesis by auto
+ qed
+ } ultimately show ?thesis by auto
+qed
+
+lemma cntCS_kept [simp]:
+ assumes "th' \<noteq> taker"
+ and "th' \<noteq> th"
+ shows "cntCS (e#s) th' = cntCS s th'"
+ by (unfold cntCS_def holdents_kept[OF assms], simp)
+
+lemma readys_kept1:
+ assumes "th' \<noteq> taker"
+ and "th' \<in> readys (e#s)"
+ shows "th' \<in> readys s"
+proof -
+ { fix cs'
+ assume wait: "waiting s th' cs'"
+ have n_wait: "\<not> waiting (e#s) th' cs'"
+ using assms(2)[unfolded readys_def] by auto
+ have False
+ proof(cases "cs' = cs")
+ case False
+ with n_wait wait
+ show ?thesis
+ by (unfold s_waiting_def, fold wq_def, auto)
+ next
+ case True
+ have "th' \<in> set (th # rest) \<and> th' \<noteq> hd (th # rest)"
+ using wait[unfolded True s_waiting_def, folded wq_def, unfolded wq_s_cs] .
+ moreover have "\<not> (th' \<in> set rest \<and> th' \<noteq> hd (taker # rest'))"
+ using n_wait[unfolded True s_waiting_def, folded wq_def,
+ unfolded wq_es_cs set_wq', unfolded eq_wq'] .
+ ultimately have "th' = taker" by auto
+ with assms(1)
+ show ?thesis by simp
+ qed
+ } with assms(2) show ?thesis
+ by (unfold readys_def, auto)
+qed
+
+lemma readys_kept2:
+ assumes "th' \<noteq> taker"
+ and "th' \<in> readys s"
+ shows "th' \<in> readys (e#s)"
+proof -
+ { fix cs'
+ assume wait: "waiting (e#s) th' cs'"
+ have n_wait: "\<not> waiting s th' cs'"
+ using assms(2)[unfolded readys_def] by auto
+ have False
+ proof(cases "cs' = cs")
+ case False
+ with n_wait wait
+ show ?thesis
+ by (unfold s_waiting_def, fold wq_def, auto)
+ next
+ case True
+ have "th' \<in> set rest \<and> th' \<noteq> hd (taker # rest')"
+ using wait [unfolded True s_waiting_def, folded wq_def,
+ unfolded wq_es_cs set_wq', unfolded eq_wq'] .
+ moreover have "\<not> (th' \<in> set (th # rest) \<and> th' \<noteq> hd (th # rest))"
+ using n_wait[unfolded True s_waiting_def, folded wq_def, unfolded wq_s_cs] .
+ ultimately have "th' = taker" by auto
+ with assms(1)
+ show ?thesis by simp
+ qed
+ } with assms(2) show ?thesis
+ by (unfold readys_def, auto)
+qed
+
+lemma readys_simp [simp]:
+ assumes "th' \<noteq> taker"
+ shows "(th' \<in> readys (e#s)) = (th' \<in> readys s)"
+ using readys_kept1[OF assms] readys_kept2[OF assms]
+ by metis
+
+lemma cnp_cnv_cncs_kept:
+ assumes "cntP s th' = cntV s th' + cntCS s th' + pvD s th'"
+ shows "cntP (e#s) th' = cntV (e#s) th' + cntCS (e#s) th' + pvD (e#s) th'"
+proof -
+ { assume eq_th': "th' = taker"
+ have ?thesis
+ apply (unfold eq_th' pvD_taker_es cntCS_es_taker)
+ by (insert neq_taker_th assms[unfolded eq_th'], unfold is_v, simp)
+ } moreover {
+ assume eq_th': "th' = th"
+ have ?thesis
+ apply (unfold eq_th' pvD_th_es cntCS_es_th)
+ by (insert assms[unfolded eq_th'], unfold is_v, simp)
+ } moreover {
+ assume h: "th' \<noteq> taker" "th' \<noteq> th"
+ have ?thesis using assms
+ apply (unfold cntCS_kept[OF h], insert h, unfold is_v, simp)
+ by (fold is_v, unfold pvD_def, simp)
+ } ultimately show ?thesis by metis
+qed
+
+end
+
+context valid_trace_v_e
+begin
+
+lemma holdents_es_th:
+ "holdents (e#s) th = holdents s th - {cs}" (is "?L = ?R")
+proof -
+ { fix cs'
+ assume "cs' \<in> ?L"
+ hence "holding (e#s) th cs'" by (auto simp:holdents_def)
+ hence "cs' \<in> ?R"
+ proof(cases rule:holding_esE)
+ case 1
+ thus ?thesis by (auto simp:holdents_def)
+ qed
+ } moreover {
+ fix cs'
+ assume "cs' \<in> ?R"
+ hence "cs' \<noteq> cs" "holding s th cs'" by (auto simp:holdents_def)
+ from holding_esI2[OF this]
+ have "cs' \<in> ?L" by (auto simp:holdents_def)
+ } ultimately show ?thesis by auto
+qed
+
+lemma cntCS_es_th [simp]: "cntCS (e#s) th = cntCS s th - 1"
+proof -
+ have "card (holdents s th - {cs}) = card (holdents s th) - 1"
+ proof -
+ have "cs \<in> holdents s th" using holding_th_cs_s
+ by (auto simp:holdents_def)
+ moreover have "finite (holdents s th)"
+ by (simp add: finite_holdents)
+ ultimately show ?thesis by auto
+ qed
+ thus ?thesis by (unfold cntCS_def holdents_es_th)
+qed
+
+lemma holdents_kept:
+ assumes "th' \<noteq> th"
+ shows "holdents (e#s) th' = holdents s th'" (is "?L = ?R")
+proof -
+ { fix cs'
+ assume h: "cs' \<in> ?L"
+ have "cs' \<in> ?R"
+ proof(cases "cs' = cs")
+ case False
+ hence eq_wq: "wq (e#s) cs' = wq s cs'" by simp
+ from h have "holding (e#s) th' cs'" by (auto simp:holdents_def)
+ from this[unfolded s_holding_def, folded wq_def, unfolded eq_wq]
+ show ?thesis
+ by (unfold holdents_def s_holding_def, fold wq_def, auto)
+ next
+ case True
+ from h[unfolded this]
+ have "holding (e#s) th' cs" by (auto simp:holdents_def)
+ from this[unfolded s_holding_def, folded wq_def,
+ unfolded wq_es_cs nil_wq']
+ show ?thesis by auto
+ qed
+ } moreover {
+ fix cs'
+ assume h: "cs' \<in> ?R"
+ have "cs' \<in> ?L"
+ proof(cases "cs' = cs")
+ case False
+ hence eq_wq: "wq (e#s) cs' = wq s cs'" by simp
+ from h have "holding s th' cs'" by (auto simp:holdents_def)
+ from this[unfolded s_holding_def, folded wq_def, unfolded eq_wq]
+ show ?thesis
+ by (unfold holdents_def s_holding_def, fold wq_def, insert eq_wq, simp)
+ next
+ case True
+ from h[unfolded this]
+ have "holding s th' cs" by (auto simp:holdents_def)
+ from held_unique[OF this holding_th_cs_s]
+ have "th' = th" .
+ with assms show ?thesis by auto
+ qed
+ } ultimately show ?thesis by auto
+qed
+
+lemma cntCS_kept [simp]:
+ assumes "th' \<noteq> th"
+ shows "cntCS (e#s) th' = cntCS s th'"
+ by (unfold cntCS_def holdents_kept[OF assms], simp)
+
+lemma readys_kept1:
+ assumes "th' \<in> readys (e#s)"
+ shows "th' \<in> readys s"
+proof -
+ { fix cs'
+ assume wait: "waiting s th' cs'"
+ have n_wait: "\<not> waiting (e#s) th' cs'"
+ using assms(1)[unfolded readys_def] by auto
+ have False
+ proof(cases "cs' = cs")
+ case False
+ with n_wait wait
+ show ?thesis
+ by (unfold s_waiting_def, fold wq_def, auto)
+ next
+ case True
+ have "th' \<in> set (th # rest) \<and> th' \<noteq> hd (th # rest)"
+ using wait[unfolded True s_waiting_def, folded wq_def, unfolded wq_s_cs] .
+ hence "th' \<in> set rest" by auto
+ with set_wq' have "th' \<in> set wq'" by metis
+ with nil_wq' show ?thesis by simp
+ qed
+ } thus ?thesis using assms
+ by (unfold readys_def, auto)
+qed
+
+lemma readys_kept2:
+ assumes "th' \<in> readys s"
+ shows "th' \<in> readys (e#s)"
+proof -
+ { fix cs'
+ assume wait: "waiting (e#s) th' cs'"
+ have n_wait: "\<not> waiting s th' cs'"
+ using assms[unfolded readys_def] by auto
+ have False
+ proof(cases "cs' = cs")
+ case False
+ with n_wait wait
+ show ?thesis
+ by (unfold s_waiting_def, fold wq_def, auto)
next
- case (thread_set thread prio)
- assume eq_e: "e = Set thread prio"
- and is_runing: "thread \<in> runing s"
- show ?thesis
- proof -
- from eq_e have eq_cnp: "cntP (e#s) th = cntP s th" by (simp add:cntP_def count_def)
- from eq_e have eq_cnv: "cntV (e#s) th = cntV s th" by (simp add:cntV_def count_def)
- have eq_cncs: "cntCS (e#s) th = cntCS s th"
- unfolding cntCS_def holdents_test
- by (simp add:RAG_set_unchanged eq_e)
- from eq_e have eq_readys: "readys (e#s) = readys s"
- by (simp add:readys_def cs_waiting_def s_waiting_def wq_def,
- auto simp:Let_def)
- { assume "th \<noteq> thread"
- with eq_readys eq_e
- have "(th \<in> readys (e # s) \<or> th \<notin> threads (e # s)) =
- (th \<in> readys (s) \<or> th \<notin> threads (s))"
- by (simp add:threads.simps)
- with eq_cnp eq_cnv eq_cncs ih is_runing
- have ?thesis by simp
- } moreover {
- assume eq_th: "th = thread"
- with is_runing ih have " cntP s th = cntV s th + cntCS s th"
- by (unfold runing_def, auto)
- moreover from eq_th and eq_readys is_runing have "th \<in> readys (e#s)"
- by (simp add:runing_def)
- moreover note eq_cnp eq_cnv eq_cncs
- ultimately have ?thesis by auto
- } ultimately show ?thesis by blast
- qed
+ case True
+ have "th' \<in> set [] \<and> th' \<noteq> hd []"
+ using wait[unfolded True s_waiting_def, folded wq_def,
+ unfolded wq_es_cs nil_wq'] .
+ thus ?thesis by simp
qed
+ } with assms show ?thesis
+ by (unfold readys_def, auto)
+qed
+
+lemma readys_simp [simp]:
+ shows "(th' \<in> readys (e#s)) = (th' \<in> readys s)"
+ using readys_kept1[OF assms] readys_kept2[OF assms]
+ by metis
+
+lemma cnp_cnv_cncs_kept:
+ assumes "cntP s th' = cntV s th' + cntCS s th' + pvD s th'"
+ shows "cntP (e#s) th' = cntV (e#s) th' + cntCS (e#s) th' + pvD (e#s) th'"
+proof -
+ {
+ assume eq_th': "th' = th"
+ have ?thesis
+ apply (unfold eq_th' pvD_th_es cntCS_es_th)
+ by (insert assms[unfolded eq_th'], unfold is_v, simp)
+ } moreover {
+ assume h: "th' \<noteq> th"
+ have ?thesis using assms
+ apply (unfold cntCS_kept[OF h], insert h, unfold is_v, simp)
+ by (fold is_v, unfold pvD_def, simp)
+ } ultimately show ?thesis by metis
+qed
+
+end
+
+context valid_trace_v
+begin
+
+lemma cnp_cnv_cncs_kept:
+ assumes "cntP s th' = cntV s th' + cntCS s th' + pvD s th'"
+ shows "cntP (e#s) th' = cntV (e#s) th' + cntCS (e#s) th' + pvD (e#s) th'"
+proof(cases "rest = []")
+ case True
+ then interpret vt: valid_trace_v_e by (unfold_locales, simp)
+ show ?thesis using assms using vt.cnp_cnv_cncs_kept by blast
+next
+ case False
+ then interpret vt: valid_trace_v_n by (unfold_locales, simp)
+ show ?thesis using assms using vt.cnp_cnv_cncs_kept by blast
+qed
+
+end
+
+context valid_trace_create
+begin
+
+lemma th_not_live_s [simp]: "th \<notin> threads s"
+proof -
+ from pip_e[unfolded is_create]
+ show ?thesis by (cases, simp)
+qed
+
+lemma th_not_ready_s [simp]: "th \<notin> readys s"
+ using th_not_live_s by (unfold readys_def, simp)
+
+lemma th_live_es [simp]: "th \<in> threads (e#s)"
+ by (unfold is_create, simp)
+
+lemma not_waiting_th_s [simp]: "\<not> waiting s th cs'"
+proof
+ assume "waiting s th cs'"
+ from this[unfolded s_waiting_def, folded wq_def, unfolded wq_neq_simp]
+ have "th \<in> set (wq s cs')" by auto
+ from wq_threads[OF this] have "th \<in> threads s" .
+ with th_not_live_s show False by simp
+qed
+
+lemma not_holding_th_s [simp]: "\<not> holding s th cs'"
+proof
+ assume "holding s th cs'"
+ from this[unfolded s_holding_def, folded wq_def, unfolded wq_neq_simp]
+ have "th \<in> set (wq s cs')" by auto
+ from wq_threads[OF this] have "th \<in> threads s" .
+ with th_not_live_s show False by simp
+qed
+
+lemma not_waiting_th_es [simp]: "\<not> waiting (e#s) th cs'"
+proof
+ assume "waiting (e # s) th cs'"
+ from this[unfolded s_waiting_def, folded wq_def, unfolded wq_neq_simp]
+ have "th \<in> set (wq s cs')" by auto
+ from wq_threads[OF this] have "th \<in> threads s" .
+ with th_not_live_s show False by simp
+qed
+
+lemma not_holding_th_es [simp]: "\<not> holding (e#s) th cs'"
+proof
+ assume "holding (e # s) th cs'"
+ from this[unfolded s_holding_def, folded wq_def, unfolded wq_neq_simp]
+ have "th \<in> set (wq s cs')" by auto
+ from wq_threads[OF this] have "th \<in> threads s" .
+ with th_not_live_s show False by simp
+qed
+
+lemma ready_th_es [simp]: "th \<in> readys (e#s)"
+ by (simp add:readys_def)
+
+lemma holdents_th_s: "holdents s th = {}"
+ by (unfold holdents_def, auto)
+
+lemma holdents_th_es: "holdents (e#s) th = {}"
+ by (unfold holdents_def, auto)
+
+lemma cntCS_th_s [simp]: "cntCS s th = 0"
+ by (unfold cntCS_def, simp add:holdents_th_s)
+
+lemma cntCS_th_es [simp]: "cntCS (e#s) th = 0"
+ by (unfold cntCS_def, simp add:holdents_th_es)
+
+lemma pvD_th_s [simp]: "pvD s th = 0"
+ by (unfold pvD_def, simp)
+
+lemma pvD_th_es [simp]: "pvD (e#s) th = 0"
+ by (unfold pvD_def, simp)
+
+lemma holdents_kept:
+ assumes "th' \<noteq> th"
+ shows "holdents (e#s) th' = holdents s th'" (is "?L = ?R")
+proof -
+ { fix cs'
+ assume h: "cs' \<in> ?L"
+ hence "cs' \<in> ?R"
+ by (unfold holdents_def s_holding_def, fold wq_def,
+ unfold wq_neq_simp, auto)
+ } moreover {
+ fix cs'
+ assume h: "cs' \<in> ?R"
+ hence "cs' \<in> ?L"
+ by (unfold holdents_def s_holding_def, fold wq_def,
+ unfold wq_neq_simp, auto)
+ } ultimately show ?thesis by auto
+qed
+
+lemma cntCS_kept [simp]:
+ assumes "th' \<noteq> th"
+ shows "cntCS (e#s) th' = cntCS s th'" (is "?L = ?R")
+ using holdents_kept[OF assms]
+ by (unfold cntCS_def, simp)
+
+lemma readys_kept1:
+ assumes "th' \<noteq> th"
+ and "th' \<in> readys (e#s)"
+ shows "th' \<in> readys s"
+proof -
+ { fix cs'
+ assume wait: "waiting s th' cs'"
+ have n_wait: "\<not> waiting (e#s) th' cs'"
+ using assms by (auto simp:readys_def)
+ from wait[unfolded s_waiting_def, folded wq_def]
+ n_wait[unfolded s_waiting_def, folded wq_def, unfolded wq_neq_simp]
+ have False by auto
+ } thus ?thesis using assms
+ by (unfold readys_def, auto)
+qed
+
+lemma readys_kept2:
+ assumes "th' \<noteq> th"
+ and "th' \<in> readys s"
+ shows "th' \<in> readys (e#s)"
+proof -
+ { fix cs'
+ assume wait: "waiting (e#s) th' cs'"
+ have n_wait: "\<not> waiting s th' cs'"
+ using assms(2) by (auto simp:readys_def)
+ from wait[unfolded s_waiting_def, folded wq_def, unfolded wq_neq_simp]
+ n_wait[unfolded s_waiting_def, folded wq_def]
+ have False by auto
+ } with assms show ?thesis
+ by (unfold readys_def, auto)
+qed
+
+lemma readys_simp [simp]:
+ assumes "th' \<noteq> th"
+ shows "(th' \<in> readys (e#s)) = (th' \<in> readys s)"
+ using readys_kept1[OF assms] readys_kept2[OF assms]
+ by metis
+
+lemma pvD_kept [simp]:
+ assumes "th' \<noteq> th"
+ shows "pvD (e#s) th' = pvD s th'"
+ using assms
+ by (unfold pvD_def, simp)
+
+lemma cnp_cnv_cncs_kept:
+ assumes "cntP s th' = cntV s th' + cntCS s th' + pvD s th'"
+ shows "cntP (e#s) th' = cntV (e#s) th' + cntCS (e#s) th' + pvD (e#s) th'"
+proof -
+ {
+ assume eq_th': "th' = th"
+ have ?thesis using assms
+ by (unfold eq_th', simp, unfold is_create, simp)
+ } moreover {
+ assume h: "th' \<noteq> th"
+ hence ?thesis using assms
+ by (simp, simp add:is_create)
+ } ultimately show ?thesis by metis
+qed
+
+end
+
+context valid_trace_exit
+begin
+
+lemma th_live_s [simp]: "th \<in> threads s"
+proof -
+ from pip_e[unfolded is_exit]
+ show ?thesis
+ by (cases, unfold runing_def readys_def, simp)
+qed
+
+lemma th_ready_s [simp]: "th \<in> readys s"
+proof -
+ from pip_e[unfolded is_exit]
+ show ?thesis
+ by (cases, unfold runing_def, simp)
+qed
+
+lemma th_not_live_es [simp]: "th \<notin> threads (e#s)"
+ by (unfold is_exit, simp)
+
+lemma not_holding_th_s [simp]: "\<not> holding s th cs'"
+proof -
+ from pip_e[unfolded is_exit]
+ show ?thesis
+ by (cases, unfold holdents_def, auto)
+qed
+
+lemma cntCS_th_s [simp]: "cntCS s th = 0"
+proof -
+ from pip_e[unfolded is_exit]
+ show ?thesis
+ by (cases, unfold cntCS_def, simp)
+qed
+
+lemma not_holding_th_es [simp]: "\<not> holding (e#s) th cs'"
+proof
+ assume "holding (e # s) th cs'"
+ from this[unfolded s_holding_def, folded wq_def, unfolded wq_neq_simp]
+ have "holding s th cs'"
+ by (unfold s_holding_def, fold wq_def, auto)
+ with not_holding_th_s
+ show False by simp
+qed
+
+lemma ready_th_es [simp]: "th \<notin> readys (e#s)"
+ by (simp add:readys_def)
+
+lemma holdents_th_s: "holdents s th = {}"
+ by (unfold holdents_def, auto)
+
+lemma holdents_th_es: "holdents (e#s) th = {}"
+ by (unfold holdents_def, auto)
+
+lemma cntCS_th_es [simp]: "cntCS (e#s) th = 0"
+ by (unfold cntCS_def, simp add:holdents_th_es)
+
+lemma pvD_th_s [simp]: "pvD s th = 0"
+ by (unfold pvD_def, simp)
+
+lemma pvD_th_es [simp]: "pvD (e#s) th = 0"
+ by (unfold pvD_def, simp)
+
+lemma holdents_kept:
+ assumes "th' \<noteq> th"
+ shows "holdents (e#s) th' = holdents s th'" (is "?L = ?R")
+proof -
+ { fix cs'
+ assume h: "cs' \<in> ?L"
+ hence "cs' \<in> ?R"
+ by (unfold holdents_def s_holding_def, fold wq_def,
+ unfold wq_neq_simp, auto)
+ } moreover {
+ fix cs'
+ assume h: "cs' \<in> ?R"
+ hence "cs' \<in> ?L"
+ by (unfold holdents_def s_holding_def, fold wq_def,
+ unfold wq_neq_simp, auto)
+ } ultimately show ?thesis by auto
+qed
+
+lemma cntCS_kept [simp]:
+ assumes "th' \<noteq> th"
+ shows "cntCS (e#s) th' = cntCS s th'" (is "?L = ?R")
+ using holdents_kept[OF assms]
+ by (unfold cntCS_def, simp)
+
+lemma readys_kept1:
+ assumes "th' \<noteq> th"
+ and "th' \<in> readys (e#s)"
+ shows "th' \<in> readys s"
+proof -
+ { fix cs'
+ assume wait: "waiting s th' cs'"
+ have n_wait: "\<not> waiting (e#s) th' cs'"
+ using assms by (auto simp:readys_def)
+ from wait[unfolded s_waiting_def, folded wq_def]
+ n_wait[unfolded s_waiting_def, folded wq_def, unfolded wq_neq_simp]
+ have False by auto
+ } thus ?thesis using assms
+ by (unfold readys_def, auto)
+qed
+
+lemma readys_kept2:
+ assumes "th' \<noteq> th"
+ and "th' \<in> readys s"
+ shows "th' \<in> readys (e#s)"
+proof -
+ { fix cs'
+ assume wait: "waiting (e#s) th' cs'"
+ have n_wait: "\<not> waiting s th' cs'"
+ using assms(2) by (auto simp:readys_def)
+ from wait[unfolded s_waiting_def, folded wq_def, unfolded wq_neq_simp]
+ n_wait[unfolded s_waiting_def, folded wq_def]
+ have False by auto
+ } with assms show ?thesis
+ by (unfold readys_def, auto)
+qed
+
+lemma readys_simp [simp]:
+ assumes "th' \<noteq> th"
+ shows "(th' \<in> readys (e#s)) = (th' \<in> readys s)"
+ using readys_kept1[OF assms] readys_kept2[OF assms]
+ by metis
+
+lemma pvD_kept [simp]:
+ assumes "th' \<noteq> th"
+ shows "pvD (e#s) th' = pvD s th'"
+ using assms
+ by (unfold pvD_def, simp)
+
+lemma cnp_cnv_cncs_kept:
+ assumes "cntP s th' = cntV s th' + cntCS s th' + pvD s th'"
+ shows "cntP (e#s) th' = cntV (e#s) th' + cntCS (e#s) th' + pvD (e#s) th'"
+proof -
+ {
+ assume eq_th': "th' = th"
+ have ?thesis using assms
+ by (unfold eq_th', simp, unfold is_exit, simp)
+ } moreover {
+ assume h: "th' \<noteq> th"
+ hence ?thesis using assms
+ by (simp, simp add:is_exit)
+ } ultimately show ?thesis by metis
+qed
+
+end
+
+context valid_trace_set
+begin
+
+lemma th_live_s [simp]: "th \<in> threads s"
+proof -
+ from pip_e[unfolded is_set]
+ show ?thesis
+ by (cases, unfold runing_def readys_def, simp)
+qed
+
+lemma th_ready_s [simp]: "th \<in> readys s"
+proof -
+ from pip_e[unfolded is_set]
+ show ?thesis
+ by (cases, unfold runing_def, simp)
+qed
+
+lemma th_not_live_es [simp]: "th \<in> threads (e#s)"
+ by (unfold is_set, simp)
+
+
+lemma holdents_kept:
+ shows "holdents (e#s) th' = holdents s th'" (is "?L = ?R")
+proof -
+ { fix cs'
+ assume h: "cs' \<in> ?L"
+ hence "cs' \<in> ?R"
+ by (unfold holdents_def s_holding_def, fold wq_def,
+ unfold wq_neq_simp, auto)
+ } moreover {
+ fix cs'
+ assume h: "cs' \<in> ?R"
+ hence "cs' \<in> ?L"
+ by (unfold holdents_def s_holding_def, fold wq_def,
+ unfold wq_neq_simp, auto)
+ } ultimately show ?thesis by auto
+qed
+
+lemma cntCS_kept [simp]:
+ shows "cntCS (e#s) th' = cntCS s th'" (is "?L = ?R")
+ using holdents_kept
+ by (unfold cntCS_def, simp)
+
+lemma threads_kept[simp]:
+ "threads (e#s) = threads s"
+ by (unfold is_set, simp)
+
+lemma readys_kept1:
+ assumes "th' \<in> readys (e#s)"
+ shows "th' \<in> readys s"
+proof -
+ { fix cs'
+ assume wait: "waiting s th' cs'"
+ have n_wait: "\<not> waiting (e#s) th' cs'"
+ using assms by (auto simp:readys_def)
+ from wait[unfolded s_waiting_def, folded wq_def]
+ n_wait[unfolded s_waiting_def, folded wq_def, unfolded wq_neq_simp]
+ have False by auto
+ } moreover have "th' \<in> threads s"
+ using assms[unfolded readys_def] by auto
+ ultimately show ?thesis
+ by (unfold readys_def, auto)
+qed
+
+lemma readys_kept2:
+ assumes "th' \<in> readys s"
+ shows "th' \<in> readys (e#s)"
+proof -
+ { fix cs'
+ assume wait: "waiting (e#s) th' cs'"
+ have n_wait: "\<not> waiting s th' cs'"
+ using assms by (auto simp:readys_def)
+ from wait[unfolded s_waiting_def, folded wq_def, unfolded wq_neq_simp]
+ n_wait[unfolded s_waiting_def, folded wq_def]
+ have False by auto
+ } with assms show ?thesis
+ by (unfold readys_def, auto)
+qed
+
+lemma readys_simp [simp]:
+ shows "(th' \<in> readys (e#s)) = (th' \<in> readys s)"
+ using readys_kept1 readys_kept2
+ by metis
+
+lemma pvD_kept [simp]:
+ shows "pvD (e#s) th' = pvD s th'"
+ by (unfold pvD_def, simp)
+
+lemma cnp_cnv_cncs_kept:
+ assumes "cntP s th' = cntV s th' + cntCS s th' + pvD s th'"
+ shows "cntP (e#s) th' = cntV (e#s) th' + cntCS (e#s) th' + pvD (e#s) th'"
+ using assms
+ by (unfold is_set, simp, fold is_set, simp)
+
+end
+
+context valid_trace
+begin
+
+lemma cnp_cnv_cncs: "cntP s th' = cntV s th' + cntCS s th' + pvD s th'"
+proof(induct rule:ind)
+ case Nil
+ thus ?case
+ by (unfold cntP_def cntV_def pvD_def cntCS_def holdents_def
+ s_holding_def, simp)
+next
+ case (Cons s e)
+ interpret vt_e: valid_trace_e s e using Cons by simp
+ show ?case
+ proof(cases e)
+ case (Create th prio)
+ interpret vt_create: valid_trace_create s e th prio
+ using Create by (unfold_locales, simp)
+ show ?thesis using Cons by (simp add: vt_create.cnp_cnv_cncs_kept)
next
- case vt_nil
- show ?case
- by (unfold cntP_def cntV_def cntCS_def,
- auto simp:count_def holdents_test s_RAG_def wq_def cs_holding_def)
+ case (Exit th)
+ interpret vt_exit: valid_trace_exit s e th
+ using Exit by (unfold_locales, simp)
+ show ?thesis using Cons by (simp add: vt_exit.cnp_cnv_cncs_kept)
+ next
+ case (P th cs)
+ interpret vt_p: valid_trace_p s e th cs using P by (unfold_locales, simp)
+ show ?thesis using Cons by (simp add: vt_p.cnp_cnv_cncs_kept)
+ next
+ case (V th cs)
+ interpret vt_v: valid_trace_v s e th cs using V by (unfold_locales, simp)
+ show ?thesis using Cons by (simp add: vt_v.cnp_cnv_cncs_kept)
+ next
+ case (Set th prio)
+ interpret vt_set: valid_trace_set s e th prio
+ using Set by (unfold_locales, simp)
+ show ?thesis using Cons by (simp add: vt_set.cnp_cnv_cncs_kept)
qed
qed
+lemma not_thread_holdents:
+ assumes not_in: "th \<notin> threads s"
+ shows "holdents s th = {}"
+proof -
+ { fix cs
+ assume "cs \<in> holdents s th"
+ hence "holding s th cs" by (auto simp:holdents_def)
+ from this[unfolded s_holding_def, folded wq_def]
+ have "th \<in> set (wq s cs)" by auto
+ with wq_threads have "th \<in> threads s" by auto
+ with assms
+ have False by simp
+ } thus ?thesis by auto
+qed
+
lemma not_thread_cncs:
assumes not_in: "th \<notin> threads s"
shows "cntCS s th = 0"
-proof -
- from vt not_in show ?thesis
- proof(induct arbitrary:th)
- case (vt_cons s e th)
- interpret vt_s: valid_trace s using vt_cons(1)
- by (unfold_locales, simp)
- assume vt: "vt s"
- and ih: "\<And>th. th \<notin> threads s \<Longrightarrow> cntCS s th = 0"
- and stp: "step s e"
- and not_in: "th \<notin> threads (e # s)"
- from stp show ?case
- proof(cases)
- case (thread_create thread prio)
- assume eq_e: "e = Create thread prio"
- and not_in': "thread \<notin> threads s"
- have "cntCS (e # s) th = cntCS s th"
- apply (unfold eq_e cntCS_def holdents_test)
- by (simp add:RAG_create_unchanged)
- moreover have "th \<notin> threads s"
- proof -
- from not_in eq_e show ?thesis by simp
- qed
- moreover note ih ultimately show ?thesis by auto
- next
- case (thread_exit thread)
- assume eq_e: "e = Exit thread"
- and nh: "holdents s thread = {}"
- have eq_cns: "cntCS (e # s) th = cntCS s th"
- apply (unfold eq_e cntCS_def holdents_test)
- by (simp add:RAG_exit_unchanged)
- show ?thesis
- proof(cases "th = thread")
- case True
- have "cntCS s th = 0" by (unfold cntCS_def, auto simp:nh True)
- with eq_cns show ?thesis by simp
- next
- case False
- with not_in and eq_e
- have "th \<notin> threads s" by simp
- from ih[OF this] and eq_cns show ?thesis by simp
- qed
- next
- case (thread_P thread cs)
- assume eq_e: "e = P thread cs"
- and is_runing: "thread \<in> runing s"
- from assms thread_P ih vt stp thread_P have vtp: "vt (P thread cs#s)" by auto
- have neq_th: "th \<noteq> thread"
- proof -
- from not_in eq_e have "th \<notin> threads s" by simp
- moreover from is_runing have "thread \<in> threads s"
- by (simp add:runing_def readys_def)
- ultimately show ?thesis by auto
- qed
- hence "cntCS (e # s) th = cntCS s th "
- apply (unfold cntCS_def holdents_test eq_e)
- by (unfold step_RAG_p[OF vtp], auto)
- moreover have "cntCS s th = 0"
- proof(rule ih)
- from not_in eq_e show "th \<notin> threads s" by simp
- qed
- ultimately show ?thesis by simp
- next
- case (thread_V thread cs)
- assume eq_e: "e = V thread cs"
- and is_runing: "thread \<in> runing s"
- and hold: "holding s thread cs"
- have neq_th: "th \<noteq> thread"
- proof -
- from not_in eq_e have "th \<notin> threads s" by simp
- moreover from is_runing have "thread \<in> threads s"
- by (simp add:runing_def readys_def)
- ultimately show ?thesis by auto
- qed
- from assms thread_V vt stp ih
- have vtv: "vt (V thread cs#s)" by auto
- then interpret vt_v: valid_trace "(V thread cs#s)"
- by (unfold_locales, simp)
- from hold obtain rest
- where eq_wq: "wq s cs = thread # rest"
- by (case_tac "wq s cs", auto simp: wq_def s_holding_def)
- from not_in eq_e eq_wq
- have "\<not> next_th s thread cs th"
- apply (auto simp:next_th_def)
- proof -
- assume ne: "rest \<noteq> []"
- and ni: "hd (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set rest) \<notin> threads s" (is "?t \<notin> threads s")
- have "?t \<in> set rest"
- proof(rule someI2)
- from vt_v.wq_distinct[of cs] and eq_wq
- show "distinct rest \<and> set rest = set rest"
- by (metis distinct.simps(2) vt_s.wq_distinct)
- next
- fix x assume "distinct x \<and> set x = set rest" with ne
- show "hd x \<in> set rest" by (cases x, auto)
- qed
- with eq_wq have "?t \<in> set (wq s cs)" by simp
- from vt_s.wq_threads[OF this] and ni
- show False
- using `hd (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set rest) \<in> set (wq s cs)`
- ni vt_s.wq_threads by blast
- qed
- moreover note neq_th eq_wq
- ultimately have "cntCS (e # s) th = cntCS s th"
- by (unfold eq_e cntCS_def holdents_test step_RAG_v[OF vtv], auto)
- moreover have "cntCS s th = 0"
- proof(rule ih)
- from not_in eq_e show "th \<notin> threads s" by simp
- qed
- ultimately show ?thesis by simp
- next
- case (thread_set thread prio)
- print_facts
- assume eq_e: "e = Set thread prio"
- and is_runing: "thread \<in> runing s"
- from not_in and eq_e have "th \<notin> threads s" by auto
- from ih [OF this] and eq_e
- show ?thesis
- apply (unfold eq_e cntCS_def holdents_test)
- by (simp add:RAG_set_unchanged)
- qed
- next
- case vt_nil
- show ?case
- by (unfold cntCS_def,
- auto simp:count_def holdents_test s_RAG_def wq_def cs_holding_def)
- qed
-qed
-
-end
-
-lemma eq_waiting: "waiting (wq (s::state)) th cs = waiting s th cs"
- by (auto simp:s_waiting_def cs_waiting_def wq_def)
-
-context valid_trace
-begin
-
-lemma dm_RAG_threads:
- assumes in_dom: "(Th th) \<in> Domain (RAG s)"
- shows "th \<in> threads s"
-proof -
- from in_dom obtain n where "(Th th, n) \<in> RAG s" by auto
- moreover from RAG_target_th[OF this] obtain cs where "n = Cs cs" by auto
- ultimately have "(Th th, Cs cs) \<in> RAG s" by simp
- hence "th \<in> set (wq s cs)"
- by (unfold s_RAG_def, auto simp:cs_waiting_def)
- from wq_threads [OF this] show ?thesis .
-qed
-
-end
-
-lemma cp_eq_cpreced: "cp s th = cpreced (wq s) s th"
-unfolding cp_def wq_def
-apply(induct s rule: schs.induct)
-thm cpreced_initial
-apply(simp add: Let_def cpreced_initial)
-apply(simp add: Let_def)
-apply(simp add: Let_def)
-apply(simp add: Let_def)
-apply(subst (2) schs.simps)
-apply(simp add: Let_def)
-apply(subst (2) schs.simps)
-apply(simp add: Let_def)
-done
-
-context valid_trace
-begin
+ using not_thread_holdents[OF assms]
+ by (simp add:cntCS_def)
+
+lemma cnp_cnv_eq:
+ assumes "th \<notin> threads s"
+ shows "cntP s th = cntV s th"
+ using assms cnp_cnv_cncs not_thread_cncs pvD_def
+ by (auto)
lemma runing_unique:
assumes runing_1: "th1 \<in> runing s"
@@ -2348,211 +3666,124 @@
shows "th1 = th2"
proof -
from runing_1 and runing_2 have "cp s th1 = cp s th2"
- unfolding runing_def
- apply(simp)
- done
- hence eq_max: "Max ((\<lambda>th. preced th s) ` ({th1} \<union> dependants (wq s) th1)) =
- Max ((\<lambda>th. preced th s) ` ({th2} \<union> dependants (wq s) th2))"
- (is "Max (?f ` ?A) = Max (?f ` ?B)")
- unfolding cp_eq_cpreced
- unfolding cpreced_def .
- obtain th1' where th1_in: "th1' \<in> ?A" and eq_f_th1: "?f th1' = Max (?f ` ?A)"
- proof -
- have h1: "finite (?f ` ?A)"
- proof -
- have "finite ?A"
- proof -
- have "finite (dependants (wq s) th1)"
- proof-
- have "finite {th'. (Th th', Th th1) \<in> (RAG (wq s))\<^sup>+}"
- proof -
- let ?F = "\<lambda> (x, y). the_th x"
- have "{th'. (Th th', Th th1) \<in> (RAG (wq s))\<^sup>+} \<subseteq> ?F ` ((RAG (wq s))\<^sup>+)"
- apply (auto simp:image_def)
- by (rule_tac x = "(Th x, Th th1)" in bexI, auto)
- moreover have "finite \<dots>"
- proof -
- from finite_RAG have "finite (RAG s)" .
- hence "finite ((RAG (wq s))\<^sup>+)"
- apply (unfold finite_trancl)
- by (auto simp: s_RAG_def cs_RAG_def wq_def)
- thus ?thesis by auto
- qed
- ultimately show ?thesis by (auto intro:finite_subset)
- qed
- thus ?thesis by (simp add:cs_dependants_def)
- qed
- thus ?thesis by simp
- qed
- thus ?thesis by auto
- qed
- moreover have h2: "(?f ` ?A) \<noteq> {}"
- proof -
- have "?A \<noteq> {}" by simp
- thus ?thesis by simp
- qed
- from Max_in [OF h1 h2]
- have "Max (?f ` ?A) \<in> (?f ` ?A)" .
- thus ?thesis
- thm cpreced_def
- unfolding cpreced_def[symmetric]
- unfolding cp_eq_cpreced[symmetric]
- unfolding cpreced_def
- using that[intro] by (auto)
+ unfolding runing_def by auto
+ from this[unfolded cp_alt_def]
+ have eq_max:
+ "Max (the_preced s ` {th'. Th th' \<in> subtree (RAG s) (Th th1)}) =
+ Max (the_preced s ` {th'. Th th' \<in> subtree (RAG s) (Th th2)})"
+ (is "Max ?L = Max ?R") .
+ have "Max ?L \<in> ?L"
+ proof(rule Max_in)
+ show "finite ?L" by (simp add: finite_subtree_threads)
+ next
+ show "?L \<noteq> {}" using subtree_def by fastforce
+ qed
+ then obtain th1' where
+ h_1: "Th th1' \<in> subtree (RAG s) (Th th1)" "the_preced s th1' = Max ?L"
+ by auto
+ have "Max ?R \<in> ?R"
+ proof(rule Max_in)
+ show "finite ?R" by (simp add: finite_subtree_threads)
+ next
+ show "?R \<noteq> {}" using subtree_def by fastforce
qed
- obtain th2' where th2_in: "th2' \<in> ?B" and eq_f_th2: "?f th2' = Max (?f ` ?B)"
- proof -
- have h1: "finite (?f ` ?B)"
- proof -
- have "finite ?B"
- proof -
- have "finite (dependants (wq s) th2)"
- proof-
- have "finite {th'. (Th th', Th th2) \<in> (RAG (wq s))\<^sup>+}"
- proof -
- let ?F = "\<lambda> (x, y). the_th x"
- have "{th'. (Th th', Th th2) \<in> (RAG (wq s))\<^sup>+} \<subseteq> ?F ` ((RAG (wq s))\<^sup>+)"
- apply (auto simp:image_def)
- by (rule_tac x = "(Th x, Th th2)" in bexI, auto)
- moreover have "finite \<dots>"
- proof -
- from finite_RAG have "finite (RAG s)" .
- hence "finite ((RAG (wq s))\<^sup>+)"
- apply (unfold finite_trancl)
- by (auto simp: s_RAG_def cs_RAG_def wq_def)
- thus ?thesis by auto
- qed
- ultimately show ?thesis by (auto intro:finite_subset)
- qed
- thus ?thesis by (simp add:cs_dependants_def)
- qed
- thus ?thesis by simp
- qed
- thus ?thesis by auto
+ then obtain th2' where
+ h_2: "Th th2' \<in> subtree (RAG s) (Th th2)" "the_preced s th2' = Max ?R"
+ by auto
+ have "th1' = th2'"
+ proof(rule preced_unique)
+ from h_1(1)
+ show "th1' \<in> threads s"
+ proof(cases rule:subtreeE)
+ case 1
+ hence "th1' = th1" by simp
+ with runing_1 show ?thesis by (auto simp:runing_def readys_def)
+ next
+ case 2
+ from this(2)
+ have "(Th th1', Th th1) \<in> (RAG s)^+" by (auto simp:ancestors_def)
+ from tranclD[OF this]
+ have "(Th th1') \<in> Domain (RAG s)" by auto
+ from dm_RAG_threads[OF this] show ?thesis .
qed
- moreover have h2: "(?f ` ?B) \<noteq> {}"
- proof -
- have "?B \<noteq> {}" by simp
- thus ?thesis by simp
+ next
+ from h_2(1)
+ show "th2' \<in> threads s"
+ proof(cases rule:subtreeE)
+ case 1
+ hence "th2' = th2" by simp
+ with runing_2 show ?thesis by (auto simp:runing_def readys_def)
+ next
+ case 2
+ from this(2)
+ have "(Th th2', Th th2) \<in> (RAG s)^+" by (auto simp:ancestors_def)
+ from tranclD[OF this]
+ have "(Th th2') \<in> Domain (RAG s)" by auto
+ from dm_RAG_threads[OF this] show ?thesis .
qed
- from Max_in [OF h1 h2]
- have "Max (?f ` ?B) \<in> (?f ` ?B)" .
- thus ?thesis by (auto intro:that)
+ next
+ have "the_preced s th1' = the_preced s th2'"
+ using eq_max h_1(2) h_2(2) by metis
+ thus "preced th1' s = preced th2' s" by (simp add:the_preced_def)
qed
- from eq_f_th1 eq_f_th2 eq_max
- have eq_preced: "preced th1' s = preced th2' s" by auto
- hence eq_th12: "th1' = th2'"
- proof (rule preced_unique)
- from th1_in have "th1' = th1 \<or> (th1' \<in> dependants (wq s) th1)" by simp
- thus "th1' \<in> threads s"
- proof
- assume "th1' \<in> dependants (wq s) th1"
- hence "(Th th1') \<in> Domain ((RAG s)^+)"
- apply (unfold cs_dependants_def cs_RAG_def s_RAG_def)
- by (auto simp:Domain_def)
- hence "(Th th1') \<in> Domain (RAG s)" by (simp add:trancl_domain)
- from dm_RAG_threads[OF this] show ?thesis .
- next
- assume "th1' = th1"
- with runing_1 show ?thesis
+ from h_1(1)[unfolded this]
+ have star1: "(Th th2', Th th1) \<in> (RAG s)^*" by (auto simp:subtree_def)
+ from h_2(1)[unfolded this]
+ have star2: "(Th th2', Th th2) \<in> (RAG s)^*" by (auto simp:subtree_def)
+ from star_rpath[OF star1] obtain xs1
+ where rp1: "rpath (RAG s) (Th th2') xs1 (Th th1)"
+ by auto
+ from star_rpath[OF star2] obtain xs2
+ where rp2: "rpath (RAG s) (Th th2') xs2 (Th th2)"
+ by auto
+ from rp1 rp2
+ show ?thesis
+ proof(cases)
+ case (less_1 xs')
+ moreover have "xs' = []"
+ proof(rule ccontr)
+ assume otherwise: "xs' \<noteq> []"
+ from rpath_plus[OF less_1(3) this]
+ have "(Th th1, Th th2) \<in> (RAG s)\<^sup>+" .
+ from tranclD[OF this]
+ obtain cs where "waiting s th1 cs"
+ by (unfold s_RAG_def, fold waiting_eq, auto)
+ with runing_1 show False
by (unfold runing_def readys_def, auto)
qed
+ ultimately have "xs2 = xs1" by simp
+ from rpath_dest_eq[OF rp1 rp2[unfolded this]]
+ show ?thesis by simp
next
- from th2_in have "th2' = th2 \<or> (th2' \<in> dependants (wq s) th2)" by simp
- thus "th2' \<in> threads s"
- proof
- assume "th2' \<in> dependants (wq s) th2"
- hence "(Th th2') \<in> Domain ((RAG s)^+)"
- apply (unfold cs_dependants_def cs_RAG_def s_RAG_def)
- by (auto simp:Domain_def)
- hence "(Th th2') \<in> Domain (RAG s)" by (simp add:trancl_domain)
- from dm_RAG_threads[OF this] show ?thesis .
- next
- assume "th2' = th2"
- with runing_2 show ?thesis
+ case (less_2 xs')
+ moreover have "xs' = []"
+ proof(rule ccontr)
+ assume otherwise: "xs' \<noteq> []"
+ from rpath_plus[OF less_2(3) this]
+ have "(Th th2, Th th1) \<in> (RAG s)\<^sup>+" .
+ from tranclD[OF this]
+ obtain cs where "waiting s th2 cs"
+ by (unfold s_RAG_def, fold waiting_eq, auto)
+ with runing_2 show False
by (unfold runing_def readys_def, auto)
qed
- qed
- from th1_in have "th1' = th1 \<or> th1' \<in> dependants (wq s) th1" by simp
- thus ?thesis
- proof
- assume eq_th': "th1' = th1"
- from th2_in have "th2' = th2 \<or> th2' \<in> dependants (wq s) th2" by simp
- thus ?thesis
- proof
- assume "th2' = th2" thus ?thesis using eq_th' eq_th12 by simp
- next
- assume "th2' \<in> dependants (wq s) th2"
- with eq_th12 eq_th' have "th1 \<in> dependants (wq s) th2" by simp
- hence "(Th th1, Th th2) \<in> (RAG s)^+"
- by (unfold cs_dependants_def s_RAG_def cs_RAG_def, simp)
- hence "Th th1 \<in> Domain ((RAG s)^+)"
- apply (unfold cs_dependants_def cs_RAG_def s_RAG_def)
- by (auto simp:Domain_def)
- hence "Th th1 \<in> Domain (RAG s)" by (simp add:trancl_domain)
- then obtain n where d: "(Th th1, n) \<in> RAG s" by (auto simp:Domain_def)
- from RAG_target_th [OF this]
- obtain cs' where "n = Cs cs'" by auto
- with d have "(Th th1, Cs cs') \<in> RAG s" by simp
- with runing_1 have "False"
- apply (unfold runing_def readys_def s_RAG_def)
- by (auto simp:eq_waiting)
- thus ?thesis by simp
- qed
- next
- assume th1'_in: "th1' \<in> dependants (wq s) th1"
- from th2_in have "th2' = th2 \<or> th2' \<in> dependants (wq s) th2" by simp
- thus ?thesis
- proof
- assume "th2' = th2"
- with th1'_in eq_th12 have "th2 \<in> dependants (wq s) th1" by simp
- hence "(Th th2, Th th1) \<in> (RAG s)^+"
- by (unfold cs_dependants_def s_RAG_def cs_RAG_def, simp)
- hence "Th th2 \<in> Domain ((RAG s)^+)"
- apply (unfold cs_dependants_def cs_RAG_def s_RAG_def)
- by (auto simp:Domain_def)
- hence "Th th2 \<in> Domain (RAG s)" by (simp add:trancl_domain)
- then obtain n where d: "(Th th2, n) \<in> RAG s" by (auto simp:Domain_def)
- from RAG_target_th [OF this]
- obtain cs' where "n = Cs cs'" by auto
- with d have "(Th th2, Cs cs') \<in> RAG s" by simp
- with runing_2 have "False"
- apply (unfold runing_def readys_def s_RAG_def)
- by (auto simp:eq_waiting)
- thus ?thesis by simp
- next
- assume "th2' \<in> dependants (wq s) th2"
- with eq_th12 have "th1' \<in> dependants (wq s) th2" by simp
- hence h1: "(Th th1', Th th2) \<in> (RAG s)^+"
- by (unfold cs_dependants_def s_RAG_def cs_RAG_def, simp)
- from th1'_in have h2: "(Th th1', Th th1) \<in> (RAG s)^+"
- by (unfold cs_dependants_def s_RAG_def cs_RAG_def, simp)
- show ?thesis
- proof(rule dchain_unique[OF h1 _ h2, symmetric])
- from runing_1 show "th1 \<in> readys s" by (simp add:runing_def)
- from runing_2 show "th2 \<in> readys s" by (simp add:runing_def)
- qed
- qed
+ ultimately have "xs2 = xs1" by simp
+ from rpath_dest_eq[OF rp1 rp2[unfolded this]]
+ show ?thesis by simp
qed
qed
-
-lemma "card (runing s) \<le> 1"
-apply(subgoal_tac "finite (runing s)")
-prefer 2
-apply (metis finite_nat_set_iff_bounded lessI runing_unique)
-apply(rule ccontr)
-apply(simp)
-apply(case_tac "Suc (Suc 0) \<le> card (runing s)")
-apply(subst (asm) card_le_Suc_iff)
-apply(simp)
-apply(auto)[1]
-apply (metis insertCI runing_unique)
-apply(auto)
-done
-
-end
-
+lemma card_runing: "card (runing s) \<le> 1"
+proof(cases "runing s = {}")
+ case True
+ thus ?thesis by auto
+next
+ case False
+ then obtain th where [simp]: "th \<in> runing s" by auto
+ from runing_unique[OF this]
+ have "runing s = {th}" by auto
+ thus ?thesis by auto
+qed
lemma create_pre:
assumes stp: "step s e"
@@ -2581,649 +3812,34 @@
qed
qed
-
-context valid_trace
-begin
-
-lemma cnp_cnv_eq:
- assumes "th \<notin> threads s"
- shows "cntP s th = cntV s th"
- using assms
- using cnp_cnv_cncs not_thread_cncs by auto
-
-end
-
-
-lemma eq_RAG:
- "RAG (wq s) = RAG s"
-by (unfold cs_RAG_def s_RAG_def, auto)
-
-context valid_trace
-begin
-
-lemma count_eq_dependants:
+lemma eq_pv_children:
assumes eq_pv: "cntP s th = cntV s th"
- shows "dependants (wq s) th = {}"
+ shows "children (RAG s) (Th th) = {}"
proof -
- from cnp_cnv_cncs and eq_pv
- have "cntCS s th = 0"
- by (auto split:if_splits)
- moreover have "finite {cs. (Cs cs, Th th) \<in> RAG s}"
- proof -
- from finite_holding[of th] show ?thesis
- by (simp add:holdents_test)
- qed
- ultimately have h: "{cs. (Cs cs, Th th) \<in> RAG s} = {}"
- by (unfold cntCS_def holdents_test cs_dependants_def, auto)
- show ?thesis
- proof(unfold cs_dependants_def)
- { assume "{th'. (Th th', Th th) \<in> (RAG (wq s))\<^sup>+} \<noteq> {}"
- then obtain th' where "(Th th', Th th) \<in> (RAG (wq s))\<^sup>+" by auto
- hence "False"
- proof(cases)
- assume "(Th th', Th th) \<in> RAG (wq s)"
- thus "False" by (auto simp:cs_RAG_def)
- next
- fix c
- assume "(c, Th th) \<in> RAG (wq s)"
- with h and eq_RAG show "False"
- by (cases c, auto simp:cs_RAG_def)
- qed
- } thus "{th'. (Th th', Th th) \<in> (RAG (wq s))\<^sup>+} = {}" by auto
- qed
+ from cnp_cnv_cncs and eq_pv
+ have "cntCS s th = 0"
+ by (auto split:if_splits)
+ from this[unfolded cntCS_def holdents_alt_def]
+ have card_0: "card (the_cs ` children (RAG s) (Th th)) = 0" .
+ have "finite (the_cs ` children (RAG s) (Th th))"
+ by (simp add: fsbtRAGs.finite_children)
+ from card_0[unfolded card_0_eq[OF this]]
+ show ?thesis by auto
qed
-lemma dependants_threads:
- shows "dependants (wq s) th \<subseteq> threads s"
-proof
- { fix th th'
- assume h: "th \<in> {th'a. (Th th'a, Th th') \<in> (RAG (wq s))\<^sup>+}"
- have "Th th \<in> Domain (RAG s)"
- proof -
- from h obtain th' where "(Th th, Th th') \<in> (RAG (wq s))\<^sup>+" by auto
- hence "(Th th) \<in> Domain ( (RAG (wq s))\<^sup>+)" by (auto simp:Domain_def)
- with trancl_domain have "(Th th) \<in> Domain (RAG (wq s))" by simp
- thus ?thesis using eq_RAG by simp
- qed
- from dm_RAG_threads[OF this]
- have "th \<in> threads s" .
- } note hh = this
- fix th1
- assume "th1 \<in> dependants (wq s) th"
- hence "th1 \<in> {th'a. (Th th'a, Th th) \<in> (RAG (wq s))\<^sup>+}"
- by (unfold cs_dependants_def, simp)
- from hh [OF this] show "th1 \<in> threads s" .
-qed
-
-lemma finite_threads:
- shows "finite (threads s)"
-using vt by (induct) (auto elim: step.cases)
+lemma eq_pv_holdents:
+ assumes eq_pv: "cntP s th = cntV s th"
+ shows "holdents s th = {}"
+ by (unfold holdents_alt_def eq_pv_children[OF assms], simp)
+
+lemma eq_pv_subtree:
+ assumes eq_pv: "cntP s th = cntV s th"
+ shows "subtree (RAG s) (Th th) = {Th th}"
+ using eq_pv_children[OF assms]
+ by (unfold subtree_children, simp)
end
-lemma Max_f_mono:
- assumes seq: "A \<subseteq> B"
- and np: "A \<noteq> {}"
- and fnt: "finite B"
- shows "Max (f ` A) \<le> Max (f ` B)"
-proof(rule Max_mono)
- from seq show "f ` A \<subseteq> f ` B" by auto
-next
- from np show "f ` A \<noteq> {}" by auto
-next
- from fnt and seq show "finite (f ` B)" by auto
-qed
-
-context valid_trace
-begin
-
-lemma cp_le:
- assumes th_in: "th \<in> threads s"
- shows "cp s th \<le> Max ((\<lambda> th. (preced th s)) ` threads s)"
-proof(unfold cp_eq_cpreced cpreced_def cs_dependants_def)
- show "Max ((\<lambda>th. preced th s) ` ({th} \<union> {th'. (Th th', Th th) \<in> (RAG (wq s))\<^sup>+}))
- \<le> Max ((\<lambda>th. preced th s) ` threads s)"
- (is "Max (?f ` ?A) \<le> Max (?f ` ?B)")
- proof(rule Max_f_mono)
- show "{th} \<union> {th'. (Th th', Th th) \<in> (RAG (wq s))\<^sup>+} \<noteq> {}" by simp
- next
- from finite_threads
- show "finite (threads s)" .
- next
- from th_in
- show "{th} \<union> {th'. (Th th', Th th) \<in> (RAG (wq s))\<^sup>+} \<subseteq> threads s"
- apply (auto simp:Domain_def)
- apply (rule_tac dm_RAG_threads)
- apply (unfold trancl_domain [of "RAG s", symmetric])
- by (unfold cs_RAG_def s_RAG_def, auto simp:Domain_def)
- qed
-qed
-
-lemma le_cp:
- shows "preced th s \<le> cp s th"
-proof(unfold cp_eq_cpreced preced_def cpreced_def, simp)
- show "Prc (priority th s) (last_set th s)
- \<le> Max (insert (Prc (priority th s) (last_set th s))
- ((\<lambda>th. Prc (priority th s) (last_set th s)) ` dependants (wq s) th))"
- (is "?l \<le> Max (insert ?l ?A)")
- proof(cases "?A = {}")
- case False
- have "finite ?A" (is "finite (?f ` ?B)")
- proof -
- have "finite ?B"
- proof-
- have "finite {th'. (Th th', Th th) \<in> (RAG (wq s))\<^sup>+}"
- proof -
- let ?F = "\<lambda> (x, y). the_th x"
- have "{th'. (Th th', Th th) \<in> (RAG (wq s))\<^sup>+} \<subseteq> ?F ` ((RAG (wq s))\<^sup>+)"
- apply (auto simp:image_def)
- by (rule_tac x = "(Th x, Th th)" in bexI, auto)
- moreover have "finite \<dots>"
- proof -
- from finite_RAG have "finite (RAG s)" .
- hence "finite ((RAG (wq s))\<^sup>+)"
- apply (unfold finite_trancl)
- by (auto simp: s_RAG_def cs_RAG_def wq_def)
- thus ?thesis by auto
- qed
- ultimately show ?thesis by (auto intro:finite_subset)
- qed
- thus ?thesis by (simp add:cs_dependants_def)
- qed
- thus ?thesis by simp
- qed
- from Max_insert [OF this False, of ?l] show ?thesis by auto
- next
- case True
- thus ?thesis by auto
- qed
-qed
-
-lemma max_cp_eq:
- shows "Max ((cp s) ` threads s) = Max ((\<lambda> th. (preced th s)) ` threads s)"
- (is "?l = ?r")
-proof(cases "threads s = {}")
- case True
- thus ?thesis by auto
-next
- case False
- have "?l \<in> ((cp s) ` threads s)"
- proof(rule Max_in)
- from finite_threads
- show "finite (cp s ` threads s)" by auto
- next
- from False show "cp s ` threads s \<noteq> {}" by auto
- qed
- then obtain th
- where th_in: "th \<in> threads s" and eq_l: "?l = cp s th" by auto
- have "\<dots> \<le> ?r" by (rule cp_le[OF th_in])
- moreover have "?r \<le> cp s th" (is "Max (?f ` ?A) \<le> cp s th")
- proof -
- have "?r \<in> (?f ` ?A)"
- proof(rule Max_in)
- from finite_threads
- show " finite ((\<lambda>th. preced th s) ` threads s)" by auto
- next
- from False show " (\<lambda>th. preced th s) ` threads s \<noteq> {}" by auto
- qed
- then obtain th' where
- th_in': "th' \<in> ?A " and eq_r: "?r = ?f th'" by auto
- from le_cp [of th'] eq_r
- have "?r \<le> cp s th'" by auto
- moreover have "\<dots> \<le> cp s th"
- proof(fold eq_l)
- show " cp s th' \<le> Max (cp s ` threads s)"
- proof(rule Max_ge)
- from th_in' show "cp s th' \<in> cp s ` threads s"
- by auto
- next
- from finite_threads
- show "finite (cp s ` threads s)" by auto
- qed
- qed
- ultimately show ?thesis by auto
- qed
- ultimately show ?thesis using eq_l by auto
-qed
-
-lemma max_cp_readys_threads_pre:
- assumes np: "threads s \<noteq> {}"
- shows "Max (cp s ` readys s) = Max (cp s ` threads s)"
-proof(unfold max_cp_eq)
- show "Max (cp s ` readys s) = Max ((\<lambda>th. preced th s) ` threads s)"
- proof -
- let ?p = "Max ((\<lambda>th. preced th s) ` threads s)"
- let ?f = "(\<lambda>th. preced th s)"
- have "?p \<in> ((\<lambda>th. preced th s) ` threads s)"
- proof(rule Max_in)
- from finite_threads show "finite (?f ` threads s)" by simp
- next
- from np show "?f ` threads s \<noteq> {}" by simp
- qed
- then obtain tm where tm_max: "?f tm = ?p" and tm_in: "tm \<in> threads s"
- by (auto simp:Image_def)
- from th_chain_to_ready [OF tm_in]
- have "tm \<in> readys s \<or> (\<exists>th'. th' \<in> readys s \<and> (Th tm, Th th') \<in> (RAG s)\<^sup>+)" .
- thus ?thesis
- proof
- assume "\<exists>th'. th' \<in> readys s \<and> (Th tm, Th th') \<in> (RAG s)\<^sup>+ "
- then obtain th' where th'_in: "th' \<in> readys s"
- and tm_chain:"(Th tm, Th th') \<in> (RAG s)\<^sup>+" by auto
- have "cp s th' = ?f tm"
- proof(subst cp_eq_cpreced, subst cpreced_def, rule Max_eqI)
- from dependants_threads finite_threads
- show "finite ((\<lambda>th. preced th s) ` ({th'} \<union> dependants (wq s) th'))"
- by (auto intro:finite_subset)
- next
- fix p assume p_in: "p \<in> (\<lambda>th. preced th s) ` ({th'} \<union> dependants (wq s) th')"
- from tm_max have " preced tm s = Max ((\<lambda>th. preced th s) ` threads s)" .
- moreover have "p \<le> \<dots>"
- proof(rule Max_ge)
- from finite_threads
- show "finite ((\<lambda>th. preced th s) ` threads s)" by simp
- next
- from p_in and th'_in and dependants_threads[of th']
- show "p \<in> (\<lambda>th. preced th s) ` threads s"
- by (auto simp:readys_def)
- qed
- ultimately show "p \<le> preced tm s" by auto
- next
- show "preced tm s \<in> (\<lambda>th. preced th s) ` ({th'} \<union> dependants (wq s) th')"
- proof -
- from tm_chain
- have "tm \<in> dependants (wq s) th'"
- by (unfold cs_dependants_def s_RAG_def cs_RAG_def, auto)
- thus ?thesis by auto
- qed
- qed
- with tm_max
- have h: "cp s th' = Max ((\<lambda>th. preced th s) ` threads s)" by simp
- show ?thesis
- proof (fold h, rule Max_eqI)
- fix q
- assume "q \<in> cp s ` readys s"
- then obtain th1 where th1_in: "th1 \<in> readys s"
- and eq_q: "q = cp s th1" by auto
- show "q \<le> cp s th'"
- apply (unfold h eq_q)
- apply (unfold cp_eq_cpreced cpreced_def)
- apply (rule Max_mono)
- proof -
- from dependants_threads [of th1] th1_in
- show "(\<lambda>th. preced th s) ` ({th1} \<union> dependants (wq s) th1) \<subseteq>
- (\<lambda>th. preced th s) ` threads s"
- by (auto simp:readys_def)
- next
- show "(\<lambda>th. preced th s) ` ({th1} \<union> dependants (wq s) th1) \<noteq> {}" by simp
- next
- from finite_threads
- show " finite ((\<lambda>th. preced th s) ` threads s)" by simp
- qed
- next
- from finite_threads
- show "finite (cp s ` readys s)" by (auto simp:readys_def)
- next
- from th'_in
- show "cp s th' \<in> cp s ` readys s" by simp
- qed
- next
- assume tm_ready: "tm \<in> readys s"
- show ?thesis
- proof(fold tm_max)
- have cp_eq_p: "cp s tm = preced tm s"
- proof(unfold cp_eq_cpreced cpreced_def, rule Max_eqI)
- fix y
- assume hy: "y \<in> (\<lambda>th. preced th s) ` ({tm} \<union> dependants (wq s) tm)"
- show "y \<le> preced tm s"
- proof -
- { fix y'
- assume hy' : "y' \<in> ((\<lambda>th. preced th s) ` dependants (wq s) tm)"
- have "y' \<le> preced tm s"
- proof(unfold tm_max, rule Max_ge)
- from hy' dependants_threads[of tm]
- show "y' \<in> (\<lambda>th. preced th s) ` threads s" by auto
- next
- from finite_threads
- show "finite ((\<lambda>th. preced th s) ` threads s)" by simp
- qed
- } with hy show ?thesis by auto
- qed
- next
- from dependants_threads[of tm] finite_threads
- show "finite ((\<lambda>th. preced th s) ` ({tm} \<union> dependants (wq s) tm))"
- by (auto intro:finite_subset)
- next
- show "preced tm s \<in> (\<lambda>th. preced th s) ` ({tm} \<union> dependants (wq s) tm)"
- by simp
- qed
- moreover have "Max (cp s ` readys s) = cp s tm"
- proof(rule Max_eqI)
- from tm_ready show "cp s tm \<in> cp s ` readys s" by simp
- next
- from finite_threads
- show "finite (cp s ` readys s)" by (auto simp:readys_def)
- next
- fix y assume "y \<in> cp s ` readys s"
- then obtain th1 where th1_readys: "th1 \<in> readys s"
- and h: "y = cp s th1" by auto
- show "y \<le> cp s tm"
- apply(unfold cp_eq_p h)
- apply(unfold cp_eq_cpreced cpreced_def tm_max, rule Max_mono)
- proof -
- from finite_threads
- show "finite ((\<lambda>th. preced th s) ` threads s)" by simp
- next
- show "(\<lambda>th. preced th s) ` ({th1} \<union> dependants (wq s) th1) \<noteq> {}"
- by simp
- next
- from dependants_threads[of th1] th1_readys
- show "(\<lambda>th. preced th s) ` ({th1} \<union> dependants (wq s) th1)
- \<subseteq> (\<lambda>th. preced th s) ` threads s"
- by (auto simp:readys_def)
- qed
- qed
- ultimately show " Max (cp s ` readys s) = preced tm s" by simp
- qed
- qed
- qed
-qed
-
-text {* (* ccc *) \noindent
- Since the current precedence of the threads in ready queue will always be boosted,
- there must be one inside it has the maximum precedence of the whole system.
-*}
-lemma max_cp_readys_threads:
- shows "Max (cp s ` readys s) = Max (cp s ` threads s)"
-proof(cases "threads s = {}")
- case True
- thus ?thesis
- by (auto simp:readys_def)
-next
- case False
- show ?thesis by (rule max_cp_readys_threads_pre[OF False])
-qed
-
-end
-
-lemma eq_holding: "holding (wq s) th cs = holding s th cs"
- apply (unfold s_holding_def cs_holding_def wq_def, simp)
- done
-
-lemma f_image_eq:
- assumes h: "\<And> a. a \<in> A \<Longrightarrow> f a = g a"
- shows "f ` A = g ` A"
-proof
- show "f ` A \<subseteq> g ` A"
- by(rule image_subsetI, auto intro:h)
-next
- show "g ` A \<subseteq> f ` A"
- by (rule image_subsetI, auto intro:h[symmetric])
-qed
-
-
-definition detached :: "state \<Rightarrow> thread \<Rightarrow> bool"
- where "detached s th \<equiv> (\<not>(\<exists> cs. holding s th cs)) \<and> (\<not>(\<exists>cs. waiting s th cs))"
-
-
-lemma detached_test:
- shows "detached s th = (Th th \<notin> Field (RAG s))"
-apply(simp add: detached_def Field_def)
-apply(simp add: s_RAG_def)
-apply(simp add: s_holding_abv s_waiting_abv)
-apply(simp add: Domain_iff Range_iff)
-apply(simp add: wq_def)
-apply(auto)
-done
-
-context valid_trace
-begin
-
-lemma detached_intro:
- assumes eq_pv: "cntP s th = cntV s th"
- shows "detached s th"
-proof -
- from cnp_cnv_cncs
- have eq_cnt: "cntP s th =
- cntV s th + (if th \<in> readys s \<or> th \<notin> threads s then cntCS s th else cntCS s th + 1)" .
- hence cncs_zero: "cntCS s th = 0"
- by (auto simp:eq_pv split:if_splits)
- with eq_cnt
- have "th \<in> readys s \<or> th \<notin> threads s" by (auto simp:eq_pv)
- thus ?thesis
- proof
- assume "th \<notin> threads s"
- with range_in dm_RAG_threads
- show ?thesis
- by (auto simp add: detached_def s_RAG_def s_waiting_abv s_holding_abv wq_def Domain_iff Range_iff)
- next
- assume "th \<in> readys s"
- moreover have "Th th \<notin> Range (RAG s)"
- proof -
- from card_0_eq [OF finite_holding] and cncs_zero
- have "holdents s th = {}"
- by (simp add:cntCS_def)
- thus ?thesis
- apply(auto simp:holdents_test)
- apply(case_tac a)
- apply(auto simp:holdents_test s_RAG_def)
- done
- qed
- ultimately show ?thesis
- by (auto simp add: detached_def s_RAG_def s_waiting_abv s_holding_abv wq_def readys_def)
- qed
-qed
-
-lemma detached_elim:
- assumes dtc: "detached s th"
- shows "cntP s th = cntV s th"
-proof -
- from cnp_cnv_cncs
- have eq_pv: " cntP s th =
- cntV s th + (if th \<in> readys s \<or> th \<notin> threads s then cntCS s th else cntCS s th + 1)" .
- have cncs_z: "cntCS s th = 0"
- proof -
- from dtc have "holdents s th = {}"
- unfolding detached_def holdents_test s_RAG_def
- by (simp add: s_waiting_abv wq_def s_holding_abv Domain_iff Range_iff)
- thus ?thesis by (auto simp:cntCS_def)
- qed
- show ?thesis
- proof(cases "th \<in> threads s")
- case True
- with dtc
- have "th \<in> readys s"
- by (unfold readys_def detached_def Field_def Domain_def Range_def,
- auto simp:eq_waiting s_RAG_def)
- with cncs_z and eq_pv show ?thesis by simp
- next
- case False
- with cncs_z and eq_pv show ?thesis by simp
- qed
-qed
-
-lemma detached_eq:
- shows "(detached s th) = (cntP s th = cntV s th)"
- by (insert vt, auto intro:detached_intro detached_elim)
-
-end
-
-text {*
- The lemmas in this .thy file are all obvious lemmas, however, they still needs to be derived
- from the concise and miniature model of PIP given in PrioGDef.thy.
-*}
-
-lemma eq_dependants: "dependants (wq s) = dependants s"
- by (simp add: s_dependants_abv wq_def)
-
-lemma next_th_unique:
- assumes nt1: "next_th s th cs th1"
- and nt2: "next_th s th cs th2"
- shows "th1 = th2"
-using assms by (unfold next_th_def, auto)
-
-lemma birth_time_lt: "s \<noteq> [] \<Longrightarrow> last_set th s < length s"
- apply (induct s, simp)
-proof -
- fix a s
- assume ih: "s \<noteq> [] \<Longrightarrow> last_set th s < length s"
- and eq_as: "a # s \<noteq> []"
- show "last_set th (a # s) < length (a # s)"
- proof(cases "s \<noteq> []")
- case False
- from False show ?thesis
- by (cases a, auto simp:last_set.simps)
- next
- case True
- from ih [OF True] show ?thesis
- by (cases a, auto simp:last_set.simps)
- qed
-qed
-
-lemma th_in_ne: "th \<in> threads s \<Longrightarrow> s \<noteq> []"
- by (induct s, auto simp:threads.simps)
-
-lemma preced_tm_lt: "th \<in> threads s \<Longrightarrow> preced th s = Prc x y \<Longrightarrow> y < length s"
- apply (drule_tac th_in_ne)
- by (unfold preced_def, auto intro: birth_time_lt)
-
-lemma inj_the_preced:
- "inj_on (the_preced s) (threads s)"
- by (metis inj_onI preced_unique the_preced_def)
-
-lemma tRAG_alt_def:
- "tRAG s = {(Th th1, Th th2) | th1 th2.
- \<exists> cs. (Th th1, Cs cs) \<in> RAG s \<and> (Cs cs, Th th2) \<in> RAG s}"
- by (auto simp:tRAG_def RAG_split wRAG_def hRAG_def)
-
-lemma tRAG_Field:
- "Field (tRAG s) \<subseteq> Field (RAG s)"
- by (unfold tRAG_alt_def Field_def, auto)
-
-lemma tRAG_ancestorsE:
- assumes "x \<in> ancestors (tRAG s) u"
- obtains th where "x = Th th"
-proof -
- from assms have "(u, x) \<in> (tRAG s)^+"
- by (unfold ancestors_def, auto)
- from tranclE[OF this] obtain c where "(c, x) \<in> tRAG s" by auto
- then obtain th where "x = Th th"
- by (unfold tRAG_alt_def, auto)
- from that[OF this] show ?thesis .
-qed
-
-lemma tRAG_mono:
- assumes "RAG s' \<subseteq> RAG s"
- shows "tRAG s' \<subseteq> tRAG s"
- using assms
- by (unfold tRAG_alt_def, auto)
-
-lemma holding_next_thI:
- assumes "holding s th cs"
- and "length (wq s cs) > 1"
- obtains th' where "next_th s th cs th'"
-proof -
- from assms(1)[folded eq_holding, unfolded cs_holding_def]
- have " th \<in> set (wq s cs) \<and> th = hd (wq s cs)" .
- then obtain rest where h1: "wq s cs = th#rest"
- by (cases "wq s cs", auto)
- with assms(2) have h2: "rest \<noteq> []" by auto
- let ?th' = "hd (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set rest)"
- have "next_th s th cs ?th'" using h1(1) h2
- by (unfold next_th_def, auto)
- from that[OF this] show ?thesis .
-qed
-
-lemma RAG_tRAG_transfer:
- assumes "vt s'"
- assumes "RAG s = RAG s' \<union> {(Th th, Cs cs)}"
- and "(Cs cs, Th th'') \<in> RAG s'"
- shows "tRAG s = tRAG s' \<union> {(Th th, Th th'')}" (is "?L = ?R")
-proof -
- interpret vt_s': valid_trace "s'" using assms(1)
- by (unfold_locales, simp)
- interpret rtree: rtree "RAG s'"
- proof
- show "single_valued (RAG s')"
- apply (intro_locales)
- by (unfold single_valued_def,
- auto intro:vt_s'.unique_RAG)
-
- show "acyclic (RAG s')"
- by (rule vt_s'.acyclic_RAG)
- qed
- { fix n1 n2
- assume "(n1, n2) \<in> ?L"
- from this[unfolded tRAG_alt_def]
- obtain th1 th2 cs' where
- h: "n1 = Th th1" "n2 = Th th2"
- "(Th th1, Cs cs') \<in> RAG s"
- "(Cs cs', Th th2) \<in> RAG s" by auto
- from h(4) and assms(2) have cs_in: "(Cs cs', Th th2) \<in> RAG s'" by auto
- from h(3) and assms(2)
- have "(Th th1, Cs cs') = (Th th, Cs cs) \<or>
- (Th th1, Cs cs') \<in> RAG s'" by auto
- hence "(n1, n2) \<in> ?R"
- proof
- assume h1: "(Th th1, Cs cs') = (Th th, Cs cs)"
- hence eq_th1: "th1 = th" by simp
- moreover have "th2 = th''"
- proof -
- from h1 have "cs' = cs" by simp
- from assms(3) cs_in[unfolded this] rtree.sgv
- show ?thesis
- by (unfold single_valued_def, auto)
- qed
- ultimately show ?thesis using h(1,2) by auto
- next
- assume "(Th th1, Cs cs') \<in> RAG s'"
- with cs_in have "(Th th1, Th th2) \<in> tRAG s'"
- by (unfold tRAG_alt_def, auto)
- from this[folded h(1, 2)] show ?thesis by auto
- qed
- } moreover {
- fix n1 n2
- assume "(n1, n2) \<in> ?R"
- hence "(n1, n2) \<in>tRAG s' \<or> (n1, n2) = (Th th, Th th'')" by auto
- hence "(n1, n2) \<in> ?L"
- proof
- assume "(n1, n2) \<in> tRAG s'"
- moreover have "... \<subseteq> ?L"
- proof(rule tRAG_mono)
- show "RAG s' \<subseteq> RAG s" by (unfold assms(2), auto)
- qed
- ultimately show ?thesis by auto
- next
- assume eq_n: "(n1, n2) = (Th th, Th th'')"
- from assms(2, 3) have "(Cs cs, Th th'') \<in> RAG s" by auto
- moreover have "(Th th, Cs cs) \<in> RAG s" using assms(2) by auto
- ultimately show ?thesis
- by (unfold eq_n tRAG_alt_def, auto)
- qed
- } ultimately show ?thesis by auto
-qed
-
-context valid_trace
-begin
-
-lemmas RAG_tRAG_transfer = RAG_tRAG_transfer[OF vt]
-
-end
-
-lemma cp_alt_def:
- "cp s th =
- Max ((the_preced s) ` {th'. Th th' \<in> (subtree (RAG s) (Th th))})"
-proof -
- have "Max (the_preced s ` ({th} \<union> dependants (wq s) th)) =
- Max (the_preced s ` {th'. Th th' \<in> subtree (RAG s) (Th th)})"
- (is "Max (_ ` ?L) = Max (_ ` ?R)")
- proof -
- have "?L = ?R"
- by (auto dest:rtranclD simp:cs_dependants_def cs_RAG_def s_RAG_def subtree_def)
- thus ?thesis by simp
- qed
- thus ?thesis by (unfold cp_eq_cpreced cpreced_def, fold the_preced_def, simp)
-qed
-
lemma cp_gen_alt_def:
"cp_gen s = (Max \<circ> (\<lambda>x. (the_preced s \<circ> the_thread) ` subtree (tRAG s) x))"
by (auto simp:cp_gen_def)
@@ -3272,7 +3888,7 @@
{ fix a
assume "a \<in> subtree (tRAG s) x"
hence "(a, x) \<in> (tRAG s)^*" by (auto simp:subtree_def)
- with tRAG_star_RAG[of s]
+ with tRAG_star_RAG
have "(a, x) \<in> (RAG s)^*" by auto
hence "a \<in> subtree (RAG s) x" by (auto simp:subtree_def)
} thus ?thesis by auto
@@ -3288,7 +3904,7 @@
hence "(Th th', Th th) \<in> (tRAG s)^+" by auto
from tranclD[OF this]
obtain z where h: "(Th th', z) \<in> tRAG s" "(z, Th th) \<in> (tRAG s)\<^sup>*" by auto
- from tRAG_subtree_RAG[of s] and this(2)
+ from tRAG_subtree_RAG and this(2)
have "(z, Th th) \<in> (RAG s)^*" by (meson subsetCE tRAG_star_RAG)
moreover from h(1) have "(Th th', z) \<in> (RAG s)^+" using tRAG_alt_def by auto
ultimately have "th' \<in> ?R" by auto
@@ -3307,7 +3923,8 @@
case Nil
from 1(2)[unfolded Cons1 Nil]
have rp: "rpath (RAG s) (Th th') [x1] (Th th)" .
- hence "(Th th', x1) \<in> (RAG s)" by (cases, simp)
+ hence "(Th th', x1) \<in> (RAG s)"
+ by (cases, auto)
then obtain cs where "x1 = Cs cs"
by (unfold s_RAG_def, auto)
from rpath_nnl_lastE[OF rp[unfolded this]]
@@ -3359,19 +3976,46 @@
lemma dependants_alt_def:
"dependants s th = {th'. (Th th', Th th) \<in> (tRAG s)^+}"
by (metis eq_RAG s_dependants_def tRAG_trancl_eq)
-
+
+lemma dependants_alt_def1:
+ "dependants (s::state) th = {th'. (Th th', Th th) \<in> (RAG s)^+}"
+ using dependants_alt_def tRAG_trancl_eq by auto
+
+context valid_trace
+begin
+lemma count_eq_RAG_plus:
+ assumes "cntP s th = cntV s th"
+ shows "{th'. (Th th', Th th) \<in> (RAG s)^+} = {}"
+proof(rule ccontr)
+ assume otherwise: "{th'. (Th th', Th th) \<in> (RAG s)\<^sup>+} \<noteq> {}"
+ then obtain th' where "(Th th', Th th) \<in> (RAG s)^+" by auto
+ from tranclD2[OF this]
+ obtain z where "z \<in> children (RAG s) (Th th)"
+ by (auto simp:children_def)
+ with eq_pv_children[OF assms]
+ show False by simp
+qed
+
+lemma eq_pv_dependants:
+ assumes eq_pv: "cntP s th = cntV s th"
+ shows "dependants s th = {}"
+proof -
+ from count_eq_RAG_plus[OF assms, folded dependants_alt_def1]
+ show ?thesis .
+qed
+
+end
+
+lemma eq_dependants: "dependants (wq s) = dependants s"
+ by (simp add: s_dependants_abv wq_def)
+
context valid_trace
begin
lemma count_eq_tRAG_plus:
assumes "cntP s th = cntV s th"
shows "{th'. (Th th', Th th) \<in> (tRAG s)^+} = {}"
- using assms count_eq_dependants dependants_alt_def eq_dependants by auto
-
-lemma count_eq_RAG_plus:
- assumes "cntP s th = cntV s th"
- shows "{th'. (Th th', Th th) \<in> (RAG s)^+} = {}"
- using assms count_eq_dependants cs_dependants_def eq_RAG by auto
+ using assms eq_pv_dependants dependants_alt_def eq_dependants by auto
lemma count_eq_RAG_plus_Th:
assumes "cntP s th = cntV s th"
@@ -3382,6 +4026,113 @@
assumes "cntP s th = cntV s th"
shows "{Th th' | th'. (Th th', Th th) \<in> (tRAG s)^+} = {}"
using count_eq_tRAG_plus[OF assms] by auto
+end
+
+lemma inj_the_preced:
+ "inj_on (the_preced s) (threads s)"
+ by (metis inj_onI preced_unique the_preced_def)
+
+lemma tRAG_Field:
+ "Field (tRAG s) \<subseteq> Field (RAG s)"
+ by (unfold tRAG_alt_def Field_def, auto)
+
+lemma tRAG_ancestorsE:
+ assumes "x \<in> ancestors (tRAG s) u"
+ obtains th where "x = Th th"
+proof -
+ from assms have "(u, x) \<in> (tRAG s)^+"
+ by (unfold ancestors_def, auto)
+ from tranclE[OF this] obtain c where "(c, x) \<in> tRAG s" by auto
+ then obtain th where "x = Th th"
+ by (unfold tRAG_alt_def, auto)
+ from that[OF this] show ?thesis .
+qed
+
+lemma tRAG_mono:
+ assumes "RAG s' \<subseteq> RAG s"
+ shows "tRAG s' \<subseteq> tRAG s"
+ using assms
+ by (unfold tRAG_alt_def, auto)
+
+lemma holding_next_thI:
+ assumes "holding s th cs"
+ and "length (wq s cs) > 1"
+ obtains th' where "next_th s th cs th'"
+proof -
+ from assms(1)[folded holding_eq, unfolded cs_holding_def]
+ have " th \<in> set (wq s cs) \<and> th = hd (wq s cs)"
+ by (unfold s_holding_def, fold wq_def, auto)
+ then obtain rest where h1: "wq s cs = th#rest"
+ by (cases "wq s cs", auto)
+ with assms(2) have h2: "rest \<noteq> []" by auto
+ let ?th' = "hd (SOME q. distinct q \<and> set q = set rest)"
+ have "next_th s th cs ?th'" using h1(1) h2
+ by (unfold next_th_def, auto)
+ from that[OF this] show ?thesis .
+qed
+
+lemma RAG_tRAG_transfer:
+ assumes "vt s'"
+ assumes "RAG s = RAG s' \<union> {(Th th, Cs cs)}"
+ and "(Cs cs, Th th'') \<in> RAG s'"
+ shows "tRAG s = tRAG s' \<union> {(Th th, Th th'')}" (is "?L = ?R")
+proof -
+ interpret vt_s': valid_trace "s'" using assms(1)
+ by (unfold_locales, simp)
+ { fix n1 n2
+ assume "(n1, n2) \<in> ?L"
+ from this[unfolded tRAG_alt_def]
+ obtain th1 th2 cs' where
+ h: "n1 = Th th1" "n2 = Th th2"
+ "(Th th1, Cs cs') \<in> RAG s"
+ "(Cs cs', Th th2) \<in> RAG s" by auto
+ from h(4) and assms(2) have cs_in: "(Cs cs', Th th2) \<in> RAG s'" by auto
+ from h(3) and assms(2)
+ have "(Th th1, Cs cs') = (Th th, Cs cs) \<or>
+ (Th th1, Cs cs') \<in> RAG s'" by auto
+ hence "(n1, n2) \<in> ?R"
+ proof
+ assume h1: "(Th th1, Cs cs') = (Th th, Cs cs)"
+ hence eq_th1: "th1 = th" by simp
+ moreover have "th2 = th''"
+ proof -
+ from h1 have "cs' = cs" by simp
+ from assms(3) cs_in[unfolded this]
+ show ?thesis using vt_s'.unique_RAG by auto
+ qed
+ ultimately show ?thesis using h(1,2) by auto
+ next
+ assume "(Th th1, Cs cs') \<in> RAG s'"
+ with cs_in have "(Th th1, Th th2) \<in> tRAG s'"
+ by (unfold tRAG_alt_def, auto)
+ from this[folded h(1, 2)] show ?thesis by auto
+ qed
+ } moreover {
+ fix n1 n2
+ assume "(n1, n2) \<in> ?R"
+ hence "(n1, n2) \<in>tRAG s' \<or> (n1, n2) = (Th th, Th th'')" by auto
+ hence "(n1, n2) \<in> ?L"
+ proof
+ assume "(n1, n2) \<in> tRAG s'"
+ moreover have "... \<subseteq> ?L"
+ proof(rule tRAG_mono)
+ show "RAG s' \<subseteq> RAG s" by (unfold assms(2), auto)
+ qed
+ ultimately show ?thesis by auto
+ next
+ assume eq_n: "(n1, n2) = (Th th, Th th'')"
+ from assms(2, 3) have "(Cs cs, Th th'') \<in> RAG s" by auto
+ moreover have "(Th th, Cs cs) \<in> RAG s" using assms(2) by auto
+ ultimately show ?thesis
+ by (unfold eq_n tRAG_alt_def, auto)
+ qed
+ } ultimately show ?thesis by auto
+qed
+
+context valid_trace
+begin
+
+lemmas RAG_tRAG_transfer = RAG_tRAG_transfer[OF vt]
end
@@ -3439,16 +4190,9 @@
by (unfold eq_a, simp, unfold cp_gen_def_cond[OF refl[of "Th th"]], simp)
qed
-
context valid_trace
begin
-lemma RAG_threads:
- assumes "(Th th) \<in> Field (RAG s)"
- shows "th \<in> threads s"
- using assms
- by (metis Field_def UnE dm_RAG_threads range_in vt)
-
lemma subtree_tRAG_thread:
assumes "th \<in> threads s"
shows "subtree (tRAG s) (Th th) \<subseteq> Th ` threads s" (is "?L \<subseteq> ?R")
@@ -3510,140 +4254,90 @@
shows "(Th th) \<notin> Field (RAG s)"
proof
assume "(Th th) \<in> Field (RAG s)"
- with dm_RAG_threads and range_in assms
+ with dm_RAG_threads and rg_RAG_threads assms
show False by (unfold Field_def, blast)
qed
-lemma wf_RAG: "wf (RAG s)"
-proof(rule finite_acyclic_wf)
- from finite_RAG show "finite (RAG s)" .
-next
- from acyclic_RAG show "acyclic (RAG s)" .
-qed
-
-lemma sgv_wRAG: "single_valued (wRAG s)"
- using waiting_unique
- by (unfold single_valued_def wRAG_def, auto)
-
-lemma sgv_hRAG: "single_valued (hRAG s)"
- using holding_unique
- by (unfold single_valued_def hRAG_def, auto)
-
-lemma sgv_tRAG: "single_valued (tRAG s)"
- by (unfold tRAG_def, rule single_valued_relcomp,
- insert sgv_wRAG sgv_hRAG, auto)
-
-lemma acyclic_tRAG: "acyclic (tRAG s)"
-proof(unfold tRAG_def, rule acyclic_compose)
- show "acyclic (RAG s)" using acyclic_RAG .
-next
- show "wRAG s \<subseteq> RAG s" unfolding RAG_split by auto
-next
- show "hRAG s \<subseteq> RAG s" unfolding RAG_split by auto
-qed
-
-lemma sgv_RAG: "single_valued (RAG s)"
- using unique_RAG by (auto simp:single_valued_def)
-
-lemma rtree_RAG: "rtree (RAG s)"
- using sgv_RAG acyclic_RAG
- by (unfold rtree_def rtree_axioms_def sgv_def, auto)
-
end
-sublocale valid_trace < rtree_RAG: rtree "RAG s"
-proof
- show "single_valued (RAG s)"
- apply (intro_locales)
- by (unfold single_valued_def,
- auto intro:unique_RAG)
-
- show "acyclic (RAG s)"
- by (rule acyclic_RAG)
-qed
-
-sublocale valid_trace < rtree_s: rtree "tRAG s"
-proof(unfold_locales)
- from sgv_tRAG show "single_valued (tRAG s)" .
-next
- from acyclic_tRAG show "acyclic (tRAG s)" .
-qed
-
-sublocale valid_trace < fsbtRAGs : fsubtree "RAG s"
-proof -
- show "fsubtree (RAG s)"
- proof(intro_locales)
- show "fbranch (RAG s)" using finite_fbranchI[OF finite_RAG] .
- next
- show "fsubtree_axioms (RAG s)"
- proof(unfold fsubtree_axioms_def)
- from wf_RAG show "wf (RAG s)" .
- qed
- qed
-qed
-
-sublocale valid_trace < fsbttRAGs: fsubtree "tRAG s"
-proof -
- have "fsubtree (tRAG s)"
- proof -
- have "fbranch (tRAG s)"
- proof(unfold tRAG_def, rule fbranch_compose)
- show "fbranch (wRAG s)"
- proof(rule finite_fbranchI)
- from finite_RAG show "finite (wRAG s)"
- by (unfold RAG_split, auto)
- qed
- next
- show "fbranch (hRAG s)"
- proof(rule finite_fbranchI)
- from finite_RAG
- show "finite (hRAG s)" by (unfold RAG_split, auto)
- qed
- qed
- moreover have "wf (tRAG s)"
- proof(rule wf_subset)
- show "wf (RAG s O RAG s)" using wf_RAG
- by (fold wf_comp_self, simp)
- next
- show "tRAG s \<subseteq> (RAG s O RAG s)"
- by (unfold tRAG_alt_def, auto)
- qed
- ultimately show ?thesis
- by (unfold fsubtree_def fsubtree_axioms_def,auto)
- qed
- from this[folded tRAG_def] show "fsubtree (tRAG s)" .
-qed
-
-lemma Max_UNION:
- assumes "finite A"
- and "A \<noteq> {}"
- and "\<forall> M \<in> f ` A. finite M"
- and "\<forall> M \<in> f ` A. M \<noteq> {}"
- shows "Max (\<Union>x\<in> A. f x) = Max (Max ` f ` A)" (is "?L = ?R")
- using assms[simp]
-proof -
- have "?L = Max (\<Union>(f ` A))"
- by (fold Union_image_eq, simp)
- also have "... = ?R"
- by (subst Max_Union, simp+)
- finally show ?thesis .
-qed
-
-lemma max_Max_eq:
- assumes "finite A"
- and "A \<noteq> {}"
- and "x = y"
- shows "max x (Max A) = Max ({y} \<union> A)" (is "?L = ?R")
-proof -
- have "?R = Max (insert y A)" by simp
- also from assms have "... = ?L"
- by (subst Max.insert, simp+)
- finally show ?thesis by simp
-qed
+definition detached :: "state \<Rightarrow> thread \<Rightarrow> bool"
+ where "detached s th \<equiv> (\<not>(\<exists> cs. holding s th cs)) \<and> (\<not>(\<exists>cs. waiting s th cs))"
+
+
+lemma detached_test:
+ shows "detached s th = (Th th \<notin> Field (RAG s))"
+apply(simp add: detached_def Field_def)
+apply(simp add: s_RAG_def)
+apply(simp add: s_holding_abv s_waiting_abv)
+apply(simp add: Domain_iff Range_iff)
+apply(simp add: wq_def)
+apply(auto)
+done
context valid_trace
begin
+lemma detached_intro:
+ assumes eq_pv: "cntP s th = cntV s th"
+ shows "detached s th"
+proof -
+ from eq_pv cnp_cnv_cncs
+ have "th \<in> readys s \<or> th \<notin> threads s" by (auto simp:pvD_def)
+ thus ?thesis
+ proof
+ assume "th \<notin> threads s"
+ with rg_RAG_threads dm_RAG_threads
+ show ?thesis
+ by (auto simp add: detached_def s_RAG_def s_waiting_abv
+ s_holding_abv wq_def Domain_iff Range_iff)
+ next
+ assume "th \<in> readys s"
+ moreover have "Th th \<notin> Range (RAG s)"
+ proof -
+ from eq_pv_children[OF assms]
+ have "children (RAG s) (Th th) = {}" .
+ thus ?thesis
+ by (unfold children_def, auto)
+ qed
+ ultimately show ?thesis
+ by (auto simp add: detached_def s_RAG_def s_waiting_abv
+ s_holding_abv wq_def readys_def)
+ qed
+qed
+
+lemma detached_elim:
+ assumes dtc: "detached s th"
+ shows "cntP s th = cntV s th"
+proof -
+ have cncs_z: "cntCS s th = 0"
+ proof -
+ from dtc have "holdents s th = {}"
+ unfolding detached_def holdents_test s_RAG_def
+ by (simp add: s_waiting_abv wq_def s_holding_abv Domain_iff Range_iff)
+ thus ?thesis by (auto simp:cntCS_def)
+ qed
+ show ?thesis
+ proof(cases "th \<in> threads s")
+ case True
+ with dtc
+ have "th \<in> readys s"
+ by (unfold readys_def detached_def Field_def Domain_def Range_def,
+ auto simp:waiting_eq s_RAG_def)
+ with cncs_z show ?thesis using cnp_cnv_cncs by (simp add:pvD_def)
+ next
+ case False
+ with cncs_z and cnp_cnv_cncs show ?thesis by (simp add:pvD_def)
+ qed
+qed
+
+lemma detached_eq:
+ shows "(detached s th) = (cntP s th = cntV s th)"
+ by (insert vt, auto intro:detached_intro detached_elim)
+
+end
+
+context valid_trace
+begin
(* ddd *)
lemma cp_gen_rec:
assumes "x = Th th"
@@ -3720,12 +4414,8 @@
qed
qed
-end
-
-(* keep *)
lemma next_th_holding:
- assumes vt: "vt s"
- and nxt: "next_th s th cs th'"
+ assumes nxt: "next_th s th cs th'"
shows "holding (wq s) th cs"
proof -
from nxt[unfolded next_th_def]
@@ -3736,9 +4426,6 @@
by (unfold cs_holding_def, auto)
qed
-context valid_trace
-begin
-
lemma next_th_waiting:
assumes nxt: "next_th s th cs th'"
shows "waiting (wq s) th' cs"
@@ -3771,17 +4458,91 @@
end
--- {* A useless definition *}
-definition cps:: "state \<Rightarrow> (thread \<times> precedence) set"
-where "cps s = {(th, cp s th) | th . th \<in> threads s}"
-
-
-find_theorems "waiting" holding
+lemma next_th_unique:
+ assumes nt1: "next_th s th cs th1"
+ and nt2: "next_th s th cs th2"
+ shows "th1 = th2"
+using assms by (unfold next_th_def, auto)
+
context valid_trace
begin
-find_theorems "waiting" holding
+thm th_chain_to_ready
+
+find_theorems subtree Th RAG
+
+lemma threads_alt_def:
+ "(threads s) = (\<Union> th \<in> readys s. {th'. Th th' \<in> subtree (RAG s) (Th th)})"
+ (is "?L = ?R")
+proof -
+ { fix th1
+ assume "th1 \<in> ?L"
+ from th_chain_to_ready[OF this]
+ have "th1 \<in> readys s \<or> (\<exists>th'. th' \<in> readys s \<and> (Th th1, Th th') \<in> (RAG s)\<^sup>+)" .
+ hence "th1 \<in> ?R" by (auto simp:subtree_def)
+ } moreover
+ { fix th'
+ assume "th' \<in> ?R"
+ then obtain th where h: "th \<in> readys s" " Th th' \<in> subtree (RAG s) (Th th)"
+ by auto
+ from this(2)
+ have "th' \<in> ?L"
+ proof(cases rule:subtreeE)
+ case 1
+ with h(1) show ?thesis by (auto simp:readys_def)
+ next
+ case 2
+ from tranclD[OF this(2)[unfolded ancestors_def, simplified]]
+ have "Th th' \<in> Domain (RAG s)" by auto
+ from dm_RAG_threads[OF this]
+ show ?thesis .
+ qed
+ } ultimately show ?thesis by auto
+qed
+
+lemma finite_readys [simp]: "finite (readys s)"
+ using finite_threads readys_threads rev_finite_subset by blast
+
+text {* (* ccc *) \noindent
+ Since the current precedence of the threads in ready queue will always be boosted,
+ there must be one inside it has the maximum precedence of the whole system.
+*}
+lemma max_cp_readys_threads:
+ shows "Max (cp s ` readys s) = Max (cp s ` threads s)" (is "?L = ?R")
+proof(cases "readys s = {}")
+ case False
+ have "?R = Max (the_preced s ` threads s)" by (unfold max_cp_eq, simp)
+ also have "... =
+ Max (the_preced s ` (\<Union>th\<in>readys s. {th'. Th th' \<in> subtree (RAG s) (Th th)}))"
+ by (unfold threads_alt_def, simp)
+ also have "... =
+ Max ((\<Union>th\<in>readys s. the_preced s ` {th'. Th th' \<in> subtree (RAG s) (Th th)}))"
+ by (unfold image_UN, simp)
+ also have "... =
+ Max (Max ` (\<lambda>th. the_preced s ` {th'. Th th' \<in> subtree (RAG s) (Th th)}) ` readys s)"
+ proof(rule Max_UNION)
+ show "\<forall>M\<in>(\<lambda>x. the_preced s `
+ {th'. Th th' \<in> subtree (RAG s) (Th x)}) ` readys s. finite M"
+ using finite_subtree_threads by auto
+ qed (auto simp:False subtree_def)
+ also have "... =
+ Max ((Max \<circ> (\<lambda>th. the_preced s ` {th'. Th th' \<in> subtree (RAG s) (Th th)})) ` readys s)"
+ by (unfold image_comp, simp)
+ also have "... = ?L" (is "Max (?f ` ?A) = Max (?g ` ?A)")
+ proof -
+ have "(?f ` ?A) = (?g ` ?A)"
+ proof(rule f_image_eq)
+ fix th1
+ assume "th1 \<in> ?A"
+ thus "?f th1 = ?g th1"
+ by (unfold cp_alt_def, simp)
+ qed
+ thus ?thesis by simp
+ qed
+ finally show ?thesis by simp
+qed (auto simp:threads_alt_def)
end
end
+