Managing Adaptivity in Parallel Systems

  • Marco Aldinucci
  • Marco Danelutto
  • Peter Kilpatrick
  • Carlo Montangero
  • Laura Semini
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7542)


The management of non-functional features (performance, security, power management, etc.) is traditionally a difficult, error prone task for programmers of parallel applications. To take care of these non-functional features, autonomic managers running policies represented as rules using sensors and actuators to monitor and transform a running parallel application may be used. We discuss an approach aimed at providing formal tool support to the integration of independently developed autonomic managers taking care of different non-functional concerns within the same parallel application. Our approach builds on the Behavioural Skeleton experience (autonomic management of non-functional features in structured parallel applications) and on previous results on conflict detection and resolution in rule-based systems.


Model Checker Policy Language Parallel System Parallel Application MAPE Loop 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aldinucci, M., André, F., Buisson, J., Campa, S., Coppola, M., Danelutto, M., Zoccolo, C.: Parallel program/component adaptivity management. In: Gorlatch, S., Danelutto, M. (eds.) Proc. of the Integrated Research in Grid Computing Workshop, Pisa, Italy, TR-05-22, pp. 95–104. Università di Pisa, Dipartimento di Informatica (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aldinucci, M., Campa, S., Danelutto, M., Dazzi, P., Kilpatrick, P., Laforenza, D., Tonellotto, N.: Behavioural skeletons for component autonomic management on grids. In: CoreGRID Workshop on Grid Programming Model, Grid and P2P Systems Architecture, Grid Systems, Tools and Environments, Heraklion, Crete, Greece (June 2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aldinucci, M., Danelutto, M., Kilpatrick, P.: Autonomic management of non-functional concerns in distributed and parallel application programming. In: Proc. of Intl. Parallel & Distributed Processing Symposium, IPDPS, Rome, Italy, pp. 1–12. IEEE (May 2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aldinucci, M., Danelutto, M., Kilpatrick, P.: Autonomic managenemt of multiple non-functional concerns in behavioural skeletons. In: Proc. of the CoreGRID Symposium 2009, CoreGRID, Delft, The Netherlands. Springer (August 2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
    ter Beek, M., Gnesi, S., Montangero, C., Semini, L.: Detecting policy conflicts by model checking UML state machines. In: Reiff-Marganiec, S., Nakamura, M. (eds.) Feature Interactions in Software and Communication System X, pp. 59–74. IOS Press (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    ter Beek, M.H., Fantechi, A., Gnesi, S., Mazzanti, F.: An Action/State-Based Model-Checking Approach for the Analysis of Communication Protocols for Service-Oriented Applications. In: Leue, S., Merino, P. (eds.) FMICS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4916, pp. 133–148. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Calder, M., Kolberg, M., Magill, E.H., Marples, D., Reiff-Marganiec, S.: Hybrid solutions to the feature interaction problem. In: Amyot, D., Logrippo, L. (eds.) FIW, pp. 295–312. IOS Press (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Calder, M., Magill, E.H.: Feature Interactions in Telecommunications and Software Systems VI, Glasgow, Scotland, UK, May 17-19. IOS Press (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Danelutto, M., Kilpatrick, P., Montangero, C., Semini, L.: Model Checking Support for Conflict Resolution in Multiple Non-functional Concern Management. In: Alexander, M., D’Ambra, P., Belloum, A., Bosilca, G., Cannataro, M., Danelutto, M., Di Martino, B., Gerndt, M., Jeannot, E., Namyst, R., Roman, J., Scott, S.L., Traff, J.L., Vallée, G., Weidendorfer, J. (eds.) Euro-Par 2011 Workshops, Part I. LNCS, vol. 7155, pp. 128–138. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Layouni, A.F., Logrippo, L., Turner, K.J.: Conflict detection in call control using first-order logic model checking. In: du Bousquet, L., Richier, J.-L. (eds.) Proc. 9th Int. Conf. on Feature Interactions in Software and Communications Systems, France, pp. 77–92. IMAG Laboratory, University of Grenoble (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mazzanti, F.: UMC User Guide v3.3. Technical Report 2006-TR-33, Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie dell’Informazione “A. Faedo”, CNR (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Montangero, C., Reiff-Marganiec, S., Semini, L.: Logic–Based Detection of Conflicts in Appel Policies. In: Arbab, F., Sirjani, M. (eds.) FSEN 2007. LNCS, vol. 4767, pp. 257–271. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Montangero, C., Reiff-Marganiec, S., Semini, L.: Logic-based conflict detection for distributed policies. Fundamenta Informaticae 89(4), 511–538 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Montangero, C., Semini, L.: Distributed states logic. In: 9th International Symposium on Temporal Representation and Reasoning, TIME 2002, Manchester, UK. IEEE CS Press (July 2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Montangero, C., Semini, L., Semprini, S.: Logic Based Coordination for Event–Driven Self–Healing Distributed Systems. In: De Nicola, R., Ferrari, G.-L., Meredith, G. (eds.) COORDINATION 2004. LNCS, vol. 2949, pp. 248–262. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Reiff-Marganiec, S., Turner, K.J.: Feature interaction in policies. Comput. Networks 45(5), 569–584 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ruz, C.: Autonomic Monitoring and Management of Component-Based Services, PhD Thesis. Univ. de Nice - Sophia Antipolis (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    ter Beek, M.H., Fantechi, A., Gnesi, S., Mazzanti, F.: A state/event-based model-checking approach for the analysis of abstract system properties. Sci. Comput. Program. 76(2), 119–135 (2011)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tonti, G., Bradshaw, J.M., Jeffers, R., Montanari, R., Suri, N., Uszok, A.: Semantic Web Languages for Policy Representation and Reasoning: A Comparison of KAoS, Rei, and Ponder. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) ISWC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2870, pp. 419–437. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Turner, K.J., Reiff-Marganiec, S., Blair, L., Pang, J., Gray, T., Perry, P., Ireland, J.: Policy support for call control. Computer Standards and Interfaces 28(6), 635–649 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Turner, K.J., Reiff-Marganiec, S., Blair, L., Cambpell, G.A., Wang, F.: Appel: An adaptable and programmable policy environment and language. Technical Report TR-161, University of Stirling (December 2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco Aldinucci
    • 2
  • Marco Danelutto
    • 1
  • Peter Kilpatrick
    • 3
  • Carlo Montangero
    • 1
  • Laura Semini
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Computer ScienceUniv. of PisaItaly
  2. 2.Dept. of Computer ScienceUniv. of TorinoItaly
  3. 3.Dept. of Computer ScienceQueen’s Univ. of BelfastUK

Personalised recommendations