Leslie Lamport
Abstract
The theory developed in Part I is used to state the mutual exclusion problem and several additional fairness and failure-tolerance requirements. Four “distributed” N-process solutions are given, ranging from a solution requiring only one communication bit per process that permits individual starvation, to one requiring about N! communication bits per process that satisfies every reasonable fairness and failure-tolerance requirement that we can conceive of.
- 1 BRINCH HANSEN, P. Concurrent programming concepts. ACM Comput. Surv. 5 (1973), 223-245. Google Scholar
- 1a BURNS, J. Mutual exclusion with linear waiting using binary shared variables. ACM SIGACT News (Summer 1978), 42-47. Google Scholar
- 2 DIJKSTRA, E.W. Solution of a problem in concurrent programming control. Commun. ACM 8, 9 (Sept. 1965), 569. Google Scholar
- 3 DIJKSTRA, E.W. Self-stabilizing systems in spite of distributed control. Commun. A CM 17, i l (Nov. 1974), 643-644. Google Scholar
- 4 FISCHER, M. J., LYNCH, N., BURNS, J. E., AND BORODIN, A. Resource allocation with immunity to limited processing failure. In Proceedings of the 20th IEEE Symposium on the Foundations of Computer Science (Oct.). IEEE, New York, 1979, pp. 234-254.Google Scholar
- 5 KATSEFF, H.P. A new solution to the critical section problem. In Conference Record of the lOth Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing (San Diego, Calif., May 1-3). ACM, New York, 1978, pp. 86-88. Google Scholar
- 6 KNUTH, D. E. Additional comments on a problem in concurrent program control. Commun. ACM 9, 5 (May 1966), 321-322. Google Scholar
- 7 LAMPORT, L. A new solution of Dijkstra's concurrent programming problem. Commun. ACM 17, 8 (Aug. 1974), 453-455. Google Scholar
- 8 LAMPORT, L. The synchronization of independent processes. Acta Inf. 7, 1 (1976), 15-34.Google Scholar
- 9 LAMPORT, L. Proving the correctness of multiprocess programs. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. SE-3, 2 (Mar. 1977), 125-143.Google Scholar
- 10 LAMPORT, L. The implementation of reliable distributed multiprocess systems. Comput. Netw. 2 (1978), 95-114.Google Scholar
- 11 LAMPORT, L. The 'Hoare logic' of concurrent programs. Acta Inf. 14, l (1980), 21-37.Google Scholar
- 12 LAMPORT, L. Reasoning about nonatomic operations. In Proceedings of the lOth Annual ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (Austin, Tex., Jan. 24-26). ACM, New York, 1983, pp. 28-37. Google Scholar
- 13 LAMPORT, L. Specifying concurrent program modules. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 5, 2 (Apr. 1983), 190-222. Google Scholar
- 14 LAMPORT, L. What good is temporal logic? In Information Processing 83: Proceedings of the IFIP 9th World Congress (Paris, Sept. 19-23). R. E. A. Mason, Ed. North Holland, Amsterdam, 1983.Google Scholar
- 15 LAMPORT, L. The mutual exclusion problem: Part IBA theory of interprocess communication. J. ACM 33, 2 (Apr. 1986), 313-326. Google Scholar
- 16 OWICKI, S., AND LAMPORT, L. Proving liveness properties of concurrent programs. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 4, 3 (July 1982), 455-495. Google Scholar
- 17 PETERSON, G. L. A new solution to Lamport's concurrent programming problem. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 5, 1 (Jan. 1983), 56-65. Google Scholar
- 18 PETERSON, G., AND FISCHER, M. Economical solutions to the critical section problem in a distributed system. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing (Boulder, Colo., May 2-4). ACM New York, 1977, pp. 91-97. Google Scholar
- 19 RAa}N, M. The choice coordination problem. Acta Inf. 17, (1982), 121-134.Google Scholar
- 20 RIVEST, R. L., AND PRATT, V. R. The mutual exclusion problem for unreliable processes: Preliminary report. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on the Foundation of Computer Science. IEEE, New York, 1976, pp. 1-8.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- The mutual exclusion problem: partII—statement and solutions
Recommendations
The mutual exclusion problem: part II---Statement and solutions
ConcurrencyThe theory developed in Part I is used to state the mutual exclusion problem and several additional fairness and failure-tolerance requirements. Four "distributed" N-process solutions are given, ranging from a solution requiring only one communication ...
Fair group mutual exclusion
PODC '03: Proceedings of the twenty-second annual symposium on Principles of distributed computingIn the group mutual exclusion problem [6], which generalizes mutual exclusion [2], a process chooses a session when it requests entry to the Critical Section. A group mutual exclusion algorithm must ensure that the mutual exclusion property holds: If ...
Generalized Mutual Exclusion with Semaphores Only
The paper deals with a generic solution of the Mutual Exclusion Problem using semaphores only. We use in the solution weakly fair binary semaphores and (not necessarily fair) semaphores with initial value k. All semaphores are simple in that the P and V ...
Reviews
Neal Stanley Coulter
.abstract The theory developed in Part I is used to state the mutual exclusion problem and several additional fairness and failure-tolerance requirements. Four “distributed” N-process solutions are given, ranging from a solution requiring only one communication bit per process that permits individual starvation, to one requiring about N] communications bit per process that satisfies every reasonable fairness and failure-tolerance requirement that we can conceive of. — From the Author's Abstract This paper not only demonstrates the adequacy of the theory presented in its companion paper (see the previous review, Rev. 8704-0279) for expressing and proving many correctness (including robustness and fairness) properties of parallel programs with nonatomic reads and writes, but does so by proving the correctness of new and interesting mutual exclusion algorithms. These algorithms are interesting not only because of their nonatomic operations, but also because of their robustness. In particular, all of the algorithms are “fail-safe”; i.e., they will satisfy their respective “correctness properties” even if one of the processes temporarily sets one of its communication variables to arbitrary values, but then resumes normal execution in its noncritical section. Mutual exclusion algorithms such as the ones given in [1] are not fail-safe in this sense (although, unlike Lamport's algorithms, they are proven resilient under an infinite number of “shut-downs”). The algorithms are also interesting because they supply the number of bits sufficient to satisfy a set of correctness conditions with nonatomic reads and writes. For example, the algorithm (on p. 34) that is deadlock-free and lockout-free takes three bits per process (i.e., 8 n values) while the algorithm in [2] (see p. 192), which uses a powerful test-and-set operation, takes [ n/2] + 9 values. (Peterson [3] presents a deadlock-free and lockout-free algorithm with nonatomic operations that uses only 4 n values, but is not proven to be as robust as Lamport's algorithm.) Through his two papers, Lamport presents a unique and interesting approach to modeling the execution of parallel programs, and he provides insights into the notion of mutual exclusion. The papers are highly recommended to anyone interested in parallel computation.
Access critical reviews of Computing literature here
Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.
Comments