Results 1 
3 of
3
Mutual Exclusion Revisited
"... A family of four mutual exclusion algorithms is presented. Its members vary from a simple threebit linear wait mutual exclusion to the fourbit firstcome firstserved algorithm immune to various faults. The algorithms are based on a scheme similar to the Morris's solution of the mutual exc ..."
Abstract

Cited by 8 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
A family of four mutual exclusion algorithms is presented. Its members vary from a simple threebit linear wait mutual exclusion to the fourbit firstcome firstserved algorithm immune to various faults. The algorithms are based on a scheme similar to the Morris's solution of the mutual exclusion with three weak semaphores. The presented algorithms compare favorably with equivalent published mutual exclusion algorithms in their program's size and the number of required communication bits.
Resilience of Mutual Exclusion Algorithms to Transient Memory Faults
"... We study the behavior of mutual exclusion algorithms in the presence of unreliable shared memory subject to transient memory faults. It is wellknown that classical 2process mutual exclusion algorithms, such as Dekker and Peterson’s algorithms, are not faulttolerant; in this paper we ask what degre ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
We study the behavior of mutual exclusion algorithms in the presence of unreliable shared memory subject to transient memory faults. It is wellknown that classical 2process mutual exclusion algorithms, such as Dekker and Peterson’s algorithms, are not faulttolerant; in this paper we ask what degree of fault tolerance can be achieved using the same restricted resources as Dekker and Peterson’s algorithms, namely, three binary read/write registers. We show that if one memory fault can occur, it is not possible to guarantee both mutual exclusion and deadlockfreedom using three binary registers; this holds in general when fewer than2f+1 binary registers are used and f may be faulty. Hence we focus on algorithms that guarantee (a) mutual exclusion and starvationfreedom in faultfree executions, and (b) only mutual exclusion in faulty executions. We show that using only three binary registers it is possible to design an 2process mutual exclusion algorithm which tolerates a single memory fault in this manner. Further, by replacing one read/write register with a test&set register, we can guarantee mutual exclusion in executions where one variable experiences unboundedly many faults. In the more general setting where up tof registers may be faulty, we show that it is not possible to guarantee mutual exclusion using 2f +1 binary read/write registers if each faulty register can exhibit unboundedly many faults. On the positive side, we show that an nvariable singlefault tolerant algorithm satisfying certain conditions can be transformed into an ((n − 1)f + 1)variable ffault tolerant algorithm with the same progress guarantee as the original. In combination with our threevariable algorithm, this implies that there is a(2f+1)variable mutual exclusion algorithm tolerating a single fault in up tof variables without violating mutual exclusion.
unknown title
"... Afamily of four mutual exclusion algorithms is presented. Its members vary from a simple threebit linear wait mutual exclusion to the fourbit firstcome firstserved algorithm immune to various faults. The algorithms are based on a scheme similar to the Morris’s solution of the mutual exclusion wit ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Afamily of four mutual exclusion algorithms is presented. Its members vary from a simple threebit linear wait mutual exclusion to the fourbit firstcome firstserved algorithm immune to various faults. The algorithms are based on a scheme similar to the Morris’s solution of the mutual exclusion with three weak semaphores. The presented algorithms compare favorably with equivalent published mutual exclusion algorithms in their program’s size and the number of required communication bits. 1.