A more efficient generalization of Peterson's mutual exclusion algorithm

Block, Kenneth; Woo, Tai-Kuo

doi:10.1016/0020-0190(90)90048-3

Cited by 8 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In our algorithm, it is determined in the beginning and does not change due to future contention for CS. Also, the number of bypasses over a process in accessing CS is high in Peterson's algorithm and its variations (unbounded for the algorithms given in [11,17] and (N (N − 1)/2) for the algorithm given in [3]). These algorithms require the shared variable turn to be atomic.…”

Section: Related Work and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A queue based mutual exclusion algorithm

Aravind

Hesselink

2008

Acta Informatica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A new elegant and simple algorithm for mutual exclusion of N processes is proposed. It only requires shared variables in a memory model where shared variables need not be accessed atomically. We prove mutual exclusion by reformulating the algorithm as a transition system (automaton), and applying simulation of automata. The proof has been verified with the higher-order interactive theorem prover PVS. Under an additional atomicity assumption, the algorithm is starvation free, and we conjecture that no competing process is passed by any other process more than once. This conjecture was verified by model checking for systems with at most five processes.

show abstract

Section: Related Work and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A queue based mutual exclusion algorithm

Aravind

Hesselink

2008

Acta Informatica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Here, we treat the solution we proposed in [4], which can be regarded as a variation of the protocol of Block and Woo [5]. In [4], we proved that our protocol guarantees mutual exclusion, as well as progress, in the sense that, whenever some threads are competing to enter the critical section, eventually some thread will enter the critical section.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Surveys can be found in [3,15,16]. In particular, the solutions by Lamport [10] and Peterson [14] have inspired several variations [2,5,9,16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Queue based mutual exclusion with linearly bounded overtaking

Hesselink

Aravind

2011

Science of Computer Programming

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tThe queue based mutual exclusion protocol establishes mutual exclusion for N > 1 threads by means of not necessarily atomic variables. In order to enter the critical section, a competing thread needs to traverse as many levels as there are currently competing threads. Competing threads can be overtaken by other competing threads. It is proved here, however, that every competing thread is overtaken less than N times, and that the overtaking threads were competing when the first one of them exits.

show abstract

“…In [3], Block and Woo presented an interesting variation in which the number of stages to be crossed varies from 1 to n rather than fixed n − 1.…”

Section: Algorithms Reviewmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…to its simplicity and elegance. Also, the algorithm has been extensively studied and expanded in the literature [5,11,6,3,8,13,12,1,7,9,14]. In this paper, we first study Peterson's algorithm [10] and the algorithm by Block [3].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

A mutual exclusion algorithm with optimally bounded bypasses

Alagarsamy

2005

Information Processing Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A more efficient generalization of Peterson's mutual exclusion algorithm

Cited by 8 publications

References 4 publications

A queue based mutual exclusion algorithm

A queue based mutual exclusion algorithm

Queue based mutual exclusion with linearly bounded overtaking

A mutual exclusion algorithm with optimally bounded bypasses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About