hw4 - 4(25 points In the dining philosopher’s protocol...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
CSE586 (Spring 2010): Homework 4 Due by Mar 24 Wednesday, in class. 1. (15 points) In Lamport’s logical clock based mutual exclusion protocol (Chapter 7), give an example that shows a safety violation if we omit the following check for a process i entering the critical section. For all other j , knownT [ j ] must be larger than the timestamp of req i . 2. (15 points) Show that in Lamport’s mutual exclusion protocol, if a process i is executing the critical section, then i ’s request need not be at the top of the request queue ( reqQ ) at another process j . Is this still true when there are no messages in transit? 3. (20 points) Prove the progress property (by showing a suitable variant function) for Raymond’s Token Tree algorithm for mutual exclusion.
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: 4. (25 points) In the dining philosopher’s protocol, what kind of undesirable scenario may happen if, instead of starting with dirty forks in the initial state, all processes were to start with clean forks? 5. (25 points) Answer the following questions for the hygenic dining philosopher’s protocol in Chapter 8: 1. In the worst case, how much of the neighborhood processes are affected (i.e., starve), when an eating node fails by crushing? (Hint: think about whether it is possible to construct long dependency chains using the priority concept.) 2. In the worst case, how much of the neighborhood processes are affected (i.e., starve), when a thinking node fails by crushing? 1...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online