Skip to main content

Consistency Requirements of Peterson’s Algorithm for Mutual Exclusion of n Processes in a Distributed Shared Memory System

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 2328))

Abstract

This paper deals with consistency requirements of Peterson’s algorithm for mutual exclusion of n processes in a distributed shared memory (DSM) system.

It is shown here that a suitable combination of processor consistency and PRAM consistency, i.e. two models that are weaker than sequential consistency, is sufficient for the correctness of Peterson’s algorithm for n processes. The algorithm resulting from the combination is proven to be correct in terms of safety and liveness including progress and lockout-freedom. Moreover, the combination is proven to be optimal for Peterson’s algorithm in the sense that the relaxation of any write operation consistency semantics leads to incorrectness of the algorithm.

This work was supported in part by the State Committee for Scientific Research (KBN), Poland, under grant KBN 7 T11C 036 21

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. M. Ahamad, R. A. Bazzi, R. John, P. Kohli, and G. Neiger. The power of processor consistency (extended abstract). In Proc. of the 5th ACM Annual Symp. on Parallel Algorithms and Architectures (SPAA’93), pages 251–260, June 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  2. M. Ahamad, G. Neiger, P. Kohli, J. E. Burns, and P. W. Hutto. Casual memory: Definitions, implementation and programming. Distributed Computing, 9:37–49, 1995.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. H. Attiya and R. Friedman. Limitations of fast consistency conditions for distributed shared memories. Information Processing Letters, 57(5):243–248, March 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  4. J. Brzezinski and D. Wawrzyniak. Supporting multiple consistency models in distributed shared memory system. In Proc. of DAPSYS98 Workshop on Distributed and Parallel Systems, pages 83–90, September 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  5. J. Brzezinski and D. Wawrzyniak. Consistency requirements of distributed shared memory for Peterson’s mutual exclusion algorithm. In Proc. of the 14th Int’l Symposium on Computer and Information Science (ISCIS XIV), pages 304–311, October 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  6. J. Brzezinski and D. Wawrzyniak. Consistency requirements of distributed shared memory for Dijkstra’s mutual exclusion algorithm. In Proc. of the 20th Int’l Conf. on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS 2000), pages 618–625, October 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  7. J. Brzezinski and D. Wawrzyniak. Consistency requirements of distributed shared memory for Lamport’s bakery algorithm for mutual exclusion. In Proc. of the 8th Euromicro Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Processing, pages 220–226, October 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  8. J. Brzezinski and D. Wawrzyniak. Consistency requirements of Peterson’s algorithm for mutual exclusion of n processes in a distributed shared memory system. Technical Report RA-008/01, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  9. J. R. Goodman. Cache consistency and sequential consistency. Technical Report 61, IEEE Scalable Coherence Interface Working Group, March 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  10. L. Lamport. How to make a multiprocessor computer that correctly executes multiprocess programs. IEEE Transactions on Computers, C-28(9):690–691, September 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  11. R. J. Lipton and J. S. Sandberg. PRAM: A scalable shared memory. Technical Report CS-TR-180-88, Dept. of Computer Science, Princeton University, September 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  12. N.A. Lynch. Distributed Algorithms. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  13. J. Misra. Axioms for memory access in asynchronous hardware systems. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 8(1):142–153, January 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  14. G. L. Peterson. Myths about the mutual exclusion problem. Information Processing Letters, 12(3):115–116, June 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  15. D. Wawrzyniak. Complex Consistency Models of Distributed Shared Memory and their Application to Mutual Exclusion Algorithms. PhD thesis, Institute of Computing Science, Poznan University of Technology, December 2000.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Brzeziński, J., Wawrzyniak, D. (2002). Consistency Requirements of Peterson’s Algorithm for Mutual Exclusion of n Processes in a Distributed Shared Memory System. In: Wyrzykowski, R., Dongarra, J., Paprzycki, M., Waśniewski, J. (eds) Parallel Processing and Applied Mathematics. PPAM 2001. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2328. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48086-2_22

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48086-2_22

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-43792-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-48086-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics