Skip to main content

Schedulers as enforces in synchronization processes

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover Operating Systems (OS 1974)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 16))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 2320 Accesses

Abstract

A formal model of the process concept is presented. This model can represent many sets of processes such as PV and its many generalizations. In this model the concepts of process and scheduler are separated. This separation allows one to make explicit many statements that otherwise would be implicit. In particular, this separation is used to study how schedulers enforce “fairness”, i.e., how schedulers can force certain actions to execute infinitely often.

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

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. P. J. Courtois, F. Heymans, D. L. Parnas. Concurrent control with “readers” and “writers”. CACM 14(10):667–668.

    Google Scholar 

  2. P. Brinch Hansen. A reply on comments on “A comparison of two synchronizing concepts”, Acta Informatica 2:189–190.

    Google Scholar 

  3. P. J. Courtois, F. Heymans, D. L. Parnas. Comments on “A comparison of two synchronizing concepts by P. Brinch Hansen”. Acta Informatica 1:375–376.

    Google Scholar 

  4. R. J. Lipton. Limitations of synchronization primitives with conditional branching and global variables. To appear in Sixth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, April 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  5. E. W. Dijkstra. Cooperating Sequential Processes, Programming Languages, edited by F. Genuys. 43–112.

    Google Scholar 

  6. A. N. Habermann. Synchronization of Communicating Processes. CACM 15(3):171–176.

    Google Scholar 

  7. H. Vantilborgh and A. van Lamsweerde. On an extension of Dijkstra's semaphore primitives. Information processing letters. 1:181–186.

    Google Scholar 

  8. S. S. Patil. Limitations and capabilities of Dijkstra's semaphore primitives for coordination among processes. Project MAC Computational Structures Group Memo 57.

    Google Scholar 

  9. E. W. Dijkstra. Unpublished manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  10. P. Wodon. Still another tool for controlling cooperating algorithms. Carnegie-Mellon University Report.

    Google Scholar 

  11. J. H. Saltzer. Traffic Control in a Multiplexed Computer Systems, PhD thesis, MIT (Project MAC).

    Google Scholar 

  12. R. J. Lipton. On Synchronization Primitive Systems, Yale University Research Report #22.

    Google Scholar 

  13. E. W. Dijkstra. The Structure of the “THE” Multiprogramming System. CACM 11(5):341–347.

    Google Scholar 

  14. P. Brinch Hansen. A comparison of two synchronizing concepts. Acta Informatica 1:190–199.

    Google Scholar 

  15. R. J. Lipton. Reduction: A New Method of Proving Properties of Systems of Processes. In preparation.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

E. Gelenbe C. Kaiser

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1974 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Lipton, R.J. (1974). Schedulers as enforces in synchronization processes. In: Gelenbe, E., Kaiser, C. (eds) Operating Systems. OS 1974. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 16. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0029363

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0029363

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-06849-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-37805-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics