Results 1 
4 of
4
Asynchronous Group Mutual Exclusion
 Distributed Computing
, 1998
"... Mutual exclusion and concurrency are two fundamental and essentially opposite features in distributed systems. However, in some applications such as Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) we have found it necessary to impose mutual exclusion on dierent groups of processes in accessing a reso ..."
Abstract

Cited by 27 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Mutual exclusion and concurrency are two fundamental and essentially opposite features in distributed systems. However, in some applications such as Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) we have found it necessary to impose mutual exclusion on dierent groups of processes in accessing a resource, while allowing processes of the same group to share the resource. To our knowledge, no such design issue has been previously raised in the literature. In this paper we address this issue by presenting a new problem, called Congenial Talking Philosophers, to model group mutual exclusion. We also propose several criteria to evaluate solutions of the problem and to measure their performance. Finally, we provide an ecient and highly concurrent distributed algorithm for the problem in a sharedmemory model where processes communicate by reading from and writing to shared variables. The distributed algorithm meets the proposed criteria, and has performance similar to some naive but...
A General Resource Allocation Synchronization Problem
 In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS21
, 2001
"... We introduce a new synchronization problem called GRASP. We show that this problem is very general, in that it can provide solutions with strong properties to a wide range of previouslystudied and new problems. The primary goals of this work are to unify and clarify the relationships between existi ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We introduce a new synchronization problem called GRASP. We show that this problem is very general, in that it can provide solutions with strong properties to a wide range of previouslystudied and new problems. The primary goals of this work are to unify and clarify the relationships between existing and new synchronization problems, to provide fast answers about what solutions are possible to new problems (or stronger versions of existing ones), and to provide a baseline against which to compare optimized, problemspecic solutions. We present a sharedmemory solution to this problem. Our solution is based on a new solution to the Dining Philosophers problem with constant failure locality (this implies that a nonfaulty process can be caused to wait indenitely only by the failure of a process within a constant number of steps of it in the graph). We use the powerful tool of waitfree transactions to simplify our solution without restricting concurrency. Email: keane@danet.com. ...
BOUNDED CONCURRENT TIMESTAMPING
"... Abstract. We introduce concurrent timestamping, a paradigm that allows processes to temporally order concurrent events in an asynchronous sharedmemory system. Concurrent timestamp systems are powerful tools for concurrency control, serving as the basis for solutions to coordination problems such ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. We introduce concurrent timestamping, a paradigm that allows processes to temporally order concurrent events in an asynchronous sharedmemory system. Concurrent timestamp systems are powerful tools for concurrency control, serving as the basis for solutions to coordination problems such as mutual exclusion, ‘exclusion, randomized consensus, and multiwriter multireader atomic registers. Unfortunately, all previously known methods for implementing concurrent timestamp systems have been theoretically unsatisfying since they require unboundedsize timestamps in other words, unboundedsize memory. This work presents the rst bounded implementation of a concurrent timestamp system, providing a modular unboundedtobounded transformation of the simple unbounded solutions to problems such as those mentioned above. It allows solutions to two formerly open problems, the boundedprobabilisticconsensus problem of Abrahamson and the fo‘exclusion problem of Fischer, Lynch, Burns and Borodin, and a more ecient construction of multireader multiwriter atomic registers.
Space and Time Efficient SelfStabilizing lExclusion in Tree Networks
, 2000
"... We propose a selfstabilizing `exclusion algorithm in rooted tree networks. The ` exclusion problem is a generalization of the mutual exclusion problemwe allow ` (` 1) processors, instead of 1, to use a shared resource. The algorithm is semiuniform and its space requirement is (` + 3) r states ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
We propose a selfstabilizing `exclusion algorithm in rooted tree networks. The ` exclusion problem is a generalization of the mutual exclusion problemwe allow ` (` 1) processors, instead of 1, to use a shared resource. The algorithm is semiuniform and its space requirement is (` + 3) r states (or dlog((` + 3) r )e bits) for the root r, 3 p states (or dlog(3 p )e bits) for an internal processor p, and 2 states (or 1 bit) for a leaf processor, where p is the degree of processor p. Our algorithm is unique in the sense that this is the rst `exclusion algorithm on trees, whose space requirement is independant of the size of the network for any processor, and is independent of ` for all processors except the root. The stabilization time of the algorithm is only O(` + h) rounds, where h is the height of the tree.