vault backup: 2025-04-05 00:11:00

This commit is contained in:
Marco Realacci 2025-04-05 00:11:00 +02:00
parent 60c7e97f33
commit 0798769a15
3 changed files with 6 additions and 7 deletions

View file

@ -74,8 +74,7 @@
"title": "Segnalibri"
}
}
],
"currentTab": 1
]
}
],
"direction": "horizontal",
@ -190,10 +189,11 @@
"companion:Toggle completion": false
}
},
"active": "954699747dc12b5e",
"active": "6550032d28b9171c",
"lastOpenFiles": [
"\u0002.md",
"Concurrent Systems/notes/4 - Semaphores.md",
"Concurrent Systems/notes/4c - Dining Philosophers.md",
"\u0002.md",
"Concurrent Systems/notes/1b - Peterson algorithm.md",
"Concurrent Systems/notes/2b - Round Robin algorithm.md",
"Concurrent Systems/notes/10 - Implementing Consensus.md",
@ -201,7 +201,6 @@
"Concurrent Systems/notes/images/Pasted image 20250405000438.png",
"Pasted image 20250405000428.png",
"Concurrent Systems/notes/3b - Aravind's algorithm and improvements.md",
"Concurrent Systems/notes/4 - Semaphores.md",
"Concurrent Systems/notes/4b - Monitors.md",
"Concurrent Systems/a.md",
"Concurrent Systems/notes/images/Pasted image 20250404235033.png",

View file

@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ producer A:
- so producer A will write at `BUF[0]`
- but wait! Consumer B is still reading there
- **Producer A doesn't give a fuck.**
![]()
![200](images/Pasted%20image%2020250312121828.png)`
*don't be like Producer A, be more like Bob, who always scans EMPTY before!*
So the issue here is that producers just assume that IN is the first available slot. But it its not necessarily the case.

View file

@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ The first real practical example of a concurrent system.
- one chopstick between each pair of philosophers
- a philosophers must pick up its two nearest chopsticks in order to eat
- a philosopher must pick up first one chopstick, then the second one, not both at once
![]()
![100](images/Pasted%20image%2020250317100456.png)`
**PROBLEM:** *Devise a deadlock-free algorithm for allocating these limited resources (chopsticks) among several processes (philosophers).*