vault backup: 2025-03-10 23:37:52
This commit is contained in:
parent
367d22ad37
commit
bd349a41c2
1 changed files with 2 additions and 12 deletions
|
@ -77,21 +77,11 @@ unlock(i) :=
|
|||
STAGE[i] <- 0
|
||||
FLAG[i] <- down
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Since the LOCK is like before, the revised protocol satisfies MUTEX. Furthermore, you can prove that it satisfies bounded bypass with bound n-1 -> EXERCISE!
|
||||
|
||||
Let's remember ourselves how is the locking function defined:
|
||||
```
|
||||
lock(i) :=
|
||||
FLAG[i] <- up
|
||||
repeat
|
||||
STAGE[i] <- 0
|
||||
wait (foreach j != i, FLAG[j] = down OR DATE[i] < DATE[j])
|
||||
STAGE[i] <- 1
|
||||
until foreach j != i, STAGE[j] = 0
|
||||
```
|
||||
>[!note] let's remember ourselves [[### Aravind’s algorithm|the locking function]]
|
||||
|
||||
(a causa di un bug di Obsidian, se non vedi la dimostrazione)
|
||||
(a causa di un bug, riavvia Obsidian se non vedi la dimostrazione qui sotto)
|
||||
>[!question]- mostra mia soluzione
|
||||
>- $p_n$ invokes lock alone, completes its CS and so `DATE[n] = n`
|
||||
>- then as DATE is either set to n or decreased, for each i, `DATE[i] < n`
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue