399 views
0 votes
0 votes

Your friend wants to design synchronization primitives and tells you that he would be better off by strictly ensuring that the processes alternate the critical section. Your response would be:

  1.  That might not satisfy the “progress” requirement
  1.  That might not satisfy the “mutual exclusion” requirement
  1.  That might not satisfy the “bounded wait” requirement
  1. I guess that would suffice.

1 Answer

0 votes
0 votes

From the question's reference i think that friend is using "Strict alteration"  technique.

In this technique we are using turn variable. That variable can be used one process at a time 

So in this method progress is not achieved.

So I think answer is option (a).

Related questions

111
views
0 answers
0 votes
Maxine asked Apr 3
111 views
Write a monitor to solve the consumer-producer problem. Thebasic program structure is shown as follows.monitor ProducerConsumer {int in, out, count;Item ... {ProducerConsumer.get(next_consumed);/* consume the item in next_consumed */}
556
views
1 answers
0 votes
Nam14 asked Apr 5, 2023
556 views
Please read below passage from 10th edition Operating System Concepts, pg. 202:5.1.3 Preemptive and Nonpreemptive SchedulingCPU-scheduling decisions may take place ... choice for CPU-scheduling decisions to not take place for situation 3?
1.2k
views
1 answers
1 votes
DebRC asked Sep 12, 2022
1,153 views
Consider the following segment:Note : Assume the count = count + 1; will execute in 3' different instructions.Where, m[count] refers to memory value of count variable.Preemption ... = 15c) Min = 1, Maximum = 15d) Min = 15, Maximum = 15
1.2k
views
0 answers
0 votes
vinay chauhan asked May 5, 2019
1,228 views
Galvin, 9th edition on page 146 states that Shared memory can be faster than message passing, since message-passing systems are typically implemented using ... faster, but aren't the mutex and semaphore calls require Kernel intervention?