The Gateway to Computer Science Excellence
0 votes
94 views
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

2.  That might not satisfy the “mutual exclusion” requirement

3.  That might not satisfy the “bounded wait” requirement

4.  I guess that would suffice
in Operating System by (249 points) | 94 views

1 Answer

0 votes
answer i think should be A ...it may not satisfy progress....say we have implemented synchronization for p1,p2..such that they will alter p1,p2...again p1,p2 and so on.....

but say p2 process is very small and may need less access to CRITICAL SECTION but P1 is very lagre and needs CRITICAL SECTION many number of times...in such cases....due to p2 ...p1 may not allowed to enter into CS.....as it is strict alteration
by Boss (11k points)
Quick search syntax
tags tag:apple
author user:martin
title title:apple
content content:apple
exclude -tag:apple
force match +apple
views views:100
score score:10
answers answers:2
is accepted isaccepted:true
is closed isclosed:true
50,645 questions
56,596 answers
195,824 comments
102,081 users