Advertisement

On the Weakest Failure Detector for Read/Write-Based Mutual Exclusion

  • Carole Delporte-Gallet
  • Hugues Fauconnier
  • Michel RaynalEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 926)

Abstract

Failure detectors are devices (objects) that provides the processes with information on failures. They were introduced to enrich asynchronous systems so that it becomes possible to solve problems (or implement concurrent objects) that are otherwise impossible to solve in pure asynchronous systems where processes are prone to crash failures. The most famous failure detector (which is called “eventual leader” and denoted \(\varOmega \)) is the weakest failure detector which allows consensus to be solved in n-process asynchronous systems where up to \(t=n-1\) processes may crash in the read/write communication model, and up to \(t<n/2\) processes may crash in the message-passing communication model.

When looking at the mutual exclusion problem (or equivalently the construction of a lock object), while the weakest failure detectors are known for both asynchronous message-passing systems and read/write systems in which up to \(t<n\) processes may crash, for the starvation-freedom progress condition, it is not yet known for weaker deadlock-freedom progress condition in read/write systems. This paper extends the previous results, namely, it presents the weakest failure detector that allows mutual exclusion to be solved in asynchronous n-process read/write systems where any number of processes may crash, whatever the progress condition (deadlock-freedom or starvation-freedom).

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was partially supported by the French ANR project 16-CE40-0023-03 (16-CE40-0023-03) devoted to layered and modular structures in distributed computing.

References

  1. 1.
    Bhatt, V., Christman, N., Jayanti, P.: Extracting quorum failure detectors. In: Proceedings of the 28th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC 2009), pp. 73–82. ACM Press (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bhatt, V., Jayanti, P.: On the existence of weakest failure detectors for mutual exclusion and k-exclusion. In: 23rd International Symposium on Distributed Computing (DISC 2009), LNCS, vol. 5805, pp. 325–339. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bonnet, F., Raynal, M.: A simple proof of the necessity of the failure detector \(\varSigma \) to implement an atomic register in asynchronous message-passing systems. Inf. Process. Lett. 110(4), 153–157 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chandra, T., Hadzilacos, V., Toueg, S.: The weakest failure detector for solving consensus. J. ACM 43(4), 685–722 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chandra, T., Toueg, S.: Unreliable failure detectors for reliable distributed systems. J. ACM 43(2), 225–267 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Delporte-Gallet, C., Fauconnier, H., Guerraoui, R.: A Realistic look at failure detectors. In: Proceedings of the 43rd Annual IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN 2002), pp. 345–353. IEEE Computer Press (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Delporte-Gallet, C., Fauconnier, H., Guerraoui, R.: Tight failure detection bounds on atomic object implementations. J. ACM 57(4), 32 (2010). Article 22MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Delporte-Gallet, C., Fauconnier, H., Guerraoui, R., Hadzilacos, V., Kouznetsov, P., Toueg, S.: The weakest failure detectors to solve certain fundamental problems in distributed computing. In: Proceedings of the 23th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC 2004), pp. 338-346. ACM Press (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Delporte-Gallet, C., Fauconnier, H., Guerraoui, R., Kouznetsov, P.: Mutual exclusion in asynchronous systems with failure detectors. J. Parallel Distrib. Comput. 65, 492–505 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Delporte-Gallet, C., Fauconnier, H., Raynal, M.: Fair synchronization in the presence of process crashes and its weakest failure detector. In: 33rd IEEE International Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems, (SRDS 2014), pp. 161–170. IEEE Press (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dijkstra, E.W.: Solution of a problem in concurrent programming control. Commun. ACM 8(9), 569 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fernández, A., Jiménez, E., Raynal, M., Trédan, G.: A timing assumption and two \(t\)-resilient protocols for implementing an eventual leader service in asynchronous shared-memory systems. Algorithmica 56(4), 550–576 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fischer, M.J., Lynch, N.A., Paterson, M.S.: Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process. J. ACM 32(2), 374–382 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hélary, J.-M., Hurfin, M., Mostéfaoui, A., Raynal, M., Tronel, F.: Computing global functions in asynchronous distributed systems with perfect failure detectors. IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst. 11(9), 897–909 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lamport, L.: A new solution of Dijkstra’s concurrent programming problem. Commun. ACM 17(8), 453–455 (1974)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lo, W.-K., Hadzilacos, V.: Using failure detectors to solve consensus in asynchronous shared memory systems. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Distributed Algorithms (WDAG 1994), LNCS, vol. 857, pp. 280–295. Springer (1994)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Loui, M., Abu-Amara, H.: Memory requirements for agreement among unreliable asynchronous processes. Adv. Comput. Res. 4, 163–183 (1987)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Raynal, M.: Concurrent Programming: Algorithms, Principles, and Foundations, p. 515. Springer (2013). ISBN 978-3-642-32027-9Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Raynal, M.: Fault-Tolerant Message-passing Distributed Systems: An Algorithmic Approach, p. 492. Springer (2018). ISBN: 978-3-319-94140-0Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Taubenfeld, G.: Synchronization Algorithms and Concurrent Programming, p. 423. Pearson Education/Prentice Hall (2006). ISBN 0-131-97259-6Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carole Delporte-Gallet
    • 1
  • Hugues Fauconnier
    • 1
  • Michel Raynal
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.IRIF, Université Paris 7 DiderotParisFrance
  2. 2.IRISA, Université de RennesRennesFrance
  3. 3.Department of ComputingPolytechnic UniversityKowloonHong Kong

Personalised recommendations