Exclusion mutuelle

Résumé

Un Mutex (anglais : Mutual exclusion, Exclusion mutuelle) est une primitive de synchronisation utilisée en programmation informatique pour éviter que des ressources partagées d'un système ne soient utilisées en même temps. Son implémentation varie selon les systèmes (masquage des interruptions, lecture/écriture en un cycle, etc.) Ces algorithmes permettent de réguler l'accès aux données, en permettant par exemple qu'une seule routine y accède à la fois. Définition Un Mutex M.M.S est une primitive de synchronisation utilisée en programmation informatique pour éviter que des ressources partagées d'un système ne soient utilisées en même temps. Certains algorithmes utilisent un état pour commander l'exécution : les mutex doivent savoir si les programmes concernés sont occupés (busy) ou s'ils ont terminé et sont en attente (wait). De tels algorithmes sont par exemple :

l'algorithme de Dekker ;
l'algorithme de Peterson ;

La plupart des mutex ont des effets secondaires

Source officielle

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusion_mutuelle

À propos de ce résultat

Cette page est générée automatiquement et peut contenir des informations qui ne sont pas correctes, complètes, à jour ou pertinentes par rapport à votre recherche. Il en va de même pour toutes les autres pages de ce site. Veillez à vérifier les informations auprès des sources officielles de l'EPFL.

Publications associées (20)

Publications associées

Chargement

Personnes associées (3)

Personnes associées

Chargement

Unités associées (2)

Unités associées

Chargement

Concepts associés (26)

Un verrou informatique permet de s'assurer qu'une seule personne, ou un seul processus accède à une ressource à un instant donné. Ceci est souvent utilisé dans le domaine des accès à des fichiers sur

thumb|Exemple d'interblocage : le processus P1 utilise la ressource R2 qui est attendue par le processus P2 qui utilise la ressource R1, attendue par P1. Un interblocage (ou étreinte fatale, deadlock

thumb|Un processus avec deux threads. Un thread ou fil (traduction normalisés par ISO/CEI 2382-7:2000 (autres appellations connues : processus léger, fil d'exécution, fil d'instruction, processus all

Afficher plus

Concepts associés

Chargement

Cours associés (5)

Cours associés

Chargement

Séances de cours associées (13)

Séances de cours associées

Chargement

Randomized versus Deterministic Implementations of Concurrent Data Structures

Dan Alistarh

One of the key trends in computing over the past two decades has been increased distribution, both at the processor level, where multi-core architectures are now the norm, and at the system level, where many key services are currently distributed overmultiple machines. Thus, understanding the power and limitations of computing in a concurrent, distributed setting is one of the major challenges in Computer Science. In this thesis, we analyze the complexity of implementing concurrent data structures in asynchronous shared memory systems. We focus on the complexity of a classic distributed coordination task called renaming, in which a set of processes need to pick distinct names from a small set of identifiers. We present the first tight bounds for the time complexity of this problem, both for deterministic and randomized implementations, solving a long-standing open problem in the field. For deterministic algorithms, we prove a tight linear lower bound; for randomized solutions, we provide logarithmic upper and lower bounds on time complexity. Together, these results show an exponential separation between deterministic and randomized renaming solutions. Importantly, the lower bounds extend to implementations of practical shared-memory data structures, such as queues, stacks, and counters. From a technical perspective, this thesis highlights new connections between the distributed renaming problem and other fundamental objects, such as sorting networks, mutual exclusion, and counters. In particular, we show that sorting networks can be used to obtain optimal randomized solutions to renaming, and that, in turn, the existence of these solutions implies a linear lower bound on the complexity of the problem. In sum, the results in this thesis suggest that deterministic implementations of shared-memory data structures do not scale well in terms of worst-case time complexity. On the positive side, we emphasize randomization as a natural alternative, which can circumvent the deterministic lower bounds with high probability. Thus, a promising direction for future work is to extend our randomized renaming techniques to obtain efficient implementations of concurrent data structures.

EPFL2012

Chargement

Building correct and efﬁcient concurrent algorithms is known to be a difﬁcult problem of fundamental importance. To achieve ef- ﬁciency, designers try to remove unnecessary and costly synchro- nization. However, not only is this manual trial-and-error process ad-hoc, time consuming and error-prone, but it often leaves design- ers pondering the question of: is it inherently impossible to elimi- nate certain synchronization, or is it that I was unable to eliminate it on this attempt and I should keep trying? In this paper we respond to this question. We prove that it is im- possible to build concurrent implementations of classic and ubiqui- tous speciﬁcations such as sets, queues, stacks, mutual exclusion and read-modify-write operations, that completely eliminate the use of expensive synchronization. We prove that one cannot avoid the use of either: i) read-after- write (RAW), where a write to shared variable A is followed by a read to a different shared variable B without a write to B in between, or ii) atomic write-after-read (AWAR), where an atomic operation reads and then writes to shared locations. Unfortunately, enforcing RAW or AWAR is expensive on all current mainstream processors. To enforce RAW, memory ordering–also called fence or barrier– instructions must be used. To enforce AWAR, atomic instructions such as compare-and-swap are required. However, these instruc- tions are typically substantially slower than regular instructions. Although algorithm designers frequently struggle to avoid RAW and AWAR, their attempts are often futile. Our result characterizes the cases where avoiding RAW and AWAR is impossible. On the ﬂip side, our result can be used to guide designers towards new algorithms where RAW and AWAR can be eliminated.

2011

Chargement

Laws of order

Hagit Albo Attiya, Rachid Guerraoui

Building correct and efficient concurrent algorithms is known to be a difficult problem of fundamental importance. To achieve efficiency, designers try to remove unnecessary and costly synchronization. However, not only is this manual trial-and-error process ad-hoc, time consuming and error-prone, but it often leaves designers pondering the question of: is it inherently impossible to eliminate certain synchronization, or is it that I was unable to eliminate it on this attempt and I should keep trying? In this paper we respond to this question. We prove that it is impossible to build concurrent implementations of classic and ubiquitous specifications such as sets, queues, stacks, mutual exclusion and read-modify-write operations, that completely eliminate the use of expensive synchronization. We prove that one cannot avoid the use of either: i) read-after-write (RAW), where a write to shared variable A is followed by a read to a different shared variable B without a write to B in between, or ii) atomic write-after-read (AWAR), where an atomic operation reads and then writes to shared locations. Unfortunately, enforcing RAW or AWAR is expensive on all current mainstream processors. To enforce RAW, memory ordering--also called fence or barrier--instructions must be used. To enforce AWAR, atomic instructions such as compare-and-swap are required. However, these instructions are typically substantially slower than regular instructions. Although algorithm designers frequently struggle to avoid RAW and AWAR, their attempts are often futile. Our result characterizes the cases where avoiding RAW and AWAR is impossible. On the flip side, our result can be used to guide designers towards new algorithms where RAW and AWAR can be eliminated.

2011

Chargement

Randomized versus Deterministic Implementations of Concurrent Data Structures

Dan Alistarh

EPFL2012