Chapter9.pdf

Chapter 9: Distributed Mutual Exclusion Algorithms
Ajay Kshemkalyani and Mukesh Singhal
Distributed Computing: Principles, Algorithms, and Systems
Cambridge University Press
A. Kshemkalyani and M. Singhal (Distributed Computing) Distributed Mutual Exclusion Algorithms CUP 2008 1 / 93

Introduction
Mutual exclusion: Concurrent access of processes to a shared resource or
data is executed in mutually exclusive manner.
Only one process is allowed to execute the critical section (CS) at any given
time.
In a distributed system, shared variables (semaphores) or a local kernel
cannot be used to implement mutual exclusion.
Message passing is the sole means for implementing distributed mutual
exclusion.
A. Kshemkalyani and M. Singhal (Distributed Computing) Distributed Mutual Exclusion Algorithms 2 / 93

Introduction
Distributed mutual exclusion algorithms must deal with unpredictable
message delays and incomplete knowledge of the system state.
Three basic approaches for distributed mutual exclusion:
1 Token based approach
2 Non-token based approach
3 Quorum based approach
Token-based approach:
◮ A unique token is shared among the sites.
◮ A site is allowed to enter its CS if it possesses the token.
◮ Mutual exclusion is ensured because the token is unique.

Introduction
Non-token based approach:
◮ Two or more successive rounds of messages are exchanged among the sites to
determine which site will enter the CS next.
Quorum based approach:
◮ Each site requests permission to execute the CS from a subset of sites (called
a quorum).
◮ Any two quorums contain a common site.
◮ This common site is responsible to make sure that only one request executes
the CS at any time.

Preliminaries
System Model
The system consists of N sites, S1, S2, ..., SN.
We assume that a single process is running on each site. The process at site
Si is denoted by pi .
A site can be in one of the following three states: requesting the CS,
executing the CS, or neither requesting nor executing the CS (i.e., idle).
In the ‘requesting the CS’ state, the site is blocked and can not make further
requests for the CS. In the ‘idle’ state, the site is executing outside the CS.
In token-based algorithms, a site can also be in a state where a site holding
the token is executing outside the CS (called the idle token state).
At any instant, a site may have several pending requests for CS. A site
queues up these requests and serves them one at a time.

Requirements
Requirements of Mutual Exclusion Algorithms
1 Safety Property: At any instant, only one process can execute the critical
section.
2 Liveness Property: This property states the absence of deadlock and
starvation. Two or more sites should not endlessly wait for messages which
will never arrive.
3 Fairness: Each process gets a fair chance to execute the CS. Fairness
property generally means the CS execution requests are executed in the order
of their arrival (time is determined by a logical clock) in the system.

Performance Metrics
The performance is generally measured by the following four metrics:
Message complexity: The number of messages required per CS execution
by a site.
Synchronization delay: After a site leaves the CS, it is the time required
and before the next site enters the CS (see Figure 1).
Last site exits the CS
Synchronization delay
time
Next site enters the CS
Figure 1: Synchronization Delay.

Performance Metrics
Response time: The time interval a request waits for its CS execution to be
over after its request messages have been sent out (see Figure 2).
messages sent out
time
Response Time
CS execution time
The site exits the CS
The site enters
the CS
CS Request arrives
Its request
Figure 2: Response Time.
System throughput: The rate at which the system executes requests for the
CS.
system throughput=1/(SD+E)
where SD is the synchronization delay and E is the average critical section
execution time.

Performance Metrics
Low and High Load Performance:
We often study the performance of mutual exclusion algorithms under two
special loading conditions, viz., “low load” and “high load”.
The load is determined by the arrival rate of CS execution requests.
Under low load conditions, there is seldom more than one request for the
critical section present in the system simultaneously.
Under heavy load conditions, there is always a pending request for critical
section at a site.

Lamport’s Algorithm
Requests for CS are executed in the increasing order of timestamps and time
is determined by logical clocks.
Every site Si keeps a queue, request queuei , which contains mutual exclusion
requests ordered by their timestamps.
This algorithm requires communication channels to deliver messages the
FIFO order.

The Algorithm
Requesting the critical section:
When a site Si wants to enter the CS, it broadcasts a REQUEST(tsi , i)
message to all other sites and places the request on request queuei . ((tsi , i)
denotes the timestamp of the request.)
When a site Sj receives the REQUEST(tsi, i) message from site Si ,places site
Si ’s request on request queuej and it returns a timestamped REPLY message
to Si .
Executing the critical section: Site Si enters the CS when the following two
conditions hold:
L1: Si has received a message with timestamp larger than (tsi , i) from
all other sites.
L2: Si ’s request is at the top of request queuei .

The Algorithm
Releasing the critical section:
Site Si , upon exiting the CS, removes its request from the top of its request
queue and broadcasts a timestamped RELEASE message to all other sites.
When a site Sj receives a RELEASE message from site Si , it removes Si ’s
request from its request queue.
When a site removes a request from its request queue, its own request may come
at the top of the queue, enabling it to enter the CS.

correctness
Theorem: Lamport’s algorithm achieves mutual exclusion.
Proof:
Proof is by contradiction. Suppose two sites Si and Sj are executing the CS
concurrently. For this to happen conditions L1 and L2 must hold at both the
sites concurrently.
This implies that at some instant in time, say t, both Si and Sj have their
own requests at the top of their request queues and condition L1 holds at
them. Without loss of generality, assume that Si ’s request has smaller
timestamp than the request of Sj .
From condition L1 and FIFO property of the communication channels, it is
clear that at instant t the request of Si must be present in request queuej
when Sj was executing its CS. This implies that Sj ’s own request is at the top
of its own request queue when a smaller timestamp request, Si ’s request, is
present in the request queuej – a contradiction!

correctness
Theorem: Lamport’s algorithm is fair.
Proof:
The proof is by contradiction. Suppose a site Si ’s request has a smaller
timestamp than the request of another site Sj and Sj is able to execute the
CS before Si .
For Sj to execute the CS, it has to satisfy the conditions L1 and L2. This
implies that at some instant in time say t, Sj has its own request at the top
of its queue and it has also received a message with timestamp larger than
the timestamp of its request from all other sites.
But request queue at a site is ordered by timestamp, and according to our
assumption Si has lower timestamp. So Si ’s request must be placed ahead of
the Sj ’s request in the request queuej. This is a contradiction!

Performance
For each CS execution, Lamport’s algorithm requires (N − 1) REQUEST
messages, (N − 1) REPLY messages, and (N − 1) RELEASE messages.
Thus, Lamport’s algorithm requires 3(N − 1) messages per CS invocation.
Synchronization delay in the algorithm is T.

An optimization
In Lamport’s algorithm,REPLY messages can be omitted in certain situations.
For example, if site Sj receives a REQUEST message from site Si after it has
sent its own REQUEST message with timestamp higher than the timestamp
of site Si ’s request, then site Sj need not send a REPLY message to site Si .
This is because when site Si receives site Sj ’s request with timestamp higher
than its own, it can conclude that site Sj does not have any smaller
timestamp request which is still pending.
With this optimization, Lamport’s algorithm requires between 3(N − 1) and
2(N − 1) messages per CS execution.

Ricart-Agrawala Algorithm
The Ricart-Agrawala algorithm assumes the communication channels are
FIFO. The algorithm uses two types of messages: REQUEST and REPLY.
A process sends a REQUEST message to all other processes to request their
permission to enter the critical section. A process sends a REPLY message to
a process to give its permission to that process.
Processes use Lamport-style logical clocks to assign a timestamp to critical
section requests and timestamps are used to decide the priority of requests.
Each process pi maintains the Request-Deferred array, RDi , the size of which
is the same as the number of processes in the system.
Initially, ∀i ∀j: RDi [j]=0. Whenever pi defer the request sent by pj , it sets
RDi [j]=1 and after it has sent a REPLY message to pj , it sets RDi [j]=0.

Description of the Algorithm
Requesting the critical section:
(a) When a site Si wants to enter the CS, it broadcasts a timestamped
REQUEST message to all other sites.
(b) When site Sj receives a REQUEST message from site Si , it sends a
REPLY message to site Si if site Sj is neither requesting nor
executing the CS, or if the site Sj is requesting and Si ’s request’s
timestamp is smaller than site Sj ’s own request’s timestamp.
Otherwise, the reply is deferred and Sj sets RDj[i]=1
Executing the critical section:
(c) Site Si enters the CS after it has received a REPLY message from
every site it sent a REQUEST message to.

Algorithm
Releasing the critical section:
(d) When site Si exits the CS, it sends all the deferred REPLY
messages: ∀j if RDi [j]=1, then send a REPLY message to Sj and
set RDi [j]=0.
Notes:
When a site receives a message, it updates its clock using the timestamp in
the message.
When a site takes up a request for the CS for processing, it updates its local
clock and assigns a timestamp to the request.

Correctness
Theorem: Ricart-Agrawala algorithm achieves mutual exclusion.
Proof:
Proof is by contradiction. Suppose two sites Si and Sj ‘ are executing the CS
concurrently and Si ’s request has higher priority than the request of Sj .
Clearly, Si received Sj ’s request after it has made its own request.
Thus, Sj can concurrently execute the CS with Si only if Si returns a REPLY
to Sj (in response to Sj ’s request) before Si exits the CS.
However, this is impossible because Sj ’s request has lower priority.Therefore,
Ricart-Agrawala algorithm achieves mutual exclusion.

Performance
For each CS execution, Ricart-Agrawala algorithm requires (N − 1)
REQUEST messages and (N − 1) REPLY messages.
Thus, it requires 2(N − 1) messages per CS execution.
Synchronization delay in the algorithm is T.

Singhal’s Dynamic Information-Structure Algorithm
Most mutual exclusion algorithms use a static approach to invoke mutual
exclusion.
These algorithms always take the same course of actions to invoke mutual
exclusion no matter what is the state of the system.
These algorithms lack efficiency because they fail to exploit the changing
conditions in the system.
An algorithm can exploit dynamic conditions of the system to improve the
performance.

continuation..
For example, if few sites are invoking mutual exclusion very frequently and
other sites invoke mutual exclusion much less frequently, then
◮ A frequently invoking site need not ask for the permission of less frequently
invoking site every time it requests an access to the CS.
◮ It only needs to take permission from all other frequently invoking sites.
Singhal developed an adaptive mutual exclusion algorithm based on this
observation.
The information-structure of the algorithm evolves with time as sites learn
about the state of the system through messages.

continuation..
Challenges
The design of adaptive mutual exclusion algorithms is challenging:
How does a site efficiently know what sites are currently actively invoking
mutual exclusion?
When a less frequently invoking site needs to invoke mutual exclusion, how
does it do it?
How does a less frequently invoking site makes a transition to more
frequently invoking site and vice-versa.
How to insure that mutual exclusion is guaranteed when a site does not take
the permission of every other site.
How to insure that a dynamic mutual exclusion algorithm does not waste
resources and time in collecting systems state, offsetting any gain.

System Model
We consider a distributed system consisting of n autonomous sites, say, S1,
S2, ..., Sn, connected by a communication network.
We assume that the sites communicate completely by message passing.
Message propagation delay is finite but unpredictable.
Between any pair of sites, messages are delivered in the order they are sent.
The underlying communication network is reliable and sites do not crash.

Data Structures
Information-structure at a site Si consists of two sets. The first set Ri , called
request set, contains the sites from which Si must acquire permission before
executing CS.
The second set Ii , called inform set,contains the sites to which Si must send
its permission to execute CS after executing its CS.
Every site Si maintains a logical clock Ci , which is updated according to
Lamport’s rules.
Every site maintains three boolean variables to denote the state of the site:
Requesting, Executing, and My priority.
Requesting and executing are true if and only if the site is requesting or
executing CS, respectively. My priority is true if pending request of Si has
priority over the current incoming request.

Initialization
The system starts in the following initial state:
For a site Si (i = 1 to n),
Ri := {S1, S2,..., Si − 1, Si }
Ii := {Si }
Ci := 0
Requestingi = Executingi := False

continuation..
If we stagger sites Sn to S1 from left to right, then the initial system state has the
following two properties:
For a site, only all the sites to its left will ask for its permission and it will ask
for the permission of only all the sites to its right.
The cardinality of Ri decreases in stepwise manner from left to right. Due to
this reason, this configuration has been called ”staircase pattern” in
topological sense .

The Algorithm
Step 1: (Request Critical Section)
Requesting = true;
Ci = Ci + 1;
Send REQUEST(Ci, i) message to all sites in Ri ;
Wait until Ri = ∅;
/* Wait until all sites in Ri have sent a reply to Si */
Requesting = false;
Step 2: (Execute Critical Section)
Executing = true;
Execute CS;
Executing = false;

The Algorithm
Step 3: (Release Critical Section)
For every site Sk in Ii (except Si ) do
Begin
Ii = Ii – {Sk };
Send REPLY(Ci, i) message to Sk ;
Ri = Ri + {Sk}
End

The Algorithm
REQUEST message handler
/* Site Si is handling message REQUEST(c, j) */
Ci := max{Ci, c};
Case
Requesting = true:
Begin if My priority then Ii := Ii + {j }
/*My Priority true if pending request of Si has priority over incoming request */
Else
Begin
Send REPLY(Ci , i) message to Sj ;
If not (Sj ∈ Ri ) then
Begin
Ri = Ri + {Sj };
Send REQUEST(Ci , i) message to site Sj ;
End;
End;
Executing = true: Ii = Ii + {Sj };
Executing = false ∧ Requesting = false:
Begin
Ri = Ri + {Sj };
Send REPLY(Ci , i) message to Sj ;
End;

The Algorithm
REPLY message handler
/* Site Si is handling a message REPLY(c, j) */
Begin
Ci := max{Ci , c};
Ri = Ri – {Sj };
End;
Note that REQUEST and REPLY message handlers and the steps of the
algorithm access shared data structures, viz., Ci , Ri , and Ii .
To guarantee the correctness, it’s important that execution of REQUEST and
REPLY message handlers and all three steps of the algorithm (except ”wait
for Ri = ∅ to hold” in Step 1) mutually exclude each other.

An Explanation of the Algorithm
Si acquires permission to execute the CS from all sites in its request set Ri
and it releases the CS by sending a REPLY message to all sites in its inform
set Ii .
If site Si which itself is requesting the CS, receives a higher priority
REQUEST message from a site Sj , then Si takes the following actions:
1 (i) Si immediately sends a REPLY message to Sj ,
2 (ii) if Sj is not in Ri , then Si also sends a REQUEST message to Sj , and
3 (iii) Si places an entry for Sj in Ri . Otherwise, Si places an entry for Sj into Ii
so that Sj can be sent a REPLY message when Si finishes with the execution
of the CS.
If Si receives a REQUEST message from Sj when it is executing the CS, then
it simply puts Sj in Ii so that Sj can be sent a REPLY message when Si
finishes with the execution of the CS.
If Si receives a REQUEST message from Sj when it is neither requesting nor
executing the CS, then it places an entry for Sj in Ri and sends Sj a REPLY
message.

Correctness
Achieving Mutual Exclusion:
The initial state of the information-structure satisfies the following condition:
for every Si and Sj , either Sj ∈ Ri or Si ∈ Rj.
Therefore, if two sites request CS, one of them will always ask for the
permission of the another.
However, whenever there is a conflict between two sites, the sites dynamically
adjust their request sets such that both request permission of each other
satisfying the condition for mutual exclusion.
Freedom from Deadlocks:
The algorithm is free from deadlocks because sites use timestamp ordering
(which is unique system wide) to decide request priority and a request is
blocked by only higher priority requests.

Performance Analysis
-The synchronization delay in the algorithm is T.
The message complexity:
Low load condition:
Most of the time only one or no request for the CS will be present in the
system.
The staircase pattern will reestablish between two successive requests for CS.
Sites will send 0, 1, 2, ..., (n-1) number of REQUEST messages with equal
likelihood (assuming uniform traffic of CS requests at sites).
Therefore, the mean number of REQUEST messages sent per CS execution
for this case is =(0+1+2+ ........+(n-1))/n = (n-1)/2. Since a REPLY
message is returned for every REQUEST message, the average number of
messages exchanged per CS execution is 2*(n-1)/2 = (n-1).

continuation..
Heavy load condition:
When the rate of CS requests is high, all the sites always have a pending
request for CS execution.
In this case, a site on the average receives (n-1)/2 REQUEST messages from
other sites while waiting for its REPLY messages.
Since a site sends REQUEST messages only in response to REQUEST
messages of higher priority, on the average it will send (n-1)/4 REQUEST
messages while waiting for REPLY messages.
Therefore, the average number of messages exchanged per CS execution in
high demand is 2*[(n-1)/2+(n-1)/4] = 3*(n-1)/2.

Adaptivity in Heterogeneous Traffic Patterns
The information-structure adapts itself to the environments of heterogeneous
traffic of CS requests and to statistical fluctuations in traffic of CS requests
to optimize the performance.
Sites with higher traffic of CS requests will position themselves towards the
right end of the staircase pattern.
Also, at a high traffic site Si , if Sj ∈ Ri , then Sj is also a high traffic site.
Consequently, high traffic sites will mostly send REQUEST messages only to
other high traffic sites and will seldom send REQUEST messages to sites with
low traffic.
This adaptivity results in a reduction in the number of messages as well as in
delay in granting CS in environments of heterogeneous traffic.

Quorum-Based Mutual Exclusion Algorithms
Quorum-based mutual exclusion algorithms are different in the following two ways:
1 A site does not request permission from all other sites, but only from a
subset of the sites. The request set of sites are chosen such that ∀i ∀j :
1 ≤ i, j ≤ N :: Ri ∩ Rj 6= Φ. Consequently, every pair of sites has a site
which mediates conflicts between that pair.
2 A site can send out only one REPLY message at any time. A site can send a
REPLY message only after it has received a RELEASE message for the
previous REPLY message.

continuation..
Since these algorithms are based on the notion of ‘Coteries’ and ‘Quorums’, we
next describe the idea of coteries and quorums.
A coterie C is defined as a set of sets, where each set g ∈ C is called a quorum.
The following properties hold for quorums in a coterie:
Intersection property: For every quorum g, h ∈ C, g ∩ h6= ∅.
For example, sets {1,2,3}, {2,5,7} and {5,7,9} cannot be quorums in a
coterie because the first and third sets do not have a common element.
Minimality property: There should be no quorums g, h in coterie C such
that g ⊇ h. For example, sets {1,2,3} and {1,3} cannot be quorums in a
coterie because the first set is a superset of the second.

continuation..
Coteries and quorums can be used to develop algorithms to ensure mutual
exclusion in a distributed environment. A simple protocol works as follows:
Let ‘a’ is a site in quorum ‘A’. If ‘a’ wants to invoke mutual exclusion, it
requests permission from all sites in its quorum ‘A’.
Every site does the same to invoke mutual exclusion. Due to the Intersection
Property, quorum ‘A’ contains at least one site that is common to the
quorum of every other site.
These common sites send permission to only one site at any time. Thus,
mutual exclusion is guaranteed.
Note that the Minimality property ensures efficiency rather than correctness.

Maekawa’s Algorithm
Maekawa’s algorithm was the first quorum-based mutual exclusion algorithm. The
request sets for sites (i.e., quorums) in Maekawa’s algorithm are constructed to
satisfy the following conditions:
M1: (∀i ∀j : i 6= j, 1 ≤ i, j ≤ N :: Ri ∩ Rj 6= φ)
M2: (∀i : 1 ≤ i ≤ N :: Si ∈ Ri )
M3: (∀i : 1 ≤ i ≤ N :: |Ri | = K)
M4: Any site Sj is contained in K number of Ri s, 1 ≤ i, j ≤ N.
Maekawa used the theory of projective planes and showed that
N = K(K − 1) + 1. This relation gives |Ri | =
√
N.

continuation..
Conditions M1 and M2 are necessary for correctness; whereas conditions M3
and M4 provide other desirable features to the algorithm.
Condition M3 states that the size of the requests sets of all sites must be
equal implying that all sites should have to do equal amount of work to
invoke mutual exclusion.
Condition M4 enforces that exactly the same number of sites should request
permission from any site implying that all sites have “equal responsibility” in
granting permission to other sites.

The Algorithm
A site Si executes the following steps to execute the CS.
Requesting the critical section
(a) A site Si requests access to the CS by sending REQUEST(i)
messages to all sites in its request set Ri .
(b) When a site Sj receives the REQUEST(i) message, it sends a
REPLY(j) message to Si provided it hasn’t sent a REPLY message
to a site since its receipt of the last RELEASE message. Otherwise,
it queues up the REQUEST(i) for later consideration.
Executing the critical section
(c) Site Si executes the CS only after it has received a REPLY message
from every site in Ri .

The Algorithm
Releasing the critical section
(d) After the execution of the CS is over, site Si sends a RELEASE(i)
message to every site in Ri .
(e) When a site Sj receives a RELEASE(i) message from site Si , it
sends a REPLY message to the next site waiting in the queue and
deletes that entry from the queue. If the queue is empty, then the
site updates its state to reflect that it has not sent out any REPLY
message since the receipt of the last RELEASE message.

Correctness
Theorem: Maekawa’s algorithm achieves mutual exclusion.
Proof:
Proof is by contradiction. Suppose two sites Si and Sj are concurrently
executing the CS.
This means site Si received a REPLY message from all sites in Ri and
concurrently site Sj was able to receive a REPLY message from all sites in Rj .
If Ri ∩ Rj = {Sk}, then site Sk must have sent REPLY messages to both Si
and Sj concurrently, which is a contradiction.

Performance
Since the size of a request set is
√
N, an execution of the CS requires
√
N
REQUEST,
√
N REPLY, and
√
N RELEASE messages, resulting in 3
√
N
messages per CS execution.
Synchronization delay in this algorithm is 2T. This is because after a site Si
exits the CS, it first releases all the sites in Ri and then one of those sites
sends a REPLY message to the next site that executes the CS.

Problem of Deadlocks
Maekawa’s algorithm can deadlock because a site is exclusively locked by
other sites and requests are not prioritized by their timestamps.
Assume three sites Si , Sj , and Sk simultaneously invoke mutual exclusion.
Suppose Ri ∩ Rj = {Sij}, Rj ∩ Rk= {Sjk }, and Rk ∩ Ri = {Ski }.
Consider the following scenario:
◮ Sij has been locked by Si (forcing Sj to wait at Sij ).
◮ Sjk has been locked by Sj (forcing Sk to wait at Sjk).
◮ Ski has been locked by Sk (forcing Si to wait at Ski ).
This state represents a deadlock involving sites Si , Sj , and Sk .

Handling Deadlocks
Maekawa’s algorithm handles deadlocks by requiring a site to yield a lock if
the timestamp of its request is larger than the timestamp of some other
request waiting for the same lock.
A site suspects a deadlock (and initiates message exchanges to resolve it)
whenever a higher priority request arrives and waits at a site because the site
has sent a REPLY message to a lower priority request.
Deadlock handling requires three types of messages:
FAILED: A FAILED message from site Si to site Sj indicates that Si can not
grant Sj ’s request because it has currently granted permission to a
site with a higher priority request.
INQUIRE: An INQUIRE message from Si to Sj indicates that Si would like to
find out from Sj if it has succeeded in locking all the sites in its
request set.
YIELD: A YIELD message from site Si to Sj indicates that Si is returning
the permission to Sj (to yield to a higher priority request at Sj ).

Handling Deadlocks
Maekawa’s algorithm handles deadlocks as follows:
When a REQUEST(ts, i) from site Si blocks at site Sj because Sj has
currently granted permission to site Sk , then Sj sends a FAILED(j) message
to Si if Si ’s request has lower priority. Otherwise, Sj sends an INQUIRE(j)
message to site Sk .
In response to an INQUIRE(j) message from site Sj , site Sk sends a
YIELD(k) message to Sj provided Sk has received a FAILED message from a
site in its request set or if it sent a YIELD to any of these sites, but has not
received a new GRANT from it.
In response to a YIELD(k) message from site Sk , site Sj assumes as if it has
been released by Sk , places the request of Sk at appropriate location in the
request queue, and sends a GRANT(j) to the top request’s site in the queue.
Maekawa’s algorithm requires extra messages to handle deadlocks
Maximum number of messages required per CS execution in this case is 5
√
N.

Agarwal-El Abbadi Quorum-Based Algorithm
Agarwal-El Abbadi quorum-based algorithm uses ‘tree-structured quorums’.
All the sites in the system are logically organized into a complete binary tree.
For a complete binary tree with level ‘k’, we have 2k+1
– 1 sites with its root
at level k and leaves at level 0.
The number of sites in a path from the root to a leaf is equal to the level of
the tree k+1 which is equal to O(log n).
A path in a binary tree is the sequence a1, a2. . . ai , ai+1. . . . ak such that ai
is the parent of ai+1.

Algorithm for constructing a tree-structured quorum
The algorithm tries to construct quorums in a way that each quorum
represents any path from the root to a leaf.
If it fails to find such a path (say, because node ’x’ has failed), the control
goes to the ELSE block which specifies that the failed node ‘x’ is substituted
by two paths both of which start with the left and right children of ‘x’ and
end at leaf nodes.
If the leaf site is down or inaccessible due to any reason, then the quorum
cannot be formed and the algorithm terminates with an error condition.
The sets that are constructed using this algorithm are termed as tree
quorums.

FUNCTION GetQuorum (Tree: NetworkHierarchy): QuorumSet;
VAR left, right : QuorumSet;
BEGIN
IF Empty (Tree) THEN
RETURN ({});
ELSE IF GrantsPermission(Tree↑.Node) THEN
RETURN ((Tree↑.Node) ∪ GetQuorum (Tree↑.LeftChild));
OR
RETURN ((Tree↑.Node) ∪ GetQuorum (Tree↑.RightChild));(*line 9*)
ELSE
left←GetQuorum(Tree↑.left);
right←GetQuorum(Tree↑.right);
IF (left = ∅ ∨ right = ∅) THEN
(* Unsuccessful in establishing a quorum *)
EXIT(-1);
ELSE
RETURN (left ∪ right);
END; (* IF *)
END; (* IF *)
END; (* IF *)
END GetQuorum
Figure: Algorithm for constructing a tree-structured quorum.

Examples of Tree-Structured Quorums
When there is no node failure, the number of quorums formed is equal to the
number of leaf sites.
Consider the tree of height 3 show in Figure 3, constructed from 15
(=23+1
-1) sites.
In this case 8 quorums are formed from 8 possible root-leaf paths: 1-2-4-8,
1-2-4-9, 1-2-5-10, 1-2-5-11, 1-3-6-12, 1-3-6-13, 1-3-7-14 and 1-3-7-15.
If any site fails, the algorithm substitutes for that site two possible paths
starting from the site’s two children and ending in leaf nodes.
For example, when node 3 fails, we consider possible paths starting from
children 6 and 7 and ending at leaf nodes. The possible paths starting from
child 6 are 6-12 and 6-13, and from child 7 are 7-14 and 7-15.
So, when node 3 fails, the following eight quorums can be formed:
{1,6,12,7,14}, {1,6,12,7,15}, {1,6,13,7,14}, {1,6,13,7,15}, {1,2,4,8},
{1,2,4,9},{1,2,5,10}, {1,2,5,11}.

1
2 3
4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Figure 3: A tree of 15 sites.

Examples of Tree-Structured Quorums
Since the number of nodes from root to leaf in an ‘n’ node complete tree is
log n, the best case for quorum formation, i.e, the least number of nodes
needed for a quorum is log n.
When the number of node failures is greater than or equal to log n, the
algorithm may not be able to form tree-structured quorum.
So, as long as the number of site failures is less than log n, the tree quorum
algorithm gurantees the formation of a quorum and it exhibits the property of
‘graceful degradation’.

Mutual Exclusion Algorithm
A site s enters the critical section (CS) as follows:
Site s sends a ‘Request’ message to all other sites in the structured quorum it
belongs to.
Each site in the quorum stores incoming requests in a request queue, ordere
by their timestamps.
A site sends a ‘Reply’ message, indicating its consent to enter CS, only to the
request at the head of its request queue, having the lowest timestamp.
If the site s gets a ‘Reply’ message from all sites in the structured quorum it
belongs to, it enters the CS.
After exiting the CS, s sends a ‘Relinquish’ message to all sites in the
structured quorum. On the receipt of the ‘Relinquish’ message, each site
removes s’s request from the head of its request queue.

Mutual Exclusion Algorithm
If a new request arrives with a timestamp smaller than the request at the
head of the queue, an ‘Inquire’ message is sent to the process whose request
is at the head of the queue and waits for a ‘Yield’ or ‘Relinquish’ message.
When a site s receives an ‘Inquire’ message, it acts as follows:
If s has acquired all of its necessary replies to access the CS, then it simply
ignores the ‘Inquire’ message and proceeds normally and sends a ‘Relinquish’
message after exiting the CS.
If s has not yet collected enough replies from its quorum, then it sends a
‘Yield’ message to the inquiring site.
When a site gets the ‘Yield’ message, it puts the pending request (on behalf
of which the ‘Inquire’ message was sent) at the head of the queue and sends
a ‘Reply’ message to the requestor.

Correctness proof
Mutual exclusion is guaranteed because the set of quorums satisfy the Intersection
property.
Consider a coterie C which consists of quorums {1,2,3}, {2,4,5} and {4,1,6}.
Suppose nodes 3, 5 and 6 want to enter CS, and they send requests to sites
(1, 2), (2, 4) and (1, 4), respectively.
Suppose site 3’s request arrives at site 2 before site 5’s request. In this case,
site 2 will grant permission to site 3’s request and reject site 5’s request.
Similarly, suppose site 3’s request arrives at site 1 before site 6’s request. So
site 1 will grant permission to site 3’s request and reject site 6’s request.
Since sites 5 and 6 did not get consent from all sites in their quorums, they
do not enter the CS.
Since site 3 alone gets consent from all sites in its quorum, it enters the CS
and mutual exclusion is achieved.

Token-Based Algorithms
In token-based algorithms, a unique token is shared among the sites.
A site is allowed to enter its CS if it possesses the token.
Token-based algorithms use sequence numbers instead of timestamps. (Used
to distinguish between old and current requests.)

Suzuki-Kasami’s Broadcast Algorithm
If a site wants to enter the CS and it does not have the token, it broadcasts a
REQUEST message for the token to all other sites.
A site which possesses the token sends it to the requesting site upon the
receipt of its REQUEST message.
If a site receives a REQUEST message when it is executing the CS, it sends
the token only after it has completed the execution of the CS.

continuation..
This algorithm must efficiently address the following two design issues:
(1) How to distinguish an outdated REQUEST message from a current
REQUEST message:
Due to variable message delays, a site may receive a token request message
after the corresponding request has been satisfied.
If a site can not determined if the request corresponding to a token request
has been satisfied, it may dispatch the token to a site that does not need it.
This will not violate the correctness, however, this may seriously degrade the
performance.
(2) How to determine which site has an outstanding request for the CS:
After a site has finished the execution of the CS, it must determine what
sites have an outstanding request for the CS so that the token can be
dispatched to one of them.

continuation..
The first issue is addressed in the following manner:
A REQUEST message of site Sj has the form REQUEST(j, n) where n (n=1,
2, ...) is a sequence number which indicates that site Sj is requesting its nth
CS execution.
A site Si keeps an array of integers RNi [1..N] where RNi [j] denotes the
largest sequence number received in a REQUEST message so far from site Sj .
When site Si receives a REQUEST(j, n) message, it sets RNi [j]:=
max(RNi [j], n).
When a site Si receives a REQUEST(j, n) message, the request is outdated if
RNi [j]n.

continuation..
The second issue is addressed in the following manner:
The token consists of a queue of requesting sites, Q, and an array of integers
LN[1..N], where LN[j] is the sequence number of the request which site Sj
executed most recently.
After executing its CS, a site Si updates LN[i]:=RNi[i] to indicate that its
request corresponding to sequence number RNi [i] has been executed.
At site Si if RNi [j]=LN[j]+1, then site Sj is currently requesting token.

The Algorithm
Requesting the critical section
(a) If requesting site Si does not have the token, then it increments its
sequence number, RNi [i], and sends a REQUEST(i, sn) message to
all other sites. (‘sn’ is the updated value of RNi [i].)
(b) When a site Sj receives this message, it sets RNj [i] to max(RNj [i],
sn). If Sj has the idle token, then it sends the token to Si if
RNj[i]=LN[i]+1.
Executing the critical section
(c) Site Si executes the CS after it has received the token.

The Algorithm
Releasing the critical section Having finished the execution of the CS, site Si
takes the following actions:
(d) It sets LN[i] element of the token array equal to RNi [i].
(e) For every site Sj whose id is not in the token queue, it appends its
id to the token queue if RNi [j]=LN[j]+1.
(f) If the token queue is nonempty after the above update, Si deletes
the top site id from the token queue and sends the token to the
site indicated by the id.

Correctness
Mutual exclusion is guaranteed because there is only one token in the system and
a site holds the token during the CS execution.
Theorem: A requesting site enters the CS in finite time.
Proof:
Token request messages of a site Si reach other sites in finite time.
Since one of these sites will have token in finite time, site Si ’s request will be
placed in the token queue in finite time.
Since there can be at most N − 1 requests in front of this request in the
token queue, site Si will get the token and execute the CS in finite time.

Performance
No message is needed and the synchronization delay is zero if a site holds the
idle token at the time of its request.
If a site does not hold the token when it makes a request, the algorithm
requires N messages to obtain the token. Synchronization delay in this
algorithm is 0 or T.

Raymond’s Tree-Based Algorithm
This algorithm uses a spanning tree to reduce the number of messages
exchanged per critical section execution.
The network is viewed as a graph, a spanning tree of a network is a tree that
contains all the N nodes.
The algorithm assumes that the underlying network guarantees message
delivery. All nodes of the network are ’completely reliable.

The algorithm operates on a minimal spanning tree of the network topology
or a logical structure imposed on the network.
The algorithm assumes the network nodes to be arranged in an unrooted tree
structure.
Figure 4 shows a spanning tree of seven nodes A, B, C, D, E, F, and G.
Messages between nodes traverse along the undirected edges of the tree.

B C D
E F G
A
Figure 4: A tree of 15 sites.

A node needs to hold information about and communicate only to its
immediate-neighboring nodes.
Similar to the concept of tokens used in token-based algorithms, this
algorithm uses a concept of privilege.
Only one node can be in possession of the privilege (called the privileged
node) at any time, except when the privilege is in transit from one node to
another in the form of a PRIVILEGE message.
When there are no nodes requesting for the privilege, it remains in possession
of the node that last used it.

The HOLDER Variables
Each node maintains a HOLDER variable that provides information about the
placement of the privilege in relation to the node itself.
A node stores in its HOLDER variable the identity of a node that it thinks
has the privilege or leads to the node having the privilege.
For two nodes X and Y, if HOLDERX = Y, we could redraw the undirected
edge between the nodes X and Y as a directed edge from X to Y.
For instance, if node G holds the privilege, Figure 4 can be redrawn with
logically directed edges as shown in the Figure 5.

The shaded node in Figure 5 represents the privileged node.
The following will be the values of the HOLDER variables of various nodes:
HOLDERA = B
HOLDERB = C
HOLDERC = G
HOLDERD = C
HOLDERE = A
HOLDERF = B
HOLDERG = self

B C D
E F G
A
Figure 5: Tree with logically directed edges, all pointing in a direction towards
node G - the privileged node.

Now suppose node B that does not hold the privilege wants to execute the
critical section.
B sends a REQUEST message to HOLDERB, i.e., C, which in turn forwards
the REQUEST message to HOLDERC , i.e., G.
The privileged node G, if it no longer needs the privilege, sends the
PRIVILEGE message to its neighbor C, which made a request for the
privilege, and resets HOLDERG to C.
Node C, in turn, forwards the PRIVILEGE to node B, since it had requested
the privilege on behalf of B. Node C also resets HOLDERC to B.
The tree in Figure 5 will now look as in Figure 6.

G
C D
E F
A B
Figure 6: Tree with logically directed edges, all pointing in a direction towards
node G - the privileged node.

Data Structures
Each node to maintains the following variables:
Variable Name Possible Values Comments
HOLDER
“self” or the identity of one of
the immediate neighbours.
Indicates the location of the
privileged node in relation to
the current node.
USING True or false.
Indicates if the current node is
executing the critical section.
REQUEST Q
A FIFO queue that could con-
tain “self” or the identities of
immediate neighbors as ele-
ments.
The REQUEST Q of a node
consists of the identities of
those immediate neighbors
that have requested for priv-
ilege but have not yet been
sent the privilege .
ASKED True or false.
Indicates if node has sent a re-
quest for the privilege.

Data Structures
The value “self” is placed in REQUEST Q if the node makes a request for
the privilege for its own use.
The maximum size of REQUEST Q of a node is the number of immediate
neighbors + 1 (for “self”).
ASKED prevents the sending of duplicate requests for privilege, and also
makes sure that the REQUEST Qs of the various nodes do not contain any
duplicate elements.

The Algorithm
The algorithm consists of the following routines:
ASSIGN PRIVILEGE
MAKE REQUEST
ASSIGN PRIVILEGE:
This is a routine sends a PRIVILEGE message. A privileged node sends a
PRIVILEGE message if
it holds the privilege but is not using it,
its REQUEST Q is not empty, and
the element at the head of its REQUEST Q is not “self.”

ASSIGN PRIVILEGE
A situation where “self” is at the head of REQUEST Q may occur
immediately after a node receives a PRIVILEGE message.
The node will enter into the critical section after removing “self” from the
head of REQUEST Q. If the id of another node is at the head of
REQUEST Q, then it is removed from the queue and a PRIVILEGE message
is sent to that node.
Also, the variable ASKED is set to false since the currently privileged node
will not have sent a request for the PRIVILEGE message.

MAKE REQUEST
This is a routine sends a REQUEST message. An unprivileged node sends a
REQUEST message if
it does not hold the privilege,
its REQUEST Q is not empty, i.e., it requires the privilege for itself, or on
behalf of one of its immediate neighboring nodes, and
it has not sent a REQUEST message already.

MAKE REQUEST
The variable ASKED is set to true to reflect the sending of the REQUEST
message. The MAKE REQUEST routine makes no change to any other
variables.
The variable ASKED will be true at a node when it has sent REQUEST
message to an immediate neighbor and has not received a response.
A node does not send any REQUEST messages, if ASKED is true at that
node. Thus the variable ASKED makes sure that unnecessary REQUEST
messages are not sent from the unprivileged node.
This makes the REQUEST Q of any node bounded, even when operating
under heavy load.

Events
Below we show four events that constitute the algorithm.
Event Algorithm Functionality
A node wishes to execute critical section.
Enqueue(REQUEST Q, self); AS-
SIGN PRIVILEGE; MAKE REQUEST
A node receives a REQUEST message from
one of its immediate neighbors X.
Enqueue(REQUEST Q, X); AS-
SIGN PRIVILEGE; MAKE REQUEST
A node receives a PRIVILEGE message.
HOLDER := self; ASSIGN PRIVILEGE;
MAKE REQUEST
A node exits the critical section.
USING := false; ASSIGN PRIVILEGE;
MAKE REQUEST

Events..
A node wishes critical section entry:
If it is the privileged node, the node could enter the critical section using the
ASSIGN PRIVILEGE routine. Otherwise, it sends a REQUEST message using the
MAKE REQUEST routine.
A node receives a REQUEST message from one of its immediate neighbors:
If this node is the current HOLDER, it may send the PRIVILEGE to a requesting
node using the ASSIGN PRIVILEGE routine. Otherwise, it forwards the request
using the MAKE REQUEST routine.

Events..
A node receives a PRIVILEGE message:
The ASSIGN PRIVILEGE routine could result in the execution of the critical
section at the node, or may forward the privilege to another node. After the
privilege is forwarded, the MAKE REQUEST routine could send a REQUEST
message to reacquire the privilege, for a pending request at this node.
A node exits the critical section:
On exit from the critical section, this node may pass the privilege on to a
requesting node using the ASSIGN PRIVILEGE routine. It may then use the
MAKE REQUEST routine to get back the privilege, for a pending request at this
node.

pattern repeats
Node A −−−− REQUEST −−−− Node B
Node A −−−− PRIVILEGE −−−− Node B
Node A −−−− REQUEST −−−− Node B
Node A −−−− PRIVILEGE −−−− Node B
Figure 7: Logical pattern of message flow between neighboring nodes A and B.

Message Overtaking
This algorithm does away with the use of sequence numbers. The algorithm
works such that message flow between any two neighboring nodes sticks to a
logical pattern as shown in the Figure 7.
If at all message overtaking occurs between the nodes A and B, it can occur
when a PRIVILEGE message is sent from node A to node B, which is then
very closely followed by a REQUEST message from node A to node B.
Such a message overtaking will not affect the operation of the algorithm.
If node B receives the REQUEST message from node A before receiving the
PRIVILEGE message from node A, A’s request will be queued in
REQUEST QB . Since B is not a privileged node, it will not be able to send a
privilege to node A in reply.
When node B receives the PRIVILEGE message from A after receiving the
REQUEST message, it could enter the critical section or could send a
PRIVILEGE message to an immediate neighbor at the head of
REQUEST QB , which need not be node A. So message overtaking does not
affect the algorithm.

Correctness
The algorithm provides the following guarantees:
Mutual exclusion is guaranteed
Deadlock is impossible
Starvation is impossible
Mutual Exclusion
The algorithm ensures that at any instant of time, not more than one node
holds the privilege.
Whenever a node receives a PRIVILEGE message, it becomes privileged.
Similarly, whenever a node sends a PRIVILEGE message, it becomes
unprivileged.
Between the instants one node becomes unprivileged and another node
becomes privileged, there is no privileged node. Thus, there is at most one
privileged node at any point of time in the network.

Deadlock is Impossible
When the critical section is free, and one or more nodes want to enter the critical
section but are not able to do so, a deadlock may occur. This could happen due
to any of the following scenarios:
1 The privilege cannot be transferred to a node because no node holds the
privilege.
2 The node in possession of the privilege is unaware that there are other nodes
requiring the privilege.
3 The PRIVILEGE message does not reach the requesting unprivileged node.

Deadlock is Impossible
The scenario 1 can never occur in this algorithm because nodes do not fail
and messages are not lost.
The logical pattern established using HOLDER variables ensures that a node
that needs the privilege sends a REQUEST message either to a node holding
the privilege or to a node that has a path to a node holding the privilege.
Thus scenario 2 can never occur.
The series of REQUEST messages are enqueued in the REQUEST Qs of
various nodes such that the REQUEST Qs of those nodes collectively provide
a logical path for the tranfer of the PRIVILEGE message from the privileged
node to the requesting unprivileged nodes. So scenario 3 can never occur.

Starvation is Impossible
When a node A holds the privilege, and another node B requests for the
privilege, the identity of B or the id’s of proxy nodes for node B will be
present in the REQUEST Qs of various nodes in the path connecting the
requesting node to the currently privileged node.
So depending upon the position of the id of node B in those REQUEST Qs,
node B will sooner or later receive the privilege.
Thus once node B’s REQUEST message reaches the privileged node A, node
B, is sure to receive the privilege.

Cost and Performance Analysis
In the worst-case, the algorithm requires (2 * longest path length of the tree)
messages per critical section entry.
This happens when the privilege is to be passed between nodes at either ends
of the longest path of the minimal spanning tree.
The worst possible network topology for this algorithm is where all nodes are
arranged in a straight line and the longest path length will be N – 1, and thus
the algorithm will exchange 2 * (N – 1) messages per CS execution.
However, if all nodes generate equal number of REQUEST messages for the
privilege, the average number of messages needed per critical section entry
will be approximately 2N/3 because the average distance between a
requesting node and a privileged node is (N + 1)/3.

Cost and Performance Analysis
The best topology for the algorithm is the radiating star topology. The worst
case cost of this algorithm for this topology is O(logK−1N).
Trees with higher fan-outs are preferred over radiating star topologies. The
longest path length of such trees is typically O(log N). Thus, on an average,
this algorithm involves the exchange of O(log N) messages per critical section
execution.
Under heavy load, the algorithm exhibits an interesting property: “As the
number of nodes requesting for the privilege increases, the number of
messages exchanged per critical section entry decreases.”
In heavy load, the algorithm requires exchange of only four messages per CS
execution.

Chapter9.pdf

More Related Content

Similar to Chapter9.pdf (20)

More from AzmiNizar1 (10)

Recently uploaded (20)

Chapter9.pdf