Abstract Abraham, U. and M. Magidor, On the mutual-exclusion problem — a quest for minimal solutions, Theoretical Computer Science 129 (1994) 1–38. We investigate here the question of finding the minimal requirements for the registers used by n processes that solve the critical-section problem. For two processes, we show that there cannot be a solution to the critical-section problem if the two registers used are regular and of size 2 and 3. For n processes, this result generalizes to show the impossibility of a solution with regular registers if the total size of the registers is 3n − 1. This is the best result for n = 2 since there are solution (presented here) in which regular registers of total size 6 are used. The impossibility proof depends on a careful analysis of infinite protocol automata, and therefore a detailed definition of such automata and their semantics is developed first.
[1]
Edsger W. Dijkstra,et al.
Self-stabilizing systems in spite of distributed control
,
1974,
CACM.
[2]
Edsger W. Dijkstra,et al.
Co-operating sequential processes
,
1968
.
[3]
Leslie Lamport,et al.
The mutual exclusion problem: part I—a theory of interprocess communication
,
1986,
JACM.
[4]
Nancy A. Lynch,et al.
Data Requirements for Implementation of N-Process Mutual Exclusion Using a Single Shared Variable
,
1982,
JACM.
[5]
Shai Ben-David,et al.
On Global-Time and Inter-process Communication
,
1990
.
[6]
Gary L. Peterson.
A New Solution to Lamport's Concurrent Programming Problem Using Small Shared Variables
,
1983,
TOPL.
[7]
Nancy A. Lynch,et al.
Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process
,
1985,
JACM.