Solution of a Problem in Concurrent Programming Control.¶
Dijkstra, E. W. (1965). Solution of a Problem in Concurrent Programming Control. Communications of the ACM, 8(9), 569-570.
Cited by¶
5 citations across 5 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Concurrency
- Explicit or implicit synchronization and coordination mechanisms
This sourceFormalizes the mutual-exclusion problem and gives the first software solution using only atomic reads/writes. SUPPORTS marker 047 (explicit/implicit synchronization and coordination mechanisms). DOI verified. concurrent programming control." Communications of the ACM, 8(9), 569–570. [^ref-9f6f519c74eb]: Herlihy, M. P., & Wing, J. M. (1990). "Linearizability: a correctness condition for concurrent objects." ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 12(3), 463–492. [^ref-6c8c313858a7]: Brewer, E. A. (2000). Towards Robust Distributed Systems. Keynote, ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing. Formalization of CAP theorem (Consistency, Availability, Partition tolerance); showed that distributed systems cannot simultaneously guarantee all three. CAP theorem formal constraint on distributed systems.
- Explicit or implicit synchronization and coordination mechanisms
- Interference and Contention
- Mutual Exclusion
- The failure of any one of these names a recognizable family of bugs — races (a safety failure), deadlock (a liveness failure, a cycle of mutual waits), livelock (both parties back off forever), starvation (a fairness failure) — and naming the property that has broken is the first step to the fix.
This sourceOriginal statement of the mutual-exclusion problem and a software solution guaranteeing at-most-one process in the critical section.
- The failure of any one of these names a recognizable family of bugs — races (a safety failure), deadlock (a liveness failure, a cycle of mutual waits), livelock (both parties back off forever), starvation (a fairness failure) — and naming the property that has broken is the first step to the fix.
- Starvation
- Concurrency and operating systems — the origin: a low-priority thread that never gets the processor because higher-priority threads are always ready; a writer waiting on a lock that never sees zero readers.
This sourceFoundational concurrency work framing mutual exclusion and the liveness requirement that no eligible process is indefinitely denied progress (starvation).
- Concurrency and operating systems — the origin: a low-priority thread that never gets the processor because higher-priority threads are always ready; a writer waiting on a lock that never sees zero readers.
Mechanisms¶
- Mutual-Exclusion Constraint
- The constraint is the membership rule and the enforcing authority fused into one gate.
This sourcePresents a concurrency-control solution that enforces mutual exclusion at entry to a critical section.
- The constraint is the membership rule and the enforcing authority fused into one gate.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Not recorded. Neither this nor any other of the 5 citations of this work carries a recorded support check.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:edac2aa25017 · see in the full table