On the performance of Dijkstra's third self-stabilizing algorithm for mutual exclusion

Authors:
Viacheslav Chernoy;Mordechai Shalom;Shmuel Zaks
Affiliations:
Department of Computer Science, Technion, Haifa, Israel;TelHai Academic College, Upper Galilee, Israel;Department of Computer Science, Technion, Haifa, Israel
Venue:
SSS'07 Proceedings of the 9h international conference on Stabilization, safety, and security of distributed systems
Year:
2007

Citing 9
Cited 2

A belated proof of self-stabilization

Distributed Computing
On the costs of self-stabilization

Information Processing Letters
An exercise in proving self-stabilization with a variant function

Information Processing Letters
Self-stabilization

ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR)
Self-stabilization

Self-stabilization
Self-stabilizing systems in spite of distributed control

Communications of the ACM
Stabilization of general loop-free routing

Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing - Self-stabilizing distributed systems
An advanced performance analysis of self-stabilizing protocols: stabilization time with transient faults during convergence

IPDPS'06 Proceedings of the 20th international conference on Parallel and distributed processing
Brief announcement: computing automatically the stabilization time against the worst and the best schedules

DISC'06 Proceedings of the 20th international conference on Distributed Computing

On the Performance of Beauquier and Debas' Self-stabilizing Algorithm for Mutual Exclusion

SIROCCO '08 Proceedings of the 15th international colloquium on Structural Information and Communication Complexity
Fast Distributed Approximations in Planar Graphs

DISC '08 Proceedings of the 22nd international symposium on Distributed Computing

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

In [7] Dijkstra introduced the notion of self-stabilizing algorithms, and presented three such algorithms for the problem of mutual exclusion on a ring of processors. The third algorithm is the most interesting of these three, but is rather non intuitive. In [8] a proof of its correctness was presented, but the question of determining its worst case complexity - that is, providing an upper bound on the number of moves of this algorithm until it stabilizes - remained open. In this paper we solve this question, and prove an upper bound of O(n2) (n being the size of the ring) for this algorithm's complexity. This complexity applies to a centralized as well as to a distributed scheduler.