Distributed Adaption of Dining Philosophers

Andova, Suzana; Groenewegen, Luuk; Vink, Erik P. de

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-27269-1_8

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Their paper uses Hoare composition but does not describe the synthesised controller, nor do they attempt to prove why their solution is correct. Andova et al [1] use the idea of a central controller delegating part of its control to local controllers to solve the problem of self-stabilization: i.e., migrating a deadlock-prone configuration to one that is deadlock-free using distributed adaptation.…”

Section: Supervisory Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Each philosopher denotes a process running continuously and forever that is either waiting (hungry) for a resource (like a file to write to), or using that resource (eating), or having relinquished the resource (thinking). The problem consists of designing a protocol by which no philosopher remains hungry indefinitely, the starvation-freeness condition, assuming each eating session lasts only for a finite time 1 . In addition, the progress condition means that there should be no deadlock: at any given time, at least one philosopher that is hungry should move to eating after a bounded period of time.…”

Section: Introduction: the Dining Philosophers Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Generalised Dining Philosophers as Feedback Control

Choppella

Sanjeev

Kasturi

et al. 2019

Distributed Computing and Internet Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We revisit the Generalised Dining Philosophers problem through the perspective of feedback control. The result is a modular development of the solution using the notions of system and system composition (the latter due to Tabuada) in a formal setting that employs simple equational reasoning. The modular approach separates the solution architecture from the algorithmic minutiae and has the benefit of simplifying the design and correctness proofs.Three variants of the problem are considered: N=1, and N > 1 with centralised and distributed topology. The base case (N=1) reveals important insights into the problem specification and the architecture of the solution. In each case, solving the Generalised Dining Philosophers reduces to designing an appropriate feedback controller.

show abstract

Section: Supervisory Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introduction: the Dining Philosophers Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Generalised Dining Philosophers as Feedback Control

Choppella

Sanjeev

Kasturi

et al. 2019

Distributed Computing and Internet Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The work of Andova et al [41,42] relies on collaboration models by using the Paradigm coordination language. Each component is described by a state-transition diagram.…”

Section: Verification Of Reconfigurationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Safe reconfiguration of Coqcots and Pycots components

Buisson

Dagnat

Leroux

et al. 2016

Journal of Systems and Software

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International audienceSoftware systems have to face evolutions of their running context and users. Therefore, the so-called dynamic reconfiguration has been commonly adopted for modifying some components and/or the architecture at runtime. Traditional approaches typically stop the needed components, apply the changes, and restart the components. However, this scheme is not suitable for critical systems and degrades user experience. This paper proposes to switch from the stop/restart scheme to dynamic software updating (DSU) techniques. Instead of stopping a component, its implementation is replaced by another one specifically built to apply the modifications while maintaining the best quality of service possible. The major contributions of this work are: (i) the integration of DSU techniques in a component model; (ii) a reconfiguration development process including specification, proof of correctness using Coq, and; (iii) a systematic method to produce the executable script. In this perspective, the use of DSU techniques brings higher quality of service when reconfiguring component-based software. Moreover, the formalization allows ensuring the safety and consistency of the reconfiguration process

show abstract

“…Section 8 wraps up and provides conclusions. Compared to [4], sections 6 and 7, and parts of 1, 2 and 3 are new.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic adaptation with distributed control in Paradigm

Andova

Groenewegen

Vink

2014

Science of Computer Programming

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adaptation of a component-based system can be achieved in the coordination modeling language Paradigm through the special component McPal. McPal regulates the propagation of new behaviour and guides the changes in the components and in their coordination. Here we show how McPal may delegate part of its control to local adaptation managers, created on-the-fly, allowing for distribution of the adaptation indeed. We illustrate the approach for the well-known example of the dining philosophers problem, by modeling migration from a deadlock-prone solution to a deadlock-free and starvation-free solution without any system quiescence. The system migration goes through various stages, exhibiting a shift of control among McPal and its helpers, and changing degrees of orchestrated and choreographic collaboration. The distributed system adaptation is formally verified using the mCRL2 model checker.

show abstract

Distributed Adaption of Dining Philosophers

Cited by 4 publications

References 20 publications

Generalised Dining Philosophers as Feedback Control

Generalised Dining Philosophers as Feedback Control

Safe reconfiguration of Coqcots and Pycots components

Dynamic adaptation with distributed control in Paradigm

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About