Dropping only one of the packets is important to a dropping message solution to handling contention. In this solution, a switch has two packets that both need to use the same outbound link, so the switch sends back a negative acknowledgement to one of the nodes that their message has not been sent. If the switch instead dropped both messages, both would continue to try resending, creating the same contention. The nodes continue doing work trying to send their messages, but no task is ever completed, creating an instance of live lock.
This comment was marked helpful 0 times.
pd43
In this slide, Kayvon mentions that the case where both packets are dropped could lead to deadlock or livelock. He called it a standard partial resource acquisition problem. I believe one solution to this general problem is always to access the shared resources in the same order, thus avoiding deadlock or livelock. Is it possible to apply that solution in this case? It seems like once two packets are entering the same node and we want to drop both, it's too late.
This comment was marked helpful 0 times.
hh
@pd43 If by same order, you mean in a round robin style, that seems like a good solution. However, if you mean by giving priority to one link over another, it's possible that you may run into a starvation problem if packets keep coming in from the prioritized link and preventing the other links from sending their packets.
This comment was marked helpful 1 times.
AnnabelleBlue
Isn't it possible though to still reach a situation of starvation without prioritized links? For example, if node A is continually sending packets and node B continually gets rejected because A's packets always reach the switch first. What would be a solution to this situation? Or is it just unlikely enough that it doesn't need to be handled?
Dropping only one of the packets is important to a dropping message solution to handling contention. In this solution, a switch has two packets that both need to use the same outbound link, so the switch sends back a negative acknowledgement to one of the nodes that their message has not been sent. If the switch instead dropped both messages, both would continue to try resending, creating the same contention. The nodes continue doing work trying to send their messages, but no task is ever completed, creating an instance of live lock.
This comment was marked helpful 0 times.
In this slide, Kayvon mentions that the case where both packets are dropped could lead to deadlock or livelock. He called it a standard partial resource acquisition problem. I believe one solution to this general problem is always to access the shared resources in the same order, thus avoiding deadlock or livelock. Is it possible to apply that solution in this case? It seems like once two packets are entering the same node and we want to drop both, it's too late.
This comment was marked helpful 0 times.
@pd43 If by same order, you mean in a round robin style, that seems like a good solution. However, if you mean by giving priority to one link over another, it's possible that you may run into a starvation problem if packets keep coming in from the prioritized link and preventing the other links from sending their packets.
This comment was marked helpful 1 times.
Isn't it possible though to still reach a situation of starvation without prioritized links? For example, if node A is continually sending packets and node B continually gets rejected because A's packets always reach the switch first. What would be a solution to this situation? Or is it just unlikely enough that it doesn't need to be handled?
This comment was marked helpful 0 times.