Mutual exclusion: Only one car can occupy a certain piece of road space at a time.
Hold and wait: Cars occupy their space until they can move foward, and can't back up because there are other cars behind them.
No preemption: Kayvon said this one is a bit of a stretch, but there is no helicopter that can come remove a car from the road to clear the path for other cars.
Circular wait: green car 1 is waiting for yellow car 1, yellow car 1 is waiting for green car 2, green car 2 is waiting for yellow car 2, and yellow car 2 is waiting for green car 1.
This comment was marked helpful 1 times.
kleino
I agree that this paraphrases exactly what we said in class.
This comment was marked helpful 0 times.
jhhardin
I'm a little confused about the difference between hold and wait and no preemption. Hold and wait says that a processor keeps a resource until it can acquire another resource to do an operation, but no preemption only seems to emphasize this in saying that they will keep the resource until they finish the operation. So basically no preemption seems like a subset of hold and wait with a bit more emphasis on the holding...
This comment was marked helpful 0 times.
sluck
@jhhardin The way I understand it, (in deadlock) not only is a process going to hold onto a resource until they finish the operation, but no preemption refers to the fact that you cannot force it to give up the resource, e.g. there's no external player saying hey, you're causing problems, give up your resources. One of the examples for no preemption given in 15-410 is: "Interrupting a CD-R burn creates a 'coaster.'" But I think the comments on the previous slide might help to give a clearer picture in how "hold and wait" and "no preemption" are separate conditions for deadlock.
In the context of the traffic example:
This comment was marked helpful 1 times.
I agree that this paraphrases exactly what we said in class.
This comment was marked helpful 0 times.
I'm a little confused about the difference between hold and wait and no preemption. Hold and wait says that a processor keeps a resource until it can acquire another resource to do an operation, but no preemption only seems to emphasize this in saying that they will keep the resource until they finish the operation. So basically no preemption seems like a subset of hold and wait with a bit more emphasis on the holding...
This comment was marked helpful 0 times.
@jhhardin The way I understand it, (in deadlock) not only is a process going to hold onto a resource until they finish the operation, but no preemption refers to the fact that you cannot force it to give up the resource, e.g. there's no external player saying hey, you're causing problems, give up your resources. One of the examples for no preemption given in 15-410 is: "Interrupting a CD-R burn creates a 'coaster.'" But I think the comments on the previous slide might help to give a clearer picture in how "hold and wait" and "no preemption" are separate conditions for deadlock.
This comment was marked helpful 0 times.