Question
Which of the following scheduling algorithms can cause
the starvation of low-priority processes?Solution
Priority Scheduling is a scheduling algorithm where each process is assigned a priority, and the CPU is allocated to the process with the highest priority. While this algorithm is efficient in executing critical tasks first, it has a significant drawback: processes with low priority may experience starvation if high-priority processes continue to arrive. This happens because the CPU consistently prioritizes tasks with higher precedence, delaying the execution of lower-priority tasks indefinitely. To address this, techniques like aging are employed, where the priority of a process increases the longer it waits in the queue, eventually ensuring its execution. Priority Scheduling is commonly used in real-time systems where certain tasks must be executed immediately. Why Other Options Are Incorrect: 1. FCFS: Executes processes in the order of arrival, ensuring fairness but lacking prioritization. Starvation does not occur since all processes are treated equally. 2. SJF: While it minimizes average waiting time, it can cause starvation in its preemptive version (Shortest Remaining Time First), but not inherently in the non-preemptive mode. 3. RR: Designed for fairness by assigning time slices to processes in a cyclic manner, preventing starvation. 4. Multi-Level Queue Scheduling: May lead to starvation in poorly designed implementations, but this is not inherent to its mechanism. Priority Scheduling’s ability to handle critical tasks efficiently comes with the trade-off of potential starvation, making aging or hybrid approaches necessary for fairness.
Statements:
All Letters are Alphabets
Only few Letters are Numbers
All Digits are Alphabets
Conclusion:
I. Some L...
In the question below there are two conclusions followed by three statements in the options. You have to take the three given statements to be true eve...
Statements:
Some children are parents.
All parents are infants.
Some infants are adolescent.
Conclusions:
I. At least...
Statements:
Only a few Objectives are Solutions.
Only Subjective are Information.
A few Subjective are Solutions.
Conclusion...
Statements:
All ribbons are mat.
Some mats are ropes.
No rope is a thread.
All thread is a needle.
...
Three statements are given followed by two conclusions numbered I & II. Assuming the statements to be true, even if they seem to be at variance with co...
Statement:
No blue is black.
Only a few blacks are Whites.
All Whites are grey.
Conclusion:
I. No blue is Whites.
II. Some grey are not blues
Some tablets are medicines. Some syrups are not capsules. Some tablets are not syrups.
Statements: Some sweaters are coats.
      All coats are shawls. Â
Conclusions: I. Some sweaters are shawls.
   ...
Statements:
All Swabs are Handles.
Only a few Handles are Sticks.
All Sticks are Containers.
Conclusions:
I. Some Swabs are Sticks
II. No Swab is a Stick