Which of the following scheduling algorithms can cause the starvation of low-priority processes?

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.