A fast average does not prove fair service, and fairness does not provide a cycle bound by itself. First account for the serial path of one upgrade, then ask which requests stay eligible and what makes their completion bounded.
Lesson | After it you can... |
|---|---|
Build an illustrative event timeline without double-counting overlap. | |
Compare service policies under explicit eligibility assumptions. | |
Keep priority from violating permission or completion obligations. | |
Find the stage where a live request is bypassed. |
Read after resource deadlock and acknowledgement tracking. The examples retain H-collected acknowledgements. Every timing number here is illustrative, not a measurement or a vendor guarantee.
No. Fairness can ensure eventual selection under its conditions. A numeric completion bound also needs bounds on service, delivery, delay caused by competing traffic, and endpoint acceptance (the receiving node taking the message into a buffer).