Chapter 5: Process

Synchronization

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Chapter 5: Process Synchronization
Background
The Critical-Section Problem
Peterson’s Solution
Synchronization Hardware
Mutex Locks
Semaphores
Classic Problems of Synchronization
Monitors
Synchronization Examples
Alternative Approaches

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.2 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Objectives

To present the concept of process synchronization.

To introduce the critical-section problem, whose solutions
can be used to ensure the consistency of shared data
To present both software and hardware solutions of the
critical-section problem
To examine several classical process-synchronization
problems
To explore several tools that are used to solve process
synchronization problems

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.3 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Background
Processes can execute concurrently
May be interrupted at any time, partially completing
execution
Concurrent access to shared data may result in data
inconsistency
Maintaining data consistency requires mechanisms to ensure
the orderly execution of cooperating processes
Illustration of the problem:
Suppose that we wanted to provide a solution to the
consumer-producer problem that fills all the buffers. We can
do so by having an integer counter that keeps track of the
number of full buffers. Initially, counter is set to 0. It is
incremented by the producer after it produces a new buffer
and is decremented by the consumer after it consumes a
buffer.

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.4 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Producer

while (true) {
/* produce an item in next produced */

while (counter == BUFFER_SIZE) ;

/* do nothing */
buffer[in] = next_produced;
in = (in + 1) % BUFFER_SIZE;
counter++;
}

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.5 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Consumer

while (true) {
while (counter == 0)
; /* do nothing */
next_consumed = buffer[out];
out = (out + 1) % BUFFER_SIZE;
counter--;
/* consume the item in next consumed */
}

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.6 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Race Condition

counter++ could be implemented as

register1 = counter
register1 = register1 + 1
counter = register1
counter-- could be implemented as
register2 = counter
register2 = register2 - 1
counter = register2

Consider this execution interleaving with “count = 5” initially:

S0: producer execute register1 = counter {register1 = 5}
S1: producer execute register1 = register1 + 1 {register1 = 6}
S2: consumer execute register2 = counter {register2 = 5}
S3: consumer execute register2 = register2 – 1 {register2 = 4}
S4: producer execute counter = register1 {counter = 6 }
S5: consumer execute counter = register2 {counter = 4}

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.7 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Race Condition
Processes P0 and P1 are creating child processes using the fork()
system call
Race condition on kernel variable next_available_pid which
represents the next available process identifier (pid)

Unless there is a mechanism to prevent P0 and P1 from accessing the

variable next_available_pid the same pid could be assigned to
two different processes!

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.8 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Critical Section Problem
Consider system of n processes {p0, p1, … pn-1}
Each process has critical section segment of code
Process may be changing common variables, updating
table, writing file, etc
When one process in critical section, no other may be in its
critical section
Critical section problem is to design protocol to solve this
Each process must ask permission to enter critical section in
entry section, may follow critical section with exit section,
then remainder section

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.9 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Critical Section

General structure of process Pi

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.10 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Solution to Critical-Section Problem
1. Mutual Exclusion - If process Pi is executing in its critical
section, then no other processes can be executing in their
critical sections
2. Progress - If no process is executing in its critical section and
there exist some processes that wish to enter their critical
section, then the selection of the processes that will enter the
critical section next cannot be postponed indefinitely
3. Bounded Waiting - A bound must exist on the number of
times that other processes are allowed to enter their critical
sections after a process has made a request to enter its critical
section and before that request is granted
 Assume that each process executes at a nonzero speed
 No assumption concerning relative speed of the n
processes

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.11 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Interrupt-based Solution
Entry section: disable interrupts
Exit section: enable interrupts
Will this solve the problem?
• What if the critical section is code that runs for an hour?
• Can some processes starve – never enter their critical section.
• What if there are two CPUs?

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.12 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Software Solution 1

Two process solution

Assume that the load and store machine-language
instructions are atomic; that is, cannot be interrupted
The two processes share one variable:
int turn;
The variable turn indicates whose turn it is to enter the
critical section
initially, the value of turn is set to i

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.13 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Algorithm for Process Pi

while (true){

while (turn = = j);

/* critical section */

turn = j;

/* remainder section */

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.14 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Correctness of the Software Solution

Mutual exclusion is preserved

Pi enters critical section only if:
turn = i
and turn cannot be both 0 and 1 at the same time
What about the Progress requirement?
What about the Bounded-waiting requirement?

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.15 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Critical-Section Handling in OS
Two approaches depending on if kernel is preemptive or non-
preemptive
Preemptive – allows preemption of process when running
in kernel mode
Non-preemptive – runs until exits kernel mode, blocks, or
voluntarily yields CPU
Essentially free of race conditions in kernel mode
Preemptive kernel is more responsive (reduces the risk that
one kernel-mode process occupies the CPU for a long time)
Preemptive kernel is more suitable for real-time
programming (real time operating systems)

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.16 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Peterson’s Solution
Good algorithmic description of solving the problem
Two process solution
The two processes share two variables:
int turn;
Boolean flag[2]

The variable turn indicates whose turn it is to enter the critical

section
The flag array is used to indicate if a process is ready to enter
the critical section. flag[i] = true implies that process Pi is
ready!
Assume that changes to variables turn and flag are atomic; that
is, cannot be interrupted.

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.17 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Algorithm for Process Pi & Pj

Process I I is saying that it

wants to enter the CS
Process J J is saying that it
wants to enter the CS

while (true){ while (true){

flag[i] = true; flag[j] = true;

turn = j; turn = i;
while (flag[j] && turn = = j); while (flag[i] && turn = = i);

/* critical section */ /* critical section */

flag[i] = false; flag[j] = false;

/* remainder section */ /* remainder section */

} }

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.18 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Peterson’s Solution (Cont.)
Provable that the three CS requirement are met:
1. Mutual exclusion is preserved
Pi enters CS only if:
either flag[j] = false or turn = i
2. Progress requirement is satisfied
3. Bounded-waiting requirement is met

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.19 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Peterson’s Solution and Modern Architecture

Although useful for demonstrating an algorithm, Peterson’s

Solution is not guaranteed to work on modern architectures.
To improve performance, processors and/or compilers may
reorder operations that have no dependencies
Understanding why it will not work is useful for better
understanding race conditions.
For single-threaded this is ok as the result will always be the
same.
For multithreaded the reordering may produce inconsistent or
unexpected results!

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.20 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Synchronization Hardware
Many systems provide hardware support for implementing the
critical section code.
All solutions below based on idea of locking
Protecting critical regions via locks
Uniprocessors – could disable interrupts
Currently running code would execute without preemption
Generally too inefficient on multiprocessor systems
Operating systems using this not broadly scalable

Modern machines provide special atomic hardware instructions
 Atomic = non-interruptible
Either test memory word and set value
Or swap contents of two memory words

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.21 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Solution to Critical-section Problem Using Locks

do {
acquire lock
critical section
release lock
remainder section
} while (TRUE);

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.22 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Hardware Instructions

Special hardware instructions that allow us to either

test-and-modify the content of a word, or to swap the
contents of two words atomically (uninterruptedly.)
Test-and-Set instruction
Compare-and-Swap instruction

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.23 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 test_and_set Instruction
Definition:
boolean test_and_set (boolean *target)
{
boolean rv = *target;
*target = TRUE;
return rv:
}
1. Executed atomically
2. Returns the original value of passed parameter
3. Set the new value of passed parameter to “TRUE”.

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.24 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Solution using test_and_set()

Shared Boolean variable lock, initialized to FALSE

Solution:
do {
while (test_and_set(&lock)); /* do nothing */
/* critical section */
lock = false;
/* remainder section */
} while (true);

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.25 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 compare_and_swap Instruction
Definition:
int compare_and_swap(int *value, int expected, int new_value) {
int temp = *value;

if (*value == expected)
*value = new_value;
return temp;
}
1. Executed atomically
2. Returns the original value of passed parameter “value”
3. Set the variable “value” the value of the passed parameter “new_value”
but only if “value” == “expected”. That is, the swap takes place only
under this condition.

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.26 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Solution using compare_and_swap

Shared integer “lock” initialized to 0;

Solution:
do {
while (compare_and_swap(&lock, 0, 1) != 0); /* do nothing */
/* critical section */
lock = 0;
/* remainder section */
} while (true);

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.27 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Bounded-waiting Mutual Exclusion with test_and_set

// Need two Boolean variables lock and waiting[n]

// Initialized to false
do {
waiting[i] = true;
key = true;
while (waiting[i] && key)
key = test_and_set(&lock);
waiting[i] = false;
/* critical section */
j = (i + 1) % n;
while ((j != i) && !waiting[j])
j = (j + 1) % n;
if (j == i)
lock = false;
else
waiting[j] = false; // Change waiting[j] from T to F
/* remainder section */
} while (true);

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.28 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Mutex Locks
Previous solutions are complicated and generally inaccessible
to application programmers
OS designers build software tools to solve critical section
problem
Simplest is mutex lock
Protect a critical section by first acquire() a lock then
release() the lock
Boolean variable indicating if lock is available or not
Calls to acquire() and release() must be atomic
Usually implemented via hardware atomic instructions
But this solution requires busy waiting
This lock therefore called a spinlock

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.29 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 acquire() and release()
acquire() {
while (!available); /* busy wait */
available = false;
}
release() {
available = true;
}
do {
acquire lock
critical section
release lock
remainder section
} while (true);

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.30 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Semaphore
Synchronization tool that provides more sophisticated ways (than Mutex locks)
for process to synchronize their activities.
Semaphore S – integer variable
Can only be accessed via two indivisible (atomic) operations
wait() and signal()
 Originally called P() and V()

Definition of the wait() operation

wait(S) {
while (S <= 0); // busy wait
S--;
}
Definition of the signal() operation
signal(S) {
S++;
}

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.31 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Semaphore Usage
Counting semaphore – integer value can range over an unrestricted
domain
Binary semaphore – integer value can range only between 0 and 1
Same as a mutex lock
Can solve various synchronization problems
Consider P1 and P2 that require S1 to happen before S2
Create a semaphore “synch” initialized to 0
P1:
S1;
signal(synch);
P2:
wait(synch);
S2;
Can implement a counting semaphore S as a binary semaphore

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.32 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Semaphore Implementation
Must guarantee that no two processes can execute the wait()
and signal() on the same semaphore at the same time
Thus, the implementation becomes the critical section problem
where the wait and signal code are placed in the critical
section
Could now have busy waiting in critical section
implementation
 But implementation code is short
 Little busy waiting if critical section rarely occupied
Note that applications may spend lots of time in critical sections
and therefore this is not a good solution

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.33 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Semaphore Implementation with no Busy waiting

With each semaphore there is an associated waiting queue

Each entry in a waiting queue has two data items:
value (of type integer)
pointer to next record in the list
Two operations:
block – place the process invoking the operation on the
appropriate waiting queue
wakeup – remove one of processes in the waiting queue
and place it in the ready queue
typedef struct{
int value;
struct process *list;
} semaphore;

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.34 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Implementation with no Busy waiting (Cont.)

wait(semaphore *S) {
S->value--;
if (S->value < 0) {
add this process to S->list;
block();
}
}

signal(semaphore *S) {
S->value++;
if (S->value <= 0) {
remove a process P from S->list;
wakeup(P);
}
}

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.35 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Deadlock and Starvation
Deadlock – two or more processes are waiting indefinitely for an
event that can be caused by only one of the waiting processes
Let S and Q be two semaphores initialized to 1
P0 P1
wait(S); wait(Q);
wait(Q); wait(S);
... ...
signal(S); signal(Q);
signal(Q); signal(S);

Starvation – indefinite blocking

A process may never be removed from the semaphore queue in which it is
suspended
Priority Inversion – Scheduling problem when lower-priority process
holds a lock needed by higher-priority process
Solved via priority-inheritance protocol

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.36 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Classical Problems of Synchronization

Classical problems used to test newly-proposed synchronization

schemes
Bounded-Buffer Problem
Readers and Writers Problem
Dining-Philosophers Problem

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.37 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Bounded-Buffer Problem

n item buffer, each can hold one item

Semaphore mutex initialized to the value 1, to protect the access
to shared buffers.
Semaphore full initialized to the value 0, representing number
of produced but not consumed items
Semaphore empty initialized to the value n, representing the
number of empty locations in the buffer

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.38 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Bounded Buffer Problem (Cont.)
The structure of the producer process The structure of the consumer process
do {
... Do {
/* produce an item wait(full);
in next_produced */
wait(mutex);
...
...
wait(empty); /* remove an item from
wait(mutex); buffer to next_consumed */
... next_consumed = buffer[out];
/* add next out = (out+1) % BUFFER_SIZE;
produced to the buffer */
...
buffer[in] =
next_produced; signal(mutex);
in = (in+1) % signal(empty);
BUFFER_SIZE; ...
... /* consume the item in next
consumed */
signal(mutex);
...
signal(full); } while (true);
} while (true);
Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.39 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Producer/Consumer – does this work?

while (true) { while (true) {

/* produce an item in next while (counter == 0); /*
produced */ do nothing */
while (counter == next_consumed =
BUFFER_SIZE); /* do nothing */ buffer[out];
buffer[in] = next_produced; out = (out + 1) %
BUFFER_SIZE;
in = (in + 1) %
BUFFER_SIZE; lock(x);
lock(x); counter--;

counter++; unlock(x);
/* consume the item in
unlock(x);
next consumed */
}
}

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.40 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Readers-Writers Problem
A data set is shared among a number of concurrent processes
Readers – only read the data set; they do not perform any updates
Writers – can both read and write
Problem – allow multiple readers to read at the same time
Only one single writer can access the shared data at the same time
Several variations of how readers and writers are considered – all
involve some form of priorities
Shared Data
Data set (buffer)
Semaphore rw_mutex initialized to 1, guards the access to the
buffer by either one writer or multiple readers
Semaphore read_mutex initialized to 1, guards the variable of
read_count
Integer read_count initialized to 0, represents the number of
readers currently reading the buffer

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.41 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Readers-Writers Problem (Cont.)

The structure of a writer process The structure of a reader process

do {
wait(read_mutex);
do {
read_count++;
wait(rw_mutex);
if (read_count == 1)
...
wait(rw_mutex);
/* writing is
performed */ signal(read_mutex);
... ...
/* reading is
signal(rw_mutex);
performed */
} while (true);
...
wait(read_mutex);
read count--;
if (read_count == 0)
signal(rw_mutex);
signal(read_mutex);
} while (true);

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.42 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Readers-Writers Problem – fairness to
writers
The structure of a writer process The structure of a reader process
do {
do { wait(mutex);
wait(read_mutex);
wait(mutex);
read_count++;
wait(rw_mutex);
if (read_count == 1)
signal(mutex);
wait(rw_mutex);
...
signal(read_mutex);
/* writing is
performed */ signal(mutex);
... ...
/* reading is
signal(rw_mutex);
performed */
} while (true);
...
wait(read_mutex);
read count--;
if (read_count == 0)
signal(rw_mutex);
signal(read_mutex);
Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.43 } while (true);
Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Readers-Writers Problem Variations

First variation – no reader kept waiting unless writer has

permission to use shared object
Second variation – once writer is ready, it performs the
write ASAP
Both may have starvation leading to even more variations
Problem is solved on some systems by kernel providing
reader-writer locks

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.44 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Dining-Philosophers Problem

Philosophers spend their lives alternating thinking and eating

Don’t interact with their neighbors, occasionally try to pick up 2
chopsticks (one at a time) to eat from bowl
Need both to eat, then release both when done
In the case of 5 philosophers
Shared data
 Bowl of rice (data set)
 Semaphore chopstick [5] initialized to 1

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.45 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Dining-Philosophers Problem Algorithm
The structure of Philosopher i : Get interrupted here

do {
wait (chopstick[i] ); // left chopstick
wait (chopStick[ (i + 1) % 5] ); // right chopstick

// eat

signal (chopstick[i] );
signal (chopstick[ (i + 1) % 5] );

// think

} while (TRUE);
What is the problem with this algorithm?

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.46 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Dining-Philosophers Problem Algorithm (Cont.)

Deadlock handling
Allow at most 4 philosophers to be sitting simultaneously at the
table.
Allow a philosopher to pick up the forks only if both are
available (picking must be done in a critical section).
Use an asymmetric solution -- an odd-numbered philosopher
picks up first the left chopstick and then the right chopstick.
Even-numbered philosopher picks up first the right chopstick
and then the left chopstick.

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.47 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Dining-Philosophers Problem Algorithm
The structure of Philosopher i :
do {
wait(mutex);
wait (chopstick[i] ); // left chopstick
wait (chopStick[ (i + 1) % 5] ); // right chopstick
signal(mutex);

// eat

signal (chopstick[i] );
signal (chopstick[ (i + 1) % 5] );

// think

} while (TRUE);

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.48 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Problems with Semaphores

Incorrect use of semaphore operations:

signal (mutex) …. wait (mutex)

wait (mutex) … wait (mutex)

Omitting of wait (mutex) or signal (mutex) (or both)

Deadlock and starvation are possible.

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.49 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Monitors
A high-level abstraction that provides a convenient and effective
mechanism for process synchronization
Abstract data type, internal variables only accessible by code within the
procedure
Only one process may be active within the monitor at a time, rest waiting
at the queue
But not powerful enough to model some synchronization schemes

monitor monitor-name
{
// shared variable declarations
procedure P1 (…) { …. }

procedure Pn (…) {……}

Initialization code (…) { … }

}

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.50 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Schematic view of a Monitor

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.51 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Condition Variables

Monitors by themselves aren’t powerful enough to solve

synchronization problems
Need additional synchronization mechanisms, such as
condition variables
condition x, y;
Two operations are allowed on a condition variable:
x.wait() – a process that invokes the operation is
suspended until x.signal()
x.signal() – resumes one of processes (if any) that
invoked x.wait()
 If no x.wait() on the variable, then it has no effect on
the variable

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.52 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Monitor with Condition Variables

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.53 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Condition Variables Choices
If process P invokes x.signal(), and process Q is suspended in
x.wait(), what should happen next?
Both Q and P cannot execute in the monitor at the same time.
(mutual exclusion must be enforced)
If Q is resumed, then P must wait
Options include
Signal and wait – P waits until Q either leaves the monitor or it
waits for another condition
Signal and continue – Q waits until P either leaves the monitor or it
waits for another condition
Both have pros and cons – language implementer can decide, i.e.,
design decision

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.54 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Monitor Solution to Dining Philosophers
monitor DiningPhilosophers
{
enum { THINKING; HUNGRY, EATING) state [5] ;
condition self [5];

void pickup (int i) {

state[i] = HUNGRY;
test(i);
if (state[i] != EATING)
self[i].wait;
}

void putdown (int i) {

state[i] = THINKING;
// test left and right neighbors
test((i - 1) % 5);
test((i + 1) % 5);
}

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.55 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Solution to Dining Philosophers (Cont.)
void test (int i) {
// test my neighbors and see if they are
not eating
if ((state[(i - 1) % 5] != EATING) &&
(state[i] == HUNGRY) &&
(state[(i + 1) % 5] != EATING) ) {
state[i] = EATING ;
self[i].signal () ; // need to signal to
notify neighbors waiting on condition self[i]
}
}

initialization_code() {
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++)
state[i] = THINKING;
}
}

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.56 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Solution to Dining Philosophers (Cont.)

Each philosopher i invokes the operations pickup() and

putdown() in the following sequence:
Inside the monitor
DiningPhilosophers.pickup(i);

EAT Outside the monitor

Inside the monitor
DiningPhilosophers.putdown(i);

No deadlock, but starvation is possible

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.57 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Monitor Implementation Using Semaphores
Variables

semaphore mutex; // (initially = 1)

semaphore next; // (initially = 0)
int next_count = 0; // count the number of processes suspended on
next
Each procedure/function F will be replaced by
wait(mutex);
…
body of F;
…
if (next_count > 0)
signal(next)
else
signal(mutex);
Mutual exclusion within a monitor is ensured
Step 1: Initialize a semaphore mutex to 1.
Step 2: Provide a semaphore mutex for each monitor.
Step 3: A process must execute wait (mutex) before entering the monitor and must
execute signal (mutex) after leaving the monitor.
Step 4: Since a signaling process must wait until the resumed process either leaves
or waits, introduce an additional semaphore, S, and initialize it to 0.
Step 5: The signaling processes can use S to suspend themselves. An integer
variable S_count is also provided to count the number of processes suspended next.
Thus, each external function Fun is replaced by

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.58 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Monitor Implementation – Condition Variables

For each condition variable x, we have:

semaphore x_sem; // (initially = 0)

int x_count = 0;

Step 1: x is condition.
Step 2: Introduce a semaphore x_num and an integer variable x_count.
Step 3: Initialize both semaphores to 0.

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.59 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Monitor Implementation (Cont.)

The operation x.signal can be implemented as:

if (x_count > 0) {
next_count++;
signal(x_sem);
wait(next);
next_count--;
}

The operation x.wait can be implemented as:

x_count++;
if (next_count > 0)
signal(next);
else
signal(mutex);
wait(x_sem);
x_count--;

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.60 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Solutions so far…

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.64 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Synchronization Examples

Solaris
Windows
Linux
Pthreads

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.65 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Solaris Synchronization
Implements a variety of locks to support multitasking, multithreading
(including real-time threads), and multiprocessing
Uses adaptive mutexes for efficiency when protecting data from short
code segments
Starts as a standard semaphore spin-lock
If lock held, and by a thread running on another CPU, spins
If lock held by non-run-state thread, block and sleep waiting for signal of
lock being released
Uses condition variables
Uses readers-writers locks when longer sections of code need
access to data
Uses turnstiles to order the list of threads waiting to acquire either an
adaptive mutex or reader-writer lock
Turnstiles are per-lock-holding-thread, not per-object
Priority-inheritance per-turnstile gives the running thread the highest of
the priorities of the threads in its turnstile

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.66 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Windows Synchronization

Uses interrupt masks to protect access to global resources on

uniprocessor systems
Uses spinlocks on multiprocessor systems
Spinlocking-thread will never be preempted
Also provides dispatcher objects user-land which may act
mutexes, semaphores, events, and timers
Events
 An event acts much like a condition variable
Timers notify one or more thread when time expired
Dispatcher objects either signaled-state (object available)
or non-signaled state (thread will block)

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.67 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Linux Synchronization
Linux:
Prior to kernel Version 2.6, disables interrupts to
implement short critical sections
Version 2.6 and later, fully preemptive
Linux provides:
Semaphores
atomic integers
spinlocks
reader-writer versions of both
On single-cpu system, spinlocks replaced by enabling and
disabling kernel preemption

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.68 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Pthreads Synchronization

Pthreads API is OS-independent

It provides:
mutex locks
condition variable
Non-portable extensions include:
read-write locks
spinlocks

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.69 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Alternative Approaches

Transactional Memory

OpenMP

Functional Programming Languages

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.70 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Transactional Memory
A memory transaction is a sequence of read-write operations
to memory that are performed atomically.

void update()
{
/* read/write memory */
}

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.71 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 OpenMP
OpenMP is a set of compiler directives and API that support
parallel progamming.

void update(int value)

{
#pragma omp critical
{
count += value
}
}

The code contained within the #pragma omp critical directive

is treated as a critical section and performed atomically.

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.72 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Functional Programming Languages

Functional programming languages offer a different paradigm

than procedural languages in that they do not maintain state.

Variables are treated as immutable and cannot change state

once they have been assigned a value.

There is increasing interest in functional languages such as

Erlang and Scala for their approach in handling data races.

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.73 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 End of Chapter 5

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013