Chapter 6: Process

Syncronization

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Chapter 6: Process Syncronization

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 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
 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 5.8 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Critical Section

General structure of process pi is

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.9 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

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

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.10 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 ’s Solution
Peterson’

Good algorithmic description of solving the problem

Two process solution

Assume that the load and store instructions are atomic; that is, cannot be
interrupted

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!

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.11 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Algorithm for Process Pi
do {
flag[i] = true;
turn = j;
while (flag[j] && turn == j);
critical section
flag[i] = false;
remainder section
} while (true);

Provable that
1. Mutual exclusion is preserved
2. Progress requirement is satisfied
3. Bounded-waiting requirement is met

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.12 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Synchronization Hardware

Many systems provide hardware support for 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 5.13 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 5.14 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 test_and_set Instruction

Definition:

boolean test_and_set (boolean *target)

{
boolean rv = *target;
*target = TRUE;
return rv:
}

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.15 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 5.16 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;
}

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.17 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Solution using compare_and_swap

Shared Boolean variable lock initialized to FALSE; Each process has a local
Boolean variable key

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 5.18 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

Product critical regions with it by first acquire() a lock then release() it
 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 5.19 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 5.20 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Semaphore

Synchronization tool that does not require busy waiting

Semaphore S – integer variable

Two standard operations modify S: wait() and signal()
 Originally called P() and V()

Can only be accessed via two indivisible (atomic) operations

Original definitions of wait() and signal() proposed by Dijsktra
 Busy waiting version

wait (S) { signal (S) {

while (S <= 0) S++;
; // busy wait }
S--;
}

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.21 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
 Then a mutex lock

Can implement a counting semaphore S as a binary semaphore

Can solve various synchronization problems

Consider P1 and P2 that require S1 to happen before S2
P1:
S1;
signal(synch);
P2:
wait(synch);
S2;

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.22 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Semaphore Implementation

Must guarantee that no two processes can execute wait () and signal ()
on the same semaphore at the same time

Thus, 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 5.23 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

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.24 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Semaphore Implementation with
no Busy waiting (Cont.)
typedef struct{
int value;
struct process *list;
} semaphore;

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 5.25 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 5.26 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 5.27 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Bounded-Buffer Problem

n buffers, each can hold one item

Semaphore mutex initialized to the value 1

Semaphore full initialized to the value 0

Semaphore empty initialized to the value n

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.28 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Bounded Buffer Problem (Cont.)

The structure of the producer process

do {
...
/* produce an item in next_produced */
...
wait(empty);
wait(mutex);
...
/* add next produced to the buffer */
...
signal(mutex);
signal(full);
} while (true);

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.29 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Bounded Buffer Problem (Cont.)

The structure of the consumer process

do {
wait(full);
wait(mutex);
...
/* remove an item from buffer to next_consumed */
...
signal(mutex);
signal(empty);
...
/* consume the item in next consumed */
...
} while (true);

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.30 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 treated – all involve priorities

Shared Data
 Data set
 Semaphore rw_mutex initialized to 1
 Semaphore mutex initialized to 1
 Integer read_count initialized to 0

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.31 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Readers-Writers Problem (Cont.)

The structure of a writer process

do {
wait(rw mutex);
...
/* writing is performed */
...
signal(rw mutex);
} while (true);

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.32 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Readers-Writers Problem (Cont.)

The structure of a reader process

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

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.33 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 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 5.34 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Dining-Philosophers Problem

Philosophers spend their lives 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 5.35 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Dining-Philosophers Problem Algorithm

The structure of Philosopher i:

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

// eat

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

// think

} while (TRUE);

What is the problem with this algorithm?

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.36 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

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.37 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

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 5.38 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Schematic view of a Monitor

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.39 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Condition Variables

condition x, y;

Two operations 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 5.40 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Monitor with Condition Variables

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.41 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Condition Variables Choices

If process P invokes x.signal (), with Q in x.wait () state, what should happen
next?
 If Q is resumed, then P must wait

Options include
 Signal and wait – P waits until Q leaves monitor or waits for another
condition
 Signal and continue – Q waits until P leaves the monitor or waits for
another condition
 Both have pros and cons – language implementer can decide
 Monitors implemented in Concurrent Pascal compromise

P executing signal immediately leaves the monitor, Q is resumed
 Implemented in other languages including Mesa, C#, Java

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.42 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 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 + 4) % 5);
test((i + 1) % 5);
}

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.43 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Solution to Dining Philosophers (Cont.)

void test (int i) {

if ( (state[(i + 4) % 5] != EATING) &&
(state[i] == HUNGRY) &&
(state[(i + 1) % 5] != EATING) ) {
state[i] = EATING ;
self[i].signal () ;
}
}

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

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.44 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Solution to Dining Philosophers (Cont.)

Each philosopher i invokes the operations pickup() and putdown() in the following
sequence:

DiningPhilosophers.pickup (i);

EAT

DiningPhilosophers.putdown (i);

No deadlock, but starvation is possible

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.45 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Monitor Implementation Using Semaphores

Variables
semaphore mutex; // (initially = 1)
semaphore next; // (initially = 0)
int next_count = 0;

Each procedure 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

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.46 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Resuming Processes within a Monitor

If several processes queued on condition x, and x.signal() executed, which should be
resumed?

FCFS frequently not adequate

conditional-wait construct of the form x.wait(c)

 Where c is priority number
 Process with lowest number (highest priority) is scheduled next

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.47 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 A Monitor to Allocate Single Resource
monitor ResourceAllocator
{
boolean busy;
condition x;
void acquire(int time) {
if (busy)
x.wait(time);
busy = TRUE;
}

void release() {
busy = FALSE;
x.signal();
}

initialization code() {
busy = FALSE;
}
}

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