0% found this document useful (0 votes)
1 views

Lec4_Process_Synchronization

Chapter 5 discusses process synchronization in operating systems, focusing on the challenges of concurrent process execution and the need for mechanisms to maintain data consistency. It introduces critical section problems, various synchronization algorithms including Peterson's solution, mutex locks, and semaphores, and illustrates these concepts with examples like the dining philosophers problem. The chapter emphasizes the importance of mutual exclusion, progress, and bounded waiting in designing effective synchronization protocols.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
1 views

Lec4_Process_Synchronization

Chapter 5 discusses process synchronization in operating systems, focusing on the challenges of concurrent process execution and the need for mechanisms to maintain data consistency. It introduces critical section problems, various synchronization algorithms including Peterson's solution, mutex locks, and semaphores, and illustrates these concepts with examples like the dining philosophers problem. The chapter emphasizes the importance of mutual exclusion, progress, and bounded waiting in designing effective synchronization protocols.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 26

Chapter 5: Process

Synchronization

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 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 5.2 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 5.3 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 5.4 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 5.5 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 5.6 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
Critical Section

General structure of process Pi

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.7 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
Algorithm for Process Pi

do {

while (turn == j);

critical section
turn = j;

remainder section
} while (true);

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.8 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 5.9 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
Peterson’s Solution
Good algorithmic description of solving the problem
Two process solution
Assume that the load and store machine-language
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 5.10 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);

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.11 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 5.12 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 5.13 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:
}
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 5.15 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;
}
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 5.17 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 5.18 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
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 5.19 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 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 5.21 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
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 5.22 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 5.23 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 5.24 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 5.25 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
End of Chapter 5

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

You might also like