Chapter : Process Synchronization

Process Synchronization

Background
The Critical-Section Problem
Petersons Solution
Synchronization Hardware
Semaphores
Classic Problems of Synchronization
Monitors
Synchronization Examples
Atomic Transactions
 Background
Co-Operating Process: that can affect or be affected by other
processes executing in system
Concurrent access to shared data may result in data inconsistency
Process Synchronization: Ensures coordination among processes and
maintains Data Consistency

Process P1 Process P2
1. X=5
2. X=5+2
1. read(x);
2. x=x+5;

3. Printf( x);
 Producer Consumer Problem
There can be two situations:

1. Producer Produces Items at Fastest Rate Than Consumer

Consumes

2. Producer Produces Items at Lowest Rate Than Consumer

Consumes
 Producer Consumer Problem
1. Producer Produces Items at Fastest Rate Than Consumer
Consumes:

If Producer produces items at fastest rate than

Consumer consumes Then Some items will be
lost

Eg. Computer Producer

Printer Consumer
 Producer Consumer Problem
Solution:
To avoid mismatch of items Produced or Consumed
Take Buffer
Idea is: Instead of sending items from Producer to
Consumer directly Store items into buffer
 Producer Consumer Problem
Buffer Can be:
1. Unbounderd Buffer:
1. No buffer size limit
2. Any no. of items can be stored
3. Producer can produce on any rate, there will always
be space in buffer

2. Bounderd Buffer:
1. Limited buffer size
 Producer Consumer Problem
Bounderd Buffer:

If rate of Production > rate of Consumption:

Some items will be unconsumed in buffer

If rate of Production < rate of Consumption:

At some time buffer will be empty
 Producer
while (true) {

/* produce an item and put in

nextProduced */

while (count == BUFFER_SIZE)

; // do nothing
buffer [in] = nextProduced;
in = (in + 1) %
BUFFER_SIZE;
count++;
}
 Consumer

while (true) {
while (count == 0) // buffer empty
{
; // do nothing
}
nextConsumed = buffer[out];
out = (out + 1) % BUFFER_SIZE;
count- -;

/* consume the item in

nextConsumed
}
count=0 buffer is empty

Producer Consumer
count=count-1
count=count+1 4. R2=count
1. R1=count 5. R2=R2-1
2. R1=R1+1 6. Count = R2

3. Count = R1

Order of execution is not defined: May

be
1 2 4 5 3 6
 Race Condition
When multiple processes access and manipulate the same data at the
same time, they may enter into a race condition.
Race Condition: When output of the process is dependent on the
sequence of other processes.
Race Condition occurs when processes share same data

Process P1 Process P2
1. reads i=10
2. i=i+1 =11
PI got INTERRUPTED
1. P2 reads i=11 from memory
2. i=i+1 = 12
3. Stores i=11 in memory 3. Stores 12 in memory
 Critical Section Problem
Section of code or set of operations, in which process
may be changing shared variables, updating common
data.
A process is in the critical section if it executes code that
manipulate shared data and resources.
Each process should seek permission to enter its critical
section Entry Section
Exit Section
Remainder section: Contains remaining code
Structure of a process
Repeat
{
// Entry Section

Critical Section

// Exit Section

Remainder Section
} until false.
 Solution to: Critical Section
1. Mutual Exclusion:
It states that if one process is executing in its critical section, then
no other process can execute in its critical section.
2. Bounded Wait:
It states that if a process makes a request to enter its critical
section and before that request is granted, there is a limit on
number of times other processes are allowed to enter that
critical section.

Pi made request for Critical Section

Pj is already executing in its Critical Section Pi has to wait

 Solution to: Critical Section
3. Progress:
It states that process cannot stop other process from entering
their critical sections, if it is not executing in its CS.
Decision of entry into Critical Section is made by Processes in
Entry Section

How? Set Lock in Entry Section

Once process leaves C.S, Lock is released (i.e in Exit Section)

 Solution to: Critical Section
3. Progress:
N processes share same Critical Section

Decision about which process can enter the Critical Section is

based on Processes which are interested to enter the C.S
(i.e. Processes of Entry Section)

Processes that do not want to execute in CS should not take

part in decision
 S/w Approaches/Solutions For C.S
Consider a Shared Variable, that can take 2
values 0 and 1
If (shared variable == 0)
P0 can enter to Critical Section

If (shared variable == 1)
P1 can enter to Critical Section
 S/w Approaches/Solutions For C.S
Let turn=0
P0 P1
While (1) While (1)
{ {
While(turn !=1);// if true
While(turn !=0);// if true
process will be stuck in the loop
process will be stuck in the loop
CS CS
turn= 1; turn= 0;
} }
 S/w Approaches/Solutions For C.S

Mutual Exclusion satisfied

Progress
Now, Turn =1 i.e. process P1 can enter C.S.
But
Suppose P1 does not want to enter C.S.
So.. turn =1 is never set
Strict alteration is there.
Progress is not satisfied
 2nd S/W Approach
Instead of one shared variable.
Assume a flag can be true or false.
If p0 wants to enter into CS it will set its flag true
and when it doesnt want to enter flag will be false.
 2nd S/W Approach
P0 P1

While(1) While(1)
{ {
Flag[0]=true; Flag[1]=true;
while(Flag[1]); while(Flag[0]);
CS CS
Flag[0]=false; Flag[1]=false;
} }
 2nd S/W Approach

Follows mutual exclusion

Doesnt follow progress
System may go into deadlock state.
 Petersons Solution

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!
 Algorithm for Petersons solution
P0 P1

While(1) While(1)
{ {
Flag[0]=true; Flag[1]=true;
turn=1; turn=0;
while(turn==1 && while(turn==0 &&
flag[1]==true); flag[0]==true);
CS CS
Flag[0]=false; Flag[1]=false;
} }
 Mutual exclusion satisfied.
Progress satisfied.
Bounded wait satisfied.
 Synchronization Hardware

Hardware Solution to C.S.

Many systems provide hardware support for critical section code

Uniprocessors could disable interrupts

Currently running code would execute without preemption
Disabling interrupt in multiprocessor environment can be time consuming ,
as message is passed to all the processors.
Modern machines provide special atomic hardware instructions

Atomic = non-interruptable
Either test memory word and set value
Or swap contents of two memory words
 Hardware Solution to C.S.
Interrupt Disabling

1. In Single CPU system, processes do not

execute in parallel
2. Process leaves control of CPU when it is
interrupted.
3. Solution is:
1. To have each process disable all interrupts just
after entering to the critical section.
2. Re-enable interrupts after leaving critical section
 Hardware Solution to C.S.
Interrupt Disabling

Repeat

Disable interrupts

C.S

Enable interrupts

Remainder section
 Hardware Solution to C.S.
Hardware instructions
1. Machines provide inst. That can read, modify and
store memory word
2. Common inst. are:
1. Test and Set
This inst. Provides action of testing a variable and set
its value

It executes atomically
Test and Set instructions operates on single Boolean
variable.
 TestAndndSet Instruction

Definition:

boolean TestAndSet (boolean *target)

{
boolean rv = target;
*target = TRUE;
return rv:
}
 Solution using TestAndSet

Shared Boolean variable lock., initialized to false.

Solution:

Test and Set definition

while (true)
{
boolean TestAndSet (boolean *lock) while ( TestAndSet (&lock ));
{
boolean init = lock;
lock= TRUE; // critical section
return init;
} lock = FALSE;

// remainder section

}
 Swap Instruction

Definition:

void Swap (boolean *a, boolean *b)

{
boolean temp = *a;
*a = *b;
*b = temp:
}
 Solution using Swap
Shared Boolean variable lock initialized to FALSE; Each
process has a local Boolean variable key.
Solution:

Definition
while (true) {
void Swap (boolean *a, boolean *b) key = TRUE;
{ while ( key == TRUE)
boolean temp = *a; {
*a = *b; Swap (&lock, &key );
*b = temp: }
} // critical section

lock = FALSE;

// remainder section

}
Bounded waiting mutual exclusion with TestAndSet
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; /* remainder section */
}
while (true);
 Semaphore
Semaphore S integer variable
Two standard operations modify S: wait() and signal()
Originally called P() and V()
Less complicated
Can only be accessed via two indivisible (atomic) operations
wait (S) {
while S <= 0
; // no-op
S--;
}
signal (S) {
S++;
}
 We can use semaphore to solve various synchronization
problem.
o Let P1 and P2 are two process
o P1 wants to execute S1 statement. And P2 wants to
execute S2 statement.
o S1 is to be executed before S2

S1;
Signal(synch);
Wait(synch);
S2
 Semaphore as General Synchronization Tool

Counting semaphore integer value can range over an unrestricted

domain
Binary semaphore integer value can range only between 0
and 1; can be simpler to implement
Also known as mutex locks
Can implement a counting semaphore S as a binary semaphore
Provides mutual exclusion
Semaphore S; // initialized to 1
wait (S);
Critical Section
signal (S);
 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 crtical section.
Could now have busy waiting in critical section
implementation
But implementation code is short
 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.
Semaphore Implementation with no Busy waiting (Cont.)

Implementation of wait:

wait (S){
value--;
if (value < 0) {
add this process to waiting queue
block(); }
}

Implementation of signal:

Signal (S){
value++;
if (value <= 0) {
remove a process P from the waiting queue
wakeup(P); }
}
 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.
 Classical Problems of Synchronization

Bounded-Buffer Problem
Readers and Writers Problem
Dining-Philosophers Problem
 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.
 Bounded Buffer Problem (Cont.)
The structure of the producer process

while (true) {

// produce an item

wait (empty);
wait (mutex);

// add the item to the buffer

signal (mutex);
signal (full);
}
 Bounded Buffer Problem (Cont.)
The structure of the consumer process

while (true) {
wait (full);
wait (mutex);

// remove an item from buffer

signal (mutex);
signal (empty);

// consume the removed item

}
 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.

Shared Data
Data set
Semaphore mutex initialized to 1.
Semaphore wrt initialized to 1.
Integer readcount initialized to 0.
 Readers-Writers Problem (Cont.)

The structure of a writer process

while (true) {
wait (wrt) ;

// writing is performed

signal (wrt) ;
}
 Readers-Writers Problem (Cont.)
The structure of a reader process

while (true) {
wait (mutex) ;
readcount ++ ;
if (readcount == 1) wait (wrt) ;
signal (mutex)

// reading is performed

wait (mutex) ;
readcount - - ;
if (readcount == 0) signal (wrt) ;
signal (mutex) ;
}
 Dining-Philosophers Problem

Shared data
Bowl of rice (data set)
Semaphore chopstick [5] initialized to 1
 Dining-Philosophers Problem (Cont.)

The structure of Philosopher i:

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

// eat

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

// think

}
 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)

 Monitors
A high-level abstraction that provides a convenient and effective
mechanism for process synchronization
Only one process may be active within the monitor at a time

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

procedure Pn () {}

Initialization code ( .) { }

}
}
Schematic view of a Monitor
 Condition Variables

condition x, y;

Two operations on a condition variable:

x.wait () a process that invokes the operation is
suspended.
x.signal () resumes one of processes (if any) that
invoked x.wait ()
Monitor with Condition Variables
 Solution to Dining Philosophers

monitor DP
{
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);
}
 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;
}
}
 Solution to Dining Philosophers (cont)

Each philosopher I invokes the operations pickup()

and putdown() in the following sequence:

dp.pickup (i)

EAT

dp.putdown (i)
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.

 Monitor Implementation
For each condition variable x, we have:

semaphore x-sem; // (initially = 0)

int x-count = 0;

The operation x.wait can be implemented as:

x-count++;
if (next-count > 0)
signal(next);
else
signal(mutex);
wait(x-sem);
x-count--;
 Monitor Implementation

The operation x.signal can be implemented as:

if (x-count > 0) {
next-count++;
signal(x-sem);
wait(next);
next-count--;
}
 Synchronization Examples

Solaris
Windows XP
Linux
Pthreads
 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
Uses condition variables and 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
 Windows XP Synchronization

Uses interrupt masks to protect access to global resources on

uniprocessor systems
Uses spinlocks on multiprocessor systems
Also provides dispatcher objects which may act as either mutexes
and semaphores
Dispatcher objects may also provide events
An event acts much like a condition variable
 Linux Synchronization

Linux:
disables interrupts to implement short critical sections

Linux provides:
semaphores
spin locks
 Pthreads Synchronization

Pthreads API is OS-independent

It provides:
mutex locks
condition variables

Non-portable extensions include:

read-write locks
spin locks
 Atomic Transactions

System Model
Log-based Recovery
Checkpoints
Concurrent Atomic Transactions
 System Model

Assures that operations happen as a single logical unit of work, in its

entirety, or not at all
Related to field of database systems
Challenge is assuring atomicity despite computer system failures
Transaction - collection of instructions or operations that performs
single logical function
Here we are concerned with changes to stable storage disk
Transaction is series of read and write operations
Terminated by commit (transaction successful) or abort
(transaction failed) operation
Aborted transaction must be rolled back to undo any changes it
performed
 Types of Storage Media

Volatile storage information stored here does not survive system

crashes
Example: main memory, cache
Nonvolatile storage Information usually survives crashes
Example: disk and tape
Stable storage Information never lost
Not actually possible, so approximated via replication or RAID to
devices with independent failure modes

Goal is to assure transaction atomicity where failures cause loss of

information on volatile storage
 Log-Based Recovery

Record to stable storage information about all modifications by a

transaction
Most common is write-ahead logging
Log on stable storage, each log record describes single
transaction write operation, including
Transaction name
Data item name
Old value
New value
<Ti starts> written to log when transaction T i starts
<Ti commits> written when Ti commits
Log entry must reach stable storage before operation on data
occurs
 Log-Based Recovery Algorithm

Using the log, system can handle any volatile memory errors
Undo(Ti) restores value of all data updated by Ti
Redo(Ti) sets values of all data in transaction Ti to new values
Undo(Ti) and redo(Ti) must be idempotent
Multiple executions must have the same result as one execution
If system fails, restore state of all updated data via log
If log contains <Ti starts> without <Ti commits>, undo(Ti)
If log contains <Ti starts> and <Ti commits>, redo(Ti)
 Checkpoints

Log could become long, and recovery could take long

Checkpoints shorten log and recovery time.
Checkpoint scheme:
1. Output all log records currently in volatile storage to stable
storage
2. Output all modified data from volatile to stable storage
3. Output a log record <checkpoint> to the log on stable storage
Now recovery only includes Ti, such that Ti started executing
before the most recent checkpoint, and all transactions after Ti All
other transactions already on stable storage
 Concurrent Transactions

Must be equivalent to serial execution serializability

Could perform all transactions in critical section
Inefficient, too restrictive
Concurrency-control algorithms provide serializability
 Serializability

Consider two data items A and B

Consider Transactions T0 and T1
Execute T0, T1 atomically
Execution sequence called schedule
Atomically executed transaction order called serial schedule
For N transactions, there are N! valid serial schedules
Schedule 1: T0 then T1
 Nonserial Schedule

Nonserial schedule allows overlapped execute

Resulting execution not necessarily incorrect
Consider schedule S, operations Oi, Oj
Conflict if access same data item, with at least one write
If Oi, Oj consecutive and operations of different transactions & Oi
and Oj dont conflict
Then S with swapped order Oj Oi equivalent to S
If S can become S via swapping nonconflicting operations
S is conflict serializable
Schedule 2: Concurrent Serializable Schedule
 Locking Protocol

Ensure serializability by associating lock with each data item

Follow locking protocol for access control
Locks
Shared Ti has shared-mode lock (S) on item Q, Ti can read Q
but not write Q
Exclusive Ti has exclusive-mode lock (X) on Q, Ti can read
and write Q
Require every transaction on item Q acquire appropriate lock
If lock already held, new request may have to wait
Similar to readers-writers algorithm
 Two-phase Locking Protocol

Generally ensures conflict serializability

Each transaction issues lock and unlock requests in two phases
Growing obtaining locks
Shrinking releasing locks
Does not prevent deadlock
 Timestamp-based Protocols

Select order among transactions in advance timestamp-ordering

Transaction Ti associated with timestamp TS(Ti) before Ti starts
TS(Ti) < TS(Tj) if Ti entered system before Tj
TS can be generated from system clock or as logical counter
incremented at each entry of transaction
Timestamps determine serializability order
If TS(Ti) < TS(Tj), system must ensure produced schedule
equivalent to serial schedule where Ti appears before Tj
 Timestamp-based Protocol Implementation

Data item Q gets two timestamps

W-timestamp(Q) largest timestamp of any transaction that
executed write(Q) successfully
R-timestamp(Q) largest timestamp of successful read(Q)
Updated whenever read(Q) or write(Q) executed
Timestamp-ordering protocol assures any conflicting read and write
executed in timestamp order
Suppose Ti executes read(Q)
If TS(Ti) < W-timestamp(Q), Ti needs to read value of Q that was
already overwritten
read operation rejected and Ti rolled back
If TS(Ti) W-timestamp(Q)
read executed, R-timestamp(Q) set to max(R-timestamp(Q),
TS(Ti))
 Timestamp-ordering Protocol

Suppose Ti executes write(Q)

If TS(Ti) < R-timestamp(Q), value Q produced by Ti was
needed previously and Ti assumed it would never be produced
Write operation rejected, Ti rolled back
If TS(Ti) < W-tiimestamp(Q), Ti attempting to write obsolete
value of Q
Write operation rejected and Ti rolled back
Otherwise, write executed
Any rolled back transaction Ti is assigned new timestamp and
restarted
Algorithm ensures conflict serializability and freedom from deadlock
Schedule Possible Under Timestamp Protocol
End of Chapter 6