Chapter 3 part 2

Process Management

Outline
Process Synchronization:
Deadlocks:
 Process Synchronization
• 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.

 Producer & Consumer
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++;
}
Consumer
while (true) {
while (counter == 0)
; /* do nothing */
next_consumed = buffer[out];
out = (out + 1) % BUFFER_SIZE;
counter--;
/* consume the item in next consumed */
}
 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}
 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
 Critical Section
• General structure of process Pi
 Algorithm for Process Pi

do {

while (turn == j);

critical section
turn = j;
remainder section
} while (true);
 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
 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
 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 P is ready!

i
 Algorithm for Process Pi

do {
flag[i] = true;
turn = j;
while (flag[j] && turn = = j);
critical section
flag[i] = false;
remainder section
} while (true);
 Peterson’s Solution (Cont.)

• Provable that the three CS requirement

are met:
1. Mutual exclusion is preserved
P enters CS only if:
i

either flag[j] = false or

turn = i
2. Progress requirement is satisfied
3. Bounded-waiting requirement is met
 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

 Solution to Critical-section Problem Using Locks

do {
acquire lock
critical section
release lock
remainder section
} while (TRUE);
 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”.
 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);
 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.
 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);
Bounded-waiting Mutual Exclusion with test_and_set
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);
 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
 acquire() and release()
• acquire() {
while (!available)
; /* busy wait */
available = false;;
}
• release() {
available = true;
}
• do {
acquire lock
critical section
release lock
remainder section
} while (true);
 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++;
}
 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
 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
 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;
 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);
}
}
 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
Classical Problems of Synchronization

• Classical problems used to test newly-

proposed synchronization schemes
– Bounded-Buffer Problem
– Readers and Writers Problem
– Dining-Philosophers Problem
 Bounded-Buffer Problem

• buffers, each can hold one item n

• 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

do {
...
/* produce an item in next_produced */
...
wait(empty);
wait(mutex);
...
/* add next produced to the buffer */
...
signal(mutex);
signal(full);
} while (true);
 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);
 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
– Semaphore rw_mutex initialized to 1
– Semaphore mutex initialized to 1
– Integer read_count initialized to 0
 Readers-Writers Problem (Cont.)

• The structure of a writer process

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

 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 (…) { … }

}
}
Schematic view of a Monitor
 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
Monitor with Condition Variables
 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 paralel. 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
– Monitors implemented in Concurrent Pascal compromise
• P executing signal immediately leaves the monitor, Q is resumed
– Implemented in other languages including Mesa, C#, Java
 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 + 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:

DiningPhilosophers.pickup(i);

EAT

DiningPhilosophers.putdown(i);

• No deadlock, but starvation is possible

 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 – Condition Variables

• 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 (Cont.)

• The operation x.signal can be implemented as:

if (x_count > 0) {
next_count++;
signal(x_sem);
wait(next);
next_count--;
}
 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
 Single Resource allocation
• Allocate a single resource among competing processes using
priority numbers that specify the maximum time a process
plans to use the resource

R.acquire(t);
...
access the resurce;
...

R.release;

• Where R is an instance of type ResourceAllocator

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;
}
}
 Synchronization Examples

• Solaris
• Windows
• 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
– 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
 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)
 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
 Pthreads Synchronization

• Pthreads API is OS-independent

• It provides:
– mutex locks
– condition variable
• Non-portable extensions include:
– read-write locks
– spinlocks
 Alternative Approaches

• Transactional Memory

• OpenMP

• Functional Programming Languages

 Transactional Memory

• A memory transaction is a sequence of

read-write operations to memory that are
performed atomically.

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

 Deadlocks
 Deadlock can be defined as the permanent blocking of a set of processes
that either compete for system resources or communicate with each
other
 A set of processes is deadlocked when each process in the set is blocked
awaiting an event that can only be triggered by another blocked process
in the set
 Deadlock is permanent because none of the events is ever triggered.

 Unlike other problems in concurrent process management, there is no

efficient solution in the general case
 All deadlocks involve conflicting needs for resources by two or more
processes.
63
Deadlocks

64
 Deadlock Characterization
Deadlock can arise if four conditions hold simultaneously.

• Mutual exclusion: only one process at a time can use a resource

• Hold and wait: a process holding at least one resource is waiting to
acquire additional resources held by other processes
• No preemption: a resource can be released only voluntarily by the
process holding it, after that process has completed its task

• Circular wait: there exists a set {P0, P1, …, Pn} of waiting processes such

that P0 is waiting for a resource that is held by P1, P1 is waiting for a

resource that is held by P2, …, Pn–1 is waiting for a resource that is held

by Pn, and Pn is waiting for a resource that is held by P0.

 DEADLOCK
1. THE OSTRICH ALGORITHM
 Stick your head in the sand and pretend there is no problem at all
 The total number of processes in a system is determined by the
number of entries in the process table.
 If a fork fails because the table is full, a reasonable approach for the
program doing the fork is to wait a random time and try again
 forking may overwhelm the process table and available resources
 Should we abandon processes and the fork call to eliminate the
problem?
 Most operating systems, including UNIX and Windows, just ignore
the problem on the assumption that most users would prefer an
occasional deadlock to a rule restricting all users to one process,
one open file, and one of everything

66
 DEADLOCK
2. DEADLOCK DETECTION AND RECOVERY
 The system lets deadlocks to occur, tries to detect when this happens,
and then takes some action to recover after the fact
 Deadlock Detection with One Resource of Each Type

– a system might have one scanner, one CD recorder, one plotter,

and one tape drive, but no more than one of each class of
resource
– For such a system, we can construct a resource graph of the sort
illustrated in modeling deadlock.
– If this graph contains one or more cycles, a deadlock exists.
– Any process that is part of a cycle is deadlocked.
67
– If no cycles exist, the system is not deadlocked
 DEADLOCK
• Deadlock Detection with Multiple Resource of
Each Type
– When multiple copies of some of the resources
exist, a different approach is needed to detect
deadlocks.
– A matrix-based algorithm is used for detecting
deadlock among n processes
3. Recovery from Deadlock
– Recovery through Preemption
– Recovery through Rollback
• processes check-pointed periodically
– Recovery through Killing Processes

68
 DEADLOCK
4. DEADLOCK AVOIDANCE
• Two approaches:
– Process initiation denial
• Do not start a process if its demands might lead
to deadlock
– Resource allocation denial (Banker’s
algorithm
• Do not grant an incremental resource request
to a process if this allocation might lead to
deadlock

69
 DEADLOCK
5. DEADLOCK PREVENTION

• Attacking the Mutual Exclusion Condition

– If no resource were ever assigned exclusively to a single process, we
would never have deadlocks
– By spooling printer output, several processes can generate output at
the same time
– What would happen if two processes each filled up half of the available
spooling space with output and neither was finished producing output?
 Mutual exclusion

– Avoid assigning a resource when that is not absolutely necessary, and

try to make sure that as few processes as possible may actually claim
the resource
70
 DEADLOCK
5. DEADLOCK PREVENTION
• Attacking the Hold and Wait Condition
– If we can prevent processes that hold resources from
waiting for more resources, we can eliminate
deadlocks.
– One way to achieve this goal is to require all processes
to request all their resources before starting execution
• If everything is available, the process will be allocated
whatever it needs and can run to completion.
• If one or more resources are busy, nothing will be allocated
and the process would just wait
– Problem:
• processes do not know how many resources they will need

71
 DEADLOCK
5. DEADLOCK PREVENTION
• Attacking the No Preemption Condition
• If a process has been assigned the printer and is in the
middle of printing its output, forcibly taking away the
printer because a needed plotter is not available is
tricky at best and impossible at worst
• Attacking the Circular Wait Condition
• circular wait can be eliminated in several ways:
• a process is entitled only to a single resource at any moment
• provide a global numbering of all the resources, all requests
must be made in numerical order
• E.g 1. Printer, 2. Tape, 3. Scanner
• A process can request a printer and then a tape, but not the
reverse.
72
End

73