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

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 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
  We would arrive at this incorrect state because we allowed both
processes to manipulate the variable counter concurrently.
 A situation like this, where several processes access and manipulate the
same data concurrently and the outcome of the execution depends on
the particular order in which the access takes place, is called a race
condition.
 To guard against the race condition above, we need to ensure that only
one process at a time can be manipulating the variable counter.
 To make such a guarantee, we require that the processes be
synchronized in some way.

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
 Algorithm for Process Pi

do {

while (turn == j);

critical section
turn = j;
remainder section
} while (true);

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.11 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Solution to Critical-Section Problem should satisfy the
following condition

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 5.12 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Critical-Section Handling in OS
Two approaches are used to handle CS, depending on if kernel
is preemptive or non- preemptive
 Preemptive – allows preemption of process when running
in kernel mode
 Chances of race condition due to shared kernel data
 Non-preemptive – runs until exits kernel mode, blocks, or
voluntarily yields control of the CPU
Essentially free of race conditions in kernel mode

 But a preemptive kernel may be more responsive.

 Furthermore, a preemptive kernel is more suitable for real-time
programming, as it will allow a real-time process to preempt a
process currently running in the kernel

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.13 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Peterson’s Solution – Software based
solution to the CS
 This solution will not work with modern computer architecture.
 But gives good algorithmic description of solving the problem.
 Two process solution (restricted to two) Pi and Pj
 The two processes share two variables:
 int turn;
 Boolean flag[2]

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

section. turn == i indicates Pi is allowed to execute in its CS.
 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 5.14 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
  When a process wants to enter CS it sets its flag to true. But it will set the
turn variable to another process (giving chance to other process). So it can
be called as humble algorithm.
 Eg: Friends going to climb the bus

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.15 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 do {
flag[i] = true;
turn = j;
while (flag[j] && turn = =
j); Process Pi
critical section
flag[i] = false;
remainder section
} while (true);
do {
flag[j] = true;
turn = i;
while (flag[i] && turn = = i);
critical section Process Pj
flag[j] = false;
remainder section
} while (true);
Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.16 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 5.17 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
 The critical-section problem could be solved simply in a single-
processor environment if we could prevent interrupts from
occurring while a shared variable was being modified.
 Currently running code would execute without preemption
 Generally too inefficient on multiprocessor systems
 Disabling interrupts on a multiprocessor can be time consuming.
 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 5.18 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Solution to Critical-section Problem Using Locks

• Thus, if two test and set() instructions are executed

simultaneously (each on a different CPU), they will be
executed sequentially in some arbitrary order

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

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.19 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 test_and_set Instruction
Shared Boolean variable lock, initialized to FALSE.
do {
while (test_and_set(&lock));
/* critical section */
lock = false;
/* remainder section */
} while (true);
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 5.20 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 compare_and_swap Instruction
int compare _and_swap(int *value, int expected, int new_value)
{
int temp = *value;

if (*value == expected)
*value = new_value;
return temp;
}

Shared integer “lock” initialised 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 5.21 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 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);

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.22 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.23 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.24 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 5.25 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 5.26 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 (based on number of resources available)
 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 5.27 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 shared by P1 and P2.
P1:
S1;
signal(synch);
P2:
wait(synch);
S2;
 Can implement a counting semaphore S as a binary semaphore

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.28 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 5.29 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
  When a process executes the wait() operation and finds that the semaphore
value is not positive, it must wait. However, rather than engaging in busy
waiting, the process can block itself.
 The block operation places a process into a waiting queue associated with
the semaphore, and the state of the process is switched to the waiting state.
 Then control is transferred to the CPU scheduler, which selects another
process to execute.

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.30 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 5.31 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 5.32 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 shared between P0
and P1.
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

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.33 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 5.34 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 End of Chapter 5

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