Process Synchronization

Ms.S.Rajalakshmi,
AP,
SSNCE
 Process Synchronization
 Background
 The Critical-Section Problem
 Peterson’s Solution
 Synchronization Hardware
 Mutex Locks
 Semaphores
 Classic Problems of Synchronization
 Monitors
 Synchronization Examples
 Alternative Approaches
 Course Objectives / Outcomes

 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 examine several classical process-synchronization problems
 To explore several tools that are used to solve process synchronization
problems
 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.
 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
 Race condition

 Assume counter is initially 5. One interleaving of statements is:

producer: register1 = counter (register1 = 5)

producer: register1 = register1 + 1 (register1 = 6)
consumer: register2 = counter (register2 = 5)
consumer: register2 = register2 – 1 (register2 = 4)
producer: counter = register1 (counter = 6)
consumer: counter = register2 (counter = 4)

(OR)
consumer: counter = register2 (counter = 4)
producer: counter = register1 (counter = 6)

 The value of counter may be either 4 or 6, where the correct result should
be 5.
 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 != i); //Entry section - Busy wait

critical section
turn = j; // Exit section

remainder section
} while (true);

Algorithm for Process Pj

do {

while (turn != j);

critical section
turn = i;

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
i.e., one process does not block another process in
entering in its critical section. [ no strict alternation]
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
 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
 Algorithm 1 – Dekkers Algorithm
 Shared variables:
 int turn;
initially turn = 0
 If turn == i  Pi can enter its critical section
 Satisfies mutual exclusion
 But not progress –
 Requires strict alteration of processes in the execution of critical
section
 P0 is a long process and it is in the remainder section. P1 has
executed just now and made turn=0. P1 wants to enter CS again but
cannot do so ‘coz turn=0.(even though P0 does not want to enter CS
again it is blocking P1)
 Algorithm1 Contd.,
Structure of process Pi ---------------------------- turn = 0 P0 and P1
do {
while (turn != i) ; //entry section busywaiting
critical section
turn = j; // give turn to next process Pj – exit section
remainder section
} while (1);
Structure of process Pj
do {
while (turn != j) ; //waiting
critical section
turn = i; // give turn to next process Pi
remainder section
} while (1);
 Algorithm 1 - contd

 Satisfies mutual exclusion

 Strict alternation – no progress

 Test cases
 P0 WTE first
 P1 WTE first
 P0 Enters, P1 WTE, P1 WTE again
 P0 and P1 WTE at the same time
 Algorithm 2 - Dekkers Algorithm
General Structure of Process Pj
do {
 Shared variables flag[ j ] := true; // express its wish
while (flag[ i ] == true) ; //waiting
 Boolean flag[2]; critical section
flag [j] = false; // give chance to
initially flag [0] = flag [1] = false. other process
remainder section
 flag [i] = true  Pi ready to enter its } while (1);

critical section
 General Structure of Process Pi
do {
flag[ i ] := true; // express its wish
while (flag[ j ]==true) ; //waiting
critical section
flag [i] = false; // give chance to other process
remainder section
} while (1);
 Algorithm 2 – Contd.,
 Satisfies mutual exclusion but not progress
 If p0 and p1 sets flag to be true at same time, then deadlock (both
processes will wait for each other to finish)
 Changing the order of while and setting the flag statements will not
guarantee mutual exclusion.(both will be in the CS at the same time)
 while (flag[ j ]);
 flag[ i ]=true; ------------- No Mutual Exclusion
 Algorithm 3- 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!
 Algorithm for Process Pi
do {
flag[i] = true;
turn = j;
while (flag[j]= = true && turn = = j);
critical section
flag[i] = false;
remainder section
} while (true);
Algorithm for Process Pj
do {
flag[j] = true;
turn = i;
while (flag[i] = =true && turn = = i);
critical section
flag[j] = false;
remainder section
} while (true);
 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
 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 *lock)
{
boolean oldvalue = *lock;
*lock = TRUE;
return oldvalue:
}
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) == true) ;
/* do nothing */
/* critical section */
lock = false;
/* remainder section */
} while (true);
 compare_and_swap Instruction
Definition:
int compare _and_swap(int *lock, int expected_false, int new_value_true)
{
int temp = *lock;

if (*lock == expected_false)
*lock = new_value_true;
return temp;
}
1. Executed atomically
2. Returns the original value of passed parameter “lock”
3. Set the variable “lock” the value of the passed parameter “new_value(true)” but
only if “lock” ==“expected(false)”. 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);
 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 ----- with busy wait
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) – initialized to 1 (free)
 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) {
typedef struct{
S->value--;
int value;
if (S->value < 0) { struct process *list;
add this process to S->list; } semaphore;
block();
}
} S->value =1 (free)

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
 n buffers, each can hold one item
 Semaphore mutex initialized to the value 1 - free
 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);
 Implementation with no Busy waiting (Cont.)

wait(semaphore *S) {
typedef struct{
S->value--;
int value;
if (S->value < 0) { struct process *list;
add this process to S->list; } semaphore;
block();
}
} S->value =1 (free)

signal(semaphore *S) {
S->value++;
if (S->value <= 0) {
remove a process P from S->list;
wakeup(P);
}
}
Bounded buffer problem – Test cases

 Buffer size =3
 Consumer runs first
 Producer runs and produces first item
 P runs and fills all items
 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 // to access <CS>
 Semaphore mutex initialized to 1 // to access shared data
“readcount” by multiple reader process
 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

 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
 Assessment & Summary
 Need for IPC
 Methods to implement IPC
 Critical Section
 Software solution
 Hardware solution
 Semaphore and its types
 Monitors
 IPC problems
 References

 Abraham Silberschatz, Greg Gagne, and Peter Baer Galvin, "Operating

System Concepts, Ninth Edition “
 https://www.cs.uic.edu/~jbell/CourseNotes/OperatingSystems/
 https://www.guru99.com/operating-system-tutorial.html
 http://os-book.com/OS9/index.html
 https://galvin.info/history-of-operating-system-concepts-textbook/