Chapter 5: Process Synchronization

Chapter 5: Process Synchronization

• Background
• The Critical-Section Problem
• Peterson’s Solution
• Synchronization Hardware
• Mutex Locks
• Semaphores
• Classic Problems of Synchronization
• Monitors
• Synchronization Examples
• Alternative Approaches

2
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 examine several classical process-synchronization problems
• To explore several tools that are used to solve process synchronization problems

3
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.

4
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++;
}

5
Consumer
while (true) {
while (counter == 0) ; /* do nothing */
next_consumed = buffer[out];
out = (out + 1) % BUFFER_SIZE;
counter--;
/* consume the item in next consumed */
}

6
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}

7
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

8
Critical Section

• General structure of process Pi

9
Algorithm for Process Pi

do {

while (turn == j);

critical section
turn = j;

remainder section
} while (true);

10
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

11
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

12
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!

13
Algorithm for Process Pi

do {
flag[i] = true;
turn = j;
while (flag[j] && turn = = j);
critical section
flag[i] = false;
remainder section
} while (true);

14
Algorithm for Process Pi
Process 1
Process 0
do {
do {
flag[1] = true;
flag[0] = true;
turn = 0;
turn = 1;
while (flag[0] && turn = = 0);
while (flag[1] && turn = = 1);
critical section
critical section
flag[1] = false;
flag[0] = false;
remainder section
remainder section
} while (true);
} while (true);

Flag T Turn = 0

15
Algorithm for Process Pi
Process 1
Process 0
do {
do {
flag[1] = true;
flag[0] = true;
turn = 0;
turn = 1;
while (flag[0] && turn = = 0);
while (flag[1] && turn = = 1);
critical section
critical section
flag[1] = false;
flag[0] = false;
remainder section
remainder section
} while (true);
} while (true);

Flag T Turn = 1

16
Algorithm for Process Pi
Process 1
Process 0
do {
do {
flag[1] = true;
flag[0] = true;
turn = 0;
turn = 1;
while (flag[0] && turn = = 0);
while (flag[1] && turn = = 1);
critical section
critical section
flag[1] = false;
flag[0] = false;
remainder section
remainder section
} while (true);
} while (true);

Flag T T Turn = 1

17
Algorithm for Process Pi
Process 1
Process 0
do {
do {
flag[1] = true;
flag[0] = true;
turn = 0;
turn = 1;
while (flag[0] && turn = = 0);
while (flag[1] && turn = = 1);
critical section
critical section
flag[1] = false;
flag[0] = false;
remainder section
remainder section
} while (true);
} while (true);

Flag T T Turn = 0

18
Algorithm for Process Pi
Process 1
Process 0
do {
do {
flag[1] = true;
flag[0] = true;
turn = 0;
turn = 1;
while (flag[0] && turn = = 0);
while (flag[1] && turn = = 1);
critical section
critical section
flag[1] = false;
flag[0] = false;
remainder section
remainder section
} while (true);
} while (true);

Flag T T Turn = 0

19
Algorithm for Process Pi
Process 1
Process 0
do {
do {
flag[1] = true;
flag[0] = true;
turn = 0;
turn = 1;
while (flag[0] && turn = = 0);
while (flag[1] && turn = = 1);
critical section
critical section
flag[1] = false;
flag[0] = false;
remainder section
remainder section
} while (true);
} while (true);

Flag T T Turn = 0

20
Algorithm for Process Pi
Process 1
Process 0
do {
do {
flag[1] = true;
flag[0] = true;
turn = 0;
turn = 1;
while (flag[0] && turn = = 0);
while (flag[1] && turn = = 1);
critical section
critical section
flag[1] = false;
flag[0] = false;
remainder section
remainder section
} while (true);
} while (true);

Flag T T Turn = 0

21
Algorithm for Process Pi
Process 1
Process 0
do {
do {
flag[1] = true;
flag[0] = true;
turn = 0;
turn = 1;
while (flag[0] && turn = = 0);
while (flag[1] && turn = = 1);
critical section
critical section
flag[1] = false;
flag[0] = false;
remainder section
remainder section
} while (true);
} while (true);

Flag F T Turn = 0

22
Algorithm for Process Pi
Process 1
Process 0
do {
do {
flag[1] = true;
flag[0] = true;
turn = 0;
turn = 1;
while (flag[0] && turn = = 0);
while (flag[1] && turn = = 1);
critical section
critical section
flag[1] = false;
flag[0] = false;
remainder section
remainder section
} while (true);
} while (true);

Flag F T Turn = 0

23
Algorithm for Process Pi
Process 1
Process 0
do {
do {
flag[1] = true;
flag[0] = true;
turn = 0;
turn = 1;
while (flag[0] && turn = = 0);
while (flag[1] && turn = = 1);
critical section
critical section
flag[1] = false;
flag[0] = false;
remainder section
remainder section
} while (true);
} while (true);

Flag F T Turn = 0

24
Algorithm for Process Pi
Process 1
Process 0
do {
do {
flag[1] = true;
flag[0] = true;
turn = 0;
turn = 1;
while (flag[0] && turn = = 0);
while (flag[1] && turn = = 1);
critical section
critical section
flag[1] = false;
flag[0] = false;
remainder section
remainder section
} while (true);
} while (true);

Flag F F Turn = 0

25
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
Only if a process is in the entry section can it take part in selecting a process.
3. Bounded-waiting requirement is met
Process i cannot go into the critical section again
while j is waiting to go into its critical section. i could only run once

26
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

27
Solution to Critical-section Problem Using Locks
do {
acquire lock
critical section
release lock
remainder section
} while (TRUE);

28
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”.

29
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);

30
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.

31
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);

32
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);
33
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

34
acquire() and release()
acquire() {
while (!available)
; /* busy wait */
available = false;;
}
release() {
available = true;
}
do {
acquire lock
critical section
release lock
remainder section
} while (true);

35
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++;
}

36
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:
S 1;
signal(synch);
P2:
wait(synch) ;
S 2;
• Can implement a counting semaphore S as a binary semaphore

37
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

38
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;

39
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);
}
}

40
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

41
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.

53
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 (…) { … }

}

54
Schematic view of a Monitor

55
Alternative Approaches

• Transactional Memory

• OpenMP

• Functional Programming Languages

73
Transactional Memory

• A memory transaction is a sequence of read-write operations to memory that are performed atomically.

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

74
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.

75
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.

76
Deadlocks

• Explain how a system uses resources. Request. Use. Release.

• Deadlock characterisation
• Resource Allocation Graphs
• Handling deadlocks

77
System Model

• System consists of resources

• Resource types R1, R2, . . ., Rm
CPU cycles, memory space, I/O devices
• Each resource type Ri has Wi instances.
• Each process utilizes a resource as follows:
• request
• use
• release

78
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.

79
Resource-Allocation Graph
A set of vertices V and a set of edges E.
• V is partitioned into two types:
• P = {P1, P2, …, Pn}, the set consisting of all the processes in the system

• R = {R1, R2, …, Rm}, the set consisting of all resource types in the system

• request edge – directed edge Pi → Rj

• assignment edge – directed edge Rj → Pi

80
Resource-Allocation Graph (Cont.)

• Process

• Resource Type with 4 instances

• Pi requests instance of Rj
Pi
Rj

• Pi is holding an instance of Rj

Pi
Rj

81
Example of a Resource Allocation Graph

82
Resource Allocation Graph With A Deadlock

83
Graph With A Cycle But No Deadlock

84
Basic Facts

• If graph contains no cycles  no deadlock

• If graph contains a cycle 
• if only one instance per resource type, then deadlock
• if several instances per resource type, possibility of deadlock

85
Methods for Handling Deadlocks

• Ensure that the system will never enter a deadlock state:

• Deadlock prevention
• Deadlock avoidence
• Allow the system to enter a deadlock state and then recover
• Ignore the problem and pretend that deadlocks never occur in the system; used by most operating systems,
including UNIX

86