Chapter 6: Synchronization

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition, Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Module 6: Synchronization

 Background
 The Critical-Section Problem
 Peterson’s Solution
 Synchronization Hardware
 Semaphores
 Classic Problems of Synchronization
 Monitors
 Synchronization Examples

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.2 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Background

 Concurrent access to shared data may result in data inconsistency

 Maintaining data consistency requires mechanisms to ensure the
orderly execution of cooperating processes
 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 count that keeps track of the
number of full buffers.
 Initially, count 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 – 8th Edition 6.4 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 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++;
}

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.5 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Consumer

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

/* consume the item in nextConsumed

}

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.6 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Race Condition
 The situation when more than one process wants to access and make changes to
the same data simultaneously and the result of the operation changes according to
the access order of the processes is called race condition.
 count++ could be implemented as

register1 = count The problem arises if we

register1 = register1 + 1
count = register1 consider that register1
and register2 may be
 count-- could be implemented as
the same physical
register2 = count register.
register2 = register2 - 1
count = register2
 Consider this execution interleaving with “count = 5” initially:
S0: producer execute register1 = count {register1 = 5}
S1: producer execute register1 = register1 + 1 {register1 = 6}
S2: consumer execute register2 = count {register2 = 5}
S3: consumer execute register2 = register2 - 1 {register2 = 4}
S4: producer execute count = register1 {count = 6 }
S5: consumer execute count = register2 {count = 4}

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.7 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Critical Section Problem

 Every process has an area of ​code called a critical section, and while in
this area the process is changing public variables, writing to a file,
changing a table, etc. may be making transactions.
 The important thing is not to allow a process to be interrupted by another
process while it is within its critical area.
 This can be achieved by not allowing more than one process to be in
critical sections at the same time.
 The critical section problem is to develop a protocol that processes can
use when working together:
 Every process must request permission to enter the critical section.
The piece of code required to request permission is called the entry
section.
 The critical section also has an exit section.
 The remaining code is the remaining part (remainder section).

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.8 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Critical Section Problem

do {

Entry Section
Critical Section
Exit Section

Remainder Section
} while (TRUE)

General Structure of Process Pi

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.9 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 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

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.10 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Peterson’s Solution
 Two process solution
 Assume that the LOAD and STORE 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!

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.11 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Algorithm for Process Pi

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

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.12 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Synchronization Hardware
 Many systems provide hardware support for critical section code
 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-interruptable
 Either test memory word and set value
 Or swap contents of two memory words

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.13 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Solution to Critical-section Problem Using Locks

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

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.14 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 TestAndSet Instruction

 Definition:

boolean TestAndSet (boolean *target)

{
boolean rv = *target;
*target = TRUE;
return rv:
}

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.15 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Solution using TestAndSet

 Shared boolean variable lock, initialized to false.

 Solution:

do {
while ( TestAndSet (&lock ))
; // do nothing

// critical section

lock = FALSE;

// remainder section

} while (TRUE);

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.16 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Swap Instruction

 Definition:

void Swap (boolean *a, boolean *b)

{
boolean temp = *a;
*a = *b;
*b = temp:
}

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.17 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Solution using Swap
 Shared Boolean variable lock initialized to FALSE;
 Each process has a local Boolean variable key
 Solution:
do {
key = TRUE;
while ( key == TRUE)
Swap (&lock, &key );

// critical section

lock = FALSE;

// remainder section

} while (TRUE);

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.18 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Bounded-waiting Mutual Exclusion with TestandSet()
Normally TestAndSet() and Swap() ensure mutual exclusion but not
bounded waiting. The following solution meets all critical space
requirements:
do {
waiting[i] = TRUE;
key = TRUE;
while (waiting[i] && key) Initially;
key = boolean waiting[n]=false;
TestAndSet(&lock); boolean lock=false;
waiting[i] = FALSE;
// critical section Pi can only enter the critical
j = (i + 1) % n; area if waiting[i]==false or
while ((j != i) && !waiting[j]) key== false.
j = (j + 1) % n; key can only be false when
if (j == i) TestAndSet is running.
lock = FALSE;
else
waiting[j] = FALSE;
// remainder section
} while (TRUE);
Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.19 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Semaphore
 Synchronization tool that does not require busy waiting
 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++;
}

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.20 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 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 mutex; // initialized to 1
do {
wait (mutex);
// Critical Section
signal (mutex);
// remainder section
} while (TRUE);

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.21 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 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
 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 – 8th Edition 6.22 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 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.

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.23 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Semaphore Implementation with no Busy waiting (Cont.)

 Implementation of wait:
wait(semaphore *S) {
S->value--;
if (S->value < 0) {
add this process to S->list;
block();
}
}
 Implementation of signal:

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

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.24 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 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

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.25 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Classical Problems of Synchronization
 Bounded-Buffer Problem
 Readers and Writers Problem
 Dining-Philosophers Problem

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.26 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 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.

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.27 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Bounded Buffer Problem (Cont.)
 The structure of the producer process  The structure of the consumer process

do { do {
wait (full);
// produce an item in nextp wait (mutex);

wait (empty); //remove an item from buffer to nextc

wait (mutex);

signal (mutex);
// add the item to the buffer signal (empty);

signal (mutex); // consume the item in nextc

signal (full);
} while (TRUE); } while (TRUE);

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.28 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 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

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.29 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Readers-Writers Problem (Cont.)

 The structure of a writer process

do {
wait (wrt) ;

// writing is performed

signal (wrt) ;
} while (TRUE);

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.30 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Readers-Writers Problem (Cont.)
 The structure of a reader process

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

// reading is performed

wait (mutex) ;
readcount - - ;
if (readcount == 0)
signal (wrt) ;
signal (mutex) ;
} while (TRUE);

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.31 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Dining-Philosophers Problem

 Shared data
 Bowl of rice (data set)
 Semaphore chopstick [5] initialized to 1

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.32 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Dining-Philosophers Problem (Cont.)
 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);

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.33 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Dining-Philosophers Problem
SOLUTIONS
 Allow up to four philosophers to sit at the table at the same time.
 Let a philosopher take a stick only if the sticks on both sides are suitable.
 Let an odd-numbered philosopher first take the stick to his left and then to
his right, and let an even-numbered philosopher take the stick to his right
and then his left.

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.34 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Problems with Semaphores

 Correct use of semaphore operations:

 signal (mutex) …. wait (mutex) - Multiple processes can exist in the

critical area at the same time. This would run counter to the need for
mutual exclusion.

 wait (mutex) … wait (mutex) - if a process reverses the order of

signal(mutex) and wait(mutex), then a deadlock occurs.

 Omitting of wait (mutex) or signal (mutex) (or both) - In this case, mutual
exclusion or deadlock may occur.

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.35 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 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 ( ….) { … }

…
}
}

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.36 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Schematic view of a Monitor

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.37 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 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 ()

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.38 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Monitor with Condition Variables

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.39 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Solution to Dining Philosophers
monitor DP
{
enum { THINKING; HUNGRY, EATING) state [5] ; void test (int i) {
condition self [5]; if ( (state[(i + 4) % 5] != EATING) &&
(state[i] == HUNGRY) &&
void pickup (int i) { (state[(i + 1) % 5] != EATING) ) {
state[i] = HUNGRY; state[i] = EATING ;
test(i); self[i].signal () ;
if (state[i] != EATING) self [i].wait; }
} }

void putdown (int i) { initialization_code() {

state[i] = THINKING; for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++)
// test left and right neighbors state[i] = THINKING;
test((i + 4) % 5); }
test((i + 1) % 5); }
}

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.40 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Solution to Dining Philosophers (cont)

 Each philosopher I invokes the operations pickup()

and putdown() in the following sequence:

DiningPhilosophters.pickup (i);

EAT

DiningPhilosophers.putdown (i);

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.41 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Monitor Implementation Using Semaphores

 Variables
semaphore mutex; // (initially = 1)
semaphore next; // (initially = 0)
int next-count = 0;

 Each procedure F will be replaced by (A process running the signal must wait
until the ongoing processes finish or run wait. That's why a semaphore called
next (initially 0) is used. next_count keeps the number of processes stopped by
next.)

wait(mutex);
…
body of F;

…
if (next_count > 0)
signal(next)
else
signal(mutex);

 Mutual exclusion within a monitor is ensured.

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.42 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 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--;

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.43 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Monitor Implementation
 The operation x.signal can be implemented as:

if (x-count > 0) {
next_count++;
signal(x_sem);
wait(next);
next_count--;
}

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.44 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 A Monitor to Allocate Single Resource
• If more than one process is
monitor ResourceAllocator stopped using the x status variable
{ and x.signal(), it is necessary to
boolean busy; decide which process will be
condition x; resumed next. The simplest
void acquire(int time) { solution is to use FCFS.
if (busy)
• However, for many situations this
x.wait(time);
solution is not suitable.
busy = TRUE;
}
• For this reason x.wait(c); a
void release() { conditional-wait structure of the
busy = FALSE; form can be used.
x.signal(); • The value "c" is an integer
} expression that is evaluated when
initialization code() { the wait() operation is executed.
busy = FALSE; • The "c" value is called the priority
}
number and when x.signal() is run,
}
the process with the smallest c
value is executed.

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.45 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Synchronization Examples
 Solaris
 Windows XP
 Linux
 Pthreads

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.46 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 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

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.47 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 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

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.48 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 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
 spin locks

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.49 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Pthreads Synchronization

 Pthreads API is OS-independent

 It provides:
 mutex locks
 condition variables

 Non-portable extensions include:

 read-write locks
 spin locks

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.50 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 End of Chapter 6

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition, Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009