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
Classic Problems of Synchronization
Monitors

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.2 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

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.3 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Background
Initial approach to the Producer-Consumer Problem

Producer Consumer

Deficiency → Cannot utilize the whole buffer

Allows at max BUFFER_SIZE - 1 items in the buffer at the same time

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.4 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Background
An algorithmic improvement to remedy the deficiency
Using a counter that keeps track of the number of full buffers

Producer Consumer

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.5 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 5.6 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 is 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 5.7 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Critical Section

General structure of process Pi

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.8 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Solution to Critical Section Problem
Three requirements of 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 sections, then
the selection of the processes that will enter the critical section next
cannot be postponed indefinitely
3. Bounded Waiting: There exists a limit 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

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.9 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Critical Section & Mutual Exclusion

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.10 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 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!

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.11 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Algorithm for Process Pi

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

Is the algorithm robust enough to satisfy three requirements of critical

section problem?

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.12 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 5.13 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
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

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.14 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Solution to Critical Section Problem Using Locks

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

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.15 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 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”.

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.16 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 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);

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.17 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 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.

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.18 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 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);

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.19 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 5.20 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 5.21 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
Can only be accessed via two indivisible (atomic) operations
wait() and signal()

Definition of the wait()

wait(S) {
while (S <= 0)
; // busy wait
S--;
}
Definition of the signal()
signal(S) {
S++;
}

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.22 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
P1:
S1;
signal(synch);
P2:
wait(synch);
S2;

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.23 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Semaphore Implementation with no Busy waiting

Overcoming the busy waiting

When a process executes wait() and finds that the semaphore

is not positive, it blocks itself (rather than busy waiting)
Process is moved to a waiting queue
When another process executes signal(), a process in waiting
queue might be restarted (by CPU scheduler)

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 – 9th Edition 5.24 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Implementation with no Busy waiting (Cont.)

typedef struct {
int value;
struct process *list;
} semaphore;

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 5.25 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
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

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.26 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Classical Problems of Synchronization

Classical problems used to test newly-proposed synchronization

schemes
Bounded-Buffer Problem
Readers and Writers Problem
Dining-Philosophers Problem

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.27 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 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 – 9th Edition 5.28 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 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);

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.29 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 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);

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.30 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 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

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.31 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Readers-Writers Problem (Cont.)

The structure of a writer process

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

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.32 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 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);

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.33 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 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

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.34 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 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

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.35 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 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?

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.36 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 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.

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.37 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 5.38 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 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 (…) { … }

}
}

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.39 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Schematic view of a Monitor

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.40 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 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

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.41 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Monitor with Condition Variables

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.42 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 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

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.43 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Monitor Solution to Dining Philosophers

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.44 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 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

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.45 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 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

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.46 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 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

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.47 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 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;
}
}

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.48 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 End of Chapter 5

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