Chapter 6: Process

Synchronization

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

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

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.2 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Objectives
● 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 introduce the concept of an atomic transaction and describe mechanisms to ensure atomicity

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.3 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
 Bounded-Buffer –
Shared-Memory Solution

● Shared data

#define BUFFER_SIZE 10
typedef struct {
...
} item;

item buffer[BUFFER_SIZE];
int in = 0;
int out = 0;
● Solution is correct, but can only use BUFFER_SIZE-1 elements

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.5 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Bounded-Buffer – Producer

while (true) {
while (true) { while (in == out)
/* Produce an item */
; // do nothing --
while (((in = (in + 1) % nothing to consume
BUFFER SIZE ) == out)
; /* do nothing -- no
// remove an item from the
free buffers */
buffer
buffer[in] = item;
item = buffer[out];
in = (in + 1) %
out = (out + 1) % BUFFER
BUFFER SIZE;
SIZE;
}
return item;
}

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.6 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Producer

while (true) {

/* produce an item and put in nextProduced */

while (counter == BUFFER_SIZE)
; // do nothing
buffer [in] = nextProduced;
in = (in + 1) % BUFFER_SIZE;
counter++;
}

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.7 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Consumer

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

/* consume the item in nextConsumed */

}

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.8 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Race Condition
● counter++ could be implemented as

register1 = counter
register1 = register1 + 1
counter = register1

● counter-- could be implemented as

register2 = counter
register2 = register2 - 1
count = 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 {count = 6 }
S5: consumer execute counter = register2 {count = 4}

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.9 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 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
● Especially challenging with preemptive kernels

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.10 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Critical Section
● General structure of process pi is

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.11 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 6.12 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Peterson’s Solution
❑ Two processes solution
❑ It provides a good algorithmic description of solving the critical-section
problem
❑ Algorithm is only for 2 processes at a time
❑ Processes are
❑ P0
❑ P1
❑ Or can also be represented as Pi and Pj ,
❑ i.e. j=1-i

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.13 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 2 process-Algorithm 1
● Let the processes share common ● If process turn == i , Pi is allowed
integer variable turn to execute in critical section
● Let int turn =0 (or 1) ● But,
● Guarantees mutual exclusion.
Do{
● Does not guarantee progress ---
while (turn != i);
enforces strict alternation of
Critical section processes entering CS's
● (if Pj decides not to re-enter
Turn = j; or crashes outside CS, then Pi
remainder section
}while(1) cannot ever get in).
For Process Pi

Sonali C. 14
Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.14 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 2 process -Algorithm 2
● Shared variables
boolean flag[2];
● // “interest” bits
initially flag [0] = flag [1] = false.
● flag [i] = true ⇒ Pi declares interest in entering its critical
section
● Process Pi // where the “other” process is Pj

do {
flag[i] = true; // declare your own interest
while (flag[ j]) ; //wait if the other guy is interested
critical section
flag [i] = false; // declare that you lost interest
remainder section // allows other guy to enter
} while (1);
Sonali C. Process Synchronization 15
Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.15 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 2-PROCESS -Algorithm 2
● Satisfies mutual exclusion, but not progress requirement.
● If flag[ i] == flag[ j] == true, then deadlock - no progress
● but barring this event, a non-CS guy cannot block you from
entering
● Can make consecutive re-entries to CS if other not interested

Sonali C. Process Synchronization 16

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.16 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 6.17 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Algorithm for Process Pi
Peterson's Algorithm
Shared variables are created and initialized before either process starts. The shared variables flag[0] and flag[1] are
initialized to FALSE because neither process is yet interested in the critical section. The shared variable turn is set to
either 0 or 1 randomly (or it can always be set to say 0).

var flag: array [0..1] of boolean;

turn: 0..1;
flag[0] := FALSE;
flag[1] := FALSE;
turn := random(0..1)
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 6.18 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Algorithm for Process Pi
● Provable that
1. Mutual exclusion is preserved
2. Progress requirement is satisfied
3. Bounded-waiting requirement is met

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.19 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 TWO-PROCESS-Algorithm 3
● Meets all three requirements; solves the critical-section
problem for two processes.
● Turn variable breaks any deadlock possibility of previous
example,
AND prevents “hogging” – Pi setting turn to j gives PJ a chance
after each pass of Pi’s CS
● Flag[ ] variable prevents getting locked out if other guy never
re-enters or crashes outside and allows CS consecutive access
other not interested in entering.

Sonali C. Process Synchronization 20

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.20 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Example
● Information common to both processes:
turn = 0
flag[0] = FALSE
flag[1] = FALSE

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.21 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.22 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Multiple Process Solution : Bakery
Algorithm
● CONCEPT: A process waiting to enter its critical section chooses a number. This number
must be greater than all other numbers currently in use. There is a global shared array of
current numbers for each process. The entering process checks all other processes sequentially,
and waits for each one which has a lower number. Ties are possible; these are resolved using
process IDs.
● INITIALIZATION:
● shared boolean choosing[n] ;
● shared int num[n];
● ... for (j=0; j < n; j++)
● {
● num[j] = 0;
● }

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.23 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 ENTRY PROTOCOL (for Process i):

● /* choose a number */
● choosing[i] = TRUE;
● num[i] = max(num[0], ..., num[n-1]) + 1;
● choosing[i] = FALSE;
●
● /* for all other processes */
● for (j=0; j < n; j++) {
●
● /* wait if the process is currently choosing */
● while (choosing[j]) {}
●
● /* wait if the process has a number and comes ahead of us */
● if ((num[j] > 0) &&
● ((num[j],j) < (num[i],i)) ; }
● }

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.24 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 EXIT PROTOCOL (for Process i):
● /* clear our number */
● num[i] = 0;

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.25 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
4 Operating systems using this not broadly scalable

● Modern machines provide special atomic hardware instructions

4 Atomic = non-interruptable
● Either test memory word and set value
● Or swap contents of two memory words

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.26 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Solution to Critical-section
Problem Using Locks
do {
acquire lock
critical section
release lock We need mutual exclusion for
remainder section
} while (TRUE);
accesses to the lock variable itself.
Three elements of locking:
• Lock Before Using
• Unlock When Done
• Wait(or skip) if locked

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.27 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 TestAndSet Instruction

● Definition:
The semantics of
test-and-set are:
boolean TestAndSet (boolean *flag)
{
boolean old= *flag
*flag= TRUE;
◆ Record the old
return old: value and
}
◆ Set the value to
indicate available and
◆ Return the old
value

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.28 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 6.29 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 6.30 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 6.31 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Bounded-waiting Mutual Exclusion
with TestandSet()
do {
waiting[i] = TRUE;
key = TRUE;
while (waiting[i] && key)
key = TestAndSet(&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 – 8th Edition 6.32 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 6.33 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 6.34 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
4 But implementation code is short
4 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 6.35 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

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

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.36 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 6.37 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
● Solved via priority-inheritance protocol

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.38 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 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 – 8th Edition 6.39 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 6.40 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.41 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.42 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.43 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.44 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Bounded Buffer Problem (Cont.)

We must make sure that the do { The producer must wait for
producer and the consumer … an empty space in the
make changes to the shared produce an item buffer
buffer in a mutually …
exclusive manner Wait(empty);
Wait(mutex);
…
add the item to the buffer
…
Signal(mutex);
Signal(full);

} while (TRUE);

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.45 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Bounded-Buffer Producer/Consumer Problem

The consumer must wait for

a filled space in the buffer

do {
Wait(full)
Wait(mutex);
…
remove an item from the buffer
… We must make sure
Signal(mutex); that the producer
Signal(empty); and the consumer
… make changes to the
consume the item shared buffer in a
… mutually exclusive
} while (TRUE); manner

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.46 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

● Several variations of how readers and writers are treated – all involve priorities

● Shared Data
● Data set
● Semaphore mutex initialized to 1
● Semaphore wrt initialized to 1
● Integer readcount initialized to 0

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.47 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.48 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Writer process:

● Writer requests the entry to critical section.

● If allowed i.e. wait() gives a true value, it enters and
performs the write. If not allowed, it keeps on waiting.
● It exits the critical section.

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.49 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 6.50 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Reader process
● Reader requests the entry to critical section.
● If allowed:
● it increments the count of number of readers inside the critical section. If this
reader is the first reader entering, it locks the wrt semaphore to restrict the
entry of writers if any reader is inside.
● It then, signals mutex as any other reader is allowed to enter while others are
already reading.
● After performing reading, it exits the critical section. When exiting, it checks
if no more reader is inside, it signals the semaphore “wrt” as now, writer can
enter the critical section.
● If not allowed, it keeps on waiting.

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.51 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 6.52 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 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 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 – 8th Edition 6.53 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Dining-Philosophers Problem

● Philosophers spend their lives thinking and eating

● Don’t interact with their neighbors, occasionally try to pick up 2 closest 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
4 Bowl of rice (data set)
4 Semaphore chopstick [5] initialized to 1

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.54 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Dining-Philosophers Problem Algorithm
● The structure of Philosopher i:

do {
wait ( chopstick[i] ); //left chopstick
wait ( chopstick[ (i + 1) % 5] ); //right chopstick

// eat

signal ( chopstick[i] );
signal (chopstick[ (i + 1) % 5] );

// think

} while (TRUE);

● What is the problem with this algorithm?

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.55 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 ● Some potential solutions to the problem include: Only allow four
philosophers to dine at the same time. ( Limited simultaneous
processes. )
● Allow philosophers to pick up chopsticks only when both are
available, in a critical section. ( All or nothing allocation of critical
resources. )
● Use an asymmetric solution, in which odd philosophers pick up their
left chopstick first and even philosophers pick up their right chopstick
first. ( Will this solution always work? What if there are an even
number of philosophers? )

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.56 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Problems with Semaphores
● Semaphores can be very useful for solving concurrency problems, but only if programmers use
them properly. If even one process fails to abide by the proper use of semaphores, either
accidentally or deliberately, then the whole system breaks down. ( And since concurrency problems
are by definition rare events, the problem code may easily go unnoticed and/or be difficult to
debug. )
● 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

● For this reason a higher-level language construct has been developed, called monitors.

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.57 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 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 – 8th Edition 6.58 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 ● A monitor is essentially a class, in which all data is private, and with
the special restriction that only one method within any given monitor
object may be active at the same time. An additional restriction is that
monitor methods may only access the shared data within the monitor
and any data passed to them as parameters. I.e. they cannot access any
data external to the monitor.

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.59 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Schematic view of a Monitor

Figure shows a
schematic of a
monitor, with an
entry queue of
processes
waiting their
turn to execute
monitor
operations (
methods. )

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.60 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Condition Variables
● In order to fully realize the potential of monitors, we need to introduce one additional new data type,
known as a condition. A variable of type condition has only two legal operations, wait and signal. I.e. if
X was defined as type condition, then legal operations would be X.wait( ) and X.signal( )
● The wait operation blocks a process until some other process calls signal, and adds the blocked process
onto a list associated with that condition.
● The signal process does nothing if there are no processes waiting on that condition. Otherwise it wakes
up exactly one process from the condition's list of waiting processes.
● condition x, y;
● Two operations 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 ()
4 If no x.wait () on the variable, then it has no effect on the variable

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.61 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Monitor with Condition Variables

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.62 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Dining-Philosophers Solution Using Monitors

❑This solution to the dining philosophers uses monitors, and the restriction that
a philosopher may only pick up chopsticks when both are available. There are
also two key data structures in use in this solution:
enum { THINKING, HUNGRY,EATING } state[ 5 ]; A philosopher may only
set their state to eating when neither of their adjacent neighbors is
eating. ( state[ ( i + 1 ) % 5 ] != EATING && state[ ( i + 4 ) % 5 ] !=
EATING ).
condition self[ 5 ]; This condition is used to delay a hungry philosopher
who is unable to acquire chopsticks.
❑In the following solution philosophers share a monitor, DiningPhilosophers,
and eat using the following sequence of operations:
1. DiningPhilosophers.pickup( ) - Acquires chopsticks, which may block the
process.
2. Eat
3. DiningPhilosophers.putdown( ) - Releases the chopsticks.

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.63 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 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);
}

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.64 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 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;
}
}

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.65 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 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 – 8th Edition 6.66 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

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 6.67 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Monitor Implementation – Condition Variables
● 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 6.68 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Monitor Implementation (Cont.)
● 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 6.69 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 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 – 8th Edition 6.70 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 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 – 8th Edition 6.71 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Synchronization Examples
● Solaris

● Windows XP

● Linux

● Pthreads

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.72 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
● 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

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.73 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

● Spinlocking-thread will never be preempted

● Also provides dispatcher objects user-land which may act mutexes, semaphores, events, and timers

● Events
4 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)

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.74 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
● spinlocks
● reader-writer versions of both

● On single-cpu system, spinlocks replaced by enabling and disabling kernel preemption

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.75 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
● spinlocks

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.76 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Atomic Transactions

● System Model
● Log-based Recovery
● Checkpoints
● Concurrent Atomic Transactions

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.77 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 System Model

● Assures that operations happen as a single logical unit of work, in its entirety, or not at all
● Related to field of database systems
● Challenge is assuring atomicity despite computer system failures
● Transaction - collection of instructions or operations that performs single logical function
● Here we are concerned with changes to stable storage – disk
● Transaction is series of read and write operations
● Terminated by commit (transaction successful) or abort (transaction failed) operation
● Aborted transaction must be rolled back to undo any changes it performed

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.78 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Types of Storage Media

● Volatile storage – information stored here does not survive system crashes
● Example: main memory, cache
● Nonvolatile storage – Information usually survives crashes
● Example: disk and tape
● Stable storage – Information never lost
● Not actually possible, so approximated via replication or RAID to devices with independent failure modes

Goal is to assure transaction atomicity where failures cause loss of information

on volatile storage

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.79 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Log-Based Recovery
● Record to stable storage information about all modifications by a transaction
● Most common is write-ahead logging
● Log on stable storage, each log record describes single transaction write operation, including
4 Transaction name
4 Data item name
4 Old value
4 New value
● <Ti starts> written to log when transaction Ti starts
● <Ti commits> written when Ti commits

● Log entry must reach stable storage before operation on data occurs

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.80 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Log-Based Recovery Algorithm
● Using the log, system can handle any volatile memory errors
● Undo(Ti) restores value of all data updated by Ti
● Redo(Ti) sets values of all data in transaction Ti to new values
● Undo(Ti) and redo(Ti) must be idempotent
● Multiple executions must have the same result as one execution
● If system fails, restore state of all updated data via log
● If log contains <Ti starts> without <Ti commits>, undo(Ti)
● If log contains <Ti starts> and <Ti commits>, redo(Ti)

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.81 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Checkpoints
● Log could become long, and recovery could take long
● Checkpoints shorten log and recovery time.
● Checkpoint scheme:
1. Output all log records currently in volatile storage to stable storage
2. Output all modified data from volatile to stable storage
3. Output a log record <checkpoint> to the log on stable storage
● Now recovery only includes Ti, such that Ti started executing before the most recent checkpoint, and all transactions after Ti
All other transactions already on stable storage

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.82 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Concurrent Transactions
● Must be equivalent to serial execution – serializability
● Could perform all transactions in critical section
● Inefficient, too restrictive
● Concurrency-control algorithms provide serializability

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.83 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Serializability
● Consider two data items A and B
● Consider Transactions T0 and T1
● Execute T0, T1 atomically
● Execution sequence called schedule
● Atomically executed transaction order called serial schedule
● For N transactions, there are N! valid serial schedules

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.84 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Schedule 1: T0 then T1

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.85 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Nonserial Schedule
● Nonserial schedule allows overlapped execute
● Resulting execution not necessarily incorrect
● Consider schedule S, operations Oi, Oj
● Conflict if access same data item, with at least one write
● If Oi, Oj consecutive and operations of different transactions & Oi and Oj don’t conflict
● Then S’ with swapped order Oj Oi equivalent to S
● If S can become S’ via swapping nonconflicting operations
● S is conflict serializable

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.86 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Schedule 2: Concurrent Serializable Schedule

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.87 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Locking Protocol
● Ensure serializability by associating lock with each data item
● Follow locking protocol for access control
● Locks
● Shared – Ti has shared-mode lock (S) on item Q, Ti can read Q but not write Q
● Exclusive – Ti has exclusive-mode lock (X) on Q, Ti can read and write Q
● Require every transaction on item Q acquire appropriate lock
● If lock already held, new request may have to wait
● Similar to readers-writers algorithm

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.88 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Two-phase Locking Protocol
● Generally ensures conflict serializability
● Each transaction issues lock and unlock requests in two phases
● Growing – obtaining locks
● Shrinking – releasing locks
● Does not prevent deadlock

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.89 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Timestamp-based Protocols
● Select order among transactions in advance – timestamp-ordering
● Transaction Ti associated with timestamp TS(Ti) before Ti starts
● TS(Ti) < TS(Tj) if Ti entered system before Tj
● TS can be generated from system clock or as logical counter incremented at each entry of transaction
● Timestamps determine serializability order
● If TS(Ti) < TS(Tj), system must ensure produced schedule equivalent to serial schedule where Ti appears before Tj

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.90 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Timestamp-based Protocol Implementation
● Data item Q gets two timestamps
● W-timestamp(Q) – largest timestamp of any transaction that executed write(Q) successfully
● R-timestamp(Q) – largest timestamp of successful read(Q)
● Updated whenever read(Q) or write(Q) executed
● Timestamp-ordering protocol assures any conflicting read and write executed in timestamp order
● Suppose Ti executes read(Q)
● If TS(Ti) < W-timestamp(Q), Ti needs to read value of Q that was already overwritten
4 read operation rejected and T rolled back
i
● If TS(Ti) ≥ W-timestamp(Q)
4 read executed, R-timestamp(Q) set to max(R-timestamp(Q), TS(T ))
i

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.91 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Timestamp-ordering Protocol
● Suppose Ti executes write(Q)
● If TS(Ti) < R-timestamp(Q), value Q produced by Ti was needed previously and Ti assumed it would never be produced
4 Write operation rejected, Ti rolled back
● If TS(Ti) < W-timestamp(Q), Ti attempting to write obsolete value of Q
4 Write operation rejected and Ti rolled back
● Otherwise, write executed
● Any rolled back transaction Ti is assigned new timestamp and restarted
● Algorithm ensures conflict serializability and freedom from deadlock

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.92 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 Schedule Possible Under Timestamp Protocol

Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.93 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
 End of Chapter 6

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