Chapter 5: Process Synchronization: Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013 Operating System Concepts - 9 Edition

Chapter 5: Process
Synchronization
Operating System Concepts 9th Edition Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2013
Chapter 5: Process Synchronization
Background
The Critical-Section Problem
Petersons Solution
Synchronization Hardware
Mutex Locks
Semaphores
Classic Problems of Synchronization
Monitors
Synchronization Examples
Alternative Approaches
Operating System Concepts 9th Edition 5.2 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2013
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
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, counteris set to 0. It is incremented by
the producer after it produces a new buffer and is decremented
by the consumer after it consumes a buffer.
Producer
while (true) {
/* produce an item in next produced */
while (counter == BUFFER_SIZE) ;

/* do nothing */
buffer[in] = next_produced;
in = (in + 1) % BUFFER_SIZE;
counter++;
}
Consumer
while (true) {
while (counter == 0)
; /* do nothing */
next_consumed = buffer[out];
out = (out + 1) % BUFFER_SIZE;
counter--;
/* consume the item in next consumed */
}
Race Condition
counter++ could be implemented as
register1 = counter
register1 = register1 + 1
counter = register1
counter-- could be implemented as
register2 = counter
register2 = register2 - 1
counter = register2
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}
Critical Section Problem
Consider system of n processes {p0, p1, pn-1}
Each process has critical section segment of code
Process may be changing common variables, updating
table, writing file, etc
When one process in critical section, no other may be in its
critical section
Critical section problem is to design protocol to solve this
Each process must ask permission to enter critical section in
entry section, may follow critical section with exit section,
then remainder section
Critical Section
General structure of process Pi
Algorithm for Process Pi
do {
while (turn == j);
critical section
turn = j;
remainder section
} while (true);
Solution to Critical-Section Problem
1. Mutual Exclusion - If process Pi is executing in its critical
section, then no other processes can be executing in their
critical sections
2. Progress - If no process is executing in its critical section and
there exist some processes that wish to enter their critical
section, then the selection of the processes that will enter the
critical section next cannot be postponed indefinitely
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
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
Petersons Solution
Good algorithmic description of solving the problem
Two process solution
Assume that the load and store machine-language
instructions are atomic; that is, cannot be interrupted
The two processes share two variables:
int turn;
Boolean flag[2]
The variable turn indicates whose turn it is to enter the critical

section
The flag array is used to indicate if a process is ready to enter
the critical section. flag[i] = true implies that process Pi is
ready!
Algorithm for Process Pi
do {
flag[i] = true;
turn = j;
while (flag[j] && turn = = j);
critical section
flag[i] = false;
remainder section
} while (true);
Petersons Solution (Cont.)
Provable that the three CS requirement are met:
1. Mutual exclusion is preserved
Pi enters CS only if:
either flag[j] = false or turn = i
2. Progress requirement is satisfied
3. Bounded-waiting requirement is met
Synchronization Hardware
Many systems provide hardware support for implementing the
critical section code.
All solutions below based on idea of locking
Protecting critical regions via locks
Uniprocessors could disable interrupts
Currently running code would execute without preemption
Generally too inefficient on multiprocessor systems
Operating systems using this not broadly scalable
Modern machines provide special atomic hardware instructions
Atomic = non-interruptible
Either test memory word and set value
Or swap contents of two memory words
Solution to Critical-section Problem Using Locks
do {
acquire lock
critical section
release lock
remainder section
} while (TRUE);
test_and_set Instruction
Definition:
boolean test_and_set (boolean *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.
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);
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.
Solution using compare_and_swap
Shared integer lock initialized to 0;
Solution:
do {
while (compare_and_swap(&lock, 0, 1) != 0)
; /* do nothing */
lock = 0;
} while (true);
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;
j = (i + 1) % n;
while ((j != i) && !waiting[j])
j = (j + 1) % n;
if (j == i)
lock = false;
else
waiting[j] = false;
} while (true);
Mutex Locks
Previous solutions are complicated and generally inaccessible
to application programmers
OS designers build software tools to solve critical section
problem
Simplest is mutex lock
Protect a critical section by first acquire() a lock then
release() the lock
Boolean variable indicating if lock is available or not
Calls to acquire() and release() must be atomic
Usually implemented via hardware atomic instructions
But this solution requires busy waiting
This lock therefore called a spinlock
acquire() and release()
acquire() {
while (!available)
; /* busy wait */
available = false;;
}
release() {
available = true;
}
do {
acquire lock
critical section
release lock
remainder section
} while (true);
Semaphore
Synchronization tool that provides more sophisticated ways (than Mutex locks) for
process to synchronize their activities.
Semaphore S integer variable
Can only be accessed via two indivisible (atomic) operations
wait() and signal()
Originally called P() and V()
Definition of the wait() operation
wait(S) {
while (S <= 0)
; // busy wait
S--;
}
Definition of the signal() operation
signal(S) {
S++;
}
Semaphore Usage
Counting semaphore integer value can range over an unrestricted
domain
Binary semaphore integer value can range only between 0 and 1
Same as a mutex lock
Can solve various synchronization problems
Consider P1 and P2 that require S1 to happen before S2
Create a semaphore synch initialized to 0
P1:
S1;
signal(synch);
P2:
wait(synch);
S2;
Can implement a counting semaphore S as a binary semaphore
Semaphore Implementation
Must guarantee that no two processes can execute the wait()
and signal() on the same semaphore at the same time
Thus, the implementation becomes the critical section problem
where the wait and signal code are placed in the critical
section
Could now have busy waiting in critical section
implementation
But implementation code is short
Little busy waiting if critical section rarely occupied
Note that applications may spend lots of time in critical sections
and therefore this is not a good solution
Semaphore Implementation with no Busy waiting
With each semaphore there is an associated waiting queue

Each entry in a waiting queue has two data items:
value (of type integer)
pointer to next record in the list
Two operations:
block place the process invoking the operation on the appropriate
waiting queue
wakeup remove one of processes in the waiting queue and place it in
the ready queue
typedef struct{
int value;
struct process *list;
} semaphore;
Implementation with no Busy waiting (Cont.)
wait(semaphore *S) {
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);
}
}
Deadlock and Starvation
Deadlock two or more processes are waiting indefinitely for an event
that can be caused by only one of the waiting processes
Let S and Q be two semaphores initialized to 1
P0 P1
wait(S); wait(Q);
wait(Q); wait(S);
... ...
signal(S); signal(Q);
signal(Q); signal(S);
Starvation indefinite blocking

A process may never be removed from the semaphore queue in which it is
suspended
Priority Inversion Scheduling problem when lower-priority process
holds a lock needed by higher-priority process
Solved via priority-inheritance protocol
Classical Problems of Synchronization
Classical problems used to test newly-proposed synchronization

schemes
Bounded-Buffer Problem
Readers and Writers Problem
Dining-Philosophers Problem
Bounded-Buffer Problem
n buffers, each can hold one item

Semaphore mutex initialized to the value 1
Semaphore full initialized to the value 0
Semaphore empty initialized to the value n
Bounded Buffer Problem (Cont.)
The structure of the producer process
do {
...
/* produce an item in next_produced */
...
wait(empty);
wait(mutex);
...
/* add next produced to the buffer */
...
signal(mutex);
signal(full);
} while (true);
Bounded Buffer Problem (Cont.)
The structure of the consumer process
Do {
wait(full);
wait(mutex);
...
/* remove an item from buffer to next_consumed */
...
signal(mutex);
signal(empty);
...
/* consume the item in next consumed */
...
} while (true);
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
Readers-Writers Problem (Cont.)
The structure of a writer process
do {
wait(rw_mutex);
...
/* writing is performed */
...
signal(rw_mutex);
} while (true);
Readers-Writers Problem (Cont.)
The structure of a reader process
do {
wait(mutex);
read_count++;
if (read_count == 1)
wait(rw_mutex);
signal(mutex);
...
/* reading is performed */
...
wait(mutex);
read count--;
if (read_count == 0)
signal(rw_mutex);
signal(mutex);
} while (true);
Readers-Writers Problem Variations
First variation no reader kept waiting unless writer has
permission to use shared object
Second variation once writer is ready, it performs the
write ASAP
Both may have starvation leading to even more variations
Problem is solved on some systems by kernel providing
reader-writer locks
Dining-Philosophers Problem
Philosophers spend their lives alternating thinking and eating

Dont interact with their neighbors, occasionally try to pick up 2
chopsticks (one at a time) to eat from bowl
Need both to eat, then release both when done
In the case of 5 philosophers
Shared data
Bowl of rice (data set)
Semaphore chopstick [5] initialized to 1
Dining-Philosophers Problem Algorithm
The structure of Philosopher i:
do {
wait (chopstick[i] );
wait (chopStick[ (i + 1) % 5] );
// eat
signal (chopstick[i] );
signal (chopstick[ (i + 1) % 5] );
// think
} while (TRUE);
What is the problem with this algorithm?
Dining-Philosophers Problem Algorithm (Cont.)
Deadlock handling
Allow at most 4 philosophers to be sitting
simultaneously at the table.
Allow a philosopher to pick up the forks only if both
are available (picking must be done in a critical
section.
Use an asymmetric solution -- an odd-numbered
philosopher picks up first the left chopstick and then
the right chopstick. Even-numbered philosopher picks
up first the right chopstick and then the left chopstick.
Problems with Semaphores
Incorrect use of semaphore operations:
signal (mutex) . wait (mutex)
wait (mutex) wait (mutex)
Omitting of wait (mutex) or signal (mutex) (or both)
Deadlock and starvation are possible.
Monitors
A high-level abstraction that provides a convenient and effective

mechanism for process synchronization
Abstract data type, internal variables only accessible by code within the
procedure
Only one process may be active within the monitor at a time
But not powerful enough to model some synchronization schemes
monitor monitor-name
{
// shared variable declarations
procedure P1 () { . }
procedure Pn () {}
Initialization code () { }
}
}
Schematic view of a Monitor
Condition Variables
condition x, y;
Two operations are allowed on a condition variable:
x.wait() a process that invokes the operation is
suspended until x.signal()
x.signal() resumes one of processes (if any) that
invoked x.wait()
If no x.wait() on the variable, then it has no effect on
the variable
Monitor with Condition Variables
Condition Variables Choices
If process P invokes x.signal(), and process Q is suspended in
x.wait(), what should happen next?
Both Q and P cannot execute in paralel. If Q is resumed, then P must
wait
Options include
Signal and wait P waits until Q either leaves the monitor or it waits
for another condition
Signal and continue Q waits until P either leaves the monitor or it
waits for another condition
Both have pros and cons language implementer can decide
Monitors implemented in Concurrent Pascal compromise
P executing signal immediately leaves the monitor, Q is resumed
Implemented in other languages including Mesa, C#, Java
Monitor Solution to Dining Philosophers
monitor DiningPhilosophers
{
enum { THINKING; HUNGRY, EATING) state [5] ;
condition self [5];
void pickup (int i) {

state[i] = HUNGRY;
test(i);
if (state[i] != EATING) self[i].wait;
}
void putdown (int i) {

state[i] = THINKING;
// test left and right neighbors
test((i + 4) % 5);
test((i + 1) % 5);
}
Solution to Dining Philosophers (Cont.)
void test (int i) {

if ((state[(i + 4) % 5] != EATING) &&
(state[i] == HUNGRY) &&
(state[(i + 1) % 5] != EATING) ) {
state[i] = EATING ;
self[i].signal () ;
}
}
initialization_code() {
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++)
state[i] = THINKING;
}
}
Solution to Dining Philosophers (Cont.)
Each philosopher i invokes the operations pickup() and

putdown() in the following sequence:
DiningPhilosophers.pickup(i);
EAT
DiningPhilosophers.putdown(i);
No deadlock, but starvation is possible
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
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--;
Monitor Implementation (Cont.)
The operation x.signal can be implemented as:
if (x_count > 0) {
next_count++;
signal(x_sem);
wait(next);
next_count--;
}
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
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
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;
}
}
Synchronization Examples
Solaris
Windows
Linux
Pthreads
Solaris Synchronization
Implements a variety of locks to support multitasking, multithreading
(including real-time threads), and multiprocessing
Uses adaptive mutexes for efficiency when protecting data from short
code segments
Starts as a standard semaphore spin-lock
If lock held, and by a thread running on another CPU, spins
If lock held by non-run-state thread, block and sleep waiting for signal of
lock being released
Uses condition variables
Uses readers-writers locks when longer sections of code need access
to data
Uses turnstiles to order the list of threads waiting to acquire either an
adaptive mutex or reader-writer lock
Turnstiles are per-lock-holding-thread, not per-object
Priority-inheritance per-turnstile gives the running thread the highest of
the priorities of the threads in its turnstile
Windows Synchronization
Uses interrupt masks to protect access to global resources on

uniprocessor systems
Uses spinlocks on multiprocessor systems
Spinlocking-thread will never be preempted
Also provides dispatcher objects user-land which may act
mutexes, semaphores, events, and timers
Events
An event acts much like a condition variable
Timers notify one or more thread when time expired
Dispatcher objects either signaled-state (object available)
or non-signaled state (thread will block)
Linux Synchronization
Linux:
Prior to kernel Version 2.6, disables interrupts to
implement short critical sections
Version 2.6 and later, fully preemptive
Linux provides:
Semaphores
atomic integers
spinlocks
reader-writer versions of both
On single-cpu system, spinlocks replaced by enabling and
disabling kernel preemption
Pthreads Synchronization
Pthreads API is OS-independent
It provides:
mutex locks
condition variable
Non-portable extensions include:
read-write locks
spinlocks
Alternative Approaches
Transactional Memory
OpenMP
Functional Programming Languages
Transactional Memory
A memory transaction is a sequence of read-write operations
to memory that are performed atomically.
void update()
{
/* read/write memory */
}
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.
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.
End of Chapter 5
Operating System Concepts 9th Edition Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2013

Chapter 5: Process Synchronization: Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013 Operating System Concepts - 9 Edition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 5: Process Synchronization: Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013 Operating System Concepts - 9 Edition

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 5: Process Synchronization: Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013 Operating System Concepts - 9 Edition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 5: Process

while (counter == BUFFER_SIZE) ;

counter++ could be implemented as

Consider this execution interleaving with count = 5 initially:

General structure of process Pi

while (turn == j);

The variable turn indicates whose turn it is to enter the critical

Shared Boolean variable lock, initialized to FALSE

With each semaphore there is an associated waiting queue

Starvation indefinite blocking

Classical problems used to test newly-proposed synchronization

n buffers, each can hold one item

The structure of the producer process

The structure of a writer process

Philosophers spend their lives alternating thinking and eating

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.

A high-level abstraction that provides a convenient and effective

void pickup (int i) {

void putdown (int i) {

void test (int i) {

Each philosopher i invokes the operations pickup() and

No deadlock, but starvation is possible

semaphore mutex; // (initially = 1)

Each procedure F will be replaced by

Mutual exclusion within a monitor is ensured

For each condition variable x, we have:

semaphore x_sem; // (initially = 0)

The operation x.wait can be implemented as:

The operation x.signal can be implemented as:

If several processes queued on condition x, and x.signal()

Where R is an instance of type ResourceAllocator

Uses interrupt masks to protect access to global resources on

Functional Programming Languages

void update(int value)

The code contained within the #pragma omp critical directive

Functional programming languages offer a different paradigm

Variables are treated as immutable and cannot change state

There is increasing interest in functional languages such as

You might also like