Chapter 2: Process

Synchronization
 Background
 Processes can execute concurrently
 May be interrupted at any time, partially completing
execution
 Concurrent access to shared data may result in data
inconsistency
 Maintaining data consistency requires mechanisms to ensure
the orderly execution of cooperating processes
 Illustration of the problem:
Suppose that we wanted to provide a solution to the
consumer-producer problem that fills all the buffers. We can
do so by having an integer counter that keeps track of the
number of full buffers. Initially, counter is set to 0. It is
incremented by the producer after it produces a new buffer
and is decremented by the consumer after it consumes a
buffer.

5.2
 Producer

while (true) {
/* produce an item in next produced */

while (counter == BUFFER_SIZE) ;

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

5.3
 Consumer

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

5.4
 Race Condition
 counter++ could be implemented as

1) register1 = counter
2) register1 = register1 + 1
3) counter = register1
 counter-- could be implemented as

1) register2 = counter
2) register2 = register2 - 1
3) 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}
P1: 1,2,3 | P2 1,2,3 -> C=5
P1: 1,2 | P2: 1,2,3 |P1: 3 -> C=6
P1: 1,2 | P2:1,2 | P1:3 |P2:3 -> C=4
Race Condition: The order of execution of instructions defined the result produced

5.5
 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: It is the part of the program where shared

resources are accessed by the processes.

5.6
 Critical Section

 General structure of process Pi

5.7
 Algorithm for Process Pi

do {

while (turn != i);

critical section
turn = j;

remainder section
} while (true);

5.8
 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

5.9
 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

5.10
 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!

5.11
 Algorithm for Process P0 and P1

P0 P1
while(1) while(1)
{ {
flag[0]=T flag[1]=T
turn=1 turn=0
while(turn==1 && flag[1]==T); while(turn==0 && flag[0]==T);
Critical Section Critical Section
flag[0]=F flag[1]=F
} }

5.12
 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

5.13
 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

5.14
 Solution to Critical-section Problem Using Locks

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

5.15
 Solution to Critical-section Problem Using Locks

1) While (lock!=0); P1: 1,2,3 | P2: 1 | P1:4 |

2) Lock=1 P2:1,2,3,4
3) Critical Section CS P2 will loop into busy waiting
4) Lock=0

 Software mechanism
 Busy waiting
 Multi process solution

5.16
 Solution to Critical-section Problem Using Locks

While (lock!=0); 1) Load lock, R0

Lock=1 2) CMP R0, #0
Critical Section CS 3) JNZ Step1
Lock=0 4) Store #1, lock
5) CS
 Software mechanism
6) Store #0, lock
 Busy waiting
 Multi process solution

P1: 1 | P2:1,2,3,4,5 | P1:2

More than one process can

enter in CS, hence no
mutual exclusion

5.17
 Test and Set Lock (TSL)

Lock Solution TSL Solution 1) TSL lock, R0

1) Load lock, R0 1) Load lock, R0

2) CMP R0, #0 2) Store #1, lock

3) JNZ Step1 3) CMP R0, #0

4) Store #1, lock 4) JNZ Step1

5) CS CS
6) Store #0, lock

5.18
 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”.

5.19
 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);

5.20
 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

5.21
 acquire() and release()
 acquire() {
while (!available)
; /* busy wait */
available = false;
}
 release() {
available = true;
}
 do {
acquire lock
critical section
release lock
remainder section
} while (true);

5.22
 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++;
}

5.23
 Semaphore
do {
Wait(s);  Definition of the wait() operation
CRITICAL SECTION wait(S) {
Signal(s); while (S <= 0)
Remainder Section ; // busy wait
} while(TRUE) S--;
}
 Definition of the signal() operation
signal(S) {
• Initially S=1
S++;
}

5.24
 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

5.25
 Semaphore Usage: Order Management
Three processes P1,P2,P3 want to run in order P2,P1,P3:
Initialize: S1=0 and S2=0

P1: P2:
P3:

Wait (s1)
Wait (s2)
P1 P2
P1
Signal(s2) Signal(s1)

5.26
Semaphore Usage: Resource Management
Lets assume, there are 5 similar type of resources say printer. We want to
allow 5 concurrent processes to use 5 resources:

Initialize S=5

P1:
{
Wait (s)
CS
Signal(s)
Remainder Section RS
}

5.27
 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

5.28
 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;

5.29
 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);
}
}

5.30
 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

5.31
 Classical Problems of Synchronization

 Classical problems used to test newly-proposed synchronization

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

5.32
 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

5.33
 Bounded Buffer Problem (Cont.)
 The structure of the producer process  The structure of the consumer
process
do {
... Do {
/* produce an item in
wait(full);
next_produced */
wait(mutex);
...
...
wait(empty);
/* remove an item
wait(mutex); from buffer to next_consumed
... */
/* add next produced ...
to the buffer */
signal(mutex);
...
signal(empty);
signal(mutex);
...
signal(full); /* consume the item
} while (true); in next consumed */
...
} while (true);

5.34
 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

5.35
 Readers-Writers Problem (Cont.)

 The structure of a writer process

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

5.36
 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);

5.37
 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

5.38
 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

5.39
 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?

5.40
 Dining-Philosophers Problem Algorithm

S0 S1 S2 S3 S4

Philosopher Chopsticks1 Chopstick2

P0 S0 S1
P1 S1 S2
P2 S2 S3
P3 S3 S4
P4 S4 S0

5.41
 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.

5.42