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
 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

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.3 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
 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.

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.4 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 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++;
}

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.5 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Consumer

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

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.6 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 5.7 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Race condition
 When several processes access and manipulate the same data
concurrently and the outcome of the execution depends on the particular
order in which the access takes place, is called a race condition.
 To guard against the race condition above, we need to ensure that only one
process at a time can be manipulating the variable counter.
 To make such a guarantee, we require that the processes be synchronized
in some way.

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.8 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Critical Section Problem
 Consider a system of n processes {p0, p1, … pn-1}
 Each process has a segment of code called critical section:
 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 5.9 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Critical Section

 General structure of process Pi

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.10 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Algorithm for Process Pi

do {

while (turn == j);

critical section
turn = j;

remainder section
} while (true);

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.11 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 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 – 9th Edition 5.12 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 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

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.13 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 5.14 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Algorithm for Process Pi

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

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.15 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 5.16 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 5.17 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 5.18 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 tool 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 5.19 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 5.20 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()
 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++;
}

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.21 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;
 Can implement a counting semaphore S as a binary semaphore

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.22 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 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

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

 With each semaphore there is an associated waiting queue

 Each entry in a waiting queue has two data items:
 value (of type integer)
 pointer to next record in the list
 Two operations:
 block – place the process invoking the operation on the
appropriate waiting queue
 wakeup – remove one of processes in the waiting queue
and place it in the ready queue

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.24 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 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);
}
}

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
 A monitor type is an ADT that includes a set of programmer defined operations that are
provided with mutual exclusion within the monitor.
 Only one process may be active within the monitor at a time
 But not powerful enough to model some synchronization schemes

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.39 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Schematic view of a Monitor
monitor monitor-name
{
// shared variable declarations
procedure P1 (…) { …. }
procedure Pn (…) {……}
Initialization code (…) { … }
}
}

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

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.43 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Synchronization Examples

 Solaris
 Windows
 Linux
 Pthreads

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.44 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 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 – 9th Edition 5.45 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 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)

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

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.47 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
 Pthreads Synchronization
 Pthreads API is OS-independent
 It provides:
 mutex locks
 condition variable
 Non-portable extensions include:
 read-write locks
 spinlocks

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