ICS 143 - Principles of

Operating Systems

Lecture Set 4 - Process Synchronization

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 1
Outline

● The Critical Section Problem

● Synchronization Hardware
● Semaphores
● Classical Problems of Synchronization
● Critical Regions
● Monitors

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 2
Producer-Consumer Problem

● Paradigm for cooperating processes;

● producer process produces information that is
consumed by a consumer process.
● We need buffer of items that can be filled by
producer and emptied by consumer.
• Unbounded-buffer places no practical limit on the size of the
buffer. Consumer may wait, producer never waits.
• Bounded-buffer assumes that there is a fixed buffer size.
Consumer waits for new item, producer waits if buffer is full.
● Producer and Consumer must synchronize.
Producer-Consumer Problem
Bounded Buffer using IPC
(messaging)
● Producer
repeat
…
produce an item in nextp;
…
send(consumer, nextp);
until false;
● Consumer
repeat
receive(producer, nextc);
…
consume item from nextc;
…
until false;
Bounded-buffer - Shared
Memory Solution

● Shared data
var n;
type item = ….;
var buffer: array[0..n-1] of item;
in, out: 0..n-1;
in :=0; out:= 0; /* shared buffer = circular array */
/* Buffer empty if in == out */
/* Buffer full if (in+1) mod n == out */
/* noop means ‘do nothing’ */
Bounded Buffer - Shared
Memory Solution

● Producer process - creates filled buffers

repeat
…
produce an item in nextp
…
while in+1 mod n = out do noop;
buffer[in] := nextp;
in := in+1 mod n;
until false;
Bounded Buffer - Shared
Memory Solution

● Consumer process - Empties filled buffers

repeat
while in = out do noop;
nextc := buffer[out] ;
out:= out+1 mod n;
…
consume the next item in nextc
…
until false
Shared data

● Concurrent access to shared data may result in

data inconsistency.
● Maintaining data consistency requires
mechanisms to ensure the orderly execution of
cooperating processes.
● Shared memory solution to the bounded-buffer
problem allows at most (n-1) items in the buffer
at the same time.

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 9
Bounded Buffer

● A solution that uses all N buffers is not that

simple.
● Modify producer-consumer code by adding a variable
counter, initialized to 0, incremented each time a new item
is added to the buffer
● Shared data
type item = ….;
var buffer: array[0..n-1] of item;
in, out: 0..n-1;
counter: 0..n;
in, out, counter := 0;

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 10
Bounded Buffer

● Producer process - creates filled buffers

repeat
…
produce an item in nextp
…
while counter = n do noop;
buffer[in] := nextp;
in := in+1 mod n;
counter := counter+1;
until false;

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 11
Bounded Buffer
● Consumer process - Empties filled buffers
repeat
while counter = 0 do noop;
nextc := buffer[out] ;
out:= out+1 mod n;
counter := counter - 1;
…
consume the next item in nextc
…
until false;
● The statements
counter := counter + 1;
counter := counter - 1;

must be executed atomically.

● Atomic Operations
● An operation that runs to completion or not at all.

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 12
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 (we expect count = 5 in
the end too):
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 !!}

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 13
 Problem is at the lowest level
● If threads are working on separate data, scheduling doesn’t matter:
Thread A Thread B
x = 1; y = 2;
● However, What about (Initially, y = 12):
Thread A Thread B
x = 1; y = 2;
x = y+1; y = y*2;
● What are the possible values of x?
● Or, what are the possible values of x below?
Thread A Thread B
x = 1; x = 2;
● X could be non-deterministic (1, 2??)
The Critical-Section Problem

● N processes all competing to use shared data.

• Structure of process Pi ---- Each process has a code segment,
called the critical section, in which the shared data is accessed.
repeat
entry section /* enter critical section */
critical section /* access shared variables
*/
exit section /* leave critical section */
remainder section /* do other work */
until false
● Problem
• Ensure that when one process is executing in its critical
section, no other process is allowed to execute in its critical
section.

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 15
Solution: Critical Section
Problem - Requirements

● Mutual Exclusion
• If process Pi is executing in its critical section, then no other
processes can be executing in their critical sections.
● Progress
• If no process is executing in its critical section and there exists
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.
● 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.
Principles of Operating Systems -
Process Synchronization 16
Solution: Critical Section
Problem - Requirements

● Assume that each process executes at a nonzero

speed in the critical section. That is, assume that
each process finishes executing the critical
section once entered
● No assumption concerning relative speed of the
n processes.
● Assume that a process can get stuck in its
remainder section indefinitely, e.g., in a non-
terminating while loop
Principles of Operating Systems -
Process Synchronization 17
Solution: Critical Section
Problem -- Initial Attempt

● Only 2 processes, P0 and P1

● General structure of process Pi (Pj)
repeat
entry section
critical section
exit section
remainder section
until false
● Processes may share some common variables to
synchronize their actions.

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 18
Algorithm 1

● Shared Variables:
● var turn: (0..1);
initially turn = 0;
● turn = i  Pi can enter its critical section
● Process Pi
repeat
while turn <> i do no-op;
critical section
turn := j;
remainder section
until false
Satisfies mutual exclusion, but not progress.

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 19
 Algorithm 1
● Satisfies mutual exclusion
● The turn is equal to either i or j and hence one of Pi and Pj
can enter the critical section
● Does not satisfy progress
● Example: Pi finishes the critical section and then gets stuck
indefinitely in its remainder section. Then Pj enters the
critical section, finishes, and then finishes its remainder
section. Pj then tries to enter the critical section again, but it
cannot since turn was set to i by Pj in the previous iteration.
Since Pi is stuck in the remainder section, turn will be equal
to i indefinitely and Pj can’t enter although it wants to. Hence
no process is in the critical section and hence no progress.
● We don’t need to discuss/consider bounded wait
when progress is not satisfied
20
Algorithm 2
● Shared Variables
● var flag: array (0..1) of boolean;
initially flag[0] = flag[1] = false;
● flag[i] = true  Pi ready to enter its critical section
● Process Pi
repeat
flag[i] := true;
while flag[j] do no-op;
critical section
flag[i]:= false;
remainder section
until false
Satisfies mutual exclusion, but not progress.

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 21
 Algorithm 2
● Satisfies mutual exclusion
● If Pi enters, then flag[ i ] = true, and hence Pj will not enter.
● Does not satisfy progress
● Can block indefinitely…. Progress requirement not met
● Example: There can be an interleaving of execution in which
Pi and Pj both first set their flags to true and then both check
the other process’ flag. Therefore, both get stuck at the entry
section
● We don’t need to discuss/consider bounded wait
when progress is not satisfied

22
Algorithm 3

● Shared Variables
● var flag: array (0..1) of boolean;
initially flag[0] = flag[1] = false;
● flag[i] = true  Pi ready to enter its critical section
● Process Pi
repeat
while flag[j] do no-op;
flag[i] := true;
critical section
flag[i]:= false;
remainder section
until false

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 23
 Algorithm 3
● Does not satisfy mutual exclusion
● Example: There can be an interleaving of execution in which
both first check the other process’ flag and see that it is
false. Then they both enter the critical section.
● We don’t need to discuss/consider progress and
bounded wait when mutual exclusion is not satisfied

24
24
Algorithm 4
● Combined Shared Variables of algorithms 1 and 2
● Process Pi
repeat
flag[i] := true;
turn := j;
while (flag[j] and turn=j) do no-op;
critical section
flag[i]:= false;
remainder section
until false
YES!!! Meets all three requirements, solves the critical section
problem for 2 processes.
Also called “Peterson’s solution”

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 25
 Algorithm 4
● Satisfies mutual exclusion
● If one process enters the critical section, it means that either
the other process was not ready to enter or it was this
process’ turn to enter. In either case, the other process will
not enter the critical section
● Satisfies progress
● If one process exits the critical section, it sets its ready flag
to false and hence the other process can enter. Moreover,
there is no interleaving in the entry section that can block
both.
● Satisfies bounded wait
● If a process is waiting in the entry section, it will be able to
enter at some point since the other process will either set its
ready flag to false or will set to turn to this process.
26
Bakery Algorithm

● Critical section for n processes

● Before entering its critical section, process receives a
number. Holder of the smallest number enters critical
section.
● If processes Pi and Pj receive the same number,
• if i <= j, then Pi is served first; else Pj is served first.
● The numbering scheme always generates numbers in
increasing order of enumeration; i.e. 1,2,3,3,3,3,4,4,5,5

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 27
Bakery Algorithm (cont.)

● Notation -
● Lexicographic order(ticket#, process id#)
● (a,b) < (c,d) if (a<c) or if ((a=c) and (b < d))
● max(a0,….an-1) is a number, k, such that k >=ai
for i = 0,…,n-1
● Shared Data
var choosing: array[0..n-1] of boolean;(initialized to false)
number: array[0..n-1] of integer; (initialized to 0)

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 28
Bakery Algorithm (cont.)
repeat
choosing[i] := true;
number[i] := max(number[0], number[1],…,number[n-1]) +1;
choosing[i] := false;
for j := 0 to n-1
do begin
while choosing[j] do no-op;
while number[j] <> 0
and (number[j] ,j) < (number[i],i) do no-op;
end;
critical section
number[i]:= 0;
remainder section
until false;

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 29
 Supporting Synchronization
Programs Shared Programs

Higher-level
Locks Semaphores Monitors Send/Receive CCregions
API

Hardware Load/Store Disable Ints Test&Set Comp&Swap

● We are going to implement various synchronization primitives using

atomic operations
● Everything is pretty painful if only atomic primitives are load and store
● Need to provide inherent support for synchronization at the hardware level
● Need to provide primitives useful at software/user level
Hardware Solutions for
Synchronization
● Load/store - Atomic Operations required for synchronization
● Showed how to protect a critical section with only atomic load and
store ⇒ pretty complex!
● Mutual exclusion solutions presented depend on memory hardware
having read/write cycle.
• If multiple reads/writes could occur to the same memory location at the same
time, this would not work.
• Processors with caches but no cache coherency cannot use the solutions
● In general, it is impossible to build mutual exclusion without a
primitive that provides some form of mutual exclusion.
● How can this be done in the hardware???
● How can this be simplified in software???

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 31
Synchronization Hardware

● Test and modify the content of a word

atomically - Test-and-set instruction
function Test-and-Set (var target: boolean): boolean;
begin
Test-and-Set := target;
target := true;
end;
● Similarly “SWAP” instruction

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 32
Mutual Exclusion with Test-
and-Set

● Shared data: var lock: boolean (initially false)

● Process Pi
repeat
while Test-and-Set (lock) do no-op;
critical section
lock := false;
remainder section
until false;

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 33
Bounded Waiting Mutual
Exclusion with Test-and-Set
var j : 0..n-1;
key : boolean;
repeat
waiting [i] := true; key := true;
while waiting[i] and key do key := Test-and-Set(lock);

waiting [i ] := false;
critical section
j := i+1 mod n;
while (j <> i ) and (not waiting[j]) do j := j + 1 mod n;
if j = i then lock := false;
else waiting[j] := false;
remainder section

until false;

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 34
Hardware Support: Other
examples
● swap (&address, register) { /* x86 */
temp = M[address];
M[address] = register;
register = temp;
}
● compare&swap (&address, reg1, reg2) { /* 68000 */
if (reg1 == M[address]) {
M[address] = reg2;
return success;
} else {
return failure;
}
}
● load-linked&store conditional(&address) {
/* R4000, alpha */
loop:
ll r1, M[address];
movi r2, 1; /* Can do arbitrary comp */
sc r2, M[address];
beqz r2, loop;
}
 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 acquiring a lock and then
releasing 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

36
 acquire() and release()

Semantics of acquire
● acquire(mutex_lock) {
while Test&Set(mutex_lock)) ; /* busy wait */
}
●Semantics of release
● release(mutex_lock) {
mutex_lock = 0;
}
●Critical section implementation
do {
acquire (lock)
critical section
release (lock)
remainder section
} while (true);

37
Semaphore
● Semaphore S - integer variable (non-negative)
• used to represent number of abstract resources
● Can only be accessed via two indivisible (atomic) operations
wait (S): while S <= 0 do no-op
S := S-1;
signal (S): S := S+1;
• P or wait used to acquire a resource, waits for semaphore to
become positive, then decrements it by 1
• V or signal releases a resource and increments the semaphore
by 1, waking up a waiting P, if any
• If P is performed on a count <= 0, process must wait for V or
the release of a resource.
P():“proberen” (to test) ; V() “verhogen” (to increment) in Dutch

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 38
Example: Critical Section for
n Processes

● Shared variables
var mutex: semaphore
initially mutex = 1
● Process Pi
repeat
wait(mutex);
critical section
signal (mutex);
remainder section
until false

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 39
Semaphore as a General
Synchronization Tool

● Execute B in Pj only after A execute in Pi

● Use semaphore flag initialized to 0
● Code:
Pi Pj
. .
. .
. .
A wait(flag)
signal(flag) B

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 40
Problem...
● Locks prevent conflicting actions on shared data
● Lock before entering critical section and before accessing shared data
● Unlock when leaving, after accessing shared data
● Wait if locked
● All Synchronization involves waiting
● Busy Waiting, uses CPU that others could use. This type of
semaphore is called a spinlock.
● Waiting thread may take cycles away from thread holding lock (no one
wins!)
● OK for short times since it prevents a context switch.
● Priority Inversion: If busy-waiting thread has higher priority than thread
holding lock ⇒ no progress!
● Should sleep if waiting for a long time
● For longer runtimes, need to modify P and V so that
processes can block and resume.

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 41
Semaphore Implementation

● Define a semaphore as a record

type semaphore = record
value: integer;
L: list of processes;
end;
● Assume two simple operations
● block suspends the process that invokes it.
● wakeup(P) resumes the execution of a blocked process P.

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 42
Semaphore
Implementation(cont.)
● Semaphore operations are now defined as
wait (S): S.value := S.value -1;
if S.value < 0
then begin
add this process to S.L;
block;
end;

signal (S): S.value := S.value +1;

if S.value <= 0
then begin
remove a process P from S.L;
wakeup(P);
end;

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 43
Block/Resume Semaphore
Implementation

● If process is blocked, enqueue PCB of process

and call scheduler to run a different process.
● Semaphores are executed atomically;
● no two processes execute wait and signal at the same time.
● Mutex can be used to make sure that two processes do not
change count at the same time.
• If an interrupt occurs while mutex is held, it will result in a
long delay.
• Solution: Turn off interrupts during critical section.

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 44
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 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.

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 45
Two Types of Semaphores

● Counting Semaphore - integer value can range

over an unrestricted domain.
● Binary Semaphore - integer value can range
only between 0 and 1; simpler to implement.
● Can implement a counting semaphore S as a
binary semaphore.

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 46
Classical Problems of
Synchronization

● Bounded Buffer Problem

● Readers and Writers Problem
● Dining-Philosophers Problem

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 47
Bounded Buffer Problem

● Shared data
type item = ….;
var buffer: array[0..n-1] of item;
full, empty, mutex : semaphore;
nextp, nextc :item;
full := 0; empty := n; mutex := 1;

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 48
Bounded Buffer Problem

● Producer process - creates filled buffers

repeat
…
produce an item in nextp
…
wait (empty);
wait (mutex);
…
add nextp to buffer
…
signal (mutex);
signal (full);
until false;

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 49
Bounded Buffer Problem

● Consumer process - Empties filled buffers

repeat
wait (full );
wait (mutex);
…
remove an item from buffer to nextc
...
signal (mutex);
signal (empty);
…
consume the next item in nextc
…
until false;

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 50
Discussion

● ASymmetry?
● Producer does: P(empty), V(full)
● Consumer does: P(full), V(empty)
● Is order of P’s important?
● Yes! Can cause deadlock
● Is order of V’s important?
● No, except that it might affect scheduling efficiency

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 51
Readers/Writers Problem
W

R
R
R

● Motivation: Consider a shared database

● Two classes of users:
● Readers – never modify database
● Writers – read and modify database
● Is using a single lock on the whole database sufficient?
● Like to have many readers at the same time
● Only one writer at a time
Readers-Writers Problem

● Shared Data
var mutex, wrt: semaphore (=1);
readcount: integer (= 0);

● Writer Process
wait(wrt);
…
writing is performed
...
signal(wrt);

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 53
Readers-Writers Problem

● Reader process
wait(mutex);
readcount := readcount +1;
if readcount = 1 then wait(wrt);
signal(mutex);
...
reading is performed
...
wait(mutex);
readcount := readcount - 1;
if readcount = 0 then signal(wrt);
signal(mutex);

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 54
Dining-Philosophers Problem

Shared Data
var chopstick: array [0..4] of semaphore (=1 initially);

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 55
Dining Philosophers Problem
● Philosopher i :
repeat
wait (chopstick[i]);
wait (chopstick[i+1 mod 5]);
…
eat
...
signal (chopstick[i]);
signal (chopstick[i+1 mod 5]);
…
think
…
until false;

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 56
Higher Level Synchronization

● Timing errors are still possible with semaphores

● Example 1
signal (mutex);
…
critical region
...
wait (mutex);
● Example 2
wait(mutex);
…
critical region
...
wait (mutex);
● Example 3
wait(mutex);
…
critical region
...
Forgot to signal

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 57
Motivation for Other Sync. Constructs

● Semaphores are a huge step up from loads and stores

● Problem is that semaphores are dual purpose:
● They are used for both mutex and scheduling constraints
● Example: the fact that flipping of P’s in bounded buffer gives deadlock
is not immediately obvious. How do you prove correctness to
someone?
● Idea: allow manipulation of a shared variable only when condition (if
any) is met – conditional critical region
● Idea : Use locks for mutual exclusion and condition variables for
scheduling constraints
● Monitor: a lock (for mutual exclusion) and zero or more condition
variables (for scheduling constraints ) to manage concurrent access to
shared data
● Some languages like Java provide this natively
Conditional Critical Regions

● High-level synchronization construct

● A shared variable v of type T is declared as:
var v: shared T
● Variable v is accessed only inside statement
region v when B do S
where B is a boolean expression.
While statement S is being executed, no other process
can access variable v.

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 59
Critical Regions (cont.)

● Regions referring to the same shared variable

exclude each other in time.
● When a process tries to execute the region
statement,
region v when B do S
● the Boolean expression B is evaluated.
● If B is true, statement S is executed.
● If it is false, the process is delayed until B becomes true and
no other process is in the region associated with v.

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 60
Example - Bounded Buffer

● Shared variables
var buffer: shared record
pool:array[0..n-1] of item;
count,in,out: integer;
end;
● Producer Process inserts nextp into the shared buffer
region buffer when count < n
do begin
pool[in] := nextp;
in := in+1 mod n;
count := count + 1;
end;

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 61
Bounded Buffer Example

● Consumer Process removes an item from the shared

buffer and puts it in nextc
region buffer when count > 0
do begin
nextc := pool[out];
out := out+1 mod n;
count := count -1;
end;

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 62
Monitors

High-level synchronization construct that allows the safe sharing of an

abstract data type among concurrent processes.
type monitor-name = monitor
variable declarations
procedure entry P1 (…);
begin … end;
procedure entry P2 (…);
begin … end;
.
.
.
procedure entry Pn(…);
begin … end;
begin
initialization code
end.

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 63
 Monitor with Condition
Variables

● Lock: the lock provides mutual exclusion to shared data

● Always acquire before accessing shared data structure
● Always release after finishing with shared data
● Lock initially free
● Condition Variable: a queue of threads waiting for something inside a
critical section
● Key idea: make it possible to go to sleep inside critical section by atomically
releasing lock at time we go to sleep
Monitors with condition
variables

● To allow a process to wait within the monitor, a

condition variable must be declared, as:
var x,y: condition
● Condition variable can only be used within the operations
wait and signal. Queue is associated with condition variable.
• The operation
x.wait;
means that the process invoking this operation is suspended until
another process invokes
x.signal;
• The x.signal operation resumes exactly one suspended
process. If no process is suspended, then the signal operation
has no effect.
Principles of Operating Systems -
Process Synchronization 65
Dining Philosophers
type dining-philosophers= monitor
var state: array[0..4] of (thinking, hungry, eating);
var self: array[0..4] of condition;
// condition where philosopher I can delay himself when hungry but
// is unable to obtain chopstick(s)
procedure entry pickup (i :0..4);
begin
state[i] := hungry;
test(i); //test that your left and right neighbors are not eating
if state [i] <> eating then self [i].wait;
end;
procedure entry putdown (i:0..4);
begin
state[i] := thinking;
test (i + 4 mod 5 ); // signal one neighbor
test (i + 1 mod 5 ); // signal other neighbor
end;

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 66
Dining Philosophers (cont.)
procedure test (k :0..4);
begin
if state [k + 4 mod 5] <> eating
and state [k ] = hungry
and state [k + 1 mod 5] <> eating
then
begin
state[k] := eating;
self [k].signal;
end;
end;

begin
for i := 0 to 4
do state[i] := thinking;
end;

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 67
Additional (extra) slides

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 68
 Mesa vs. Hoare monitors

● Who proceeds next – signaler or waiter?

● Hoare-style monitors(most textbooks):
● Signaler gives lock, CPU to waiter; waiter runs immediately
● Waiter gives up lock, processor back to signaler when it exits critical section or if it
waits again
● Mesa-style monitors (most real operating systems):
● Signaler keeps lock and processor
● Waiter placed on ready queue with no special priority
● Practically, need to check condition again after wait (condition may no longer be
true!)
Implementing S (counting
sem.) as a Binary Semaphore

● Data Structures
var S1 : binary-semaphore;
S2 : binary-semaphore;
S3 : binary-semaphore;
C: integer;
● Initialization
S1 = S3 =1;
S2 = 0;
C = initial value of semaphore S;

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 70
Implementing S
Wait operation
wait(S3);
wait(S1);
C := C-1;
if C < 0
then begin
signal (S1);
wait(S2);
end
else signal (S1);
signal (S3);
Signal operation
wait(S1);
C := C + 1;
if C <= 0 then signal (S2);
signal (S1);

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 71
Implementing Regions

● Region x when B do S
var mutex, first-delay, second-delay: semaphore;
first-count, second-count: integer;
● Mutually exclusive access to the critical section
is provided by mutex.
If a process cannot enter the critical section because the
Boolean expression B is false,
it initially waits on the first-delay semaphore;
moved to the second-delay semaphore before it is allowed to
reevaluate B.

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 72
Implementation

● Keep track of the number of processes waiting

on first-delay and second-delay, with first-count
and second-count respectively.
● The algorithm assumes a FIFO ordering in the
queueing of processes for a semaphore.
● For an arbitrary queueing discipline, a more
complicated implementation is required.

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 73
Implementing Regions
wait(mutex);
while not B
do begin first-count := first-count +1;
if second-count > 0
then signal (second-delay);
else signal (mutex);
wait(first-delay);
first-count := first-count -1;
second-count := second-count + 1;
if first-count > 0 then signal (first-delay)
else signal (second-delay);
wait(second-delay);
second-count := second-count -1;
end;
S;
if first-count > 0 then signal (first-delay);
else if second-count > 0
then signal (second-delay);
else signal (mutex);

Principles of Operating Systems -

Process Synchronization 74