Chapter 5: Process
Synchronization
Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 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 5.2 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 5.3 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 5.4 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
Producer & consumer Problem
Producer & consumer share a common buffer
Producer produces an item and consumer consumes it
Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.5 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
Race Condition
Producer-counter++ could be implemented as
register1 = counter
register1 = register1 + 1
counter = register1
Consumercounter-- 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 5.6 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
Race Condition
A race condition is a situation that may occur inside a critical section. A
race condition is a problem that occurs in an operating system (OS)
where two or more processes or threads are executing concurrently.
The outcome of their execution depends on the order in which they are
executed. In a race condition, the exact timing of events is unpredictable,
and the outcome of the execution may vary based on the timing. This can
result in unexpected or incorrect behavior of the system.
Race conditions in critical sections can be avoided if the critical section is
treated as an atomic instruction. Also, proper thread synchronization using
locks or atomic variables can prevent race conditions.
Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.7 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
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
Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.8 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
Critical Section
General structure of process Pi
Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.9 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 5.10 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 5.11 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
Peterson’s Solution
Good algorithmic description of solving the problem
Two process solution
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 5.12 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
Algorithm for Process Pi
do {
flag[i] = true;
turn = j;
while (flag[j] && turn = = j);
critical section
flag[i] = false;
remainder section
} while (true);
To check whether the process j is in the critical region using the
conditions flag[j]==true && turn=j. If process j is in the critical region, the while loop
runs continuously, and stalls process i from entering the region until process j exits
out of the critical region.
The process which has exited the critical region is marked by flag[i]=false;, where I
denote the process exiting from the critical region.
Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.13 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 5.14 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
The while loop here is working like a 'trap'. If the condition is
true then it means that the other process is inside the Critical
Section. Look at P0, if the turn is of 1, and the flag is true it will
imply that P1 is inside the CS, and when P1 is done with CS, it
will mark the flag as False, which will make the condition in
while loop false. So P0 will get into the CS.
Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.15 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 5.16 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 5.17 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
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”.
Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.18 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
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);
Initially, lock value is set to false
•Lock value = false means the critical section is currently vacant and no
process is present inside it.
•Lock value = true means the critical section is currently occupied and a
process is present inside it.
Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.19 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
Process P0 arrives.
It executes the test-and-set(Lock) instruction.
Since lock value is set to False, so it returns value False to the while loop
and sets the lock value to True.
The returned value False breaks the while loop condition.
Process P0 enters the critical section and executes.
Now, even if process P0 gets preempted in the middle, no other process can
enter the critical section.
Any other process can enter only after process P0 completes and sets the
lock value to False.
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
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
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 5.24 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 5.25 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
Mutual-exclusion implementation with
semaphores.
Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.26 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
Producer & consumer Problem
Producer should not produce item if buffer is full.
Consumer should not consume item if buffer is empty.
If producer is producing any item than consumer should not consume the
item
If consumer is consuming an item than producer should not produce any
item.
Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.27 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
mutex
Consumer
Producer thread
thred
the pool consists of n buffers, each capable of holding one item.
The mutex semaphore provides mutual exclusion for accesses to the buffer pool
and is initialized to the value 1.
The empty and full semaphores count the number of empty and full buffers.
The semaphore empty is initialized to the value n.
the semaphore full is initialized to the value 0.
Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.28 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
Producer acquire the lock mutex and produces an item.
To consume item from buffer, consumer also needs to acquire lock but it
has already been acquired by producer so consumer will not be able to
consume any item.
After producing an item mutex lock has been released by producer &
notified to all consumers
Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.29 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
Producer & consumer pseudo code
Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.30 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 5.31 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 5.32 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 5.33 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 5.34 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 5.35 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 5.36 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 /noodles(data set)
Semaphore chopstick [5] initialized to 1
Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 5.37 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 5.38 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 5.39 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 5.40 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 5.41 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013
