Chapter 7: Process Synchronization

 Background
 The Critical-Section Problem
 Synchronization Hardware
 Semaphores
 Classical Problems of Synchronization
 Critical Regions
 Monitors
 Message Passing
 Synchronization in Solaris 2 & Windows 2000

Operating System Concepts

 Background

 Concurrent access to shared data may result in data

inconsistency.

 Maintaining data consistency requires mechanisms to ensure

the orderly execution of cooperating processes.

Operating System Concepts

 Bounded-Buffer
 Shared data

#define BUFFER_SIZE 10
typedef struct {
...
} item;
item buffer[BUFFER_SIZE];
int in = 0;
int out = 0;
int counter = 0;

Operating System Concepts

 Bounded-Buffer
 Producer process

item nextProduced;

while (1) {

while (counter == BUFFER_SIZE)

; /* do nothing */

buffer[in] = nextProduced;

in = (in + 1) % BUFFER_SIZE;

counter++;

Operating System Concepts

 Bounded-Buffer

 Consumer process

item nextConsumed;

while (1) {

while (counter == 0)

; /* do nothing */

nextConsumed = buffer[out];

out = (out + 1) % BUFFER_SIZE;

counter--;

Operating System Concepts

 Bounded Buffer

 The statements

counter++;
counter--;

must be performed atomically.

 Atomic operation means an operation that completes

in its entirety without interruption.

Operating System Concepts

 Bounded Buffer
 The statement “count++” may be implemented in machine language as:

register1 = counter

register1 = register1 + 1
counter = register1

 The statement “count—” may be implemented as:

register2 = counter
register2 = register2 – 1
counter = register2

Operating System Concepts

 Bounded Buffer

 If both the producer and consumer attempt to update the buffer

concurrently, the assembly language statements may get

interleaved.

 Interleaving depends upon how the producer and consumer

processes are scheduled.

Operating System Concepts

 Bounded Buffer
 Assume counter is initially 5. One interleaving of statements is:

producer: register1 = counter (register1 = 5)

producer: register1 = register1 + 1 (register1 = 6)

consumer: register2 = counter (register2 = 5)

consumer: register2 = register2 – 1 (register2 = 4)

producer: counter = register1 (counter = 6)

consumer: counter = register2 (counter = 4)

The value of count may be either 4 or 6, where the correct result should be 5.
 Race Condition

 Race condition: The situation where several processes access –

and manipulate shared data concurrently. The final value of the

shared data depends upon which process finishes last.

 To prevent race conditions, concurrent processes must be

synchronized.

Operating System Concepts

 The Critical-Section Problem
 n processes all competing to use some shared data

 Each process has a code segment, called critical section, in which the shared data is accessed.

 Each process must request permission to enter its critical section. The section of code

implementing this request is the entry section.

 The critical section may be followed by an exit section.

 The remaining code is the remainder section.

 Problem – ensure that when one process is executing in its critical section, no other

process is allowed to execute in its critical section.

Operating System Concepts

 Solution to Critical-Section Problem

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 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.

Operating System Concepts

 Solution to Critical-Section Problem

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 (No starvation).

Operating System Concepts

 Initial Attempts to Solve Problem

 Only 2 processes, P0 and P1

 General structure of process Pi (other process Pj)
do {
entry section
critical section
exit section
reminder section
} while (1);

Operating System Concepts

 Algorithm 3 – Peterson’s Solution
 Combined shared variables of algorithms 1 and 2.

 Process Pi

do {

flag [i]:= true;

turn = j;
while (flag [j] and turn = j) ;

critical section

flag [i] = false;

remainder section

} while (1);
 Meets all three requirements; solves the critical-section problem for two processes.
 Semaphore
 Synchronization tool that does not require busy waiting

 Semaphore S – integer variable

 Two standard operations modify S: wait() and signal()

 Can only be accessed via two indivisible (atomic) operations

 wait (S) {
while S <= 0
; // no-op
S--;
}
 signal (S) {
S++;

6.26
 Semaphore as
General Synchronization Tool
 Counting semaphore – integer value can range over an unrestricted
domain
 Binary semaphore – integer value can range only between 0
and 1; can be simpler to implement

Semaphore mutex; // initialized to 1

do {
wait (mutex);
// Critical Section
signal (mutex);
// remainder section
} while (TRUE);

6.27
 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 in appropriate waiting
queue.
 wakeup – remove one of processes in the waiting
queue and place it in the ready queue.

6.28
 Semaphore Implementation with
no Busy waiting (Cont.)
 Implementation of wait:
wait(semaphore *S) {
S->value--;
if (S->value < 0) {
add this process to S->list;
block();
}
}
 Implementation of signal:

signal(semaphore *S) {
S->value++;
if (S->value <= 0) {
remove a process P from S->list;
wakeup(P);
}
}

6.29
 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

6.30
 Classical Problems of Synchronization

 Bounded-Buffer Problem

 Readers and Writers Problem

 Dining-Philosophers Problem

6.31
 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.

6.32
 Bounded Buffer Problem (Cont.)

 The structure of the producer process

do {
// produce an item in nextp
wait (empty);
wait (mutex);
// add the item to the buffer
signal (mutex);
signal (full);
} while (TRUE);

6.33
 Bounded Buffer Problem (Cont.)

 The structure of the consumer process

do {
wait (full);
wait (mutex);
// remove an item from buffer to
nextc
signal (mutex);
signal (empty);
// consume the item in nextc
} while (TRUE);

6.34
 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.
 Shared Data
 Data set
 Semaphore mutex initialized to 1 (controls access to
readcount)
 Semaphore wrt initialized to 1 (writer access)
 Integer readcount initialized to 0 (how many processes are
reading object)

6.35
 Readers-Writers Problem (Cont.)

 The structure of a writer process

do {
wait (wrt) ;
// writing is performed
signal (wrt) ;
} while (TRUE);

6.36
 Readers-Writers Problem (Cont.)
 The structure of a reader process
do {
wait (mutex) ;
readcount ++ ;
if (readcount == 1)
wait (wrt) ;
signal (mutex)
// reading is performed
wait (mutex) ;
readcount - - ;
if (readcount == 0)
signal (wrt) ;
signal (mutex) ;
} while (TRUE);

6.37
 Dining-Philosophers Problem

 Shared data
 Bowl of rice (data set)
 Semaphore chopstick [5] initialized to 1

6.38
 Dining-Philosophers Problem (Cont.)
 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 the above?

6.39
 More Problems with Semaphores

 Relies too much on programmers not

making mistakes (accidental or
deliberate)
 Incorrect use of semaphore operations:
 signal (mutex) …. wait (mutex)
 wait (mutex) … wait (mutex)
 Omitting of wait (mutex) or signal
(mutex) (or both)

6.40
 Monitors
 A high-level abstraction that provides a convenient and
effective mechanism for process synchronization
 Only one process may be active within the monitor at a time
monitor monitor-name
{
// shared variable declarations
procedure P1 (…) { …. }
…
procedure Pn (…) {……}
Initialization code ( ….) { … }
…
}
}

6.41
Schematic view of a Monitor

6.42
 Condition Variables

 condition x, y;
 Two operations on a condition variable:
 x.wait () – a process that invokes the operation is
suspended.
 x.signal () – resumes one of processes (if any)
that
invoked x.wait ()

6.43
Monitor with Condition Variables

6.44
 Solution to Dining Philosophers
monitor DP
{
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);
}
6.45
 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;
}
}

6.46
 Bakery Algorithm

 Notation < lexicographical 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
boolean choosing[n];
int number[n];
Data structures are initialized to false and 0 respectively

Operating System Concepts

 Synchronization Hardware

 The critical-section problem could be solved simply in a

uniprocessor environment if we could forbid interrupts to
occur while a shared variable is being modified. This
solution is not feasible in a multiprocessor environment.
 Test and modify the content of a word atomically.
boolean TestAndSet(boolean &target) {
boolean rv = target;
tqrget = true;
return rv;
}

Operating System Concepts

 Mutual Exclusion with Test-and-Set

 Shared data:
boolean lock = false;

 Process Pi
do {
while (TestAndSet(lock)) ;
critical section
lock = false;
remainder section
}

Operating System Concepts

 Synchronization Hardware

 Atomically swap two variables.

void Swap(boolean &a, boolean &b) {

boolean temp = a;
a = b;
b = temp;
}

Operating System Concepts

 Mutual Exclusion with Swap
 Shared data (initialized to false):
boolean lock;
boolean waiting[n];

 Process P
i
do {
key = true;
while (key == true)
Swap(lock,key);
critical section
lock = false;
remainder section
}
 These two solutions in Figure 7.7 and Figure 7.9 don’t
satisfy the bounded-waiting requirement.
 The algorithm in Figure 7.10 satisfies all the critical-
section requirement.

Operating System Concepts

 Mutual Exclusion Solutions

1. Disable interrupts.
2. Shared lock variable.
3. Strict alteration. See Ex6.c. See the manual entry for
shared memory allocation: man shmget and Ex6.c and
programs in shm directory.
4. Peterson's solution [1981]. Challenge: modify the code in
Ex6.c to implement Peterson's solution for 2 processes.
Note several variables are shared:
shared int turn = 0;
shared int flag[2] = {FALSE,FALSE};
5. Hardware solution: Test-and-Set Locks (TSL).

Operating System Concepts

 Mutual Exclusion Solutions

 NOTE: The last two solutions, 4 and 5, require BUSY-

WAITING; that is, a process executing the entry code will
sit in a tight loop using up CPU cycles, testing some
condition over and over, until it becomes true.
 For example, in 5, in the enter_region code, a process
keeps checking over and over to see if the flag has been
set to 0.
 Busy-waiting may lead to the PRIORITY-INVERSION
PROBLEM if simple priority scheduling is used to
schedule the processes.

Operating System Concepts

 Mutual Exclusion with Swap

 Example: Test-and-set Locks:

P0 (low) - in cs -x
|
context
switch
|
P1 (high) -----TestAndSet... x-... forever.

 Note, since priority scheduling is used, P1 will keep

getting scheduled and waste time doing busy-waiting. :-(
 Thus, we have a situation in which a low-priority process
is blocking a high-priority process, and this is called
PRIORITY-INVERSION.

Operating System Concepts

 Semaphores [E. W. Dijkstra, 1965]
 The solutions presented in the previous section are not easy to
generalize to more complex problems. To overcome this
difficulty, we can use a synchronization tool called a
semaphore.
 Synchronization tool that does not require busy waiting.
 A semaphore S is an integer variable that can only be accessed
via two indivisible (atomic) operations
wait (S):
while S 0 do no-op;
S--;

signal (S):
S++;
Note: These operations were originally termed P (wait, proberen)
and V (signal, verhogen). In order to distinguish with the C/UNIX
function wait and signal, in our programming examples we use
DOWN and UP to indicate wait and signal respectively.

Operating System Concepts

 Critical Section of n Processes

 We can use semaphores to deal with the n-process

critical-section problem as shown Fig7-11.c.
 Shared data:
semaphore mutex; //initially mutex = 1

 Process Pi:

do {
wait(mutex);
critical section
signal(mutex);
remainder section
} while (1);

Operating System Concepts

 Semaphore Implementation

 The original semaphore definition suffers from the similar

busy waiting as the previous mutual-exclusion solutions.
 This type of semaphore is also called spinlock because
the process spins while waiting for the lock.
 The advantage of a spinlock is that on context switch is
required when a process must wait on a lock, and a
context switch may take considerable time. They are
useful in multiprocessor systems.
 To overcome the need for busy waiting, we can modify
the definition of the wait and signal semaphore
operations.

Operating System Concepts

 Semaphore Implementation
 Instead busy waiting, the process can block itself and is
placed in a waiting queue. It is restarted by a wakeup
operation.
 Define a semaphore as a record
typedef struct {
int value;
struct process *L;
} semaphore;
 Each semaphore has an integer value and a list of
processes.
 Assume two simple operations:
 block suspends the process that invokes it.
 wakeup(P) resumes the execution of a blocked
process P.

Operating System Concepts

 Implementation
 There are 2 operations on semaphores, wait/DOWN and
signal/UP. These operations must be executed
atomically (that is in mutual exclusion). Suppose that P is
the process making the system call.
 Semaphore operations now defined as
wait(S):
S.value--;
if (S.value < 0) {
add this process to S.L;
block(P);
}

(a) enqueue the pid of P in S.L,

(b) block process P (remove the pid from
the ready queue), and
(c) pass control to the scheduler.

Operating System Concepts

 Implementation

 Semaphore operations now defined as

signal(S):
S.value++;
if (S.value <= 0) {
remove a process P from
S.L;
wakeup(P);
}

(a) remove a pid from S.L (the pid of P),

(b) put the pid in the ready queue, and
(c) pass control to the scheduler.

Operating System Concepts

 Implementation
 The list of waiting processes can be implemented by a
link field in each process control block (PCB).
 This list can use a FIFO to ensure bounded waiting.
 However, the list may use any queueing strategy.
 We must guarantee that no two processes can execute
wait and signal operations on the same semaphore at the
same time.
 In a uniprocessor environment, we can simply inhibit
interrupts during the time the wait and signal operations
are executing.
 In a multiprocessor environment, inhibiting interrupts does
not work. If the hardware does not provide any special
instructions, we can employ any of the correct busy-waiting
solutions to the critical sections.

Operating System Concepts

 Semaphore as a General Synchronization Tool

 Execute B in Pj only after A executed in Pi

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

Operating System Concepts

 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);
 The events with which we are mainly concerned here are
resource acquisition and release.
 Starvation – indefinite blocking. A process may never
be removed from the semaphore queue in which it is
suspended.

Operating System Concepts

 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; can be simpler to implement.
 Can implement a counting semaphore S as a binary
semaphore.

Operating System Concepts

 Implementing S as a Binary Semaphore

 Data structures:
binary-semaphore S1, S2;
int C:
 Initialization:
S1 = 1
S2 = 0
C = initial value of semaphore S

Operating System Concepts

 Implementing S
 wait operation
wait(S1);
C--;
if (C < 0) {
signal(S1);
wait(S2);
}
signal(S1);

 signal operation
wait(S1);
C ++;
if (C <= 0)
signal(S2);
else
signal(S1);

Operating System Concepts

 Using Semaphores

 Mutual Exclusion Problem:

semaphore mutex = 1; /* set mutex.count = 1 */

DOWN(mutex);
- critical section -
UP(mutex);

 To see how semaphores are used to eliminate race

conditions in Ex4.c, see Ex7.c and sem.h. The library
sem.h contains a version of UP(semid) and
DOWN(semid) that correspond with UP and DOWN given
above.
 Another example is shown in Fig7-11.c.

Operating System Concepts

 Using Semaphores

 Process Synchronization: Order process execution:

Suppose we have 4 processes: A, B, C, and D. A must finish
executing before B and C start. B and C must finish executing
before D starts.

S1 S2
A ----> B ----> D
| ^
| S1 S3 |
+-----> C ------+

Then, the processes may be synchronized using semaphores:

semaphore S1, S2, S3 = 0,0,0;

Operating System Concepts

 Using Semaphores
 Process Synchronization: Order process execution:

Process A:
----------
- do work of A
UP(S1); /* Let B or C start */
UP(S1); /* Let B or C start */

Process B:
----------
DOWN(S1); /* Block until A is finished */
- do work of B
UP(S2);

Operating System Concepts

 Using Semaphores

Process C:
----------
DOWN(S1);
- do work of C
UP(S3);

Process D:
----------
DOWN(S2);
DOWN(S3);
- do work of D

Operating System Concepts

 Using Semaphores

 Process Synchronization: Order process execution:

Suppose we have 4 processes: A, B, C, and D.
A must finish executing before B and C start.
B and C must finish executing before D starts. (Another
solution)

S1 S2
A ----> B ----> D
| ^
| S3 S4 |
+-----> C ------+

Then, the processes may be synchronized using semaphores:

semaphore S1, S2, S3, S4 = 0,0,0,0;

Operating System Concepts

 Using Semaphores
 Process Synchronization: Order process execution:

Process A:
----------
- do work of A
UP(S1); /* Let B start */
UP(S3); /* Let C start */

Process B:
----------
DOWN(S1); /* Block until A is finished */
- do work of B
UP(S2);

Operating System Concepts

 Using Semaphores

Process C:
----------
DOWN(S3);
- do work of C
UP(S4);

Process D:
----------
DOWN(S2);
DOWN(S4);
- do work of D

Operating System Concepts

 Classical Problems of Synchronization

 These problems are used for testing every newly

proposed synchronization scheme.

 Bounded-Buffer Problem

 Readers and Writers Problem

 Dining-Philosophers Problem

Operating System Concepts

 Bounded-Buffer Problem

 Bounded Buffer Problem = Producer-Consumer Problem :

Consider a circular buffer that can hold N items.

Producers add items to the buffer and Consumers
remove items from the buffer. The Producer-Consumer
Problem is to restrict access to the buffer so
correct executions result.

 Shared data

semaphore full, empty, mutex;

Initially:

not_empty = 0, not_full = n, mutex = 1

Operating System Concepts

 Bounded-Buffer Problem Producer Process

do {
…
produce an item in nextp
…
wait(not_full);
wait(mutex);
…
add nextp to buffer
…
signal(mutex);
signal(not_empty);
} while (1);

Operating System Concepts

 Bounded-Buffer Problem Consumer Process

do {
wait(not_empty)
wait(mutex);
…
remove an item from buffer to nextc
…
signal(mutex);
signal(not_full);
…
consume the item in nextc
…
} while (1);

Operating System Concepts

 Readers-Writers Problem
 The readers and writers problem models access to a
shared database. Only one writer may write at a time.
Any number of readers may read at the same time, but
not when a writer is writing.
 Weak reader Priority: An arriving writer waits until
there are no more active readers.
 Strong reader priority: Conditions of the weak
reader priority solution apply, but also a waiting reader
has priority over a waiting writer.
 Writer priority: An arriving reader waits until there
are no more active or waiting writers.
 Shared data

semaphore mutex, wrt;

Initially

mutex = 1, wrt = 1, readcount = 0

Operating System Concepts

 Readers-Writers Problem Writer Process

wait(wrt);
…
writing is performed
…
signal(wrt);

Operating System Concepts

 Readers-Writers Problem Reader Process

wait(mutex);
readcount++;
if (readcount == 1)
wait(rt);
signal(mutex);
…
reading is performed
…
wait(mutex);
readcount--;
if (readcount == 0)
signal(wrt);
signal(mutex):

Operating System Concepts

 Dining-Philosophers Problem

 Problem: Five philosophers are seated around a table.

There is one chopstick between each pair of
philosophers. Each philosopher needs to grab the two
adjacent chopsticks in order to eat. Philosophers
alternate between eating and thinking. They only eat for
finite periods of time.

Operating System Concepts

 Dining-Philosophers Problem
 Shared data
semaphore chopstick[5];
Initially all values are 1

 Philosopher i:
do {
wait(chopstick[i])
wait(chopstick[(i+1) % 5])
…
eat
…
signal(chopstick[i]);
signal(chopstick[(i+1) % 5]);
…
think
…
} while (1);

Operating System Concepts

 Dining-Philosophers Problem
 Problem: Suppose all philosophers execute the first
wait/DOWN operation, before any have a chance to
execute the second wait/DOWN operation; that is, they
all grab one chopstick. Then, deadlock will occur and no
philosophers will be able to proceed. This is called a
CIRCULAR WAIT. In Section 7.7, a solution free from
deadlocks is presented.
 Other Solutions:
 Only allow up to four philosophers to try grabbing
their chopsticks.
 Pick-up the forks only if both are available. Note: this
solution may lead to starvation.
 Asymmetric solution: Odd numbered philosophers
grab their left chopstick first, whereas even numbered
philosophers grab their right chopstick first.

Operating System Concepts

 Critical Regions

 Although semaphores provide a convenient and effective

mechanism for process synchronization, their incorrect
use can still result in timing errors.
 A process interchanges the order of the wait and signal
operations.
signal(mutex);
critical section
wait(mutex);
 A process replaces signal(mutex) with wait(mutex).
wait(mutex);
critical section
wait(mutex);
 A process omits the wait(mutex) or the signal(mutex).

Operating System Concepts

 Critical Regions
 To deal with these errors, a number of high-level
language constructs have been introduced: the critical
region and monitor.
 High-level synchronization construct
 A shared variable v of type T, is declared as:
v: shared T
 Variable v accessed only inside statement
region v when B do S

where B is a boolean expression.

 The statement S is executed only when B is true and no
other process is the region associated with v.
 While statement S is being executed, no other process
can access variable v.

Operating System Concepts

 Critical Regions

 Regions referring to the same shared variable exclude

each other in time.

 When a process tries to execute the region statement,

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.

region v when (true) S1;

region v when (true) S2;

Operating System Concepts

 Example – Bounded Buffer

 Shared data:

struct buffer {
int pool[n];
int count, in, out;
}

Operating System Concepts

 Bounded Buffer Producer Process

 Producer process inserts nextp into the shared buffer

region buffer when( count < n) {

pool[in] = nextp;
in:= (in+1) % n;
count++;
}

Operating System Concepts

 Bounded Buffer Consumer Process

 Consumer process removes an item from the shared

buffer and puts it in nextc

region buffer when (count > 0) {

nextc = pool[out];
out = (out+1) % n;
count--;
}

Operating System Concepts

 Implementation region x when B do S

 Associate with the shared variable x, the following

variables:
semaphore mutex, first-delay, second-delay;
int first-count, second-count;

 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.

Operating System Concepts

 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 queuing of

processes for a semaphore.

 For an arbitrary queuing discipline, a more complicated

implementation is required.

Operating System Concepts

 Monitors
 High-level synchronization construct that allows the safe sharing of an abstract data
type among concurrent processes.

monitor monitor-name
{
shared variable declarations
procedure body P1 (…) {
...
}
procedure body P2 (…) {
...
}
procedure body Pn (…) {
...
}
{
initialization code
}
}

Operating System Concepts

 Monitors
 A monitor is a collection of procedures, variables, and
data structures that can only be accessed by one
process at a time.
 To allow a process to wait within the monitor, a
condition variable must be declared, as
condition x, y;
 Condition variable can only be used with the
operations wait and signal.
 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.

Operating System Concepts

 Schematic View of a Monitor

Operating System Concepts

 Monitor With Condition Variables

Operating System Concepts

 Dining Philosophers Example
monitor dp
{
enum {thinking, hungry, eating} state[5];
condition self[5];
void pickup(int i) // following slides
void putdown(int i) // following slides
void test(int i) // following slides
void init() {
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++)
state[i] = thinking;
}
}

Operating System Concepts

 Dining Philosophers
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);
}

Operating System Concepts

 Dining Philosophers
void test(int i) {
if ( (state[(I + 4) % 5] != eating) &&
(state[i] == hungry) &&
(state[(i + 1) % 5] != eating)) {
state[i] = eating;
self[i].signal();
}
}

Operating System Concepts

 Monitor Implementation Using Semaphores

 Variables
semaphore mutex; // (initially = 1)
semaphore next; // (initially = 0)
int next-count = 0;

 Each external 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.

Operating System Concepts

 Monitor Implementation

 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--;

Operating System Concepts

 Monitor Implementation

 The operation x.signal can be implemented as:

if (x-count > 0) {
next-count++;
signal(x-sem);
wait(next);
next-count--;
}

Operating System Concepts

 Monitor Implementation
 Conditional-wait construct: x.wait(c);
 c – integer expression evaluated when the wait operation is
executed.
 value of c (a priority number) stored with the name of the
process that is suspended.
 when x.signal is executed, process with smallest
associated priority number is resumed next.
 Check two conditions to establish correctness of system:
 User processes must always make their calls on the monitor
in a correct sequence.
 Must ensure that an uncooperative process does not ignore
the mutual-exclusion gateway provided by the monitor, and
try to access the shared resource directly, without using the
access protocols.

Operating System Concepts

 Message Passing
 Possible Approaches:
 Assign each process a unique address such as addr.
Then, send messages directly to the process:
blocking receive.
send(addr, msg);
recv(addr, msg);
Example: signals in UNIX.
 Use mailboxes: blocking receive.
send(mailbox, msg);
recv(mailbox, msg);
Example: pipes in UNIX.
 Rendezvous: blocking send and receive.
Example: Ada tasks.

Operating System Concepts

 Pipe Implementation
 Pipe description:
 pipe is a unidirectional data structure.
 One end is for reading and one end is for writing.
 Use pipe function to create a pipe.
int mbox[2];
pipe(mbox);
 In our implementation, mbox[0] is for reading and
mbox[1] is for writing.
First End Second End

mbox[0] <-oooooooooooooooooooo<- mbox[1]

Where o stands for token.
 Each pipe is used like a semaphore.
If the initial value of a semaphore is 0, then no token
is required to store in the pipe initially.

Operating System Concepts

 Pipe Implementation
 Pipe description:
 If the initial value of a semaphore is more than 0, for
example, the initial value is 3, then it can be
initialized in this way:
int msg = 0;
for (i = 1; i <= 3; i++)
write(mbox1[1],&msg,sizeof(msg));
 DOWN(S) is equivalent to
read(mbox[0],&msg,sizeof(msg));
 UP(S) is equivalent to
write(mbox[1],&msg,sizeof(msg));

Operating System Concepts

 Message Passing
 Here we consider the pipe approach.
 Producer-consumer Problem with bound N.
Producer:
- produce item -
recv(mbox1, msg);
send(mbox2, item);
Consumer:
for (i=0; i<N; i++)
send(mbox1, NULL_MSG);
recv(mbox2, item);
send(mbox1, NULL_MSG);
- consume item –
 See Ex10.c to see how this is implemented.
 See pipe-ps.c how to pipe to synchronize processes.

Operating System Concepts

 Solaris 2 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.

 Uses condition variables and 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.

Operating System Concepts

 Windows 2000 Synchronization

 Uses interrupt masks to protect access to global

resources on uniprocessor systems.

 Uses spinlocks on multiprocessor systems.

 Also provides dispatcher objects which may act as wither

mutexes and semaphores.

 Dispatcher objects may also provide events. An event

acts much like a condition variable.

Operating System Concepts