Chapter 18: Distributed Coordination

Chapter 18 Distributed Coordination

Event Ordering Mutual Exclusion Atomicity

Concurrency Control
Deadlock Handling Election Algorithms Reaching Agreement

Operating System Concepts

18.2

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

Chapter Objectives
To describe various methods for achieving mutual exclusion in

a distributed system
To explain how atomic transactions can be implemented in a

distributed system
To show how some of the concurrency-control schemes

discussed in Chapter 6 can be modified for use in a distributed environment

To present schemes for handling deadlock prevention,

deadlock avoidance, and deadlock detection in a distributed system

Operating System Concepts

18.3

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

Event Ordering
Happened-before relation (denoted by

If A and B are events in the same process, and A was executed before B, then A B
If A is the event of sending a message by one process and B is the event of receiving that message by another process, then A B If A B and B C then A C

Operating System Concepts

18.4

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

Relative Time for Three Concurrent Processes

Operating System Concepts

18.5

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

Implementation of

Associate a timestamp with each system event

Require that for every pair of events A and B, if A timestamp of A is less than the timestamp of B

B, then the

Within each process Pi a logical clock, LCi is associated

The logical clock can be implemented as a simple counter that is incremented between any two successive events executed within a process

Logical clock is monotonically increasing

A process advances its logical clock when it receives a message whose timestamp is greater than the current value of its logical clock If the timestamps of two events A and B are the same, then the events are concurrent

We may use the process identity numbers to break ties and to create a total ordering

Operating System Concepts

18.6

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

Distributed Mutual Exclusion (DME)

Assumptions

The system consists of n processes; each process Pi resides at a different processor

Each process has a critical section that requires mutual exclusion If Pi is executing in its critical section, then no other process Pj is executing in its critical section

Requirement

We present two algorithms to ensure the mutual exclusion

execution of processes in their critical sections

Operating System Concepts

18.7

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

DME: Centralized Approach

One of the processes in the system is chosen to coordinate the entry

to the critical section

A process that wants to enter its critical section sends a request

message to the coordinator

The coordinator decides which process can enter the critical section

next, and its sends that process a reply message

When the process receives a reply message from the coordinator, it

enters its critical section

After exiting its critical section, the process sends a release message

to the coordinator and proceeds with its execution

This scheme requires three messages per critical-section entry:

request reply release

Operating System Concepts

18.8

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

DME: Fully Distributed Approach

When process Pi wants to enter its critical section, it generates a

new timestamp, TS, and sends the message request (Pi, TS) to all other processes in the system
When process Pj receives a request message, it may reply

immediately or it may defer sending a reply back

When process Pi receives a reply message from all other

processes in the system, it can enter its critical section

After exiting its critical section, the process sends reply messages

to all its deferred requests

Operating System Concepts

18.9

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

DME: Fully Distributed Approach (Cont.)

The decision whether process Pj replies immediately to a

request(Pi, TS) message or defers its reply is based on three factors:

If Pj is in its critical section, then it defers its reply to Pi If Pj does not want to enter its critical section, then it sends a reply immediately to Pi If Pj wants to enter its critical section but has not yet entered it, then it compares its own request timestamp with the timestamp TS

If its own request timestamp is greater than TS, then it sends a reply immediately to Pi (Pi asked first) Otherwise, the reply is deferred

Operating System Concepts

18.10

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

Desirable Behavior of Fully Distributed Approach

Freedom from Deadlock is ensured

Freedom from starvation is ensured, since entry to the critical

section is scheduled according to the timestamp ordering

The timestamp ordering ensures that processes are served in a first-come, first served order

The number of messages per critical-section entry is

2 x (n 1) This is the minimum number of required messages per criticalsection entry when processes act independently and concurrently

Operating System Concepts

18.11

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

Three Undesirable Consequences

The processes need to know the identity of all other processes in

the system, which makes the dynamic addition and removal of processes more complex
If one of the processes fails, then the entire scheme collapses

This can be dealt with by continuously monitoring the state of all the processes in the system

Processes that have not entered their critical section must pause

frequently to assure other processes that they intend to enter the critical section

This protocol is therefore suited for small, stable sets of cooperating processes

Operating System Concepts

18.12

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

Token-Passing Approach
Circulate a token among processes in system

Token is special type of message

Possession of token entitles holder to enter critical section

Processes logically organized in a ring structure Algorithm similar to Chapter 6 algorithm 1 but token substituted for

shared variable
Unidirectional ring guarantees freedom from starvation Two types of failures

Lost token election must be called

Failed processes new logical ring established

Operating System Concepts

18.13

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

Atomicity
Either all the operations associated with a program unit are

executed to completion, or none are performed

Ensuring atomicity in a distributed system requires a transaction

coordinator, which is responsible for the following:

Starting the execution of the transaction Breaking the transaction into a number of subtransactions, and distribution these subtransactions to the appropriate sites for execution Coordinating the termination of the transaction, which may result in the transaction being committed at all sites or aborted at all sites

Operating System Concepts

18.14

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

Two-Phase Commit Protocol (2PC)

Assumes fail-stop model Execution of the protocol is initiated by the coordinator after the last

step of the transaction has been reached

When the protocol is initiated, the transaction may still be executing

at some of the local sites

The protocol involves all the local sites at which the transaction

executed
Example: Let T be a transaction initiated at site Si and let the

transaction coordinator at Si be Ci

Operating System Concepts

18.15

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

Phase 1: Obtaining a Decision

Ci adds <prepare T> record to the log

Ci sends <prepare T> message to all sites

When a site receives a <prepare T> message, the transaction

manager determines if it can commit the transaction

If no: add <no T> record to the log and respond to Ci with <abort T> If yes:

add <ready T> record to the log force all log records for T onto stable storage

transaction manager sends <ready T> message to Ci

Operating System Concepts

18.16

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

Phase 1 (Cont.)
Coordinator collects responses

All respond ready, decision is commit

At least one response is abort, decision is abort At least one participant fails to respond within time out period, decision is abort

Operating System Concepts

18.17

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

Phase 2: Recording Decision in the Database

Coordinator adds a decision record

<abort T> or <commit T>

to its log and forces record onto stable storage
Once that record reaches stable storage it is irrevocable (even if

failures occur)
Coordinator sends a message to each participant informing it of the

decision (commit or abort)

Participants take appropriate action locally

Operating System Concepts

18.18

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

Failure Handling in 2PC Site Failure

The log contains a <commit T> record

In this case, the site executes redo(T)

In this case, the site executes undo(T)

The log contains an <abort T> record

The contains a <ready T> record; consult Ci

If Ci is down, site sends query-status T message to the other sites

In this case, the site executes undo(T)

The log contains no control records concerning T

Operating System Concepts

18.19

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

Failure Handling in 2PC Coordinator Ci Failure

If an active site contains a <commit T> record in its log, the T must

be committed
If an active site contains an <abort T> record in its log, then T must

be aborted
If some active site does not contain the record <ready T> in its log

then the failed coordinator Ci cannot have decided to commit T

Rather than wait for Ci to recover, it is preferable to abort T

All active sites have a <ready T> record in their logs, but no

additional control records

In this case we must wait for the coordinator to recover

Blocking problem T is blocked pending the recovery of site Si

Operating System Concepts

18.20

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

Concurrency Control
Modify the centralized concurrency schemes to accommodate the

distribution of transactions
Transaction manager coordinates execution of transactions (or

subtransactions) that access data at local sites

Local transaction only executes at that site
Global transaction executes at several sites

Operating System Concepts

18.21

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

Locking Protocols
Can use the two-phase locking protocol in a distributed

environment by changing how the lock manager is implemented

Nonreplicated scheme each site maintains a local lock manager

which administers lock and unlock requests for those data items that are stored in that site

Simple implementation involves two message transfers for handling lock requests, and one message transfer for handling unlock requests
Deadlock handling is more complex

Operating System Concepts

18.22

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

Single-Coordinator Approach
A single lock manager resides in a single chosen site, all lock and

unlock requests are made a that site

Simple implementation Simple deadlock handling Possibility of bottleneck Vulnerable to loss of concurrency controller if single site fails Multiple-coordinator approach distributes lock-manager function

over several sites

Operating System Concepts

18.23

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

Majority Protocol
Avoids drawbacks of central control by dealing with replicated data

in a decentralized manner
More complicated to implement Deadlock-handling algorithms must be modified; possible for

deadlock to occur in locking only one data item

Operating System Concepts

18.24

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

Biased Protocol
Similar to majority protocol, but requests for shared locks prioritized

over requests for exclusive locks

Less overhead on read operations than in majority protocol; but

has additional overhead on writes

Like majority protocol, deadlock handling is complex

Operating System Concepts

18.25

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

Primary Copy
One of the sites at which a replica resides is designated as the

primary site

Request to lock a data item is made at the primary site of that data item

Concurrency control for replicated data handled in a manner similar

to that of unreplicated data

Simple implementation, but if primary site fails, the data item is

unavailable, even though other sites may have a replica

Operating System Concepts

18.26

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

Timestamping
Generate unique timestamps in distributed scheme:

Each site generates a unique local timestamp

The global unique timestamp is obtained by concatenation of the unique local timestamp with the unique site identifier Use a logical clock defined within each site to ensure the fair generation of timestamps

Timestamp-ordering scheme combine the centralized

concurrency control timestamp scheme with the 2PC protocol to obtain a protocol that ensures serializability with no cascading rollbacks

Operating System Concepts

18.27

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

Generation of Unique Timestamps

Operating System Concepts

18.28

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

Deadlock Prevention
Resource-ordering deadlock-prevention define a global ordering

among the system resources

Assign a unique number to all system resources A process may request a resource with unique number i only if it is not holding a resource with a unique number grater than i Simple to implement; requires little overhead

Bankers algorithm designate one of the processes in the system

as the process that maintains the information necessary to carry out the Bankers algorithm

Also implemented easily, but may require too much overhead

Operating System Concepts

18.29

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

Timestamped Deadlock-Prevention Scheme

Each process Pi is assigned a unique priority number Priority numbers are used to decide whether a process Pi should

wait for a process Pj; otherwise Pi is rolled back

The scheme prevents deadlocks

For every edge Pi priority than Pj

Pj in the wait-for graph, Pi has a higher

Thus a cycle cannot exist

Operating System Concepts

18.30

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

Wait-Die Scheme
Based on a nonpreemptive technique If Pi requests a resource currently held by Pj, Pi is allowed to wait

only if it has a smaller timestamp than does Pj (Pi is older than Pj)

Otherwise, Pi is rolled back (dies)

Example: Suppose that processes P1, P2, and P3 have

timestamps t, 10, and 15 respectively

if P1 request a resource held by P2, then P1 will wait

If P3 requests a resource held by P2, then P3 will be rolled back

Operating System Concepts

18.31

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

Would-Wait Scheme
Based on a preemptive technique; counterpart to the wait-die

system
If Pi requests a resource currently held by Pj, Pi is allowed to wait

only if it has a larger timestamp than does Pj (Pi is younger than Pj). Otherwise Pj is rolled back (Pj is wounded by Pi)
Example: Suppose that processes P1, P2, and P3 have timestamps

5, 10, and 15 respectively

If P1 requests a resource held by P2, then the resource will be preempted from P2 and P2 will be rolled back If P3 requests a resource held by P2, then P3 will wait

Operating System Concepts

18.32

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

Two Local Wait-For Graphs

Operating System Concepts

18.33

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

Global Wait-For Graph

Operating System Concepts

18.34

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

Deadlock Detection Centralized Approach

Each site keeps a local wait-for graph

The nodes of the graph correspond to all the processes that are currently either holding or requesting any of the resources local to that site

A global wait-for graph is maintained in a single coordination process; this graph is the union of all local wait-for graphs There are three different options (points in time) when the wait-for graph may be constructed:
1. Whenever a new edge is inserted or removed in one of the local wait-for graphs

2. Periodically, when a number of changes have occurred in a wait-for graph

3. Whenever the coordinator needs to invoke the cycle-detection algorithm

Unnecessary rollbacks may occur as a result of false cycles

Operating System Concepts

18.35

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

Detection Algorithm Based on Option 3

Append unique identifiers (timestamps) to requests form different

sites
When process Pi, at site A, requests a resource from process Pj, at

site B, a request message with timestamp TS is sent

The edge Pi

Pj with the label TS is inserted in the local wait-for of A. The edge is inserted in the local wait-for graph of B only if B has received the request message and cannot immediately grant the requested resource

Operating System Concepts

18.36

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

The Algorithm
1. The controller sends an initiating message to each site in the system 2. On receiving this message, a site sends its local wait-for graph to the coordinator 3. When the controller has received a reply from each site, it constructs a graph as follows: (a) The constructed graph contains a vertex for every process in the system (b) The graph has an edge Pi
(1) (2)

Pj if and only if Pj in one of the wait-for graphs, or

there is an edge Pi

an edge Pi Pj with some label TS appears in more than one wait-for graph deadlock

If the constructed graph contains a cycle

Operating System Concepts

18.37

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

Local and Global Wait-For Graphs

Operating System Concepts

18.38

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

Fully Distributed Approach

All controllers share equally the responsibility for detecting

deadlock
Every site constructs a wait-for graph that represents a part of the

total graph
We add one additional node Pex to each local wait-for graph If a local wait-for graph contains a cycle that does not involve node

Pex, then the system is in a deadlock state

A cycle involving Pex implies the possibility of a deadlock

To ascertain whether a deadlock does exist, a distributed deadlock-detection algorithm must be invoked

Operating System Concepts

18.39

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

Augmented Local Wait-For Graphs

Operating System Concepts

18.40

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

Augmented Local Wait-For Graph in Site S2

Operating System Concepts

18.41

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

Election Algorithms
Determine where a new copy of the coordinator should be restarted

Assume that a unique priority number is associated with each

active process in the system, and assume that the priority number of process Pi is i
Assume a one-to-one correspondence between processes and

sites
The coordinator is always the process with the largest priority

number. When a coordinator fails, the algorithm must elect that active process with the largest priority number
Two algorithms, the bully algorithm and a ring algorithm, can be

used to elect a new coordinator in case of failures

Operating System Concepts

18.42

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

Bully Algorithm
Applicable to systems where every process can send a message to

every other process in the system

If process Pi sends a request that is not answered by the

coordinator within a time interval T, assume that the coordinator has failed; Pi tries to elect itself as the new coordinator
Pi sends an election message to every process with a higher

priority number, Pi then waits for any of these processes to answer within T

Operating System Concepts

18.43

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

Bully Algorithm (Cont.)

If no response within T, assume that all processes with numbers

greater than i have failed; Pi elects itself the new coordinator

If answer is received, Pi begins time interval T, waiting to receive a

message that a process with a higher priority number has been elected
If no message is sent within T, assume the process with a higher

number has failed; Pi should restart the algorithm

Operating System Concepts

18.44

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

Bully Algorithm (Cont.)

If Pi is not the coordinator, then, at any time during execution, Pi

may receive one of the following two messages from process Pj Pj is the new coordinator (j > i). Pi, in turn, records this information Pj started an election (j > i). Pi, sends a response to Pj and begins its own election algorithm, provided that Pi has not already initiated such an election

After a failed process recovers, it immediately begins execution of

the same algorithm

If there are no active processes with higher numbers, the

recovered process forces all processes with lower number to let it become the coordinator process, even if there is a currently active coordinator with a lower number

Operating System Concepts

18.45

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

Ring Algorithm
Applicable to systems organized as a ring (logically or physically) Assumes that the links are unidirectional, and that processes send

their messages to their right neighbors

Each process maintains an active list, consisting of all the priority

numbers of all active processes in the system when the algorithm ends
If process Pi detects a coordinator failure, I creates a new active list

that is initially empty. It then sends a message elect(i) to its right neighbor, and adds the number i to its active list

Operating System Concepts

18.46

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

Ring Algorithm (Cont.)

If Pi receives a message elect(j) from the process on the left, it must respond in one of three ways:
1.

If this is the first elect message it has seen or sent, Pi creates a new active list with the numbers i and j

It then sends the message elect(i), followed by the message elect(j)

2.

If i j, then the active list for Pi now contains the numbers of all the active processes in the system

Pi can now determine the largest number in the active list to identify the new coordinator process The active list for Pi contains all the active processes in the system

3.

If i = j, then Pi receives the message elect(i)

Pi can now determine the new coordinator process.

Operating System Concepts

18.47

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

Reaching Agreement
There are applications where a set of processes wish to agree on a

common value
Such agreement may not take place due to:

Faulty communication medium Faulty processes

Processes may send garbled or incorrect messages to other processes A subset of the processes may collaborate with each other in an attempt to defeat the scheme

Operating System Concepts

18.48

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

Faulty Communications
Process Pi at site A, has sent a message to process Pj at site B; to

proceed, Pi needs to know if Pj has received the message Detect failures using a time-out scheme When Pi sends out a message, it also specifies a time interval during which it is willing to wait for an acknowledgment message form Pj When Pj receives the message, it immediately sends an acknowledgment to Pi If Pi receives the acknowledgment message within the specified time interval, it concludes that Pj has received its message If a time-out occurs, Pj needs to retransmit its message and wait for an acknowledgment Continue until Pi either receives an acknowledgment, or is notified by the system that B is down

Operating System Concepts

18.49

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

Faulty Communications (Cont.)

Suppose that Pj also needs to know that Pi has received its

acknowledgment message, in order to decide on how to proceed

In the presence of failure, it is not possible to accomplish this task It is not possible in a distributed environment for processes Pi and Pj to agree completely on their respective states

Operating System Concepts

18.50

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

Faulty Processes (Byzantine Generals Problem)

Communication medium is reliable, but processes can fail in

unpredictable ways
Consider a system of n processes, of which no more than m are

faulty

Suppose that each process Pi has some private value of Vi

Devise an algorithm that allows each nonfaulty Pi to construct a

vector Xi = (Ai,1, Ai,2, , Ai,n) such that::

If Pj is a nonfaulty process, then Aij = Vj. If Pi and Pj are both nonfaulty processes, then Xi = Xj. A correct algorithm can be devised only if n 3xm+1

Solutions share the following properties

The worst-case delay for reaching agreement is proportionate to m + 1 message-passing delays

Operating System Concepts

18.51

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

Faulty Processes (Cont.)

An algorithm for the case where m = 1 and n = 4 requires two rounds

of information exchange:

Each process sends its private value to the other 3 processes Each process sends the information it has obtained in the first round to all other processes

If a faulty process refuses to send messages, a nonfaulty process can

choose an arbitrary value and pretend that that value was sent by that process
After the two rounds are completed, a nonfaulty process Pi can

construct its vector Xi = (Ai,1, Ai,2, Ai,3, Ai,4) as follows:

Ai,j = Vi For j i, if at least two of the three values reported for process Pj agree, then the majority value is used to set the value of Aij

Otherwise, a default value (nil) is used

Operating System Concepts

18.52

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne 2005

End of Chapter 18