Chapter 6: Process Synchronization

Module 6: Process Synchronization

● Background
● The Critical-Section Problem
● Peterson’s Solution
● Synchronization Hardware
● Semaphores
● Classic Problems of Synchronization
● Monitors
● Synchronization Examples
● Atomic Transactions
 Background

● Concurrent access to shared data may result in data

inconsistency
● Maintaining data consistency requires mechanisms to
ensure the orderly execution of cooperating processes
● 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 count that keeps track of
the number of full buffers. Initially, count 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.
 Producer

while (true) {

/*produce an item and put in nextProduced */

while (count == BUFFER_SIZE)
; // do nothing
buffer [in] = nextProduced;
in = (in + 1) % BUFFER_SIZE;
count++;
}
 Consumer

while (true) {
while (count == 0)
; // do nothing
nextConsumed = buffer[out];
out = (out + 1) % BUFFER_SIZE;
count--;

/* consume the item in nextConsumed

}
 Race Condition
● count++ could be implemented as

register1 = count
register1 = register1 + 1
count = register1
● count-- could be implemented as

register2 = count
register2 = register2 - 1
count = register2
● Consider this execution interleaving with “count = 5” initially:
S0: producer execute register1 = count {register1 = 5}
S1: producer execute register1 = register1 + 1 {register1 = 6}
S2: consumer execute register2 = count {register2 = 5}
S3: consumer execute register2 = register2 - 1 {register2 = 4}
S4: producer execute count = register1 {count = 6 }
S5: consumer execute count = register2 {count = 4}
 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
 Peterson’s Solution
● Two process solution
● Assume that the LOAD and STORE instructions are atomic;
that is, cannot be interrupted.
● The two processes share two variables:
● int turn;
● Boolean flag[2]
● The variable turn indicates whose turn it is to enter the
critical section.
● The flag array is used to indicate if a process is ready to
enter the critical section. flag[i] =true implies that process
Pi is ready!
 Algorithm for Process Pi
while (true) {
flag[i] = TRUE;
turn = j;
while ( flag[j] && turn == j);

CRITICAL SECTION

flag[i] = FALSE;

REMAINDER SECTION

}
 Synchronization Hardware
● Many systems provide hardware support for critical
section code
● Uniprocessors – could disable interrupts
● Currently running code would execute without
preemption
● Generally too inefficient on multiprocessor systems
4 Operating systems using this not broadly scalable
● Modern machines provide special atomic hardware
instructions
4 Atomic = non-interruptable
● Either test memory word and set value
● Or swap contents of two memory words
 TestAndndSet Instruction
● Definition:

boolean TestAndSet (boolean *target)

{
boolean rv = *target;
*target = TRUE;
return rv:
}
 Solution using TestAndSet
● Shared boolean variable lock., initialized to false.
● Solution:

while (true) {
while ( TestAndSet (&lock ))
; /*do nothing

// critical section

lock = FALSE;

// remainder section

}
 Swap Instruction

● Definition:

void Swap (boolean *a, boolean *b)

{
boolean temp = *a;
*a = *b;
*b = temp:
}
 Solution using Swap
● Shared Boolean variable lock initialized to FALSE; Each
process has a local Boolean variable key.
● Solution:
while (true) {
key = TRUE;
while ( key == TRUE)
Swap (&lock, &key );

// critical section

lock = FALSE;

// remainder section

}
 Semaphore
● Synchronization tool that does not require busy waiting
● Semaphore S – integer variable
● Two standard operations modify S: wait() and signal()
● Originally called P() and V()
● Less complicated
● Can only be accessed via two indivisible (atomic) operations
● wait (S) {
while S <= 0
; // no-op
S--;
}
● signal (S) {
S++;
}
 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
● Also known as mutex locks
● Can implement a counting semaphore S as a binary semaphore
● Provides mutual exclusion
● Semaphore S; // initialized to 1
● wait (S);
Critical Section
signal (S);
 Semaphore Implementation
● Must guarantee that no two processes can execute wait ()
and signal () on the same semaphore at the same time
● Thus, implementation becomes the critical section problem
where the wait and signal code are placed in the crtical
section.
● Could now have busy waiting in critical section
implementation
4 But implementation code is short
4 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.
 Semaphore Implementation with no Busy waiting

● With each semaphore there is an associated waiting queue.

Each entry in a waiting queue has two data items:
● value (of type integer)
● pointer to next record in the list

● Two operations:
● block – place the process invoking the operation on the
appropriate waiting queue.
● wakeup – remove one of processes in the waiting queue
and place it in the ready queue.
Semaphore Implementation with no Busy waiting (Cont.)
● Implementation of wait:

wait (S){
value--;
if (value <0) {
add this process to waiting queue
block(); }
}

● Implementation of signal:

Signal (S){
value++;
if (value <= 0) {
remove a process P from the waiting queue
wakeup(P); }
}
 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.
 Classical Problems of Synchronization
● Bounded-Buffer Problem
● Readers and Writers Problem
● Dining-Philosophers Problem
 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.
 Bounded Buffer Problem (Cont.)
● The structure of the producer process

while (true) {

// produce an item

wait (empty);
wait (mutex);

// add the item to the buffer

signal (mutex);

signal (full);
}
 Bounded Buffer Problem (Cont.)
● The structure of the consumer process

while (true) {
wait (full);
wait (mutex);

// remove an item from buffer

signal (mutex);

signal (empty);

// consume the removed item

}
 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.
● Semaphore wrt initialized to 1.
● Integer readcount initialized to 0.
 Readers-Writers Problem (Cont.)
● The structure of a writer process

while (true) {
wait (wrt) ;

// writing is performed

signal (wrt) ;

}
 Readers-Writers Problem (Cont.)
● The structure of a reader process

while (true) {
wait (mutex) ;
readcount ++ ;
if (readcount == 1) wait (wrt) ;
signal (mutex)

// reading is performed

wait (mutex) ;
readcount - - ;
if (readcount == 0) signal (wrt) ;
signal (mutex) ;
}
 Dining-Philosophers Problem

● Shared data
● Bowl of rice (data set)
● Semaphore chopstick [5] initialized to 1
Dining-Philosophers Problem (Cont.)
● The structure of Philosopher i:

While (true) {
wait ( chopstick[i] );
wait ( chopStick[ (i + 1) % 5] );

// eat

signal ( chopstick[i] );
signal (chopstick[ (i + 1) % 5] );

// think

}
 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)

 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 ( ….) { … }

…
}
}
Schematic view of a Monitor
 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 ()
Monitor with Condition Variables
 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);
}
 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;
}
}
 Solution to Dining Philosophers (cont)

● Each philosopher I invokes the operations pickup()

and putdown() in the following sequence:

dp.pickup (i)

EAT

dp.putdown (i)
Monitor Implementation Using Semaphores
● Variables
semaphore mutex; // (initially = 1)
semaphore next; // (initially = 0)
int next-count = 0;

● Each 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.

 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--;
 Monitor Implementation
● The operation x.signal can be implemented as:

if (x-count > 0) {
next-count++;
signal(x-sem);
wait(next);
next-count--;
}
 Semaphore Implementation
● Void philosopher (void)
● {
● While(true)
● {
● Thinking()
● Wait(take fork (si))
● Wait(take fork (si+1 mod n))
● Eat()
● Signal (put fork(i))
● Signal (put fork(i+1)/n)
● }
● }
 Synchronization Examples
● Solaris
● Windows XP
● Linux
● Pthreads