Lecture 8:

Process Synchronization
Hossein Asadi ([email protected])
Rasool Jalili ([email protected])

Fall 2024
Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Lecture 8: Process Synchronization
 Background
 Critical-Section Problem
 Peterson’s Solution
 Synchronization Hardware
 Mutex Locks
 Semaphores
 Classic Problems of Synchronization
 Monitors

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.2 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Objectives
 To Present Concept of Process
Synchronization
 To Introduce Critical-Section Problem
 Whose solutions can be used to ensure
consistency of shared data
 To Present both SW & HW Solutions of
Critical-Section Problem
 To Examine Several Classical Process-
Synchronization Problems

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.3 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 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 Orderly Execution of
Cooperating Processes

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.4 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Background (cont.)
 Problem Statement
 Suppose that we want to provide a solution to
consumer-producer problem that fills all buffers
 Solution
 Having an integer counter that keeps track of
number of full buffers
 Counter =0
 Counter incremented by producer after it
produces a new buffer
 Counter decremented by consumer after it
consumes a buffer
Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.5 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 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 6.6 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Consumer
while (true) {
while (counter == 0)
; /* do nothing */
next_consumed = buffer[out];
out = (out + 1) % BUFFER_SIZE;
counter--;
/* consume item in next consumed */
}

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.7 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 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:
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 6.8 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Critical Section Problem
 Consider System of n Processes {p0,…,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: Design a Protocol
so that Processes can cooperate
 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 6.9 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Critical Section
 General Structure of Process Pi

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.10 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Algorithm for Process Pi
do {
while (turn == j);

critical section
turn = j;

remainder section
} while (true);

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.11 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Solution to Critical-Section Problem
q Critical-Section Problem Must Satisfy
Following Requirements
1. Mutual exclusion
2. Progress
3. Bounded waiting

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.12 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Solution to Critical-Section Problem
1. Mutual Exclusion
v If process Pi is executing in its critical section,
then no other processes can be executing in
their critical sections
2. Progress
v If no process is executing in its critical section
and there exist some processes that wish to
enter their critical section, then selection of
processes that will enter critical section next
cannot be postponed indefinitely

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.13 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Solution to Critical-Section Problem
3. Bounded Waiting
vA bound must exist on 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
§ Other Assumptions
§ Assume that each process executes at a
nonzero speed
§ No assumption concerning relative speed of n
processes
Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.14 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Race Conditions in OS Kernel
 Example 1
A kernel data structure maintaining a list of all
open files
 Two processes open files to simultaneously,
separate update to the list è RC
 Example 2:
 Updating structures maintaining memory
allocation
 Example 3:
 Updating list of processes
Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.15 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Critical-Section Handling in OS
Two approaches for handling CS depending
on if kernel is preemptive or non-preemptive
Preemptive – allows preemption of process
when running in kernel mode
Non-preemptive – runs until it exits kernel
mode, blocks, or voluntarily yields CPU
4Does not allow a process running in kernel mode to
be preempted
4Essentially free of race conditions in kernel mode
4Only one process is active in kernel at a time

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.16 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Preemptive vs. Non-Preemptive Kernels
 Preemptive Kernels
 More suitable for real-time programming J
 More responsive J
 Very difficult to design for SMP architectures L
4Two kernel-mode processes run simultaneously on
different cores

 Non-Preemptive Kernels
 Can run for an arbitrary long period before
relinquishing CPU L
 No race condition in kernel mode J
Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.17 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Peterson’s Solution
 Good Algorithmic Description of Solving
Problem (a SW solution)
 Two-Process Solution

 Assume that load and store Machine-

Language Instructions are Atomic
 That is, cannot be interrupted
 Two Processes Share Two Variables:
 int turn;
 Boolean flag[2]

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.18 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Peterson’s Solution
 Variable turn
 Indicates whose turn it is to enter critical section
 (turn= i or j)

 flag Array
 Used to indicate if a process is ready to enter
critical section
 flag[i] = true implies that process Pi is ready
to enter its critical section

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.19 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Algorithm for Process Pi
do {
flag[i] = true;
turn = j;
while (flag[j] && turn = = j);
critical section
flag[i] = false;
remainder section
} while (true);
Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.20 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Peterson’s Solution (cont.)
 Provable that 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
(no deadlock)
3. Bounded-waiting requirement is met
(no starvation)

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.21 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Synchronization Hardware
 SW Solutions such as Peterson’s Not
Guaranteed to Work on Modern Architectures
 Many Systems Provide HW Support for
Implementing Critical Section Code
 Any Solution to CS requires Locking
 All solutions hereafter based on locking Idea
 Protecting critical regions via locks

 How Locking Solves CS Problem?

 Process must acquire a lock before entering a CS
 Process releases lock when it exists CS

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.22 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Synchronization Hardware (cont.)
 Uniprocessors – could Disable Interrupts
 Currently running code would execute without
preemption
 Generally too inefficient on multiprocessor
systems
4Too time-consuming
 Modern Machines Provide Special Atomic
HW Instructions
 Atomic = non-interruptible
 Either test memory word and set value
 Or swap contents of two memory words
Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.23 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Solution to CS Problem using Locks
do {
acquire lock
critical section
release lock
remainder section
} while (TRUE);

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.24 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 test_and_set Instruction
Definition:
boolean test_and_set (boolean *target)
{
boolean rv = *target;
*target = TRUE;
return rv:
}
1. Executed atomically
2. Returns original value of passed parameter
3. Set new value of passed parameter to
“TRUE”
Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.25 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 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);

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.26 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 compare_and_swap Instruction
Definition:
int compare_and_swap(int *value, int
expected, int new_value) {
int temp = *value;
if (*value == expected)
*value = new_value;
return temp;
}

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.27 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 compare_and_swap Instruction
1. Executed Atomically
2. Returns Original Value of Passed Parameter
“value”
3. Set Variable “value” the value of passed
parameter “new_value” but only if “value”
==“expected”. That is, swap takes place only
under this condition.

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.28 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Solution using compare_and_swap
 Shared integer “lock” initialized to 0;
 Solution:
do {
while (compare_and_swap(&lock,0,1)!= 0)
; /* do nothing */
/* critical section */
lock = 0;
/* remainder section */
} while (true);
int compare _and_swap(int *value, int expected, int new_value)

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.29 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Bounded-waiting Mutual Exclusion
do { with test_and_set
waiting[i] = true;
key = true;
while (waiting[i] && key)
key = test_and_set(&lock);
waiting[i] = false;
/* critical section */
j = (i + 1) % n;
while ((j != i) && !waiting[j])
j = (j + 1) % n;
if (j == i)
lock = false;
else
waiting[j] = false;
/* remainder section */
} while (true);
Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.30 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Mutex Locks
 HW Solutions Complicated and generally
Inaccessible or Invisible to Application
Programmers
 OS Designers build SW Tools to Solve
Critical Section Problem
 Simplest is mutex lock
 Abbreviate for mutual exclusion

 Protect a Critical Section by first acquire() a

lock then release() the lock
 Boolean variable indicates if lock is available or
not
Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.31 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 acquire() and release()
acquire() { release() {
while (!available) available = true;
; /* busy wait */ }
available = false;
} do {
acquire lock
critical section
release lock
remainder section
} while (true);

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.32 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Mutex Locks (cont.)
 Calls to acquire() and release() must
be Atomic
 Usually implemented via HW atomic instructions
 But this Solution requires Busy Waiting
 Thislock therefore called a spinlock
 Can degrades performance

 When locks expected to be held for short times,

spinlocks are useful (no context switch time)
4More useful in multi-processors

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.33 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 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()
4Originally called P() and V()

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.34 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Semaphore (cont.)
 Definition of wait() operation
wait(S) {
while (S <= 0)
; // busy wait
S--;
}

 Definition of signal() operation

signal(S) {
S++;
}
Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.35 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Semaphore Usage
 Counting Semaphore
 Integer value can range over an unrestricted
domain
 Used to control access to a given resource
consists of a finite number of instances
4Semaphore is initialized to # of available resources
 Binary Semaphore (Same as a mutex lock)
 Can deal with CS problem for multiple processes
 Integer value can range only between 0 and 1
4Mutex is initialized to 1

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.36 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Semaphore Usage (cont.)
 Semaphore can be Used for various Synch Problems
 Consider P1 & P2 that require S1 to happen before S2:
Create a semaphore “synch” initialized to 0

P1: P2:
S1; wait(synch);
signal(synch); S2;

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.37 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Semaphore Implementation
 Must Guarantee that no Two Processes can
Execute wait() and signal() on Same
Semaphore at Same Time
 Implementation becomes Critical Section Problem

 wait and signal code are placed in critical 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: Applications may Spend lots of Time in

Critical Sections and hence this is not a good
solution
Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.38 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 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 list

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.39 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Semaphore Implementation
with no Busy waiting
 Two Operations:
 Block – place process invoking operation on
appropriate waiting queue
 Wakeup – remove one of processes in waiting
queue and place it in ready queue
 typedef struct{
int value;
struct process *list;
} semaphore;

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.40 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Implementation with no Busy waiting (cont.)
wait(semaphore *S) {
S->value--;
wait(S) {
if (S->value < 0) {
add Pi to S->list; while (S <= 0)
block(); ; //busy wait
} S--;
} }
************************************************************

signal(semaphore *S) { signal(S) {

S->value++;
S++;
if (S->value <= 0) {
remove Pi from S->list; }
wakeup(Pi);
}
} th
Operating System Concepts – 9 Edition 6.41 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Deadlock and Starvation
 Deadlock – Two or More Processes are
Waiting Indefinitely for an Event that can be
Caused by only one of Waiting Processes
 Let S and Q be 2 Semaphores Initialized to 1
P0 P1
wait(S); wait(Q);
wait(Q); wait(S);
... ...
signal(S); signal(Q);
signal(Q); signal(S);

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.42 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Deadlock and Starvation (cont.)
 Starvation – Indefinite Blocking
 A process may never be removed from
semaphore queue in which it is suspended
 Example
 When we remove processes from the
semaphore waiting listing in LIFO (Last-In First
Out) order

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.43 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Deadlock and Starvation (cont.)
 Priority Inversion
 Scheduling problem when lower-priority process
holds a lock needed by higher-priority process
 Example: Consider L, M, and H
 Priorities L < M < H
 H requires resource R
 R is being used by L
 M comes to ready queue è preempts process L
 è A lower priority (M) has affected how long H
must wait for L to relinquish resource R

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.44 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Deadlock and Starvation (cont.)
 Possible Solution to Priority Inversion
 Only allow two levels of priorities
4è Insufficient for most general-purpose OSes
 Priority-inheritance protocol
4All processes that are accessing resources needed by
a higher-priority process inherit the higher priority until
they are finished with resource in question
 Previous example: priorities L < M < H
4Using priority-inheritance: L=H
A real issue in Mars Pathfinder
4A NASA robot landed on Mars in 1997
– Read more on Wiki
Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.45 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Classical Problems of Synchronization
 Classical Problems used to Test
Synchronization Schemes
 Bounded-Buffer Problem
 Readers and Writers Problem
 Dining-Philosophers Problem

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.46 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Bounded-Buffer Problem
 n buffers, each can hold one item
 Semaphore mutex initialized to value 1
 Semaphore full initialized to value 0
 Semaphore empty initialized to value n

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.47 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Bounded Buffer Problem (Cont.)
 Structure of 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 6.48 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Bounded Buffer Problem (Cont.)
 Structure of 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 6.49 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Readers-Writers Problem
 A Data Set is Shared among a Number of
Concurrent Processes
 Readers – only read data set; they do not
perform any updates
 Writers – can both read and write
 Problem – Allow Multiple Readers to Read at
Same Time
 Only one single writer can access shared data at
the same time

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.50 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Readers-Writers Problem
 Several Variations of How Readers and Writers are
Considered
 All involve some form of priorities to readers or writes
 Shared Data
 Data set
 Semaphore rw_mutex initialized to 1
4 Common to both reader and writer

 Semaphore mutex initialized to 1

4 Used to ensure mutual exclusion when read_count is updated

 Integer read_count initialized to 0

4 How many processes are currently reading the object
Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.51 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Readers-Writers Problem (Cont.)
 Structure of a Writer Process

do {
wait(rw_mutex);
...
/* writing is performed */
...
signal(rw_mutex);
} while (true);

 Rw_mutex: Ensures mutual exclusion between writers

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.52 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Readers-Writers Problem (Cont.)
 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);6.53 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
th
Operating System Concepts – 9 Edition
 Readers-Writers Problem Variations
 One Variation – no reader kept waiting
unless writer has permission to use shared
object
 Another 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 6.54 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Dining-Philosophers Problem

 Philosophers spend their lives alternating thinking & 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 case of 5 philosophers
 Shared data
4Bowl of rice (data set)
4Semaphore chopstick [5] initialized to 1
Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.55 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Dining-Philosophers Problem Algorithm
 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 problem with this algorithm?

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.56 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Dining-Philosophers Problem Algorithm (Cont.)

 Deadlock Handling
 Allow at most 4 philosophers to be sitting
simultaneously at 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
4An odd-numbered philosopher picks up first the left
chopstick and then the right chopstick.
4Even-numbered philosopher picks up first the right
chopstick and then the left chopstick.
Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.57 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Problems with Semaphores
 Incorrect Use of Semaphore Operations:
 signal (mutex) …. wait (mutex)
4 è several processes maybe executing in their critical
sections simultaneously, violating mutual-exclusion
requirement
 wait (mutex) … wait (mutex)
4è Deadlock will occur
 Omitting of wait (mutex) or signal (mutex) (or both)
4è Mutual exclusion violated or a deadlock will occur
 Main Reasons for Incorrect Use of Semaphores
 Programming error
 An uncooperative programmer
Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.58 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Monitors
 A High-Level Abstraction that Provides a
Convenient and Less Error-Prone Mechanism for
Process Synchronization
 Abstract data type, internal variables only
accessible by code within the procedure
 External procedures are not allowed to access
variables (similar to object-oriented principles)
 A Process Enters Monitor by Invoking one of Its
Procedures
 Only One Process may be Active within Monitor at
a time (Typically handled by compilers)
Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.59 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Monitors (cont.)

monitor monitor-name
{
Local Data
Condition Variables
procedure P1 (…) { …. }
procedure Pn (…) {……}
Initialization code (…) { … }
}
}

But not powerful enough to model some

synchronization schemes

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.60 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Condition Variables
 condition x, y;

 Two Operations are Allowed on a Condition

Variable:
 x.wait() – a process that invokes operation is
suspended until x.signal()
 x.signal() – resumes one of processes (if
any) that invoked x.wait()
4If no x.wait() on the variable, then it has no
effect on the variable

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.61 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Condition Variables Choices
 If process P invokes x.signal(), and
process Q is suspended in x.wait(), what
should happen next?
 Both Q and P cannot execute in parallel
4If Q is resumed, then P must wait

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.62 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Monitor Solution to Dining Philosophers
monitor DiningPhilosophers
{
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);
}
Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.63 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 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;
}
}

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.64 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Solution to Dining Philosophers (cont.)
 Each philosopher i invokes operations
pickup() and putdown() in following sequence:

DiningPhilosophers.pickup(i);

EAT
DiningPhilosophers.putdown(i);

 No deadlock, but starvation is possible

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.65 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Synchronization Examples
 Reading Assignment
 More details on monitors
 Synchronization in Solaris
 Synchronization in Windows
 Synchronization in Linux
 Synchronization in Pthreads

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.66 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Sample Code in Linux
#include <stdio.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <semaphore.h>
#include <unistd.h>
int main()
sem_t mutex; {
sem_init(&mutex, 0, 1);
void* thread(void* arg) pthread_t t1,t2;
{ pthread_create(&t1,NULL,thread,NULL);
//wait sleep(2);
sem_wait(&mutex); pthread_create(&t2,NULL,thread,NULL);
printf("\nEntered..\n"); pthread_join(t1,NULL);
pthread_join(t2,NULL);
//critical section sem_destroy(&mutex);
sleep(4); return 0;
}
//signal
printf("\nJust Exiting...\n");
sem_post(&mutex);
}

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.67 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Condition Variables Choices
 Options Include:
 Signal and wait – P waits until Q either leaves
monitor or it waits for another condition
 Signal and continue – Q waits until P either
leaves monitor or it waits for another condition
 Both have Pros and Cons
 Language implementer can decide
 Monitors implemented in Concurrent Pascal
compromise
P
executing signal immediately leaves monitor,
Q is resumed
 Implemented in other languages (Mesa, C#, Java)
Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.68 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 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 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.69
 Monitor Implementation – Condition Variables
 For each condition variable x, we have:
semaphore x_sem; // (initially = 0)
int x_count = 0;

 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 – 9th Edition 6.70 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Monitor Implementation (cont.)
 Operation x.signal can be Implemented
as:

if (x_count > 0) {
next_count++;
signal(x_sem);
wait(next);
next_count--;
}

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.71 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Resuming Processes within a Monitor
 If several processes queued on condition x,
and x.signal() executed, which should be
resumed?
 FCFS frequently not adequate
 conditional-wait construct of the form
x.wait(c)
 Where c is priority number
 Process with lowest number (highest priority) is
scheduled next

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.72 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Single Resource allocation
 Allocate a single resource among competing
processes using priority numbers that
specify maximum time a process plans to
use resource
R.acquire(t);
...
access the resource;
...
R.release;
 Where R is an Instance of Type
ResourceAllocator

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.73 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 A Monitor to Allocate Single Resource
monitor ResourceAllocator
{
boolean busy;
condition x;
void acquire(int time) {
if (busy)
x.wait(time);
busy = TRUE;
}
void release() {
busy = FALSE;
x.signal();
}
initialization code() {
busy = FALSE;
}
}

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.74 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Solaris 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
 Starts as a standard semaphore spin-lock
 If lock held, and by a thread running on another CPU,
spins
 If lock held by non-run-state thread, block and sleep
waiting for signal of lock being released

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.75 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Solaris Synchronization (cont.)
 Uses Condition Variables
 Uses 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
 Turnstiles are per-lock-holding-thread, not per-object

 Priority-inheritance per-turnstile gives

running thread highest of priorities of
threads in its turnstile
Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.76 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Windows Synchronization
 Uses Interrupt Masks to Protect Access to Global
Resources on Uniprocessor Systems
 Uses spinlocks on multiprocessor systems
 Spinlocking-thread will never be preempted
 Also provides dispatcher objects user-land which
may act mutexes, semaphores, events, and timers
 Events
4An event acts much like a condition variable
 Timers notify one or more thread when time expired
 Dispatcher objects either signaled-state (object
available) or non-signaled state (thread will block)
Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.77 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Linux Synchronization
 Linux
 Prior to kernel Version 2.6, disables interrupts to
implement short critical sections
 Version 2.6 and later, fully preemptive
 Linux provides:
 Semaphores
 atomic integers
 Spinlocks
 Reader-writer versions of both
 On single-cpu system, spinlocks replaced by
enabling and disabling kernel preemption
Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.78 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Pthreads Synchronization
 Pthreads API is OS-independent
 It Provides:
 Mutex locks
 Condition variable
 Non-Portable Extensions include:
 Read-write locks
 Spinlocks

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.79 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Alternative Approaches
 Reading Assignment
 Transactional memory
 OpenMP

 Functional programming languages

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.80 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Transactional Memory
 A Memory Transaction
 A sequence of read-write operations to memory
that are performed atomically

void update()
{
/* read/write memory */
}

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.81 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 OpenMP
 OpenMP is a set of compiler directives and
API that support parallel progamming.
void update(int value)
{
#pragma omp critical
{
count += value
}
}

Code contained within the #pragma omp

critical directive is treated as a critical
section and performed atomically.

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.82 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 Functional Programming Languages
 Functional programming languages offer a
different paradigm than procedural
languages in that they do not maintain state.
 Variables are treated as immutable and
cannot change state once they have been
assigned a value.
 There is increasing interest in functional
languages such as Erlang and Scala for
their approach in handling data races.

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition 6.83 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024
 End of Lecture 8

Operating System Concepts – 9th Edition Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2013, Edited by H. Asadi, Fall 2024