Chapter 6 Process Synchronization Operating System Concepts 8

Chapter 6: Process Synchronization Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition, Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne © 2009

Background n Concurrent access to shared data may result in data inconsistency n Maintaining data consistency requires mechanisms to ensure the orderly execution of cooperating processes n 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. Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition 6. 2 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne © 2009

Producer while (true) { /* produce an item and put in next. Produced */ while (count == BUFFER_SIZE) ; // do nothing buffer [in] = next. Produced; in = (in + 1) % BUFFER_SIZE; count++; } Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition 6. 3 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne © 2009

Consumer while (true) { while (count == 0) ; // do nothing next. Consumed = buffer[out]; out = (out + 1) % BUFFER_SIZE; count--; /* consume the item in next. Consumed } Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition 6. 4 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne © 2009

Race Condition n count++ could be implemented as register 1 = count register 1 = register 1 + 1 count = register 1 n count-- could be implemented as register 2 = count register 2 = register 2 - 1 count = register 2 n Consider this execution interleaving with “count = 5” initially: S 0: producer execute register 1 = count {register 1 = 5} S 1: producer execute register 1 = register 1 + 1 {register 1 = 6} S 2: consumer execute register 2 = count {register 2 = 5} S 3: consumer execute register 2 = register 2 - 1 {register 2 = 4} S 4: producer execute count = register 1 {count = 6 } S 5: consumer execute count = register 2 {count = 4} Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition 6. 5 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne © 2009

Solution to Critical-Section Problem 1. Mutual Exclusion - If process Pi is executing in its critical section, then no other processes can be executing in their critical sections 2. Progress - If no process is executing in its critical section and there exist some processes that wish to enter their critical section, then the selection of the processes that will enter the critical section next cannot be postponed indefinitely 3. Bounded Waiting - A bound must exist on the number of times that other processes are allowed to enter their critical sections after a process has made a request to enter its critical section and before that request is granted Assume that each process executes at a nonzero speed No assumption concerning relative speed of the N processes Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition 6. 6 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne © 2009

Peterson’s Solution n Two process solution n Assume that the LOAD and STORE instructions are atomic; that is, cannot be interrupted. n The two processes share two variables: l int turn; l Boolean flag[2] n The variable turn indicates whose turn it is to enter the critical section. n The flag array is used to indicate if a process is ready to enter the critical section. flag[i] = true implies that process Pi is ready! Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition 6. 7 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne © 2009

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 – 8 th Edition 6. 8 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne © 2009

Synchronization Hardware n Many systems provide hardware support for critical section code n Uniprocessors – could disable interrupts Currently running code would execute without preemption l Generally too inefficient on multiprocessor systems 4 Operating systems using this not broadly scalable n Modern machines provide special atomic hardware instructions 4 Atomic = non-interruptable l Either test memory word and set value l Or swap contents of two memory words l Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition 6. 9 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne © 2009

Solution to Critical-section Problem Using Locks do { acquire lock critical section release lock remainder section } while (TRUE); Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition 6. 10 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne © 2009

Test. Andnd. Set Instruction n Definition: boolean Test. And. Set (boolean *target) { boolean rv = *target; *target = TRUE; return rv: } Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition 6. 11 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne © 2009

Solution using Test. And. Set n Shared boolean variable lock. , initialized to false. n Solution: do { while ( Test. And. Set (&lock )) ; // do nothing // critical section lock = FALSE; // remainder section } while (TRUE); Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition 6. 12 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne © 2009

Swap Instruction n Definition: void Swap (boolean *a, boolean *b) { boolean temp = *a; *a = *b; *b = temp: } Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition 6. 13 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne © 2009

Solution using Swap n Shared Boolean variable lock initialized to FALSE; Each process has a local Boolean variable key n Solution: do { key = TRUE; while ( key == TRUE) Swap (&lock, &key ); // critical section lock = FALSE; // remainder section } while (TRUE); Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition 6. 14 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne © 2009

Semaphore n Synchronization tool that does not require busy waiting n Semaphore S – integer variable n Two standard operations modify S: wait() and signal() l Originally called P() and V() n Less complicated n Can only be accessed via two indivisible (atomic) operations l wait (S) { while S <= 0 ; // no-op S--; } l signal (S) { S++; } Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition 6. 15 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne © 2009

Semaphore as General Synchronization Tool n Counting semaphore – integer value can range over an unrestricted domain n Binary semaphore – integer value can range only between 0 and 1; can be simpler to implement l Also known as mutex locks n We can implement a counting semaphore S using a binary semaphore n Provides mutual exclusion Semaphore mutex; // initialized to 1 do { wait (mutex); // Critical Section signal (mutex); // remainder section } while (TRUE); Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition 6. 16 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne © 2009

Semaphore Implementation n Must guarantee that no two processes can execute wait () and signal () on the same semaphore at the same time n Thus, implementation becomes the critical section problem where the wait and signal code are placed in the crtical section. l Could now have busy waiting in critical section implementation 4 But implementation code is short 4 Little busy waiting if critical section rarely occupied n Note that applications may spend lots of time in critical sections and therefore this is not a good solution. Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition 6. 17 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne © 2009

Semaphore Implementation with no Busy waiting n With each semaphore there is an associated waiting queue. Each entry in a waiting queue has two data items: l value (of type integer) l pointer to next record in the list n Two operations: l block – place the process invoking the operation on the appropriate waiting queue. l wakeup – remove one of processes in the waiting queue and place it in the ready queue. Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition 6. 18 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne © 2009

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(); } } n Implementation of signal: n signal(semaphore *S) { S->value++; if (S->value <= 0) { remove a process P from S->list; wakeup(P); } } Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition 6. 19 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne © 2009

Monitors n A high-level abstraction that provides a convenient and effective mechanism for process synchronization n Only one process may be active within the monitor at a time monitor-name { // shared variable declarations procedure P 1 (…) { …. } … procedure Pn (…) {……} Initialization code ( …. ) { … } } Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition 6. 20 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne © 2009

Schematic view of a Monitor Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition 6. 21 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne © 2009

Condition Variables n condition x, y; n Two operations on a condition variable: l x. wait () – a process that invokes the operation is suspended. l x. signal () – resumes one of processes (if any) that invoked x. wait () Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition 6. 22 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne © 2009

Monitor with Condition Variables Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition 6. 23 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne © 2009

Java approach: monitors n Synchronized keyword l Applied to methods or fragments of code l It locks on the specific, instantiated object on which the method is defined l Two synchronized methods on the same object can not be entered concurrently n java. util. concurrent package offers a number of other utilities l Including a counting semaphore object Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition 6. 24 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne © 2009

Deadlock and Starvation n Deadlock – two or more processes are waiting indefinitely for an event that can be caused by only one of the waiting processes n Let S and Q be two semaphores initialized to 1 P 0 P 1 wait (S); wait (Q); . . . signal (S); signal (Q); wait (S); . . . signal (Q); signal (S); n Starvation – indefinite blocking. A process may never be removed from the semaphore queue in which it is suspended n Priority Inversion - Scheduling problem when lower-priority process holds a lock needed by higher-priority process Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition 6. 25 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne © 2009

Classical Problems of Synchronization n Bounded-Buffer Problem n Readers and Writers Problem n Dining-Philosophers Problem Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition 6. 26 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne © 2009

Bounded-Buffer Problem n N buffers, each can hold one item n Semaphore mutex initialized to the value 1 n Semaphore full initialized to the value 0 n Semaphore empty initialized to the value N. Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition 6. 27 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne © 2009

Bounded Buffer Problem (Cont. ) n 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); Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition 6. 28 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne © 2009

Bounded Buffer Problem (Cont. ) n 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); Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition 6. 29 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne © 2009

Readers-Writers Problem n A data set is shared among a number of concurrent processes l Readers – only read the data set; they do not perform any updates l Writers – can both read and write n Problem – allow multiple readers to read at the same time. Only one single writer can access the shared data at the same time n Shared Data l Data set l Semaphore mutex initialized to 1 l Semaphore wrt initialized to 1 l Integer readcount initialized to 0 Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition 6. 30 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne © 2009

Readers-Writers Problem (Cont. ) n The structure of a writer process do { wait (wrt) ; // writing is performed signal (wrt) ; } while (TRUE); Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition 6. 31 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne © 2009

Readers-Writers Problem (Cont. ) n 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); Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition 6. 32 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne © 2009

Dining-Philosophers Problem n Shared data l Bowl of rice (data set) l Semaphore chopstick [5] initialized to 1 Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition 6. 33 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne © 2009

Dining-Philosophers Problem (Cont. ) n The structure of Philosopher i: do { wait ( chopstick[i] ); wait ( chop. Stick[ (i + 1) % 5] ); // eat signal ( chopstick[i] ); signal (chopstick[ (i + 1) % 5] ); // think } while (TRUE); Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition 6. 34 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne © 2009

Dining philosophers, discussion n Can lead to a deadlock: all the philosophers have the right chopstick, and wait for the left n Deadlock free solutions: l Introduce a common critical section, eg a semaphor “chopstickpick”, and do the picking in the critical section – no deadlock, but several other problems l Asymmetric solution: odd philosophers pick up their left chopstick first, while even philosophers their right chopstick (essentially, prioritize chopsticks). Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition 6. 35 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne © 2009

Solution to Dining Philosophers with monitors 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); } Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition 6. 36 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne © 2009

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 – 8 th Edition 6. 37 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne © 2009

Solution to Dining Philosophers (cont) n Each philosopher I invokes the operations pickup() and putdown() in the following sequence: Dining. Philosophters. pickup (i); EAT Dining. Philosophers. putdown (i); Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition 6. 38 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne © 2009

Monitor Implementation Using Semaphores n Variables semaphore mutex; // (initially = 1) semaphore next; // (initially = 0) int next-count = 0; n Each procedure F will be replaced by wait(mutex); … body of F; … if (next_count > 0) signal(next) else signal(mutex); n Mutual exclusion within a monitor is ensured. Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition 6. 39 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne © 2009

Monitor Implementation n For each condition variable x, we have: semaphore x_sem; // (initially = 0) int x-count = 0; n 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 – 8 th Edition 6. 40 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne © 2009

Monitor Implementation n The operation x. signal can be implemented as: if (x-count > 0) { next_count++; signal(x_sem); wait(next); next_count--; } Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition 6. 41 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne © 2009

A Monitor to Allocate Single Resource monitor Resource. Allocator { 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 – 8 th Edition 6. 42 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne © 2009

End of Chapter 6 Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition, Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne © 2009