CS 444CS 544 Operating Systems Classic Synchronization Problems

CS 444/CS 544 Operating Systems Classic Synchronization Problems 2/28/2007 Prof. Searleman jets@clarkson. edu

Outline l Classic Synchronization Problems l l Dining Philosophers Deadlock, revisited Synchronization with Message Passing Events & Condition Variables NOTE: l Read: Chapter 7 l Exam#2 – Tues. 3/13, 7: 00 pm, SC 160 l K-12 TA interest meeting: 3/7, 4: 00, Barben A l both undergrad & graduate TA’s available

Classical Synchronization Problems l Bounded-Buffer Problem (also called Producer-Consumer) one-way communication with limited resources l Dining-Philosophers Problem shared resources l Readers and Writers Problem shared database

Dining-Philosophers Problem #define N NUM_PHILOSOPHERS #define RIGHT i #define LEFT (i+1)%N semaphore_t chopstick[N]; void init(){ for (i=0; i<N; i++) chopstick[i]. value = 1; }

Semaphore “Solution” to Dining Philosophers void philosophers. Life(int i){ while (1) { Problem? think(); wait(chopstick[RIGHT]); p 0 gets chopstick 0 grab_chopstick(RIGHT); p 1 gets chopstick 1 wait(chopstick[LEFT]); … grab_chopstick(LEFT); p. N-1 gets chopstick N-1 eat(); putdown. Chopsticks(); Deadlock potential! signal(chopstick[RIGHT]); Solution? signal(chopstick[LEFT]); } }

Deadlock l l Deadlock exists in a set of processes/threads when all processes/threads in the set are waiting for an event that can only be caused by another process in the set (which is also waiting!). Dining Philosophers is a perfect example. Each holds one chopstick and will wait forever for the other.

Resource Allocation Graph l l l Deadlock can be described through a resource allocation graph Each node in graph represents a process/thread or a resource An edge from node P to R indicates that process P had requested resource R An edge from node R to node P indicates that process P holds resource R If graph has cycle, deadlock may exist. If graph has no cycle, deadlock cannot exist.

Cycle in Resource Allocation Graph Philosopher 1 has chopstick 1 Philosopher 1 and wants chopstick 2 P 1 blocked Chopstick 2 Chopstick 1 P 0 blocked Philosopher 0 Deadlock! Cycle: P 0, C 3, P 3, C 2, P 2, C 1, P 1, C 0, P 0 Philosopher 0 has chopstick 0 and wants Chopstick 0 chopstick 1 P 3 blocked Interrupt & Context switch Philosopher 2 has chopstick 2 and wants chopstick 3 Philosopher 2 P 2 blocked Chopstick 3 Philosopher 3 has chopstick 3 and wants chopstick 0 wait(chopstick[i]); wait(chopstick[(i+1)%N]);

Fixing Dining Philosophers l Make philosophers grab both chopsticks they need atomically l l l Maybe pass around a token (lock) saying who can grab chopsticks Make a philosopher give up a chopstick Others?

Better Semaphore Solution to Dining Philosophers void philosophers. Life(int i){ while (1) { Always wait for low chopstick first think(); if ( i < ((i-1) % NUM_PHILOSOPHERS))}{ wait(chopstick[i]); wait(chopstick[(i-1) % NUM_PHILOSOPHERS]); } else { wait(chopstick[(i-1) % NUM_PHILOSOPHERS]); wait(chopstick[i]); } Why better? eat(); philosopher 0 gets chopstick 0 philosopher 1 gets chopstick 1 signal(chopstick[i]); …. signal(chopstick[(i-1) % philosopher N waits for chopstick 0 NUM_PHILOSOPHERS]); } No circular wait! No deadlock!! }

No Cycle in Resource Allocation Graph Philosopher 1 P 1 blocked Chopstick 1 Chopstick 2 P 0 blocked No cycle! No deadlock! Philosopher 0 will eat, Philosopher 2 Philosopher 0 then 3, then 2, then 1 Chopstick 0 P 3 blocked Philosopher 3 if ( i < ((i+1)%N))}{ wait(chopstick[i]); wait(chopstick[(i+1)%N]); } else { wait(chopstick[(i+1)%N]); wait(chopstick[i]); } Chopstick 3 P 2 can still run, request & get chopstick 3, eat, release chopsticks 2 & 3

Recall: Conditions for Deadlock l Deadlock can exist if and only if the following four conditions are met; l l l Mutual Exclusion – some resource must be held exclusively Hold and Wait – some process must be holding one resource and waiting for another No preemption – resources cannot be preempted Circular wait – there must exist a set of processes (p 1, p 2, …pn) such that p 1 is waiting for p 2, p 2 is waiting for p 3, … pn is waiting for p 1 All these held in the Dining Philosopher’s first “solution” we proposed Can’t really do anything about preventing mutual exclusion; so what are the other options?

Preventing Hold and Wait (partial allocation) l Do not allow processes to hold a resource when requesting others l l l Make processes ask for all resources they need at the beginning l l l Make philosophers get both chopsticks at once Window’s Wait. For. Multiple. Objects Disadvantage: May not need all resources the whole time Can release them early but must hold until used Make processes release any held resources before requesting more l Hard to program!

Preventing No Preemption l l Preemption (have to love those double negative ) Allow system to take back resources once granted l l Make some philosopher give back a chopstick Disadvantage: Hard to program l l System figures out how to take away CPU and memory without breaking programmer’s illusion How do you take away access to an open file or a lock once granted? ? Would need API to notify program and then code to deal with the removal of the resource at arbitrary points in the code l Checkpoint and Rollback?

Preventing Circular wait l l Impose an ordering on the possible resources and require that processes request them in a specific order How did we prevent deadlock in dining philosophers? l l l Numbered the chopsticks Made philosophers ask for lowest number chopstick first Disadvantage: l l l Hard to think of all types of resources in system and number them consistently for all cooperating processes I use a resource X and Y , you use resource Y and Z and W, someone else uses W, T, R – which is resource 1? (shared files, databases, chopsticks, locks, events, …) For threads in the same process or closely related processes often isn’t that bad

Deadlock Avoidance l Avoidance vs Prevention? Both actually prevent deadlock l l l Deadlock Prevention does so by breaking one of the four necessary conditions Deadlock Avoidance allows processes to make any request they want (not constrained in ways so as to break one of the four conditions) *as long as* they declare their maximum possible resource requests at the outset Deadlock avoidance usually results in higher resource allocation by allowing more combinations of resource requests to proceed than deadlock prevention Still deadlock avoidance can deny resource requests that would not actually lead to deadlock in practice More on this later. . .

Dining Philosophers Monitor monitor DP { /* dining. Philosophers */ enum Moods{thinking, hungry, eating}; Moods state[N]; /* N is Num_Philosophers */ condition self[N]; void pickup(int i); void putdown(int i) ; void test(int i) ; void init() { for (int i=0; i < N; i++) state[i] = thinking; } }

Dining Philosophers Monitor /*********************** * Consider philosopher i (pi): * state[i] is * thinking (don’t need resources), * hungry (want resources), * eating (have all needed resources) * self[i] is a condition variable for pi * used when i has to wait for resources * state[(i+N-1) % N] is * the state of the philosopher to pi’s right * state[(i+1) % N] is * the state of the philosopher to pi’s left ***********************/

Dining Philosophers Monitor void pickup. Chopsticks(int i) { state[i] = hungry; test[i]; if (state[i] != eating) self[i]. wait(); } void putdown. Chopsticks(int i) { state[i] = thinking; // test left and right neighbors test((i+(N-1)) % N); test((i+1) % N); }

Dining Philosophers Monitor void test(int i) { if ((state[(i+N-1) % N] != eating) && (state[i] == hungry) && (state[(i+1) % N] != eating)) { state[i] = eating; self[i]. signal(); } } } /* end DP monitor */

Dining Philosophers Each “philosopher” thread executes: void philosophers. Life(int i) { while(1){ think(); DP. pickup. Chopsticks(); eat(); DP. putdown. Chopsticks(); } }

Generalize to Messaging l l Synchronization based on data transfer (atomic) across a channel In general, messages can be used to express ordering/scheduling constraints l l l Wait for message before do X Send message = signal Direct extension to distributed systems

Window’s Events & UNIX Signals l Window’s Events l l l Synchronization objects used somewhat like semaphores when they are used for ordering/scheduling constraints One process/thread can wait for an event to be signaled by another process/thread Recall: UNIX signals l l l Kill = send signal; Signal = catch signal Many system defined but also signals left to user definition Can be used for synchronization l Signal handler sets a flag l Main thread polls on the value of the flag l Busy wait though

Window’s Events q Create/destroy HANDLE Create. Event( LPSECURITY_ATTRIBUTES lpsa, // security privileges (default = NULL) BOOL b. Manual. Reset, // TRUE if event must be reset manually BOOL b. Initial. State, // TRUE to create event in signaled state LPTSTR lpsz. Event. Name ); // name of event (may be NULL) BOOL Close. Handle( h. Object ); q Wait DWORD Wait. For. Single. Object( HANDLE h. Object, // object to wait for DWORD dw. Milliseconds ); q Signal (all threads that wait on it receive) BOOL Set. Event( HANDLE h. Event ); //signal on BOOL Reset. Event( HANDLE h. Event ); //signal off

Pthread’s Condition Variables q Create/destroy int pthread_cond_init (pthread_cond_t *cond, pthread_condattr_t *attr); int pthread_cond_destroy (pthread_cond_t *cond); q Wait int pthread_cond_wait (pthread_cond_t *cond, pthread_mutex_t *mut); q Timed Wait int pthread_cond_timedwait (pthread_cond_t *cond, pthread_mutex_t *mut, const struct timespec *abstime); q Signal int pthread_cond_signal (pthread_cond_t *cond); q Broadcast int pthread_cond_broadcast (pthread_cond_t *cond);