Chapter 6: Process
Synchronization
Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
Module 6: Process Synchronization
Background
The Critical-Section Problem
Peterson’s Solution
Synchronization Hardware
Semaphores
Classic Problems of Synchronization
Monitors
Synchronization Examples
Atomic Transactions
Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.2 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
Objectives
To introduce the critical-section problem, whose solutions can be used
to ensure the consistency of shared data
To present both software and hardware solutions of the critical-section
problem
To introduce the concept of an atomic transaction and describe
mechanisms to ensure atomicity
Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.3 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
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.
Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.4 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
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++;
}
Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.5 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
Consumer
while (true) {
while (count == 0)
; // do nothing
nextConsumed = buffer[out];
out = (out + 1) % BUFFER_SIZE;
count--;
/* consume the item in
nextConsumed
}
Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.6 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
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}
Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.7 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
Solution to Critical-Section Problem
Requirements:
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 – 8th Edition 6.8 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
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
Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.9 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 – 8th Edition 6.10 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
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
Operating systems using this not broadly
scalable
Modern machines provide special atomic hardware
instructions
Atomic = non-interruptible
Either test memory word and set value
Operating System Or –swap
Concepts
th 8 Edition contents of6.11
two memory words
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 – 8th Edition 6.12 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
TestAndSet Instruction
Definition:
boolean TestAndSet (boolean *target)
{
boolean rv = *target;
*target = TRUE;
return rv;
}
Must be executed atomically
Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.13 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
Solution using TestAndSet
Shared Boolean variable lock, initialized to
false.
Solution:
do {
while ( TestAndSet (&lock ))
; // do nothing
// critical section
lock = FALSE;
// remainder section
} while (TRUE);
Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.14 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
Swap Instruction
Definition:
void Swap (boolean *a, boolean
*b)
{
boolean temp = *a;
*a = *b;
*b = temp:
}
Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.15 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
Solution using Swap
Shared Boolean variable lock initialized to FALSE;
Each process has a local Boolean variable key
Solution:
do {
key = TRUE;
while ( key == TRUE)
Swap (&lock, &key );
// critical section
lock = FALSE;
// remainder section
} while (TRUE);
Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.16 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
Bounded-waiting Mutual Exclusion
with TestandSet()
do {
waiting[i] = TRUE;
key = TRUE;
while (waiting[i] && key)
key = TestAndSet(&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 – 8th Edition 6.17 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
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++;
}
Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.18 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
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 mutex; // initialized to 1
do {
wait (mutex);
// Critical Section
signal (mutex);
// remainder section
} while (TRUE);
Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.19 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
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 critical section.
Could now have busy waiting in critical section
implementation
But implementation code is short
Little busy waiting if critical section rarely
occupied
Note that applications may spend lots of time in
critical sections and therefore this is not aSilberschatz,
goodGalvin and Gagne ©2009
Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.20
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
Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.21 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();
}
}
Implementation of signal:
signal(semaphore *S) {
S->value++;
if (S->value <= 0) {
remove a process P from S->list;
wakeup(P);
}
}
Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.22 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
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
Priority Inversion – Scheduling problem when lower-priority
process holds a lock needed by higher-priority process
Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.23 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
Classical Problems of Synchronization
Bounded-Buffer Problem
Readers and Writers Problem
Dining-Philosophers Problem
Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.24 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
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.
Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.25 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
Bounded Buffer Problem (Cont.)
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 – 8th Edition 6.26 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
Bounded Buffer Problem (Cont.)
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 – 8th Edition 6.27 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
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 (controls access to
readcount)
Semaphore wrt initialized to 1 (writer access)
Integer readcount initialized to 0 (how many processes are
reading object)
Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.28 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
Readers-Writers Problem (Cont.)
The structure of a writer process
do {
wait (wrt) ;
// writing is performed
signal (wrt) ;
} while (TRUE);
Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.29 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
Readers-Writers Problem (Cont.)
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 – 8th Edition 6.30 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
Dining-Philosophers Problem
Shared data
Bowl of rice (data set)
Semaphore chopstick [5] initialized to 1
Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.31 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
Dining-Philosophers Problem (Cont.)
The 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 the problem with the above?
Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition 6.32 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009
End of Chapter 6
Operating System Concepts – 8th Edition Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009