Chapter 6: Synchronization

Tools

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 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
the orderly execution of cooperating processes
Illustration of the problem:
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 counter that keeps track of the
number of full buffers. Initially, counter 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 – 10th Edition 6.2 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 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 – 10th Edition 6.3 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Consumer

while (true) {
while (counter == 0)
; /* do nothing */
next_consumed = buffer[out];
out = (out + 1) % BUFFER_SIZE;
counter--;
/* consume the item in next consumed */
}

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.4 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Bounded Buffer

The statements

counter++;
counter--;

must be performed atomically.

Atomic operation means an operation that completes in

its entirety without interruption.

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.5 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 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 “counter = 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 – 10th Edition 6.6 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Race Condition
Race condition: The situation where several processes access – and
manipulate shared data concurrently. The final value of the shared data
depends upon which process finishes last.

To prevent race conditions, concurrent processes must be synchronized.

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.7 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Race Condition
Race Condition Example
Processes P0 and P1 are creating child processes using the fork() system
call
Race condition on kernel variable next_available_pid which represents
the next available process identifier (pid)

Unless there is mutual exclusion, the same pid could be assigned to two
different processes!

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.8 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 The Critical-Section Problem

n processes all competing to use some shared data

Each process has a code segment, called critical section, in
which the shared data is accessed.
Problem – ensure that when one process is executing in its
critical section, no other process is allowed to execute in its
critical section.

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.9 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Critical Section Problem
Consider system of n processes {p0, p1, … 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 is to design protocol to solve this
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 – 10th Edition 6.10 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Critical Section

General structure of process Pi

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.11 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 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 – 10th Edition 6.12 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Peterson’s Solution
Good algorithmic description of solving the problem

Two process solution

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!

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.13 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Algorithm for Process Pi

while (true){
flag[i] = true;
turn = j;
while (flag[j] && turn = = j);

/* critical section */

flag[i] = false;

/* remainder section */

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.14 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Peterson’s Solution (Cont.)
Provable that the 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
3. Bounded-waiting requirement is met

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.15 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Synchronization Hardware
Many systems provide hardware support for implementing the
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

We will look at two forms of hardware support:

1. Hardware instructions

2. Atomic variables

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.16 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Hardware Instructions
Special hardware instructions that allow us to either test-and-modify the
content of a word, or to swap the contents of two words atomically
(uninterruptibly.)
Test-and-Set instruction
Compare-and-Swap instruction
Swap instruction

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.17 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 test_and_set Instruction
Definition:
boolean test_and_set (boolean *target)
{
boolean rv = *target;
*target = true;
return rv:
}

1. Executed atomically
2. Returns the original value of passed parameter
3. Set the new value of passed parameter to true

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.18 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 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 – 10th Edition 6.19 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 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;
}

1. Executed atomically
2. Returns the original value of passed parameter value
3. Set the variable value to the value of the passed parameter
new_value but only if *value == expected is true. That is, the
swap takes place only under this condition.

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.20 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Solution using compare_and_swap
Shared integer lock initialized to 0;
Solution:
while (true){
while (compare_and_swap(&lock, 0, 1) != 0)
; /* do nothing */

/* critical section */

lock = 0;

/* remainder section */
}

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.21 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Swap Instruction

Definition:

void Swap (boolean *a, boolean *b)

{
boolean temp = *a;
*a = *b;
*b = temp:
}

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.22 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 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 – 10th Edition 6.23 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Bounded-waiting Mutual Exclusion
with compare-and-swap

The common data structures are

boolean waiting[n] ;
int lock ;

waiting[n] initialized to false.

Shared integer lock initialized to 0.

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.24 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Bounded-waiting Mutual Exclusion
with compare-and-swap
while (true) {
waiting[i] = true;
key = 1;
while (waiting[i] && key == 1)
key = compare_and_swap(&lock,0,1);
waiting[i] = false;
/* critical section */
j = (i + 1) % n;
while ((j != i) && !waiting[j])
j = (j + 1) % n;
if (j == i)
lock = 0;
else
waiting[j] = false;
/* remainder section */
}
Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.25 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Atomic Variables
Typically, instructions such as compare-and-swap are used as building
blocks for other synchronization tools.
One tool is an atomic variable that provides atomic (uninterruptible)
updates on basic data types such as integers and booleans.
For example, the increment() operation on the atomic variable
sequence ensures sequence is incremented without interruption:

increment(&sequence);

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.26 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Atomic Variables
The increment() function can be implemented as follows:

void increment(atomic_int *v)

{
int temp;

do {
temp = *v;
}
while (temp != (compare_and_swap(v,temp,temp+1));
}

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.27 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Mutex Locks
Previous solutions are complicated and generally inaccessible
to application programmers
OS designers build software tools to solve critical section
problem
Simplest is mutex lock
Protect a critical section by first acquire() a lock then
release() the lock
Boolean variable indicating if lock is available or not
Calls to acquire() and release() must be atomic
Usually implemented via hardware atomic instructions
such as compare-and-swap.

But this solution requires busy waiting

This lock therefore called a spinlock

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.28 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Solution to Critical-section Problem Using Locks

while (true) {
acquire lock

critical section

release lock

remainder section
}

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.29 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Mutex Lock Definitions
acquire() {
while (!available)
; /* busy wait */
available = false;
}

release() {
available = true;
}

These two functions must be implemented atomically.

Both test-and-set and compare-and-swap can be
used to implement these functions.

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.30 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Semaphore
Synchronization tool that provides more sophisticated ways (than Mutex locks)
for processes to synchronize their activities.
Semaphore S – integer variable
Can only be accessed via two indivisible (atomic) operations
wait() and signal()
 (Originally called P() and V())

Definition of the wait() operation

wait(S) {
while (S <= 0)
; // busy wait
S--;
}
Definition of the signal() operation
signal(S) {
S++;
}

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.31 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Semaphore Usage
Counting semaphore – integer value can range over an
unrestricted domain
Binary semaphore – integer value can range only between 0 and 1
Same as a mutex lock
Provides mutual exclusion
Semaphore mutex; // initialized to 1
do {
wait (mutex);
// Critical Section
signal (mutex);
// remainder section
} while (TRUE);

Can implement a counting semaphore S as a binary semaphore

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.32 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Semaphore Usage
Can solve various synchronization problems
Consider P1 and P2 that require S1 to happen before S2
Let P1 and P2 share a common semaphore synch, initialized to 0

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

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.33 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Semaphore Implementation
Must guarantee that no two processes can execute the wait()
and signal() on the same semaphore at the same time
Thus, the 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 a good solution

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.34 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 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

Define a semaphore as a “C” struct:

typedef struct {
int value;
struct process *list;
} semaphore;
Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.35 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Implementation with no Busy waiting (Cont.)

wait(semaphore *S) {
S->value--;
if (S->value < 0) {
add this process to S->list;
block();
}
}

signal(semaphore *S) {
S->value++;
if (S->value <= 0) {
remove a process P from S->list;
wakeup(P);
}
}

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.36 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 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

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.37 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Classical Problems of Synchronization
Classical problems used to test newly-proposed synchronization schemes

Bounded-Buffer Problem

Readers and Writers Problem

Dining-Philosophers Problem

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.38 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 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 – 10th Edition 6.39 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Bounded Buffer Problem (Cont.)
The structure of the 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 – 10th Edition 6.40 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Bounded Buffer Problem (Cont.)
The structure of the 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 – 10th Edition 6.41 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 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

Several variations of how readers and writers are treated – all involve
priorities

Shared Data
Data set
Semaphore rw_mutex initialized to 1
Semaphore mutex initialized to 1
Integer read_count initialized to 0

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.42 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Readers-Writers Problem (Cont.)

The structure of a writer process

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

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.43 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Readers-Writers Problem (Cont.)
The 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);

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.44 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Dining-Philosophers Problem

Philosophers spend their lives thinking and 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 the case of 5 philosophers
Shared data
 Bowl of rice (data set)
 Semaphore chopstick [5] initialized to 1

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.45 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Dining-Philosophers Problem Algorithm

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 this algorithm?

It could create a deadlock.

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.46 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Problems with Semaphores

Incorrect use of semaphore operations:

signal (mutex) …. wait (mutex)

wait (mutex) … wait (mutex)

Omitting of wait (mutex) and/or signal (mutex)

These – and others – are examples of what can occur when

sempahores and other synchronization tools are used
incorrectly.

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.47 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Problems with Semaphores

Incorrect use of semaphore operations:

signal (mutex) …. wait (mutex)

In this case, several processes may be executing in their
critical sections simultaneously, violating the mutual-exclusion
requirement.

wait (mutex) … wait (mutex)

In this case, a deadlock will occur.

Omitting of wait (mutex) or signal (mutex) (or both)

In this case, either mutual exclusion is violated or a deadlock
will occur.

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.48 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Monitors
A high-level abstraction that provides a convenient and effective
mechanism for process synchronization
Abstract data type, internal variables only accessible by code within the
procedure
Only one process may be active within the monitor at a time
Pseudocode syntax of a monitor:

monitor monitor-name
{
// shared variable declarations
function P1 (…) { …. }

function P2 (…) { …. }

function Pn (…) {……}

initialization code (…) { … }

}

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.49 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Schematic view of a Monitor

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.50 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Condition Variables

condition x, y;
Two operations are allowed on a condition variable:
[Link]() – a process that invokes the operation is
suspended until [Link]()
[Link]() – resumes one of processes (if any) that
invoked [Link]()
 If no [Link]() on the variable, then it has no effect on
the variable

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.51 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Monitor with Condition Variables

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.52 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Condition Variables Choices
If process P invokes [Link](), and process Q is suspended in
[Link](), what should happen next?
Both Q and P cannot execute in parallel. If Q is resumed, then P
must wait
Options include
Signal and wait – P waits until Q either leaves the monitor or it
waits for another condition
Signal and continue – Q waits until P either leaves the monitor or it
waits for another condition
Monitors implemented in Concurrent Pascal compromise
 P executing signal immediately leaves the monitor, Q is
resumed
Implemented in other languages including C#, Java

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.53 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 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 – 10th Edition 6.54 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 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 – 10th Edition 6.55 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Solution to Dining Philosophers (Cont.)

Each philosopher i invokes the operations pickup() and putdown() in the

following sequence:

[Link] (i);

EAT

[Link] (i);

No deadlock, but starvation is possible

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.56 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Monitor Implementation Using Semaphores

For each monitor, a semaphore mutex (initialized to 1) is

provided. A process must execute wait(mutex) before
entering the monitor and must execute signal(mutex) after
leaving the monitor.

Since a signaling process must wait until the resumed

process either leaves or waits, an additional semaphore,
next, is introduced, initialized to 0.

The signaling processes can use next to suspend

themselves.

An integer variable next_count is provided to count the

number of processes suspended on next.

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.57 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Monitor Implementation Using Semaphores

Variables

semaphore mutex; // (initially = 1)

semaphore next; // (initially = 0)
int next_count = 0;

Each function 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

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.58 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Resuming Processes within a Monitor

If several processes queued on condition variable x, and

[Link]() is executed, which process should be
resumed?
FCFS
conditional-wait construct of the form [Link](c)
Where c is priority number
Process with lowest number (highest priority) is
scheduled next

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.59 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Resuming Processes within a Monitor

If several processes are suspended on condition x, and an

[Link]() operation is executed by some process, to determine
which of the suspended processes should be resumed next:

1. One simple solution is to use an FCFS ordering, OR

2. we use the conditional-wait construct. It has the form

[Link] (c) ;
Where c is an integer expression that is evaluated when the
wait () operation is executed. The value of c, which is called a
priority number, is then stored with the name of the process
that is suspended. When [Link] ( ) is executed, the process
with the smallest priority number is resumed next.

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.60 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Single Resource allocation
Allocate a single resource among competing processes using
priority numbers that specify the maximum time a process
plans to use the resource

[Link](t);
...
access the resurce;
...

[Link];

Where R is an instance of type ResourceAllocator

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.61 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 A Monitor to Allocate Single Resource

The ResourceAllocator monitor controls the allocation of a single

resource among competing processes. Each process, when requesting
an allocation of this resource, specifies the maximum time it plans to use
the resource. The monitor allocates the resource to the process that has
the shortest time-allocation request.

A process that needs to access a resource must observe the following

sequence:

[Link] (t) ;
…
access the resource;
…
[Link] ( ) ;

Where R is an instance of type ResourceAllocator.

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.62 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 A Monitor to Allocate Single Resource
monitor ResourceAllocator
{
boolean busy;
condition x;
void acquire(int time) {
if (busy)
[Link](time);
busy = true;
}
void release() {
busy = FALSE;
[Link]();
}
initialization code() {
busy = false;
}
}

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.63 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.64 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Java Monitors
Every Java object has associated with it a single lock.
If a method is declared as synchronized, a calling thread must own the
lock for the object.
If the lock is owned by another thread, the calling thread must wait for the
lock until it is released.
Locks are released when the owning thread exits the synchronized
method.

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.65 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Java Synchronization
A thread that tries to acquire an unavailable lock is placed in the object’s
entry set:

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.66 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Java Synchronization
Similarly, each object also has a wait set.
When a thread calls wait():
1. It releases the lock for the object
2. The state of the thread is set to blocked
3. The thread is placed in the wait set for the object

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.67 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Java Synchronization
A thread typically calls wait() when it is waiting for a condition to become
true.
How does a thread get notified?
When a thread calls notify():
1. An arbitrary thread T is selected from the wait set
2. T is moved from the wait set to the entry set
3. Set the state of T from blocked to runnable.
T can now compete for the lock to check if the condition it was waiting for is
now true.

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.68 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 End of Chapter 6

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018