CS3600 SYSTEMS AND NETWORKS
SPRING 2013
Lecture 7: Synchronization
Prof. Alan Mislove (amislove@[Link])
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 buers. We can do so by having an integer count that keeps track of
the number of full buers. Initially, count is set to 0. It is incremented by the
producer after it produces a new buer and is decremented by the consumer after it
consumes a buer.
CS3600 Systems and Networks
Based on slides by Silbershatz, Galvin, and Gagne
Producer
Consumer
while (true) {
while (true)
while (counter == 0)
/*
produce an item */
; // do nothing
while (counter == BUFFER_SIZE)
nextConsumed =
; // do nothing
buffer[out];
out = (out + 1) % BUFFER_SIZE;
buffer [in] = nextProduced;
counter--;
in = (in + 1) % BUFFER_SIZE;
counter++;
/*
CS3600 Systems and Networks
consume the item */
Based on slides by Silbershatz, Galvin, and Gagne
Race Condition
counter++ could be implemented as
register1 = counter
register1 = register1 + 1
counter = register1
counter-- could be implemented as
register2 = counter
register2 = register2 - 1
count = 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 {count = 6 }
S5: consumer execute counter = register2 {count = 4}
CS3600 Systems and Networks
Based on slides by Silbershatz, Galvin, and Gagne
Generalization: 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
Especially challenging with preemptive kernels
CS3600 Systems and Networks
Based on slides by Silbershatz, Galvin, and Gagne
Critical Section
General structure of process pi is
CS3600 Systems and Networks
Based on slides by Silbershatz, Galvin, and Gagne
Reqs. for 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
CS3600 Systems and Networks
Based on slides by Silbershatz, Galvin, and Gagne
Petersons 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 Pi is ready!
CS3600 Systems and Networks
Based on slides by Silbershatz, Galvin, and Gagne
Algorithm for Process Pi
do {
flag[i] = TRUE;
turn = j;
while (flag[j] && turn == j) {}
critical section
flag[i] = FALSE;
remainder section
} while (TRUE);
Provable that
1.
Mutual exclusion is preserved
2.
Progress requirement is satisfied
3.
Bounded-waiting requirement is met
CS3600 Systems and Networks
Based on slides by Silbershatz, Galvin, and Gagne
Synchronization Hardware
Many systems provide hardware support for critical section code
Uniprocessors could disable interrupts
Currently running code would execute without preemption
Generally too inecient on multiprocessor systems
Operating systems using this not broadly scalable
Modern machines provide special atomic hardware instructions
Atomic = non-interruptable
Either test memory word and set value
Or swap contents of two memory words
CS3600 Systems and Networks
10
Based on slides by Silbershatz, Galvin, and Gagne
Solution to Critical-section
Problem Using Locks
do {
acquire lock
critical section
release lock
remainder section
} while (TRUE);
CS3600 Systems and Networks
11
Based on slides by Silbershatz, Galvin, and Gagne
TestAndSet Instruction
Definition:
boolean TestAndSet (boolean *target)
{
boolean rv = *target;
*target = TRUE;
return rv:
}
CS3600 Systems and Networks
12
Based on slides by Silbershatz, Galvin, and Gagne
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);
CS3600 Systems and Networks
13
Based on slides by Silbershatz, Galvin, and Gagne
Swap Instruction
Definition:
void Swap (boolean *a, boolean *b)
{
boolean temp = *a;
*a = *b;
*b = temp:
}
CS3600 Systems and Networks
14
Based on slides by Silbershatz, Galvin, and Gagne
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);
CS3600 Systems and Networks
15
Based on slides by Silbershatz, Galvin, and Gagne
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);
CS3600 Systems and Networks
16
Based on slides by Silbershatz, Galvin, and Gagne
Semaphore
Synchronization tool that does not (necessarily) 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++;
}
CS3600 Systems and Networks
17
Based on slides by Silbershatz, Galvin, and Gagne
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);
CS3600 Systems and Networks
18
Based on slides by Silbershatz, Galvin, and Gagne
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 a good solution
CS3600 Systems and Networks
19
Based on slides by Silbershatz, Galvin, and Gagne
Semaphore Implementation without 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
CS3600 Systems and Networks
20
Based on slides by Silbershatz, Galvin, and Gagne
Semaphore Implementation without busy waiting
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);
}
}
CS3600 Systems and Networks
21
Based on slides by Silbershatz, Galvin, and Gagne
Bounded-Buer Problem
N buers, 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
CS3600 Systems and Networks, Spring 2012
22
Based on slides by Silbershatz, Galvin, and Gagne
Bounded Buer Problem (Cont.)
The structure of the producer process
do
{
//
produce an item
wait (empty);
wait (mutex);
//
add the item to the
buffer
signal (mutex);
signal (full);
} while (TRUE);
CS3600 Systems and Networks, Spring 2012
23
Based on slides by Silbershatz, Galvin, and Gagne
Bounded Buer Problem (Cont.)
The structure of the consumer process
do {
wait (full);
wait (mutex);
//
remove an item from
buffer
signal (mutex);
signal (empty);
//
consume the item
} while (TRUE);
CS3600 Systems and Networks, Spring 2012
24
Based on slides by Silbershatz, Galvin, and Gagne
Monitors
A high-level abstraction that provides a convenient and eective 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
But not powerful enough to model some synchronization schemes
monitor monitor-name
{
// shared variable declarations
procedure P1 () { . }
procedure Pn () {}
Initialization code () { }
}
CS3600 Systems and Networks
25
Based on slides by Silbershatz, Galvin, and Gagne
Problems with synchronization
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 higherpriority process
Solved via priority-inheritance protocol
CS3600 Systems and Networks
26
Based on slides by Silbershatz, Galvin, and Gagne