Advanced Operating

System
Professor Mangal Sain
 Lecture 4

Process Synchronization
PROCESS SYNCHRONIZATION
 Background
 The Critical-Section Problem
 Peterson’s Solution
 Synchronization Hardware
 Mutex Locks
 Semaphores
 Classic Problems of Synchronization
 Monitors
 Synchronization Examples
 Alternative Approaches
 Lecture 3 – Part 1

Process Synchronization
 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.
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++;
}
CONSUMER

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

 General structure of process Pi

ALGORITHM FOR PROCESS PI

do {

while (turn == j);

critical section
turn = j;

remainder section
} while (true);
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
CRITICAL-SECTION HANDLING IN OS

Two approaches depending on if kernel is

preemptive or non- preemptive
 Preemptive – allows preemption of process
when running in kernel mode
 Non-preemptive – runs until exits kernel
mode, blocks, or voluntarily yields CPU
Essentially free of race conditions in kernel mode
PETERSON’S SOLUTION

 Good algorithmic description of solving the

problem
 Two process solution
 Assume that the load and store machine-
language 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!
ALGORITHM FOR PROCESS PI

do {
flag[i] = true;
turn = j;
while (flag[j] && turn = = j);
critical section
flag[i] = false;
remainder section
} while (true);
 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
 SYNCHRONIZATION HARDWARE
 Many systems provide hardware support for
implementing the critical section code.
 All solutions below based on idea of locking
 Protecting critical regions via locks
 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
 Or swap contents of two memory words
SOLUTION TO CRITICAL-SECTION PROBLEM USING LOCKS

do {
acquire lock
critical section
release lock
remainder section
} while (TRUE);
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”.
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);
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” the value of the passed
parameter “new_value” but only if “value” ==“expected”.
That is, the swap takes place only under this condition.
SOLUTION USING COMPARE_AND_SWAP

 Shared integer “lock” initialized to 0;

 Solution:
do {
while (compare_and_swap(&lock, 0, 1) != 0)
; /* do nothing */
/* critical section */
lock = 0;
/* remainder section */
} while (true);
 Lecture 4 – Part 2

Process Synchronization
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
But this solution requires busy waiting
This lock therefore called a spinlock
ACQUIRE() AND RELEASE()

 acquire() {
while (!available)
; /* busy wait */
available = false;
}
 release() {
available = true;
}
 do {
acquire lock
critical section
release lock
remainder section
} while (true);
SEMAPHORE
 Synchronization tool that provides more sophisticated ways (than Mutex
locks) for process 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++;
}
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
 Can solve various synchronization problems
 Consider P1 and P2 that require S1 to happen before S2
Create a semaphore “synch” initialized to 0
P1:
S1;
signal(synch);
P2:
wait(synch);
S2;
 Can implement a counting semaphore S as a binary semaphore
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
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
 typedef struct{
int value;
struct process *list;
} semaphore;
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);
}
}
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
 Solved via priority-inheritance protocol
CLASSICAL PROBLEMS OF SYNCHRONIZATION

 Classical problems used to test newly-proposed

synchronization schemes
 Bounded-Buffer Problem
 Readers and Writers Problem
 Dining-Philosophers Problem
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

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);
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);
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 considered
– all involve some form of priorities
 Shared Data
 Data set
 Semaphore rw_mutex initialized to 1
 Semaphore mutex initialized to 1
 Integer read_count initialized to 0
READERS-WRITERS PROBLEM (CONT.)
 The structure of a writer process

do {
wait(rw_mutex);
...
/* writing is performed */
...
signal(rw_mutex);
} while (true);
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);
READERS-WRITERS PROBLEM VARIATIONS

 First variation – no reader kept waiting

unless writer has permission to use
shared object
 Second variation – once writer is ready,
it performs the write ASAP
 Both may have starvation leading to even
more variations
 Problem is solved on some systems by
kernel providing reader-writer locks
 Lecture 4 – Part 3

Process Synchronization
 DINING-PHILOSOPHERS PROBLEM

 Philosophers spend their lives alternating

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

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?
DINING-PHILOSOPHERS PROBLEM ALGORITHM (CONT.)

 Deadlock handling
 Allow at most 4 philosophers to be sitting
simultaneously at the table.
 Allow a philosopher to pick up the forks only if both
are available (picking must be done in a critical
section.
 Use an asymmetric solution -- an odd-numbered
philosopher picks up first the left chopstick and then
the right chopstick. Even-numbered philosopher
picks up first the right chopstick and then the left
chopstick.
PROBLEMS WITH SEMAPHORES

 Incorrect use of semaphore operations:

 signal (mutex) …. wait (mutex)

 wait (mutex) … wait (mutex)

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

both)

 Deadlock and starvation are possible.

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
 But not powerful enough to model some synchronization
schemes
monitor monitor-name
{
// shared variable declarations
procedure P1 (…) { …. }

procedure Pn (…) {……}

Initialization code (…) { … }

}
}
SCHEMATIC VIEW OF A MONITOR
CONDITION VARIABLES

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

variable
MONITOR WITH CONDITION VARIABLES
CONDITION VARIABLES CHOICES

 If process P invokes x.signal(), and process Q is

suspended in x.wait(), what should happen next?
 Both Q and P cannot execute in paralel. 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
 Both have pros and cons – language implementer can decide
 Monitors implemented in Concurrent Pascal compromise
 P executing signal immediately leaves the monitor, Q is resumed

 Implemented in other languages including Mesa, C#, Java

MONITOR 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);
}
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;
}
}
Solution to Dining Philosophers (Cont.)

 Each philosopher i invokes the operations

pickup() and putdown() in the following sequence:

DiningPhilosophers.pickup(i);

EAT

DiningPhilosophers.putdown(i);

 No deadlock, but starvation is possible

MONITOR IMPLEMENTATION USING SEMAPHORES
 Variables
semaphore mutex; // (initially = 1)
semaphore next; // (initially = 0)
int next_count = 0;
 Each procedure 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
MONITOR IMPLEMENTATION – CONDITION VARIABLES

 For each condition variable x, we have:

semaphore x_sem; // (initially =
0)
int x_count = 0;
 The operation x.wait can be implemented as:
x_count++;
if (next_count > 0)
signal(next);
else
signal(mutex);
wait(x_sem);
x_count--;
MONITOR IMPLEMENTATION (CONT.)

 The operation x.signal can be implemented as:

if (x_count > 0) {
next_count++;
signal(x_sem);
wait(next);
next_count--;
}
RESUMING PROCESSES WITHIN A MONITOR

 If several processes queued on condition x,

and x.signal() executed, which should be
resumed?
 FCFS frequently not adequate

 conditional-wait construct of the form

x.wait(c)
 Where c is priority number
 Process with lowest number (highest priority)
is scheduled next
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

R.acquire(t);
...
access the resurce;
...

R.release;

 Where R is an instance of type

ResourceAllocator
SYNCHRONIZATION EXAMPLES

 Solaris
 Windows

 Linux

 Pthreads
SOLARIS SYNCHRONIZATION
 Implements a variety of locks to support multitasking,
multithreading (including real-time threads), and
multiprocessing
 Uses adaptive mutexes for efficiency when protecting data
from short code segments
 Starts as a standard semaphore spin-lock
 If lock held, and by a thread running on another CPU, spins
 If lock held by non-run-state thread, block and sleep waiting for signal of
lock being released
 Uses condition variables
 Uses readers-writers locks when longer sections of code need
access to data
 Uses turnstiles to order the list of threads waiting to acquire
either an adaptive mutex or reader-writer lock
 Turnstiles are per-lock-holding-thread, not per-object
 Priority-inheritance per-turnstile gives the running thread the
highest of the priorities of the threads in its turnstile
WINDOWS SYNCHRONIZATION

 Uses interrupt masks to protect access to global

resources on uniprocessor systems
 Uses spinlocks on multiprocessor systems
 Spinlocking-thread will never be preempted
 Also provides dispatcher objects user-land
which may act mutexes, semaphores, events, and
timers
 Events
 An event acts much like a condition variable
 Timers notify one or more thread when time expired
 Dispatcher objects either signaled-state (object
available) or non-signaled state (thread will block)
LINUX SYNCHRONIZATION

 Linux:
 Prior to kernel Version 2.6, disables interrupts
to implement short critical sections
 Version 2.6 and later, fully preemptive

 Linux provides:
 Semaphores
 atomic integers
 spinlocks
 reader-writer versions of both

 On single-cpu system, spinlocks replaced by

enabling and disabling kernel preemption
PTHREADS SYNCHRONIZATION

 Pthreads API is OS-independent

 It provides:
 mutex locks
 condition variable

 Non-portable extensions include:

 read-write locks
 spinlocks
ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES

 Transactional Memory

 OpenMP

 Functional Programming Languages

Transactional Memory
 A memory transaction is a sequence of
read-write operations to memory that are
performed atomically.

void update()
{
/* read/write memory */
}
OpenMP
 OpenMP is a set of compiler directives and API
that support parallel progamming.

void update(int value)

{
#pragma omp critical
{
count += value
}
}

The code contained within the #pragma omp

critical directive is treated as a critical section
and performed atomically.
Functional Programming Languages
 Functional programming languages offer a
different paradigm than procedural languages
in that they do not maintain state.

 Variables are treated as immutable and

cannot change state once they have been
assigned a value.

 There is increasing interest in functional

languages such as Erlang and Scala for their
approach in handling data races.