Hong Bang International University

Department of Information Technology

04793 Operating Systems

Synchronization

Adapted from the textbook

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition

Instructor: Hoang Ngoc Long

 Objectives and Outline

Objectives Outline
• To introduce the critical-section problem • Background
• The Critical-Section Problem
• Critical section solutions can be used to ensure • Peterson’s Solution
the consistency of shared data • Synchronization Hardware
• Semaphores
• To present both software and hardware
solutions of the critical-section problem

2
 Background

• Concurrent access to shared data may result in data inconsistency

• Maintaining data consistency requires mechanisms to ensure the orderly execution of

cooperating processes

Shared Data

Can be a shared memory

variable, a global variable
in a multi-thread program or
a file; or a kernel variable

Concurrent Threads or Processes

3
 Producer Consumer Problem Revisited

• Below is a solution to the consumer-producer problem that fills all the slots of the shared buffer.
• Use an integer count to keep track of the number of full slots.
• Initially, count is set to 0. It is incremented by the producer after it puts a new item and is
decremented by the consumer after it retrieves an item from the buffer.

also a shared variable

count

Producer Consumer

Shared Buffer

at most BUFFER_SIZE items

4
 Producer and Consumer Code

Producer ConSUMER

while (true) { while (true) {

/*produce an item*/ while (count == 0)
nextProduced = …. ; // do nothing

while (count == BUFFER_SIZE) nextConsumed = buffer[out];

; // do nothing out = (out + 1) % BUFFER_SIZE;
count--;
buffer [in] = nextProduced;
in = (in + 1) % BUFFER_SIZE; /*consume item nextConsumed*/
count++; }
}

5
 A possible Problem: race condition

• Assume we had 5 items in the buffer

• Then:
– Assume producer has just produced a new item and put it into buffer and is about to
increment the count.

– Assume the consumer has just retrieved an item from buffer and is about the decrement the
count.

– Namely: Assume producer and consumer is now about to execute count++ and count--
statements.

6
Producer Consumer

or

Producer Consumer

7
 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

8
 Race Condition

register1 Count
PRODUCER (count++)
6
5 5
4
6
register1 = count
register1 = register1 + 1
register2 count = register1
5
4
CONSUMER (count--)

register2 = count
register2 = register2 – 1
CPU count = register2

6
Main Memory
9
 Interleaved Execution sequence

• 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}

10
• Count value may be 4, 6, or 5 in various runs.
• But it should be 5 (as a result of one increment, one decrement operation)
• Interleaved access to count causes data inconsistency: 4, 5, 6.
• For consistent results (5), either count++ should be executed and finished first, or count– should
be executed and finished. Not interleaved.
• We need to enforce non-interleaved access (atomic) in this case. This means: synchronization
required.

11
 Programs and critical sections

• The part of the program (process) that is accessing and changing shared data is called its
critical section
Process 1 Code Process 2 Code Process 3 Code

Change X
Change X
Change Y
Change Y
Change Y
Change X

Assuming X and Y are shared data.

12
 Program lifetime and its structure

• Considering a process:
– It may be executing critical section code from time to time
– It may be executing non critical section code (remainder section) other times.

• We should not allow more than one process to be in their critical regions where they are
manipulating the same shared data.

13
 Structuring Programs

• The general way to do that is:

do {
do {
entry section
critical section
critical section
remainder section

exit section

} while (TRUE) remainder

The general structure of a program } while (TRUE)

Entry section will allow only one process to enter and execute critical section code.
14
 Solution to Critical-Section Problem

An ideal solution should have the following conditions satisfied:

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 // no deadlock
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 // no starvation of a process

— Assume that each process executes at a nonzero speed

— No assumption concerning relative speed of the N processes

15
 Applications and Kernel

• Multi-process applications sharing a file or shared memory segment may face critical section
problems.

• Multi-threaded applications sharing global variables may also face critical section problems.

• Similarly, kernel itself may face critical section problem. It is also a program. It may have critical
sections.

16
 Kernel Critical Sections

• While kernel is executing a function x(), a hardware interrupt may arrive and interrupt handler h()
can be run. Make sure that interrupt handler h() and x() do not access the same kernel global
variable. Otherwise race condition may happen.

• While a process is running in user mode, it may call a system call s(). Then kernel starts running
function s(). CPU is executing in kernel mode now. We say the process is now running in kernel
mode (even though kernel code is running).

– While a process X is running in kernel mode, it may or may not be pre-empted. In

preemptive kernels, the process running in kernel mode can be preempted and a new
process may start running. In non-preemptive kernels, the process running in kernel mode
is not preempted unless it blocks or returns to user mode.

17
 Kernel Critical Sections

– In a preemptive kernel, a process X running in kernel mode may be suspended (preempted)

at an arbitrary (unsafe) time. It may be in the middle of updating a kernel variable or data
structure at that moment. Then a new process Y may run and it may also call a system call.
Then, process Y starts running in kernel mode and may also try update the same kernel
variable or data structure (execute the critical section code of kernel). We can have a race
condition if kernel is not synchronized.

• Therefore, we need to solve synchronization and critical section problem for the kernel itself as
well. The same problem appears there as well.

18
 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 Pi is ready!

19
 Algorithm for Process Pi

do {

flag[i] = TRUE;
turn = j; entry section

while (flag[j] && turn == j);

critical section
flag[i] = FALSE; exit section
remainder section

} while (1)

20
 Two processes executing concurrently

PROCESS i (0) PROCESS j (1)

do { do {
flag[0] = TRUE; flag[1] = TRUE;
turn = 1; turn = 0;
while (flag[1] && turn == while (flag[0] && turn == 0);
1); critical section…..
critical section….. flag[1] = FALSE;
flag[0] = FALSE; remainder section…..
remainder section….. } while (1)
} while (1)

flag[]
Shared Variables turn

21
 Synchronization Hardware

• We can use some hardware support (if available) for protecting critical section code
– 1) Disable interrupts? maybe
• Sometimes only (kernel)
• Not on multi-processors

– 2) Special machine instructions and lock variables

• TestandSet
• CompareAndSwap (EXCH instruction in Intel x86 arch)

22
 Solution to Critical-section Problem Using Locks

• Use of lock variables is a general and very common approach.

• A lock variable (an integer that can have values 0 or 1) shared
• A process (thread) can be structured as follows:
do {
acquire_lock (lock)
critical section
release_lock (lock)
remainder section
} while (TRUE);

Only one process can acquire lock. Others has to wait (or busy loop)

23
 Synchronization Hardware

• What happens if you use a lock variable without special instructions?

– Can be source of race conditions
• Example:
int lock = 0; // global variable (shared among threads)

Thread 1 Thread 2

while (lock == 1) while (lock == 1)

; // loop ; // loop
lock = 1; lock = 1;
// critical section // critical section
lock = 0; lock = 0;

above code is NOT correct solution

24
 Synchronization Hardware

• Therefore we need to use special machine instructions that can do testing and setting atomically or
something like that (like swapping)

• Some possible atomic (non-interruptable) machine instructions:

– TestAndSet instruction (TSL):
test memory word and set value

– CompareAndSwap instruction

• They can be executed atomically in a multi-processor environment as well (one CPU at a time
executes the instruction: it involves memory access; memory is shared)

25
 TestAndSet Instruction

• Is a machine/assembly instruction.
– But here we provide definition of it using a high level language code.

Definition of TestAndSet Instruction

boolean TestAndSet (boolean *target)
{
boolean rv = *target;
*target = TRUE;
return rv;
}

TestAndSet REGISTER, LOCK;

26
 Solution using TestAndSet

• To use it, we need to program in assembly language.

i.e., entry section code should be programmed in assembly

Solution
We use a shared Boolean variable lock, initialized to false.

do {
while ( TestAndSet (&lock )) entry section
; // do nothing

// critical section
exit_section
lock = FALSE;

// remainder section

} while (TRUE);
27
 In assembly

entry_section:
TestAndSet REGISTER, LOCK;
CMP REGISTER, #0 entry section code
JNE entry_section;
RET
exit_section:
move LOCK, #0 exit section code
RET

main:
..
call entry_section;
execute criticial region;
call exit_section;

28
 CompareAndSwap Instruction

• Again a machine instruction

• It has three operands: value, expected, new_value

Definition

boolean compare_and_swap (int *value, int expected, int new_value)

{
boolean temp = *value;
if (value == expected)
*value == new_value;
return temp;
}

29
 Solution using CompareAndSwap

• Need to program entry_section() in assembly

Solution
We use a shared Boolean variable lock initialized to FALSE.

entry_section

exit_section

30
 Comments

• Use of TestAndSet and CompareAndSwap as explained provides mutual exclusion: 1st property
satisfied

• But, Bounded Waiting property, 3rd property, may not be satisfied.

• A process X may be waiting, but we can have the other process Y going into the critical region
repeatedly.

31
Bounded-waiting Mutual Exclusion with TestandSet()

do {
waiting[i] = TRUE;
key = TRUE;
while (waiting[i] && key) entry section code
key = TestAndSet(&lock);
waiting[i] = FALSE;

// critical section

j = (i + 1) % n;
while ((j != i) && !waiting[j])
j = (j + 1) % n;
if (j == i)
exit section code
lock = FALSE;
else
waiting[j] = FALSE;
// remainder section
} while (TRUE);
32
 Mutex Locks

• Put these acquire_lock() and release_lock() implementations in a library/software. Such an

object is called mutex_lock (mutual exclusion lock)
– mutex_lock: a primitive implemented in such a software library (or kernel) that applications
can use.
– Applications will not be directly using HW instructions; instead mutex_lock implementation
will use these HW instructions.
– If implementation uses busy waiting, it is called spin lock

define-and-initiaze mutex_lock lock;

acquire_lock (lock);
// Critical section
release_lock (lock);

33
 Semaphore

• Synchronization tool that does not require busy waiting

• Semaphore S: integer variable and a wait queue
shared, and can be a kernel variable
• Two standard operations modify S: wait() and signal()
• Originally called P() and V()
• Also called down() and up()
– Semaphores can only be accessed via these two indivisible (atomic/indivisable) operations;
– They can be implemented as system calls by kernel. Kernel makes sure they are
indivisible.

• Less complicated entry and exit sections when semaphores are used

34
 Meaning (semantics) of operations

• wait (S):
if S positive
S-- and return
else
block/wait (until somebody wakes you up; then return)

• signal(S):
if there is a process waiting
wake it up and return
else
S++ and return

35
 Comments

• Wait body and signal body have to be executed atomically: one process at a time. Hence the
body of wait and signal are critical sections to be protected by the kernel.

• Not that when wait() causes the process to block, the operation is nearly finished (wait body
critical section is done).

• That means another process can execute wait body or signal body

36
 Semaphore as General Synchronization Tool

• Binary semaphore – integer value can range only between 0 and 1; can be simpler to implement
– Also known as mutex locks

– Binary semaphores provides mutual exclusion; can be used for the critical section problem.

• Counting semaphore – integer value can range over an unrestricted domain

– Can be used for other synchronization problems; for example for resource allocation.

37
 Usage

• Binary semaphores (mutexes) can be used to solve critical section problem.

• A semaphore variable (lets say mutex) can be shared by N processes, and initialized to 1.

• Each process is structured as follows:

do {
wait (mutex);
// Critical Section
signal (mutex);
// remainder section
} while (TRUE);

38
 usage: mutual exclusion

Process 0 Process 1

do {
do {
wait (mutex);
wait (mutex);
// Critical Section
// Critical Section
signal (mutex);
signal (mutex);
// remainder section
// remainder section
} while (TRUE);
} while (TRUE);

wait() {…} signal() {…}

Kernel
Semaphore mutex; // initialized to 1

39
 usage: other synchronization problems
P0 P1
… …
S1; Assume we definitely want to
S2;
…. have S1 executed before S2.
….

semaphore x = 0; // initialized to 0
P0 P1
… …
S1; wait (x);
Solution: signal (x); S2;
…. ….

40
 Uses of Semaphore: synchronization
Buffer is an array of BUF_SIZE Cells (at most BUF_SIZE items can be put)

Producer Consumer
do { do {
// produce item wait (Full_Cells);
… ….
put item into buffer remove item from buffer
.. ..
signal (Full_Cells); …
} while (TRUE);
} while (TRUE);

wait() {…} signal() {…}

Kernel
Semaphore Full_Cells = 0; // initialized to 0

41
 Consumer/Producer is Synchronized

Full_Cells

BUF_SIZE
Producer
Sleeps

0 time
Consumer
Sleeps
42
 Consumer/Producer is Synchronized

Ensured by synchronization mechanisms: * Red is always less than Blue

Pt – Ct <= BUF_SIZE * (Blue – Red) can never be
Pt – Ct >= 0 greater than BUF_SIZE

all items produced (Pt)

BUF_SIZE

times
all items consumed (Ct)
43
 usage: resource allocation

• Assume we have a resource that has 5 instances. A process that needs that type of resource
will need to use one instance. We can allow at most 5 process concurrently using these 5
resource instances. Another process (processes) that want the resource need to block. How can
we code those processes?
• Solution:
one of the processes creates and initializes a semaphore to 5.
semaphore x = 5; // semaphore to access resource

wait (x);
…
Each process has to be
….use one instance of the resource…
coded in this manner.
…
signal (x);

44
 Semaphore Implementation

• Must guarantee that for a semaphore, no two processes can execute wait() and signal()
critical sections at the same time.
– Critical section in wait / signal: part that is updating the integer value
• Kernel can guarantee this.
– By disabling interrupts in a single CPU system
– By use of spin locks in a multi-processor system
• Semaphore data structure:

typedef struct {
int value; // semaphore value
struct process *list; // semaphore wait queue
} semaphore;

45
 Semaphore Implementation

• Semaphore data structure:

typedef struct {
int value; // semaphore value
struct process *list; // semaphore wait queue
} semaphore;

• With each semaphore there is an associated waiting queue.

– The processes waiting for the semaphore are waited here.

46
 Semaphore Implementation

Implementation of wait:
wait(semaphore *S) {
S->value--;
if (S->value < 0) {
add this process to S->list;
block the process;
Implementation of signal:
} signal(semaphore *S) {
} S->value++;
if (S->value <= 0) {
remove a process P from S->list;
wakeup the process;

}
}

47
 Kernel Implementing wait and signal

• The wait and signal operations must be atomic. The integer value is updated.
• No two processes can execute wait() and signal() critical sections at the same time.
• Critical section in wait / signal: part that is updating the integer value
• Critical section is short
• How can the kernel ensure that? It can NOT use semaphores to implement semaphores.
• Kernel can guarantee this.
– By disabling interrupts in a single CPU system
– By use of spin locks in a multi-processor system

48
 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

49
 References

• The slides here are adapted/modified from the textbook and its slides: Operating System
Concepts, Silberschatz et al., 7th & 8th editions, Wiley.
• Operating System Concepts, 7th and 8th editions, Silberschatz et al. Wiley.
• Modern Operating Systems, Andrew S. Tanenbaum, 3rd edition, 2009.

50
 End of Chapter

Adapted from the textbook

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition

Instructor: Hoang Ngoc Long