Process Synchronization
Summary –Process
synchronization
Background
• Processes can execute concurrently
• May be interrupted at any time, partially completing execution
• A race condition exists when access to shared data is not
controlled, possibly resulting in corrupt data values.
• 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:
solution to the consumer-producer problem that fills all the
buffers., counter is set to 0.
• It is incremented by the producer after it produces a new buffer and
• It is decremented by the consumer after it consumes a buffer.
Producer -Consumer
while (true) { while (true) {
/* produce an item in
while (counter == 0) ;
next produced */
/* do nothing */
next_consumed = buffer[out];
while(counter == BUFFER_SIZE);
out = (out + 1) % BUFFER_SIZE;
/* do nothing */
counter--;
buffer[in] = next_produced;
/* consume the item in
in = (in + 1) % BUFFER_SIZE;
next consumed */
counter++;
}
}
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 “count = 5” initially:
• Producer loaded in 5 array index (count )
T0: producer execute register1 = counter {register1 = 5}
T1: producer execute register1 = register1 + 1 {register1 = 6}
T2: consumer execute register2 = counter {register2 = 5}
T3: consumer execute register2 = register2 – 1 {register2 = 4}
T4: producer execute counter = register1 {counter = 6 }
T5: consumer execute counter = register2 {counter = 4}
Consumer consumes from count 4 array index
Race condition
• several processes access and manipulate the same data
concurrently ;
• The outcome of the execution depends on the particular order in
which the access takes place, is called a race condition.
• To guard against the race condition ;ensure that only one process
at a time can be manipulating the variable count.
• To make such a guarantee, the processes need to be
synchronized in some way
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
• NoTE:That is, no two processes are executing in their critical
sections at the same time.
• 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
Solution to Critical-Section Problem
A solution to the critical-section problem must satisfy the following
three 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
Critical-Section Handling in OS
Two general approaches are used to handle critical sections
in operating systems:
• 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
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
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()
Real time testing- test_and_set
process 1 process 2
do {
do { while(test_and_set(&lock
while(test_and_set(&lock))
));
;
/* critical section*/
/* critical section*/ lock = false;
lock = false; /* remainder section */
/* remainder section */ } while (true);
} while (true);
1. Initally Lock = false
2. p1 runs - p1 acquire the lock and set lock
Demo
=true
3. p2 runs the function test_and_set and
returns true hence p2 will be in looping
until the p1 releases the Lock
compare_and_swap Instruction
The compare and swap() instruction (CAS), just like the test and set()
instruction, operates on two words atomically, but uses a different
mechanism that is based on swapping the content of two words.
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);
Real time testing- compare_and_swap
do { do {
while while
(compare_and_swap(&lock, 0, (compare_and_swap(&lock,
1) != 0) ; /* CS */ 0, 1) != 0) ;
/* critical
lock = 0;
section */
/* RS */ lock = 0;
} while (true); /* remainder
section */
} while (true);
1. Initially lock is 0
2. p1 runs compare_and_swap (0,0,1) sets the lock
as 1 and acquire the CS
3. p2 runs the function compare_and_swap
(1,0,1)and returns 1 hence p2 will be in
looping until the p1 releases the Lock
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
Mutex Locks
acquire() and release()
• acquire() {
while (!available) ; / true cond * busy wait */
available = false;
}
• release() { Available is Boolean
available = true; variable and initially
} set to true
•
do {
acquire lock
critical section
release lock
remainder section
} while (true);
acquire() {
while (!available) ; / * busy wait */
Mutex : }
available = false;
release() {
available = true;
}
Available is Boolean variable and initially set to 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;
• Fig 1
Fig 2
Fig 3
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);
}
}
MONITER
• semaphores provide a convenient and effective mechanism for process
synchronization, using them incorrectly can result in timing errors that are
difficult to detect
• EXAMPLE 1:
EXAMPLE 2
a program interchanges the order Suppose that a programre
in which the wait() and signal()
operations on the semaphore places signal(mutex) with
mutex are executed, wait(mutex).
resulting in the following
execution: That is, it executes
signal(mutex); ... wait(mutex); ...
critical section ... critical section ...
wait(mutex); wait(mutex)
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
Monitor
Monitor
• condition x, y; The only operations that can be invoked on a
condition variableare wait() and signal().
• The operation x.wait(); means that the process invoking this
operation is suspended until another process invokes x.signal();
• The x.signal() operation resumes exactly
one suspended process.
• If no process is suspended, then the signal(
operation has no effect;
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
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
Synchronization Examples
• Solaris –
• readers-writers , adaptive mutexes, condition variables
• Windows-
• mutexes, semaphores, events(condition variables ) , and timers
• Linux-
• Semaphores
• atomic integers
• spinlocks
• reader-writer versions of both
• Pthreads
• mutex locks
• condition variable
• read-write locks
• spinlocks
