Study Material

CS3600 SYSTEMS AND NETWORKS
SPRING 2013
Lecture 7: Synchronization
Prof. Alan Mislove ([email protected])
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++;
/*
consume the item */
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}
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
Critical Section
General structure of process pi is
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
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!
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
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
10
Solution to Critical-section
Problem Using Locks
do {
acquire lock
critical section
release lock
remainder section
} while (TRUE);
11
TestAndSet Instruction
Definition:
boolean TestAndSet (boolean *target)
{
boolean rv = *target;
*target = TRUE;
return rv:
}
12
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);
13
Swap Instruction
Definition:
void Swap (boolean *a, boolean *b)
{
boolean temp = *a;
*a = *b;
*b = temp:
}
14
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);
15
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);
16
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++;
}
17
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);
18
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
19
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
20
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);
}
}
21
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
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);
23
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);
24
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 () { }
}
25
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
26

Study Material

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Study Material

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Study Material

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CS3600 SYSTEMS AND NETWORKS

CS3600 Systems and Networks

Based on slides by Silbershatz, Galvin, and Gagne

while (counter == BUFFER_SIZE)

out = (out + 1) % BUFFER_SIZE;

buffer [in] = nextProduced;

CS3600 Systems and Networks

consume the item */

Based on slides by Silbershatz, Galvin, and Gagne

CS3600 Systems and Networks

Based on slides by Silbershatz, Galvin, and Gagne

Generalization: Critical Section Problem

CS3600 Systems and Networks

Based on slides by Silbershatz, Galvin, and Gagne

CS3600 Systems and Networks

Based on slides by Silbershatz, Galvin, and Gagne

Reqs. for solution to Critical-Section Problem

Assume that each process executes at a nonzero speed

CS3600 Systems and Networks

Based on slides by Silbershatz, Galvin, and Gagne

CS3600 Systems and Networks

Based on slides by Silbershatz, Galvin, and Gagne

Algorithm for Process Pi

Mutual exclusion is preserved

Progress requirement is satisfied

Bounded-waiting requirement is met

CS3600 Systems and Networks

Based on slides by Silbershatz, Galvin, and Gagne

CS3600 Systems and Networks

Based on slides by Silbershatz, Galvin, and Gagne

CS3600 Systems and Networks

Based on slides by Silbershatz, Galvin, and Gagne

CS3600 Systems and Networks

Based on slides by Silbershatz, Galvin, and Gagne

Solution using TestAndSet

CS3600 Systems and Networks

Based on slides by Silbershatz, Galvin, and Gagne

CS3600 Systems and Networks

Based on slides by Silbershatz, Galvin, and Gagne

Solution using Swap

CS3600 Systems and Networks

Based on slides by Silbershatz, Galvin, and Gagne

Bounded-waiting Mutual Exclusion

Based on slides by Silbershatz, Galvin, and Gagne

CS3600 Systems and Networks

Based on slides by Silbershatz, Galvin, and Gagne

CS3600 Systems and Networks

Based on slides by Silbershatz, Galvin, and Gagne

CS3600 Systems and Networks

Based on slides by Silbershatz, Galvin, and Gagne

Semaphore Implementation without busy waiting

CS3600 Systems and Networks

Based on slides by Silbershatz, Galvin, and Gagne

Semaphore Implementation without busy waiting

CS3600 Systems and Networks

Based on slides by Silbershatz, Galvin, and Gagne

CS3600 Systems and Networks, Spring 2012

Based on slides by Silbershatz, Galvin, and Gagne