Interprocess Communication

UNIT 3 INTERPROCESS COMMUNICATION and Synchronization

AND SYNCHRONIZATION
Structure Page Nos.
3.0 Introduction 49
3.1 Objectives 50
3.2 Interprocess Communication 50
3.2.1 Shared-Memory System
3.2.2 Message-Passing System
3.3 Interprocess Synchronization 56
3.3.1 Serialization
3.3.2 Mutexes: Mutual Exclusion
3.3.3 Critical Sections: The Mutex Solution
3.3.4 Dekker’s Solution for Mutual Exclusion
3.3.5 Bakery’s Algorithm
3.4 Semaphores 57
3.5 Classical Problems in Concurrent Programming 59
3.5.1 Producers/Consumers Problem
3.5.2 Readers and Writers Problem
3.5.3 Dining Philosophers Problem
3.5.4 Sleeping Barber Problem
3.6 Locks 64
3.7 Monitors and Condition Variables 64
3.8 Summary 67
3.9 Solution/Answers 67
3.10 Further Readings 68

3.0 INTRODUCTION
In the earlier unit we have studied the concept of processes. In addition to process
scheduling, another important responsibility of the operating system is process
synchronization. Synchronization involves the orderly sharing of system resources by
processes.
Concurrency specifies two or more sequential programs (a sequential program
specifies sequential execution of a list of statements) that may be executed
concurrently as a parallel process. For example, an airline reservation system that
involves processing transactions from many terminals has a natural specification as a
concurrent program in which each terminal is controlled by its own sequential
process. Even when processes are not executed simultaneously, it is often easier to
structure as a collection of cooperating sequential processes rather than as a single
sequential program.
A simple batch operating system can be viewed as 3 processes-a reader process, an
executor process and a printer process. The reader reads cards from card reader and
places card images in an input buffer. The executor process reads card images from
input buffer and performs the specified computation and store the result in an output
buffer. The printer process retrieves the data from the output buffer and writes them to
a printer. Concurrent processing is the basis of operating system which supports
multiprogramming.
The operating system supports concurrent execution of a program without necessarily
supporting elaborate form of memory and file management. This form of operation is
also known as multitasking. One of the benefits of multitasking is that several
processes can be made to cooperate in order to achieve their goals. To do this, they
must do one of the following:
Communicate: Interprocess communication (IPC) involves sending information from
one process to another. This can be achieved using a “mailbox” system, a socket
49
 Introduction to Operating which behaves like a virtual communication network (loopback), or through the use of
Systems and Process
Management “pipes”. Pipes are a system construction which enable one process to open another
process as if it were a file for writing or reading.
Share Data: A segment of memory must be available to both the processes. (Most
memory is locked to a single process).
Waiting: Some processes wait for other processes to give a signal before continuing.
This is an issue of synchronization.
In order to cooperate concurrently executing processes must communicate and
synchronize. Interprocess communication is based on the use of shared variables
(variables that can be referenced by more than one process) or message passing.
Synchronization is often necessary when processes communicate. Processes are
executed with unpredictable speeds. Yet to communicate one process must perform
some action such as setting the value of a variable or sending a message that the other
detects. This only works if the events perform an action or detect an action are
constrained to happen in that order. Thus one can view synchronization as a set of
constraints on the ordering of events. The programmer employs a synchronization
mechanism to delay execution of a process in order to satisfy such constraints.
In this unit, let us study the concept of interprocess communication and
synchronization, need of semaphores, classical problems in concurrent processing,
critical regions, monitors and message passing.

3.1 OBJECTIVES
After studying this unit, you should be able to:
• identify the significance of interprocess communication and synchronization;
• describe the two ways of interprocess communication namely shared memory
and message passing;
• discuss the usage of semaphores, locks and monitors in interprocess and
synchronization, and

• solve classical problems in concurrent programming.

3.2 INTERPROCESS COMMUNICATION

Interprocess communication (IPC) is a capability supported by operating system that
allows one process to communicate with another process. The processes can be
running on the same computer or on different computers connected through a
network. IPC enables one application to control another application, and for several
applications to share the same data without interfering with one another. IPC is
required in all multiprogramming systems, but it is not generally supported by single-
process operating systems such as DOS. OS/2 and MS-Windows support an IPC
mechanism called Dynamic Data Exchange.
IPC allows the process to communicate and to synchronize their actions without
sharing the same address space. This concept can be illustrated with the example of a
shared printer as given below:
Consider a machine with a single printer running a time-sharing operation system. If a
process needs to print its results, it must request that the operating system gives it
access to the printer’s device driver. At this point, the operating system must decide
whether to grant this request, depending upon whether the printer is already being
used by another process. If it is not, the operating system should grant the request and
allow the process to continue; otherwise, the operating system should deny the request
and perhaps classify the process as a waiting process until the printer becomes
50
 Interprocess Communication
available. Indeed, if two processes were given simultaneous access to the machine’s and Synchronization
printer, the results would be worthless to both.
Consider the following related definitions to understand the example in a better way:
Critical Resource: It is a resource shared with constraints on its use (e.g., memory,
files, printers, etc).
Critical Section: It is code that accesses a critical resource.
Mutual Exclusion: At most one process may be executing a critical section with
respect to a particular critical resource simultaneously.
In the example given above, the printer is the critical resource. Let’s suppose that the
processes which are sharing this resource are called process A and process B. The
critical sections of process A and process B are the sections of the code which issue
the print command. In order to ensure that both processes do not attempt to use the
printer at the same, they must be granted mutually exclusive access to the printer
driver.
First we consider the interprocess communication part. There exist two
complementary inter-process communication types: a) shared-memory system and
b) message-passing system. It is clear that these two schemes are not mutually
exclusive, and could be used simultaneously within a single operating system.
3.2.1 Shared-Memory System
Shared-memory systems require communication processes to share some variables.
The processes are expected to exchange information through the use of these shared
variables. In a shared-memory scheme, the responsibility for providing
communication rests with the application programmers. The operating system only
needs to provide shared memory.
A critical problem occurring in shared-memory system is that two or more processes
are reading or writing some shared variables or shared data, and the final results
depend on who runs precisely and when. Such situations are called race conditions. In
order to avoid race conditions we must find some way to prevent more than one
process from reading and writing shared variables or shared data at the same time, i.e.,
we need the concept of mutual exclusion (which we will discuss in the later section).
It must be sure that if one process is using a shared variable, the other process will be
excluded from doing the same thing.
3.2.2 Message-Passing System
Message passing systems allow communication processes to exchange messages. In
this scheme, the responsibility rests with the operating system itself.
The function of a message-passing system is to allow processes to communicate with
each other without the need to resort to shared variable. An interprocess
communication facility basically provides two operations: send (message) and receive
(message). In order to send and to receive messages, a communication link must exist
between two involved processes. This link can be implemented in different ways. The
possible basic implementation questions are:
• How are links established?
• Can a link be associated with more than two processes?
• How many links can there be between every pair of process?
• What is the capacity of a link? That is, does the link have some buffer space? If
so, how much?
• What is the size of the message? Can the link accommodate variable size or
fixed-size message?
• Is the link unidirectional or bi-directional?

In the following we consider several methods for logically implementing a

communication link and the send/receive operations. These methods can be classified
51
 Introduction to Operating into two categories: a) Naming, consisting of direct and indirect communication and
Systems and Process
Management b) Buffering, consisting of capacity and messages proprieties.
Direct Communication
In direct communication, each process that wants to send or receive a message must
explicitly name the recipient or sender of the communication. In this case, the send
and receive primitives are defined as follows:
• send (P, message) To send a message to process P
• receive (Q, message) To receive a message from process Q
This scheme shows the symmetry in addressing, i.e., both the sender and the receiver
have to name one another in order to communicate. In contrast to this, asymmetry in
addressing can be used, i.e., only the sender has to name the recipient; the recipient is
not required to name the sender. So the send and receive primitives can be defined as
follows:

• send (P, message) To send a message to the process P

• receive (id, message) To receive a message from any process; id is set to
the name of the process with whom the
communication has taken place.
Indirect Communication
With indirect communication, the messages are sent to, and received from a mailbox.
A mailbox can be abstractly viewed as an object into which messages may be placed
and from which messages may be removed by processes. In order to distinguish one
from the other, each mailbox owns a unique identification. A process may
communicate with some other process by a number of different mailboxes. The send
and receive primitives are defined as follows:
• send (A, message) To send a message to the mailbox A
• receive (A, message) To receive a message from the mailbox A

Mailboxes may be owned either by a process or by the system. If the mailbox is

owned by a process, then we distinguish between the owner who can only receive
from this mailbox and user who can only send message to the mailbox. When a
process that owns a mailbox terminates, its mailbox disappears. Any process that
sends a message to this mailbox must be notified in the form of an exception that the
mailbox no longer exists.
If the mailbox is owned by the operating system, then it has an existence of its own,
i.e., it is independent and not attached to any particular process. The operating system
provides a mechanism that allows a process to: a) create a new mailbox, b) send and
receive message through the mailbox and c) destroy a mailbox. Since all processes
with access rights to a mailbox may terminate, a mailbox may no longer be accessible
by any process after some time. In this case, the operating system should reclaim
whatever space was used for the mailbox.
Capacity Link
A link has some capacity that determines the number of messages that can temporarily
reside in it. This propriety can be viewed as a queue of messages attached to the link.
Basically there are three ways through which such a queue can be implemented:
Zero capacity: This link has a message queue length of zero, i.e., no message can wait
in it. The sender must wait until the recipient receives the message. The two processes
must be synchronized for a message transfer to take place. The zero-capacity link is
referred to as a message-passing system without buffering.
Bounded capacity: This link has a limited message queue length of n, i.e., at most n
messages can reside in it. If a new message is sent, and the queue is not full, it is
52
placed in the queue either by copying the message or by keeping a pointer to the
 Interprocess Communication
message and the sender should continue execution without waiting. Otherwise, the and Synchronization
sender must be delayed until space is available in the queue.
Unbounded capacity: This queue has potentially infinite length, i.e., any number of
messages can wait in it. That is why the sender is never delayed.
Bounded and unbounded capacity link provide message-passing system with
automatic buffering.
Messages
Messages sent by a process may be one of three varieties: a) fixed-sized, b) variable-
sized and c) typed messages. If only fixed-sized messages can be sent, the physical
implementation is straightforward. However, this makes the task of programming
more difficult. On the other hand, variable-size messages require more complex
physical implementation, but the programming becomes simpler. Typed messages,
i.e., associating a type with each mailbox, are applicable only to indirect
communication. The messages that can be sent to, and received from a mailbox are
restricted to the designated type.

3.3 INTERPROCESS SYNCHRONIZATION

When two or more processes work on the same data simultaneously strange things can
happen. Suppose, when two parallel threads attempt to update the same variable
simultaneously, the result is unpredictable. The value of the variable afterwards
depends on which of the two threads was the last one to change the value. This is
called a race condition. The value depends on which of the threads wins the race to
update the variable. What we need in a mulitasking system is a way of making such
situations predictable. This is called serialization. Let us study the serialization
concept in detail in the next section.
3.3.1 Serialization
The key idea in process synchronization is serialization. This means that we have to
go to some pains to undo the work we have put into making an operating system
perform several tasks in parallel. As we mentioned, in the case of print queues,
parallelism is not always appropriate.
Synchronization is a large and difficult topic, so we shall only undertake to describe
the problem and some of the principles involved here.
There are essentially two strategies to serializing processes in a multitasking
environment.

• The scheduler can be disabled for a short period of time, to prevent control
being given to another process during a critical action like modifying shared
data. This method is very inefficient on multiprocessor machines, since all other
processors have to be halted every time one wishes to execute a critical section.

• A protocol can be introduced which all programs sharing data must obey. The
protocol ensures that processes have to queue up to gain access to shared data.
Processes which ignore the protocol ignore it at their own peril (and the peril of
the remainder of the system!). This method works on multiprocessor machines
also, though it is more difficult to visualize. The responsibility of serializing
important operations falls on programmers. The OS cannot impose any
restrictions on silly behaviour-it can only provide tools and mechanisms to
assist the solution of the problem.
3.3.2 Mutexes: Mutual Exclusion
When two or more processes must share some object, an arbitration mechanism is
needed so that they do not try to use it at the same time. The particular object being
53
 Introduction to Operating shared does not have a great impact on the choice of such mechanisms. Consider the
Systems and Process
Management following examples: two processes sharing a printer must take turns using it; if they
attempt to use it simultaneously, the output from the two processes may be mixed into
an arbitrary jumble which is unlikely to be of any use. Two processes attempting to
update the same bank account must take turns; if each process reads the current
balance from some database, updates it, and then writes it back, one of the updates
will be lost.
Both of the above examples can be solved if there is some way for each process to
exclude the other from using the shared object during critical sections of code. Thus
the general problem is described as the mutual exclusion problem. The mutual
exclusion problem was recognised (and successfully solved) as early as 1963 in the
Burroughs AOSP operating system, but the problem is sufficiently difficult widely
understood for some time after that. A significant number of attempts to solve the
mutual exclusion problem have suffered from two specific problems, the lockout
problem, in which a subset of the processes can conspire to indefinitely lock some
other process out of a critical section, and the deadlock problem, where two or more
processes simultaneously trying to enter a critical section lock each other out.

On a uni-processor system with non-preemptive scheduling, mutual exclusion is easily

obtained: the process which needs exclusive use of a resource simply refuses to
relinquish the processor until it is done with the resource. A similar solution works on
a preemptively scheduled uni-processor: the process which needs exclusive use of a
resource disables interrupts to prevent preemption until the resource is no longer
needed. These solutions are appropriate and have been widely used for short critical
sections, such as those involving updating a shared variable in main memory. On the
other hand, these solutions are not appropriate for long critical sections, for example,
those which involve input/output. As a result, users are normally forbidden to use
these solutions; when they are used, their use is restricted to system code.
Mutual exclusion can be achieved by a system of locks. A mutual exclusion lock is
colloquially called a mutex. You can see an example of mutex locking in the
multithreaded file reader in the previous section. The idea is for each thread or process
to try to obtain locked-access to shared data:
Get_Mutex(m);

// Update shared data

Release_Mutex(m);
This protocol is meant to ensure that only one process at a time can get past the
function Get_Mutex. All other processes or threads are made to wait at the function
Get_Mutex until that one process calls Release_Mutex to release the lock. A method
for implementing this is discussed below. Mutexes are a central part of multithreaded
programming.
3.3.3 Critical Sections: The Mutex Solution
A critical section is a part of a program in which is it necessary to have exclusive
access to shared data. Only one process or a thread may be in a critical section at any
one time. The characteristic properties of the code that form a Critical Section are:
• Codes that refer one or more variables in a “read-update-write” fashion while
any of those variables is possibly being altered by another thread.
• Codes that alter one or more variables that are possibly being referenced in
“read-update-write” fashion by another thread.
• Codes use a data structure while any part of it is possibly being altered by
another thread.
• Codes alter any part of a data structure while it possibly in use by another
54 thread.
 Interprocess Communication
In the past it was possible to implement this by generalising the idea of interrupt and Synchronization
masks. By switching off interrupts (or more appropriately, by switching off the
scheduler) a process can guarantee itself uninterrupted access to shared data. This
method has drawbacks:

i) Masking interrupts can be dangerous- there is always the possibility that

important interrupts will be missed;
ii) It is not general enough in a multiprocessor environment, since interrupts will
continue to be serviced by other processors-so all processors would have to be
switched off;
iii) It is too harsh. We only need to prevent two programs from being in their
critical sections simultaneously if they share the same data. Programs A and B
might share different data to programs C and D, so why should they wait for C
and D?
In 1981 G.L. Peterson discovered a simple algorithm for achieving mutual exclusion
between two processes with PID equal to 0 or 1. The code is as follows:
int turn;
int interested[2];

void Get_Mutex (int pid)

{
int other;
other = 1 - pid;
interested[process] = true;
turn = pid;

while (turn == pid && interested[other]) // Loop until no one

{ // else is interested
}
}

Release_Mutex (int pid)

{
interested[pid] = false;
}
Where more processes are involved, some modifications are necessary to this
algorithm. The key to serialization here is that, if a second process tries to obtain the
mutex, when another already has it, it will get caught in a loop, which does not
terminate until the other process has released the mutex. This solution is said to
involve busy waiting-i.e., the program actively executes an empty loop, wasting CPU
cycles, rather than moving the process out of the scheduling queue. This is also called
a spin lock, since the system ‘spins’ on the loop while waiting. Let us see another
algorithm which handles critical section problem for n processes.
3.3.4 Dekker’s solution for Mutual Exclusion
Mutual exclusion can be assured even when there is no underlying mechanism such as
the test-and-set instruction. This was first realised by T. J. Dekker and published (by
Dijkstra) in 1965. Dekker’s algorithm uses busy waiting and works for only two
processes. The basic idea is that processes record their interest in entering a critical
section (in Boolean variables called “need”) and they take turns (using a variable
called “turn”) when both need entry at the same time. Dekker’s solution is shown
below:
type processid = 0..1;
55
 Introduction to Operating
var need: array [ processid ] of boolean { initially false };
Systems and Process
Management turn: processid { initially either 0 or 1 };
procedure dekkerwait( me: processid );
var other: processid;
begin
other := 1 - me;
need[ me ] := true;
while need[ other ] do begin { there is contention }
if turn = other then begin
need[ me ] := false { let other take a turn };
while turn = other do { nothing };
need[ me ] := true { re-assert my interest };
end;
end;
end { dekkerwait };

procedure dekkersignal( me: processid );

begin
need[ me ] := false;
turn := 1 - me { now, it is the other's turn };
end { dekkersignal };

Dekkers solution to the mutual exclusion problem requires that each of the contending
processes have a unique process identifier which is called “me” which is passed to the
wait and signal operations. Although none of the previously mentioned solutions
require this, most systems provide some form of process identifier which can be used
for this purpose.
It should be noted that Dekker’s solution does rely on one very simple assumption
about the underlying hardware; it assumes that if two processes attempt to write two
different values in the same memory location at the same time, one or the other value
will be stored and not some mixture of the two. This is called the atomic update
assumption. The atomically updatable unit of memory varies considerably from one
system to another; on some machines, any update of a word in memory is atomic, but
an attempt to update a byte is not atomic, while on others, updating a byte is atomic
while words are updated by a sequence of byte updates.
3.3.5 Bakery’s Algorithm
Bakery algorithm handles critical section problem for n processes as follows:

• Before entering its critical section, process receives a number. Holder of the
smallest number enters the critical section.
• If processes P i and P j receive the same number, if i < j , then P i is served first;
else P j is served first.
• The numbering scheme always generates numbers in increasing order of
enumeration; i.e., 1,2,3,3,3,3,4,5...
• Notation <= lexicographical order (ticket #, process id #)
o (a,b) < (c,d) if a < c or if a = c and b < d
o max(a0, . . . , an-1) is a number, k , such that k >= ai for i = 0, . . . , n - 1
• Shared data
boolean choosing[n]; //initialise all to false
int number[n]; //initialise all to 0
56
• Data structures are initialized to false and 0, respectively.
 Interprocess Communication
The algorithm is as follows: and Synchronization
do
{
choosing[i] = true;
number[i] = max(number[0], number[1], ...,number[n-1]) + 1;
choosing[i] = false;

for(int j = 0; j < n; j++)

{
while (choosing[j]== true)
{
/*do nothing*/
}

while ((number[j]!=0) &&

(number[j],j)< (number[i],i))
// see Reference point
{
/*do nothing*/
}
}

do critical section
number[i] = 0;
do remainder section
}while (true)
In the next section we will study how the semaphores provides a much more organise
approach of synchronization of processes.

3.4 SEMAPHORES
Semaphores provide a much more organised approach to controlling the interaction of
multiple processes than would be available if each user had to solve all interprocess
communications using simple variables, but more organization is possible. In a sense,
semaphores are something like the goto statement in early programming languages;
they can be used to solve a variety of problems, but they impose little structure on the
solution and the results can be hard to understand without the aid of numerous
comments. Just as there have been numerous control structures devised in sequential
programs to reduce or even eliminate the need for goto statements, numerous
specialized concurrent control structures have been developed which reduce or
eliminate the need for semaphores.
Definition: The effective synchronization tools often used to realise mutual exclusion
in more complex systems are semaphores. A semaphore S is an integer variable which
can be accessed only through two standard atomic operations: wait and signal. The
definition of the wait and signal operation are:

wait(S): while S ≤ 0 do skip;

S := S – 1;

signal(S): S := S + 1;

or in C language notation we can write it as:

wait(s)
{
while (S<=0)
57
 Introduction to Operating
{
Systems and Process
Management /*do nothing*/
}
S= S-1;
}

signal(S)
{
S = S + 1;
}

It should be noted that the test (S ≤ 0) and modification of the integer value of S which
is S := S – 1 must be executed without interruption. In general, if one process modifies
the integer value of S in the wait and signal operations, no other process can
simultaneously modify that same S value. We briefly explain the usage of semaphores
in the following example:
Consider two currently running processes: P1 with a statement S1 and P2 with a
statement S2. Suppose that we require that S2 be executed only after S1 has completed.
This scheme can be implemented by letting P1 and P2 share a common semaphore
synch, initialised to 0, and by inserting the statements:
S1;
signal(synch);
in the process P1 and the statements:
wait(synch);
S2;
in the process P2.
Since synch is initialised to 0, P2 will execute S2 only after P1 has involved signal
(synch), which is after S1.

The disadvantage of the semaphore definition given above is that it requires busy-
waiting, i.e., while a process is in its critical region, any either process it trying to
enter its critical region must continuously loop in the entry code. It’s clear that
through busy-waiting, CPU cycles are wasted by which some other processes might
use those productively.
To overcome busy-waiting, we modify the definition of the wait and signal
operations. When a process executes the wait operation and finds that the semaphore
value is not positive, the process blocks itself. The block operation places the process
into a waiting state. Using a scheduler the CPU then can be allocated to other
processes which are ready to run.
A process that is blocked, i.e., waiting on a semaphore S, should be restarted by the
execution of a signal operation by some other processes, which changes its state from
blocked to ready. To implement a semaphore under this condition, we define a
semaphore as:
struct semaphore
{
int value;
List *L; //a list of processes
}
Each semaphore has an integer value and a list of processes. When a process must
wait on a semaphore, it is added to this list. A signal operation removes one process
from the list of waiting processes, and awakens it. The semaphore operation can be
now defined as follows:
wait(S)
{
S.value = S.value -1;
58 if (S.value <0)
 Interprocess Communication
{ and Synchronization
add this process to S.L;
block;
}
}
signal(S)
{
S.value = S.value + 1;
if (S.value <= 0)
{
remove a process P from S.L;
wakeup(P);
}
}
The block operation suspends the process. The wakeup(P) operation resumes the
execution of a blocked process P. These two operations are provided by the operating
system as basic system calls.
One of the almost critical problem concerning implementing semaphore is the
situation where two or more processes are waiting indefinitely for an event that can be
only caused by one of the waiting processes: these processes are said to be
deadlocked. To illustrate this, consider a system consisting of two processes P1 and P2,
each accessing two semaphores S and Q, set to the value one:
P1 P2
wait(S); wait(Q);
wait(Q); wait(S);
... ...
signal(S); signal(Q);
signal(Q); signal(S);
Suppose P1 executes wait(S) and then P2 executes wait(Q). When P1 executes wait(Q),
it must wait until P2 executes signal(Q). It is no problem, P2 executes wait(Q), then
signal(Q). Similarly, when P2 executes wait(S), it must wait until P1 executes
signal(S). Thus these signal operations cannot be carried out, P1 and P2 are
deadlocked. It is clear, that a set of processes are in a deadlocked state, when every
process in the set is waiting for an event that can only be caused by another process in
the set.

3.5 CLASSICAL PROBLEMS IN CONCURRENT

PROGRAMMING
In this section, we present a large class of concurrency control problems. These
problems are used for testing nearly every newly proposed synchronization scheme.
3.5.1 Producers/Consumers Problem
Producer – Consumer processes are common in operating systems. The problem
definition is that, a producer (process) produces the information that is consumed by a
consumer (process). For example, a compiler may produce assembly code, which is
consumed by an assembler. A producer can produce one item while the consumer is
consuming another item. The producer and consumer must be synchronized. These
problems can be solved either through unbounded buffer or bounded buffer.

• With an unbounded buffer

The unbounded-buffer producer- consumer problem places no practical limit on
the size of the buffer .The consumer may have to wait for new items, but the
59
 Introduction to Operating producer can always produce new items; there are always empty positions in the
Systems and Process
Management buffer.

• With a bounded buffer

The bounded buffer producer problem assumes that there is a fixed buffer size.
In this case, the consumer must wait if the buffer is empty and the producer
must wait if the buffer is full.
Shared Data
char item; //could be any data type
char buffer[n];
semaphore full = 0; //counting semaphore
semaphore empty = n; //counting semaphore
semaphore mutex = 1; //binary semaphore
char nextp,nextc;
Producer Process
do
{
produce an item in nextp
wait (empty);
wait (mutex);
add nextp to buffer
signal (mutex);
signal (full);
}
while (true)
Consumer Process
do
{
wait( full );
wait( mutex );
remove an item from buffer to nextc
signal( mutex );
signal( empty );
consume the item in nextc;
}
3.5.2 Readers and Writers Problem
The readers/writers problem is one of the classic synchronization problems. It is often
used to compare and contrast synchronization mechanisms. It is also an eminently
used practical problem. A common paradigm in concurrent applications is isolation of
shared data such as a variable, buffer, or document and the control of access to that
data. This problem has two types of clients accessing the shared data. The first type,
referred to as readers, only wants to read the shared data. The second type, referred to
as writers, may want to modify the shared data. There is also a designated central data
server or controller. It enforces exclusive write semantics; if a writer is active then no
other writer or reader can be active. The server can support clients that wish to both
read and write. The readers and writers problem is useful for modeling processes
which are competing for a limited shared resource. Let us understand it with the help
of a practical example:

An airline reservation system consists of a huge database with many processes that
read and write the data. Reading information from the database will not cause a
problem since no data is changed. The problem lies in writing information to the
database. If no constraints are put on access to the database, data may change at any
60 moment. By the time a reading process displays the result of a request for information
 Interprocess Communication
to the user, the actual data in the database may have changed. What if, for instance, a and Synchronization
process reads the number of available seats on a flight, finds a value of one, and
reports it to the customer? Before the customer has a chance to make their reservation,
another process makes a reservation for another customer, changing the number of
available seats to zero.
The following is the solution using semaphores:
Semaphores can be used to restrict access to the database under certain conditions. In
this example, semaphores are used to prevent any writing processes from changing
information in the database while other processes are reading from the database.
semaphore mutex = 1; // Controls access to the reader count
semaphore db = 1; // Controls access to the database
int reader_count; // The number of reading processes accessing the data

Reader()
{
while (TRUE) { // loop forever
down(&mutex); // gain access to reader_count
reader_count = reader_count + 1; // increment the reader_count
if (reader_count == 1)
down(&db); //If this is the first process to read the database,
// a down on db is executed to prevent access to the
// database by a writing process
up(&mutex); // allow other processes to access reader_count
read_db(); // read the database
down(&mutex); // gain access to reader_count
reader_count = reader_count - 1; // decrement reader_count
if (reader_count == 0)
up(&db); // if there are no more processes reading from the
// database, allow writing process to access the data
up(&mutex); // allow other processes to access
reader_countuse_data();
// use the data read from the database (non-critical)
}

Writer()
{
while (TRUE) { // loop forever
create_data(); // create data to enter into database (non-critical)
down(&db); // gain access to the database
write_db(); // write information to the database
up(&db); // release exclusive access to the database
}
3.5.3 Dining Philosophers Problem
Five philosophers sit around a circular table. Each philosopher spends his life
alternatively thinking and eating. In the centre of the table is a large bowl of rice. A
philosopher needs two chopsticks to eat. Only 5 chop sticks are available and a
chopstick is placed between each pair of philosophers. They agree that each will only
use the chopstick to his immediate right and left. From time to time, a philosopher
gets hungry and tries to grab the two chopsticks that are immediate left and right to
him. When a hungry philosopher has both his chopsticks at the same time, he eats
without releasing his chopsticks. When he finishes eating, he puts down both his
chopsticks and starts thinking again.
Here’s a solution for the problem which does not require a process to write another
process’s state, and gets equivalent parallelism.
#define N 5 /* Number of philosphers */
#define RIGHT(i) (((i)+1) %N) 61
 Introduction to Operating
#define LEFT(i) (((i)==N) ? 0 : (i)+1)
Systems and Process
Management
typedef enum { THINKING, HUNGRY, EATING } phil_state;
phil_state state[N];
semaphore mutex =1;
semaphore s[N];

/* one per philosopher, all 0 */

void get_forks(int i) {
state[i] = HUNGRY;
while ( state[i] == HUNGRY ) {
P(mutex);
if ( state[i] == HUNGRY &&
state[LEFT] != EATING &&
state[RIGHT(i)] != EATING ) {
state[i] = EATING;
V(s[i]);
}
V(mutex);
P(s[i]);
}
}

void put_forks(int i) {
P(mutex);
state[i]= THINKING;
if ( state[LEFT(i)] == HUNGRY ) V(s[LEFT(i)]);
if ( state[RIGHT(i)] == HUNGRY) V(s[RIGHT(i)]);
V(mutex);
}
void philosopher(int process) {
while(1) {
think();
get_forks(process);
eat();
put_forks();
}
}

3.5.4 Sleeping Barber Problem

A barber shop consists of a waiting room with chairs, and the barber room containing
the barber chair. If there are no customers to be served, the barber goes to sleep. If a
customer enters the barber shop and all chairs are occupied, then the customer leaves
the shop. if the barber is busy, but chairs are available, then the customer sits in one of
the free chairs. If the barber is asleep, the customer wakes up the barber.
The following is a sample solution for the sleeping barber problem.
# define CHAIRS 5 // chairs for waiting customers

typedef int semaphore; // use this for imagination

semaphore customers = 0; // number of customers waiting for service

semaphore barbers – 0; // number of barbers waiting for customers
semaphore mutex = 1; // for mutual exclusion
int waiting = 0; //customers who are waiting for a haircut

void barber(void)
62 {
 Interprocess Communication
while (TRUE) { and Synchronization
down(&customers); //go to sleep if no of customers are zero
down(&mutex); //acquire access to waiting
waiting = waiting -1 ; //decrement count of waiting customers
up(&barbers); //one barber is now ready for cut hair
up(&mutex); //release waiting
cut_hair(); //this is out of critical region for hair cut
}
}

void customer(void)
{
down(&mutex); //enter critical region
if (waiting < CHAIRS) //if there are no free chairs, leave
{
waiting = waiting +1; //increment count of waiting customers
up(&customers); //wake up barber if necessary
up(&mutex); //release access to waiting
down(&barbers); //go to sleep if no of free barbers is zero
get_haircut(); //be seated and be serviced
} else
{
up (&mutex); // shop is full: do no wait
}
}

Explanation:
• This problem is similar to various queuing situations
• The problem is to program the barber and the customers without getting into
race conditions
• Solution uses three semaphores:
• customers; counts the waiting customers
• barbers; the number of barbers (0 or 1)
• mutex; used for mutual exclusion
• also need a variable waiting; also counts the waiting customers;
(reason; no way to read the current value of semaphore)
• The barber executes the procedure barber, causing him to block on the
semaphore customers (initially 0);
• The barber then goes to sleep;
• When a customer arrives, he executes customer, starting by acquiring
mutex to enter a critical region;
• If another customer enters, shortly thereafter, the second one will not be
able to do anything until the first one has released mutex;
• The customer then checks to see if the number of waiting customers is
less than the number of chairs;
• If not, he releases mutex and leaves without a haircut;
• If there is an available chair, the customer increments the integer variable,
waiting;
• Then he does an up on the semaphore customers;
• When the customer releases mutex, the barber begins the haircut.
63
 Introduction to Operating
Systems and Process
Management
3.6 LOCKS
Locks are another synchronization mechanism. A lock has got two atomic operations
(similar to semaphore) to provide mutual exclusion. These two operations are Acquire
and Release. A process will acquire a lock before accessing a shared variable, and
later it will be released. A process locking a variable will run the following code:
Lock-Acquire();
critical section
Lock-Release();
The difference between a lock and a semaphore is that a lock is released only by the
process that have acquired it earlier. As we discussed above any process can
increment the value of the semaphore. To implement locks, here are some things you
should keep in mind:
• To make Acquire () and Release () atomic
• Build a wait mechanism.
• Making sure that only the process that acquires the lock will release the lock.

3.7 MONITORS AND CONDITION VARIABLES

When you are using semaphores and locks you must be very careful, because a simple
misspelling may lead that the system ends up in a deadlock. Monitors are written to
make synchronization easier and correctly. Monitors are some procedures, variables,
and data structures grouped together in a package.
An early proposal for organising the operations required to establish mutual exclusion
is the explicit critical section statement. In such a statement, usually proposed in the
form “critical x do y”, where “x” is the name of a semaphore and “y” is a statement,
the actual wait and signal operations used to ensure mutual exclusion were implicit
and automatically balanced. This allowed the compiler to trivially check for the most
obvious errors in concurrent programming, those where a wait or signal operation was
accidentally forgotten. The problem with this statement is that it is not adequate for
many critical sections.
A common observation about critical sections is that many of the procedures for
manipulating shared abstract data types such as files have critical sections making up
their entire bodies. Such abstract data types have come to be known as monitors, a
term coined by C. A. R. Hoare. Hoare proposed a programming notation where the
critical sections and semaphores implicit in the use of a monitor were all implicit. All
that this notation requires is that the programmer encloses the declarations of the
procedures and the representation of the data type in a monitor block; the compiler
supplies the semaphores and the wait and signal operations that this implies. Using
Hoare's suggested notation, shared counters might be implemented as shown below:
var value: integer;
procedure increment;
begin
value := value + 1;
end { increment };
end { counter };

var i, j: counter;
Calls to procedures within the body of a monitor are done using record notation; thus,
to increment one of the counters declared in above example, one would call
“i.increment”. This call would implicitly do a wait operation on the semaphore
64 implicitly associated with “i”, then execute the body of the “increment” procedure
 Interprocess Communication
before doing a signal operation on the semaphore. Note that the call to “i.increment” and Synchronization
implicitly passes a specific instance of the monitor as a parameter to the “increment”
procedure, and that fields of this instance become global variables to the body of the
procedure, as if there was an implicit “with” statement.
There are a number of problems with monitors which have been ignored in the above
example. For example, consider the problem of assigning a meaning to a call from
within one monitor procedure to a procedure within another monitor. This can easily
lead to a deadlock. For example, when procedures within two different monitors each
calling the other. It has sometimes been proposed that such calls should never be
allowed, but they are sometimes useful! We will study more on deadlocks in the next
units of this course.
The most important problem with monitors is that of waiting for resources when they
are not available. For example, consider implementing a queue monitor with internal
procedures for the enqueue and dequeue operations. When the queue empties, a call to
dequeue must wait, but this wait must not block further entries to the monitor through
the enqueue procedure. In effect, there must be a way for a process to temporarily step
outside of the monitor, releasing mutual exclusion while it waits for some other
process to enter the monitor and do some needed action.
Hoare’s suggested solution to this problem involves the introduction of condition
variables which may be local to a monitor, along with the operations wait and signal.
Essentially, if s is the monitor semaphore, and c is a semaphore representing a
condition variable, “wait c” is equivalent to “signal(s); wait(c); wait(s)” and “signal c”
is equivalent to “signal(c)”. The details of Hoare’s wait and signal operations were
somewhat more complex than is shown here because the waiting process was given
priority over other processes trying to enter the monitor, and condition variables had
no memory; repeated signalling of a condition had no effect and signaling a condition
on which no process was waiting had no effect. Following is an example monitor:
monitor synch
integer i;
condition c;
procedure producer(x);
.
.
end;
procedure consumer(x);
.
.
end;
end monitor;
There is only one process that can enter a monitor, therefore every monitor has its
own waiting list with process waiting to enter the monitor.
Let us see the dining philosopher’s which was explained in the above section with
semaphores, can be re-written using the monitors as:
Example: Solution to the Dining Philosophers Problem using Monitors
monitor dining-philosophers
{
enum state {thinking, hungry, eating};
state state[5];
condition self[5];

void pickup (int i)

{
state[i] = hungry;
test(i);
if (state[i] != eating)
65
 Introduction to Operating
self[i].wait;
Systems and Process
Management }

void putdown (int i)

{
state[i] = thinking;
test(i+4 % 5);
test(i+1 % 5);
}

void test (int k)

{
if ((state[k+4 % 5] != eating) && (state[k]==hungry)
&& state[k+1 % 5] != eating))
{
state[k] = eating;
self[k].signal;
}
}

init
{
for (int i = 0; i< 5; i++)
state[i] = thinking;
}
}

Condition Variables
If a process cannot enter the monitor it must block itself. This operation is provided by
the condition variables. Like locks and semaphores, the condition has got a wait and a
signal function. But it also has the broadcast signal. Implementation of condition
variables is part of a synch.h; it is your job to implement it. Wait (), Signal () and
Broadcast () have the following semantics:
• Wait() releases the lock, gives up the CPU until signaled and then re-acquire the
lock.
• Signal() wakes up a thread if there are any waiting on the condition variable.
• Broadcast() wakes up all threads waiting on the condition.
When you implement the condition variable, you must have a queue for the processes
waiting on the condition variable.

& Check Your Progress 1

1) What are race conditions? How race conditions occur in Operating Systems?
……………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………
2) What is a critical section? Explain.
……………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………

3) Provide the solution to a classical synchronization problem namely “cigarette

smoker’s problem”. The problem is defined as follows:

There are four processes in this problem: three smoker processes and an agent
process. Each of the smoker processes will make a cigarette and smoke it. To
66 make a cigarette requires tobacco, paper, and matches. Each smoker process
 Interprocess Communication
has one of the three items. i.e., one process has tobacco, another has paper, and and Synchronization
a third has matches. The agent has an infinite supply of all three. The agent
places two of the three items on the table, and the smoker that has the third item
makes the cigarette.
……………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………

3.8 SUMMARY
Interprocess communication provides a mechanism to allow process to communicate
with other processes. Interprocess communication system is best provided by a
message passing system. Message systems can be defined in many different ways. If
there are a collection of cooperating sequential processes that share some data, mutual
exclusion must be provided. There are different methods for achieving the mutual
exclusion. Different algorithms are available for solving the critical section problem
which we have discussion in this unit. The bakery algorithm is used for solving the n
process critical section problem.
Interprocess synchronization provides the processes to synchronize their activities.
Semaphores can be used to solve synchronization problems. Semaphore can only be
accessed through two atomic operations and can be implemented efficiently. The two
operations are wait and signal.
There are a number of classical synchronization problems which we have discussed in
this unit (such as producer- consumer problem, readers – writers problem and d
dining – philosophers problem). These problems are important mainly because they
are examples for a large class of concurrency-control problems. In the next unit we
will study an important aspect called as “Deadlocks”

3.9 SOLUTIONS/ANSWERS
Check Your Progress 1
1) Processes that are working together share some common storage (main
memory, file etc.) that each process can read and write. When two or more
processes are reading or writing some shared data and the final result depends
on who runs precisely when, are called race conditions. Concurrently executing
threads that share data need to synchronize their operations and processing in
order to avoid race condition on shared data. Only one “customer” thread at a
time should be allowed to examine and update the shared variable.
Race conditions are also possible in Operating Systems. If the ready queue is
implemented as a linked list and if the ready queue is being manipulated during
the handling of an interrupt, then interrupts must be disabled to prevent another
interrupt before the first one completes. If interrupts are not disabled than the
linked list could become corrupt.
2) The most synchronization problem confronting cooperating processes, is to
control the access between the shared resources. Suppose two processes share
access to a file and at least one of these processes can modify the data in this
shared area of memory. That part of the code of each program, where one
process is reading from or writing to a shared memory area, is a critical section
of code; because we must ensure that only one process execute a critical section
of code at a time. The critical section problem is to design a protocol that the
processes can use to coordinate their activities when one wants to enter its
critical section of code.
3) This seems like a fairly easy solution. The three smoker processes will make a
cigarette and smoke it. If they can’t make a cigarette, then they will go to sleep.
67
 Introduction to Operating The agent process will place two items on the table, and wake up the
Systems and Process
Management appropriate smoker, and then go to sleep. All semaphores except lock are
initialised to 0. Lock is initialised to 1, and is a mutex variable.
Here’s the code for the agent process.
do forever {
P( lock );
randNum = rand(1,3); // Pick a random number from 1-3
if (randNum == 1) {
// Put tobacco on table
// Put paper on table
V(smoker_match); // Wake up smoker with match
}
else if (randNum == 2) {
// Put tobacco on table
// Put match on table
V(smoker_paper); // Wake up smoker with paper
}
else {
// Put match on table
// Put paper on table
V(smoker_tobacco);
} // Wake up smoker with tobacco

V(lock);
P(agent); // Agent sleeps

} // end forever loop

The following is the code for one of the smokers. The others are analogous.
do forever {
P(smoker_tobacco); // Sleep right away
P(lock);
// Pick up match
// Pick up paper
V(agent);
V(lock);
// Smoke
}

3.10 FURTHER READINGS

1) Milenkovic, Milan, “Operating Systems Concepts and Design”, McGraw-Hill,

2nd Edition.
2) Tanenbaum, Andrew, Modern Operating Systems, Prentice-Hall.
3) Silberschatz, Abraham and Galvin Peter, “Operating System Concepts”,
Addison-Wesley.
4) D.M. Dhamdhere, “Operating Systems A concept-based Approach”, Tata
McGraw-Hill.
5) William Stalling, “Operating System”, Prentice Hall.
6) Deitel, Harvey M. , “An introduction to Operating System”, 4th ed., Addison-
Wesley.

68