Process Synchronization

To introduce the critical-section problem, whose solutions

can be used to ensure the consistency of shared data
To present both software and hardware solutions of the
critical-section problem
do{
\ entry section
critical section
exit section
remainder section
} while (TRUE);
General structure of a typical process P,.
To introduce the concept of an atomic transaction and
describe mechanisms to ensure atomicity
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 flls all the bufers. We
can do so by having an integer count that keeps track of
the number of full bufers. Initially, count is set to 0. It is
incremented by the producer after it produces a new bufer
and is decremented by the consumer after it consumes a
bufer
Producer
while (true) {
/* produce an item and put in nextProduced */
while (count == BUFFER_SIZE)
; // do nothing
bufer [in] = nextProduced;
in = (in + 1) % BUFFER_SIZE;
count++;
}
Consumer
while (true) {
while (count == 0)
; // do nothing
nextConsumed = bufer[out];
out = (out + 1) % BUFFER_SIZE;
count--;
/* consume the item in nextConsumed
}
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
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}
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 indefnitely
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 fag[2]
The variable turn indicates whose turn it is to enter the
critical section.
The fag array is used to indicate if a process is ready to
enter the critical section. fag[i] = true implies that process
Pi is ready!
Algorithm for Process Pi
do {
fag[i] = TRUE;
turn = j;
while (fag[j] && turn == j);
critical section
fag[i] = FALSE;
remainder section
} while (TRUE);
Synchronization Hardware
Many systems provide hardware support for critical section
code
Uniprocessors could disable interrupts
Currently running code would execute without preemption
Generally too inefcient 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
Solution to Critical-section Problem Using Locs
do {
acquire lock
critical section
release lock
remainder section
} while (TRUE);
!estAndSet "nstruction
Defnition:
boolean TestAndSet (boolean *target)
{
boolean rv = *target;
*target = TRUE;
return rv:
}
Solution using !estAndSet
Shared boolean variable lock., initialized to false.
Solution:
do {
while ( TestAndSet (&lock ))
; // do nothing
// critical section
lock = FALSE;
// remainder section
} while (TRUE);
Swa# "nstruction
Defnition:
void Swap (boolean *a, boolean *b)
{
boolean temp = *a;
*a = *b;
*b = temp:
}
Solution using Swa#
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);
$ounded-waiting %utual &'clusion with !estandSet()
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);
Sema#hore
Synchronization tool that does not require busy waiting
nSemaphore 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++;
}
Sema#hore as *eneral Synchronization !ool
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 locksnCan implement a counting
semaphore S as a binary semaphore
Provides mutual exclusionSemaphore mutex; // initialized to
do {
wait (mutex);
// Critical Section
signal (mutex);
// remainder section
} while (TRUE);
Sema#hore "m#lementation
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 crtical
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.
Sema#hore "m#lementation with no $usy 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.
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);
}
}
+eadloc and Star,ation
Deadlock two or more processes are waiting indefnitely
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 indefnite 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
Classical Problems of Synchronization
Bounded-Bufer Problem
Readers and Writers Problem
Dining-Philosophers Problem
$ounded-$uffer Problem
N bufers, 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.
The structure of the producer process
do { // produce an item in nextp
wait (empty);
wait (mutex);
// add the item to the bufer
signal (mutex);
signal (full);
} while (TRUE);
The structure of the consumer process
do { wait (full);
wait (mutex);
// remove an item from bufer to nextc
signal (mutex);
signal (empty);
// consume the item in nextc
} while (TRUE);
Readers--riters 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 writenProblem allow
multiple readers to read at the same time. Only one single
writer can access the shared data at the same time
Shared Data
Data set
Semaphore mutex initialized to 1
Semaphore wrt initialized to 1
Integer readcount initialized to 0
The structure of a writer process
do { wait (wrt) ;
// writing is performed
signal (wrt) ;
} while (TRUE);
The structure of a reader process
do {
wait (mutex) ;
readcount ++ ;
if (readcount == 1)
wait (wrt) ;
signal (mutex)
// reading is performed
wait (mutex) ;
readcount - - ;
if (readcount == 0)
signal (wrt) ;
signal (mutex) ;
} while (TRUE);
+ining-Philoso#hers Problem
Shared data
Bowl of rice (data set)
Semaphore chopstick [5] initialized to 1
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);
Problems with Sema#hores
Incorrect use of semaphore operations:
l signal (mutex)
.
wait (mutex)
wait (mutex)
wait (mutex)
Omitting of wait (mutex) or signal (mutex) (or both)
%onitors
A high-level abstraction that provides a convenient and efective
mechanism for process synchronization
Only one process may be active within the monitor at a time
monitor monitor-name
{
// shared variable declarations
procedure P1 () { . }

procedure Pn () {}
Initialization code ( .) { }

}
}
Schematic ,iew of a %onitor
Condition .ariables
condition x, y;
Two operations on a condition variable:
x.wait () a process that invokes the operation is
suspended.
x.signal () resumes one of processes (if any) that
invoked x.wait ()
%onitor with Condition .ariables
Solution to +ining Philoso#hers
monitor DP
{
enum { THINKING; HUNGRY, EATING) state [5] ;
condition self [5];
void pickup (int i) {
state[i] = HUNGRY;
test(i);
if (state[i] != EATING) self [i].wait;
}
void putdown (int i) {
state[i] = THINKING;
// test left and right neighbors
test((i + 4) % 5);
test((i + 1) % 5);
}
void test (int i) {
if ( (state[(i + 4) % 5] != EATING) &&
(state[i] == HUNGRY) &&
(state[(i + 1) % 5] != EATING) ) {
state[i] = EATING ;
self[i].signal () ;
}
}
initialization_code() {
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++)
state[i] = THINKING;
}
}
Each philosopher I invokes the operations pickup()
and putdown() in the following sequence:
DiningPhilosophters.pickup (i);
EAT
DiningPhilosophers.putdown (i);
%onitor "m#lementation Using Sema#hores
.ariables
semaphore mutex; // (initially = 1)
semaphore next; // (initially = 0)
int next-count = 0;nEach procedure F
will be replaced by
wait(mutex);

body of F;

if (next_count > 0)
signal(next)
elses
ignal(mutex);nMutual exclusion
within a monitor is ensured.
%onitor "m#lementation
For each condition variable x, we have:
semaphore x_sem; // (initially = 0)
int x-count = 0;nThe operation x.wait can
be implemented as:
x-count++;
if (next_count > 0)
signal(next);
else
signal(mutex);
wait(x_sem);
x-count--;
The operation x.signal can be implemented as:
if (x-count > 0) {
next_count++;
signal(x_sem);
wait(next);
next_count--;
}
A %onitor to Allocate Single Resource
monitor ResourceAllocator
{
boolean busy;
condition x;
void acquire(int time) {
if (busy)
x.wait(time);
busy = TRUE;
}
void release() {
busy = FALSE;
x.signal();
}
initialization code() {
busy = FALSE;
}
}
Synchronization &'am#les
Solaris
Windows XP
Linux
Pthreads
Solaris Synchronization
"m#lements a ,ariety of locs to su##ort multitasking,
multithreading (including real-time threads), and
multiprocessing
Uses adaptive mutexes for efciency when protecting data
from short code segments
Uses condition variables and readers-writers locks when
longer sections of code need access to data
Uses turnstiles to order the list of threads waiting to acquire
either an adaptive mutex or reader-writer lock
-indows /P Synchronization
Uses interrupt masks to protect access to global resources
on uniprocessor systems
Uses spinlocks on multiprocessor systems
Also provides dispatcher objects which may act as either
mutexes and semaphores
Dispatcher objects may also provide events
An event acts much like a condition variable
Linu' Synchronization
Linux:lPrior to kernel Version 2.6, disables interrupts to
implement short critical sections
Version 2.6 and later, fully preemptive
Linux provides:
semaphores
spin locks
Pthreads Synchronization
Pthreads API is OS-independent
It provides:
mutex locks
condition variablesnNon-portable extensions include:
read-write locks
spin locks
Atomic !ransactions
System Model
Log-based Recovery
Checkpoints
Concurrent Atomic Transactions
System %odel
Assures that operations happen as a single logical unit of
work, in its entirety, or not at all
Related to feld of database systems
Challenge is assuring atomicity despite computer system
failures
Transaction - collection of instructions or operations that
performs single logical function
Here we are concerned with changes to stable storage
disk
Transaction is series of read and write operations
Terminated by commit (transaction successful) or abort
(transaction failed) operation Aborted transaction must be
rolled back to undo any changes it performed
!y#es of Storage %edia
Volatile storage information stored here does not survive
system crashes
Example: main memory, cache
Nonvolatile storage Information usually survives crashes
Example: disk and tape
Stable storage Information never lost
Not actually possible, so approximated via replication or
RAID to devices with independent failure modes
Goal is to assure transaction atomicity where failures
cause loss of information on volatile storage
Log-$ased Reco,ery
Record to stable storage information about all modifcations
by a transaction
Most common is write-ahead logging
Log on stable storage, each log record describes single
transaction write operation, including
Transaction name
Data item name
Old value
New value
<Ti starts> written to log when transaction Ti starts
<Ti commits> written when Ti commits
Log entry must reach stable storage before operation
on data occurs


Log-$ased Reco,ery Algorithm
Using the log0 system can handle any ,olatile memory errors
Undo(Ti) restores value of all data updated by Ti
Redo(Ti) sets values of all data in transaction Ti to new
values
Undo(Ti) and redo(Ti) must be idempotent
Multiple executions must have the same result as one
execution
If system fails, restore state of all updated data via log
If log contains <Ti starts> without <Ti commits>, undo(Ti)
If log contains <Ti starts> and <Ti commits>, redo(Ti)
Chec#oints
Log could become long, and recovery could take long
Checkpoints shorten log and recovery time.
Checkpoint scheme:
1.Output all log records currently in volatile storage to stable
storage
2.Output all modifed data from volatile to stable storage
3.Output a log record <checkpoint> to the log on stable storage
Now recovery only includes Ti, such that Ti started executing
before the most recent checkpoint, and all transactions after Ti
All other transactions already on stable storage
Concurrent !ransactions
Must be equivalent to serial execution serializability
Could perform all transactions in critical section
Inefcient, too restrictive
Concurrency-control algorithms provide serializability
Serializability
Consider two data items A and B
Consider Transactions T0 and T1
Execute T0, T1 atomically
Execution sequence called schedule
Atomically executed transaction order called serial
schedule
For N transactions, there are N! valid serial schedules
Schedule 12 !3 then !1
4onserial Schedule
Nonserial schedule allows overlapped execute
Resulting execution not necessarily incorrect
Consider schedule S, operations Oi, Oj
Confict if access same data item, with at least one write
If Oi, Oj consecutive and operations of diferent
transactions & Oi and Oj dont confict
Then S with swapped order Oj Oi equivalent to S
If S can become S via swapping nonconficting operations
S is confict serializable
Schedule 52 Concurrent Serializable Schedule
Locing Protocol
Ensure serializability by associating lock with each data
item
Follow locking protocol for access control
Locks
Shared Ti has shared-mode lock (S) on item Q, Ti can
read Q but not write Q
Exclusive Ti has exclusive-mode lock (X) on Q, Ti can
read and write Q
Require every transaction on item Q acquire appropriate
lock
If lock already held, new request may have to wait
Similar to readers-writers algorithm
!wo-#hase Locing Protocol
Generally ensures confict serializability
Each transaction issues lock and unlock requests in two
phases
Growing obtaining locks
Shrinking releasing locks
Does not prevent deadlock
!imestam#-based Protocols
Select order among transactions in advance timestampordering
Transaction Ti associated with timestamp TS(Ti) before Ti
starts
TS(Ti) < TS(Tj) if Ti entered system before Tj
TS can be generated from system clock or as logical
counter incremented at each entry of transaction
Timestamps determine serializability order
If TS(Ti) < TS(Tj), system must ensure produced schedule
equivalent to serial schedule where Ti appears before Tj
!imestam#-based Protocol "m#lementation
Data item Q gets two timestamps
W-timestamp(Q) largest timestamp of any transaction
that executed write(Q) successfully
R-timestamp(Q) largest timestamp of successful read(Q)
Updated whenever read(Q) or write(Q) executed
Timestamp-ordering protocol assures any conficting read
and write executed in timestamp order
Suppose Ti executes read(Q)
If TS(Ti) < W-timestamp(Q), Ti needs to read value of Q
that was already overwritten
read operation rejected and Ti rolled back
If TS(Ti) W-timestamp(Q)
read executed, R-timestamp(Q) set to max(Rtimestamp(
Q), TS(Ti))
!imestam#-ordering Protocol
Supose Ti executes write(Q)
If TS(Ti) < R-timestamp(Q), value Q produced by Ti was needed
previously and Ti assumed it would never be produced
Write operation rejected, Ti rolled back
If TS(Ti) < W-tiimestamp(Q), Ti attempting to write obsolete value
of Q
Write operation rejected and Ti rolled back
Otherwise, write executed
Any rolled back transaction Ti is assigned new timestamp and
restarted
Algorithm ensures confict serializability and freedom from
deadlock
Schedule Possible Under !imestam# Protocol