ch6.ppt

Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition
Chapter 6: Synchronization
Tools

6.2 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
Chapter 6: Synchronization Tools
 Background
 The Critical-Section Problem
 Peterson’s Solution
 Hardware Support for Synchronization
 Mutex Locks
 Semaphores
 Monitors
 Liveness
 Evaluation

Objectives
 Describe the critical-section problem and illustrate a race
condition
 Illustrate hardware solutions to the critical-section problem
using memory barriers, compare-and-swap operations, and
atomic variables
 Demonstrate how mutex locks, semaphores, monitors, and
condition variables can be used to solve the critical section
problem
 Evaluate tools that solve the critical-section problem in low-.
Moderate-, and high-contention scenarios

Background
 Processes can execute concurrently
 May be interrupted at any time, partially completing
execution
 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:
Suppose that we wanted to provide a solution to the
consumer-producer problem that fills all the buffers. We can
do so by having an integer counter that keeps track of the
number of full buffers. Initially, counter is set to 0. It is
incremented by the producer after it produces a new buffer
and is decremented by the consumer after it consumes a
buffer.

Producer
while (true) {
/* produce an item in next produced */
while (counter == BUFFER_SIZE)
; /* do nothing */
buffer[in] = next_produced;
in = (in + 1) % BUFFER_SIZE;
counter++;
}

Consumer
while (true) {
while (counter == 0)
; /* do nothing */
next_consumed = buffer[out];
out = (out + 1) % BUFFER_SIZE;
counter--;
/* consume the item in next consumed */
}

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:
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 {counter = 6 }
S5: consumer execute counter = register2 {counter = 4}

Race Condition
 Processes P0 and P1 are creating child processs using the fork() system
call
 Race condition on kernel variable next_available_pid which represents
the next available process identifier (pid)
 Unless there is mutual exclusion, the same pid could be assigned to two
different processes!

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

Critical Section
 General structure of process Pi

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

Critical-Section Handling in OS
Two approaches depending on if kernel is preemptive or non-
preemptive
 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

Peterson’s Solution
 Not guaranteed to work on modern architectures! (But good
algorithmic description of solving the problem)
 Two process solution
 Assume that the load and store machine-language
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
while (true){
flag[i] = true;
turn = j;
while (flag[j] && turn = = j)
;
/* critical section */
flag[i] = false;
/* remainder section */
}

Peterson’s Solution (Cont.)
 Provable that the three CS requirement are met:
1. Mutual exclusion is preserved
Pi enters CS only if:
either flag[j] = false or turn = i
2. Progress requirement is satisfied
3. Bounded-waiting requirement is met

 Although useful for demonstrating an algorithm, Peterson’s Solution is not
guaranteed to work on modern architectures.
 Understanding why it will not work is also useful for better understanding
race conditions.
 To improve performance, processors and/or compilers may reorder
operations that have no dependencies.
 For single-threaded this is ok as the result will always be the same.
 For multithreaded the reordering may produce inconsistent or unexpected
results!

 Two threads share the data:
boolean flag = false;
int x = 0;
 Thread 1 performs
while (!flag)
;
print x
 Thread 2 performs
x = 100;
flag = true
 What is the expected output?

 100 is the expected output.
 However, the operations for Thread 2 may be reordered:
flag = true;
x = 100;
 If this occurs, the output may be 0!
 The effects of instruction reordering in Peterson’s Solution
 This allows both processes to be in their critical section at the same time!

Synchronization Hardware
 Many systems provide hardware support for implementing the
critical section code.
 Uniprocessors – could disable interrupts
 Currently running code would execute without preemption
 Generally too inefficient on multiprocessor systems
 Operating systems using this not broadly scalable
 We will look at three forms of hardware support:
1. Memory barriers
2. Hardware instructions
3. Atomic variables

Memory Barriers
 Memory model are the memory guarantees a computer architecture makes
to application programs.
 Memory models may be either:
 Strongly ordered – where a memory modification of one processor is
immediately visible to all other processors.
 Weakly ordered – where a memory modification of one processor may not
be immediately visible to all other processors.
 A memory barrier is an instruction that forces any change in memory to be
propagated (made visible) to all other processors.

Memory Barrier
 We could add a memory barrier to the following instructions to ensure
Thread 1 outputs 100:
 Thread 1 now performs
while (!flag)
memory_barrier();
print x
 Thread 2 now performs
x = 100;
memory_barrier();
flag = true

Hardware Instructions
 Special hardware instructions that allow us to either test-and-modify the
content of a word, or two swap the contents of two words atomically
(uninterruptibly.)
 Test-and-Set instruction
 Compare-and-Swap 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()
 Shared boolean variable lock, initialized to false
 Solution:
do {
while (test_and_set(&lock))
; /* do nothing */
lock = false;
} while (true);

compare_and_swap Instruction
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 is true. That is, the swap takes place
only under this condition.

Solution using compare_and_swap
 Shared integer lock initialized to 0;
 Solution:
while (true){
while (compare_and_swap(&lock, 0, 1) != 0)
; /* do nothing */
lock = 0;
}

Bounded-waiting Mutual Exclusion
with compare-and-swap
while (true) {
waiting[i] = true;
key = 1;
while (waiting[i] && key == 1)
key = compare_and_swap(&lock,0,1);
waiting[i] = false;
j = (i + 1) % n;
while ((j != i) && !waiting[j])
j = (j + 1) % n;
if (j == i)
lock = 0;
else
waiting[j] = false;
}

Atomic Variables
 Typically, instructions such as compare-and-swap are used as building
blocks for other synchronization tools.
 One tool is an atomic variable that provides atomic (uninterruptible)
updates on basic data types such as integers and booleans.
 For example, the increment() operation on the atomic variable
sequence ensures sequence is incremented without interruption:
increment(&sequence);

Atomic Variables
 The increment() function can be implemented as follows:
void increment(atomic_int *v)
{
int temp;
do {
temp = *v;
}
while (temp != (compare_and_swap(v,temp,temp+1));
}

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
such as compare-and-swap.
 But this solution requires busy waiting
 This lock therefore called a spinlock

Solution to Critical-section Problem Using Locks
while (true) {
acquire lock
critical section
release lock
remainder section
}

Mutex Lock Definitions
 acquire() {
while (!available)
; /* busy wait */
available = false;;
}
 release() {
available = true;
}
These two functions must be implemented atomically.
Both test-and-set and compare-and-swap can be
used to implement these functions.

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;

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);
}
}

Problems with Semaphores
 Incorrect use of semaphore operations:
 signal (mutex) …. wait (mutex)
 wait (mutex) … wait (mutex)
 Omitting of wait (mutex) and/or signal (mutex)
 These – and others – are examples of what can occur when
sempahores and other synchronization tools are used
incorrectly.

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
 Pseudocode syntax of a monitor:
monitor monitor-name
{
// shared variable declarations
function P1 (…) { …. }
function P2 (…) { …. }
function 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

Monitor Implementation Using Semaphores
 Variables
semaphore mutex; // (initially = 1)
semaphore next; // (initially = 0)
int next_count = 0;
 Each function F will be replaced by
wait(mutex);
…
body of F;
…
if (next_count > 0)
signal(next)
else
signal(mutex);
 Mutual exclusion within a monitor is ensured

Monitor Implementation – Condition Variables
 For each condition variable x, we have:
semaphore x_sem; // (initially = 0)
int x_count = 0;
 The operation x.wait() can be implemented as:
x_count++;
if (next_count > 0)
signal(next);
else
signal(mutex);
wait(x_sem);
x_count--;

Monitor Implementation (Cont.)
 The operation x.signal() can be implemented as:
if (x_count > 0) {
next_count++;
signal(x_sem);
wait(next);
next_count--;
}

Resuming Processes within a Monitor
 If several processes queued on condition variable x, and
x.signal() is executed, which process should be
resumed?
 FCFS frequently not adequate
 conditional-wait construct of the form x.wait(c)
 Where c is priority number
 Process with lowest number (highest priority) is
scheduled next

 Allocate a single resource among competing processes using
priority numbers that specify the maximum time a process
plans to use the resource
R.acquire(t);
...
access the resurce;
...
R.release;
 Where R is an instance of type ResourceAllocator
Single Resource allocation

A Monitor 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;
}
}

Liveness
 Processes may have to wait indefinitely while trying to acquire a
synchronization tool such as a mutex lock or semaphore.
 Waiting indefinitely violates the progress and bounded-waiting criteria
discussed at the beginning of this chapter.
 Liveness refers to a set of properties that a system must satisfy to ensure
processes make progress.
 Indefinite waiting is an example of a liveness failure.

Liveness
 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);
 Consider if P0 executes wait(S) and P1 wait(Q). When P0 executes
wait(Q), it must wait until P1 executes signal(Q)
 However, P1 is waiting until P0 execute signal(S).
 Since these signal() operations will never be executed, P0 and P1 are
deadlocked.

Liveness
 Other forms of deadlock:
 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

Priority Inheritance Protocol
 Consider the scenario with three processes P1, P2, and P3. P1 has
the highest priority, P2 the next highest, and P3 the lowest. Assume a
resouce P3 is assigned a resource R that P1 wants. Thus, P1 must
wait for P3 to finish using the resource. However, P2 becomes
runnable and preempts P3. What has happened is that P2 - a process
with a lower priority than P1 - has indirectly prevented P3 from gaining
access to the resource.
 To prevent this from occurring, a priority inheritance protocol is
used. This simply allows the priority of the highest thread waiting to
access a shared resource to be assigned to the thread currently using
the resource. Thus, the current owner of the resource is assigned the
priority of the highest priority thread wishing to acquire the resource.

ch6.ppt

More Related Content

Similar to ch6.ppt (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

ch6.ppt