Chapter 6: Synchronization

Tools

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Outline
 Background
 The Critical-Section Problem
 Peterson’s Solution
 Hardware Support for Synchronization
 Mutex Locks
 Semaphores
 Monitors
 Liveness
 Evaluation

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.2 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 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

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.3 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 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
 We illustrated in chapter 4 the problem when we considered the
Bounded Buffer problem with use of a counter that is updated
concurrently by the producer and consumer,. Which lead to race
condition.

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.4 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Race Condition
 Processes P0 and P1 are creating child processes using the fork()
system call
 Race condition on kernel variable next_available_pid which
represents the next available process identifier (pid)

 Unless there is a mechanism to prevent P0 and P1 from accessing the

variable next_available_pid the same pid could be assigned to
two different processes!

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.5 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 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

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.6 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Critical Section

 General structure of process Pi

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.7 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Critical-Section Problem (Cont.)
Requirements 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 process 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

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.8 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Interrupt-based Solution
 Entry section: disable interrupts
 Exit section: enable interrupts
 Will this solve the problem?
• What if the critical section is code that runs for an hour?
• Can some processes starve – never enter their critical section.
• What if there are two CPUs?

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.9 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Software Solution 1

 Two process solution

 Assume that the load and store machine-language
instructions are atomic; that is, cannot be interrupted
 The two processes share one variable:
• int turn;
 The variable turn indicates whose turn it is to enter the
critical section
 initially, the value of turn is set to i

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.10 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Algorithm for Process Pi

while (true){

while (turn = = j);

/* critical section */

turn = j;

/* remainder section */

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.11 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Correctness of the Software Solution

 Mutual exclusion is preserved

Pi enters critical section only if:
turn = i
and turn cannot be both 0 and 1 at the same time
 What about the Progress requirement?
 What about the Bounded-waiting requirement?

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.12 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Peterson’s Solution
 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!

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.13 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Algorithm for Process Pi

while (true){

flag[i] = true;
turn = j;
while (flag[j] && turn = = j)
;

/* critical section */

flag[i] = false;

/* remainder section */

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.14 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Correctness of Peterson’s Solution

 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

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.15 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Peterson’s Solution and Modern Architecture

 Although useful for demonstrating an algorithm, Peterson’s

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

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.16 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Modern Architecture Example

 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

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.17 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Modern Architecture Example (Cont.)

 However, since the variables flag and x are independent

of each other, the instructions:

flag = true;
x = 100;

for Thread 2 may be reordered

 If this occurs, the output may be 0!

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.18 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Peterson’s Solution Revisited

 The effects of instruction reordering in Peterson’s Solution

 This allows both processes to be in their critical section at the same

time!
 To ensure that Peterson’s solution will work correctly on modern
computer architecture we must use Memory Barrier.

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.19 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Memory Barrier

 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.

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.20 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Memory Barrier Example
 Returning to the example of slides 6.17 - 6.18
 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
 For Thread 1 we are guaranteed that that the value of flag
is loaded before the value of x.
 For Thread 2 we ensure that the assignment to x occurs
before the assignment flag.

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.21 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 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

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.22 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Hardware Instructions

 Special hardware instructions that allow us to either

test-and-modify the content of a word, or to swap the
contents of two words atomically (uninterruptedly.)
• Test-and-Set instruction
• Compare-and-Swap instruction

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.23 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 The test_and_set Instruction

 Definition
boolean test_and_set (boolean *target)
{
boolean rv = *target;
*target = true;
return rv:
}
 Properties
• Executed atomically
• Returns the original value of passed parameter
• Set the new value of passed parameter to true

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.24 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Solution Using test_and_set()
 Shared boolean variable lock, initialized to false
 Solution:
do {
while (test_and_set(&lock))
; /* do nothing */

/* critical section */

lock = false;
/* remainder section */
} while (true);

 Does it solve the critical-section problem?

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.25 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 The 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;

}
 Properties
• Executed atomically
• Returns the original value of passed parameter value
• 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.

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.26 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Solution using compare_and_swap
 Shared integer lock initialized to 0;
 Solution:
while (true){
while (compare_and_swap(&lock, 0, 1) != 0)
; /* do nothing */

/* critical section */

lock = 0;

/* remainder section */
}

 Does it solve the critical-section problem?

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.27 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Bounded-waiting 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;
/* critical section */
j = (i + 1) % n;
while ((j != i) && !waiting[j])
j = (j + 1) % n;
if (j == i)
lock = 0;
else
waiting[j] = false;
/* remainder section */
}

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.28 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 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
• Boolean variable indicating if lock is available or not
 Protect a critical section by
• First acquire() a lock
• Then release() the lock
 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

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.29 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Solution to CS Problem Using Mutex Locks

while (true) {
acquire lock

critical section

release lock

remainder section
}

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.30 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Semaphore

 Synchronization tool that provides more sophisticated ways

(than Mutex locks) for processes 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++;
}

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.31 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Semaphore (Cont.)
 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 implement a counting semaphore S as a binary
semaphore
 With semaphores we can solve various synchronization
problems

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.32 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Semaphore Usage Example
 Solution to the CS Problem
• Create a semaphore “mutex” initialized to 1
wait(mutex);
CS
signal(mutex);
 Consider P1 and P2 that with two statements S1 and S2 and
the requirement that S1 to happen before S2
• Create a semaphore “synch” initialized to 0
P1:
S1;
signal(synch);
P2:
wait(synch);
S2;

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.33 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 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

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.34 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 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

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.35 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Implementation with no Busy waiting (Cont.)

 Waiting queue
typedef struct {
int value;
struct process *list;
} semaphore;

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.36 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 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);
}
}

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.37 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 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.

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.38 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 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.

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.39 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 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

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.40 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Chapter 7: Synchronization
Examples

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Classical Problems of Synchronization
 Classical problems used to test newly-proposed
synchronization schemes
• Bounded-Buffer Problem
• Readers and Writers Problem
• Dining-Philosophers Problem

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.42 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Bounded-Buffer Problem

 n buffers, each can hold one item

 Semaphore mutex initialized to the value 1
 Semaphore full initialized to the value 0
 Semaphore empty initialized to the value n

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.43 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Bounded Buffer Problem (Cont.)

 The structure of the producer process

while (true) {
...
/* produce an item in next_produced */
...
wait(empty);
wait(mutex);
...
/* add next produced to the buffer */
...
signal(mutex);
signal(full);
}

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.44 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Bounded Buffer Problem (Cont.)
 The structure of the consumer process

while (true) {
wait(full);
wait(mutex);
...
/* remove an item from buffer to next_consumed */
...
signal(mutex);
signal(empty);
...
/* consume the item in next consumed */
...
}

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.45 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Readers-Writers Problem
 A data set is shared among a number of concurrent processes
• Readers – only read the data set; they do not perform any
updates
• Writers – can both read and write
 Problem – allow multiple readers to read at the same time
• Only one single writer can access the shared data at the same
time
 Several variations of how readers and writers are considered – all
involve some form of priorities

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.46 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Readers-Writers Problem (Cont.)
 Shared Data
• Data set
• Semaphore rw_mutex initialized to 1
• Semaphore mutex initialized to 1
• Integer read_count initialized to 0

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.47 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Readers-Writers Problem (Cont.)

 The structure of a writer process

while (true) {
wait(rw_mutex);
...
/* writing is performed */
...
signal(rw_mutex);
}

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.48 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Readers-Writers Problem (Cont.)

 The structure of a reader process

while (true){
wait(mutex);
read_count++;
if (read_count == 1) /* first reader */
wait(rw_mutex);
signal(mutex);
...
/* reading is performed */
...
wait(mutex);
read_count--;
if (read_count == 0) /* last reader */
signal(rw_mutex);
signal(mutex);
}

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.49 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018
 Readers-Writers Problem Variations

 The solution in previous slide can result in a situation where

a writer process never writes. It is referred to as the “First
reader-writer” problem.
 The “Second reader-writer” problem is a variation the first
reader-writer problem that state:
• Once a writer is ready to write, no “newly arrived
reader” is allowed to read.
 Both the first and second may result in starvation. leading to
even more variations
 Problem is solved on some systems by kernel providing
reader-writer locks

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.50 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018