Chapter 2: Process Synchronization

2.4
Process Synchronization

GV: Nguyễn Thị Thanh Vân

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

1
 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
 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

2
 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

 process synchronization = 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

3
 Critical Section

 General structure of process Pi

 Two general approaches are used to handle critical sections in OS:

• preemptive kernel: allows a process to be preempted while it is
running in kernel mode.
• nonpreemptive kernel: does not allow a process running in kernel
mode to be preempted; a kernel-mode process will run until it exits
kernel mode, blocks,or voluntarily yields control of the CPU.

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

4
 Classification of solutions

 Interrupt-based Solution
 Software Solution
• Software Solution 1
• Software Solution 2
• Peterson’s Algorithm
 Hardware support for synchronization
• Memory barriers
• Special hardware instructions
 Test-and-Set instruction
 Compare-and-Swap instruction
 Mutex lock
 Semaphores
 Monitors
 Liveness

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

Interrupt-based Solution
 The critical-section problem could be solved simply in a single-core
environment if we could prevent interrupts from occurring while a
shared variable was being modified.
 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 6.10 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

5
 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 turn = 0
 Algorithm for Process Pi

while (true)
{
turn = i;
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 Solution1

 Mutual exclusion is preserved
Pi enters critical section if and only if:
turn = i
and turn cannot be both 0 and 1 at the same time
 What about the Progress requirement?
• If Process 1 wants to enter the critical section and Process 2 is not
interested in entering the critical section, can Process 1 enter?

 What about the Bounded-waiting requirement?

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.12 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

6
 Software Solution 2

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.13 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

Software Solution -- Peterson’s Algorithm

 Peterson’s solution:
• software-based solution to the critical-section problem
• Involves designing software that addresses the requirements of
 mutual exclusion,
 progress,
 and bounded waiting
• is not guaranteed to work on modern computer architecture
 Two process solution:
• alternate execution between their critical sections and remainder
sections,
• And share two variables:
 int turn;
 boolean flag[2]

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.14 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

7
 Algorithm for Process Pi
 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!

while (true){

flag[i] = true; /*Pi ready */

turn = j; /*preemptive Pj */
while (flag[j] && turn = = j)
;

/* critical section */

flag[i] = false;

/* remainder section */
}
Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.15 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

Peterson’s Algorithm
while (true){ /* 0 wants in */
flag[0] = true;
turn = 1; /* 0 gives a change to 1 */
while (flag[1] && turn = = 1)
;
/* critical section */
/* 0 no longer wants in */
flag[0] = false;
/* remainder section */
}

while (true){ /* 1 wants in */

flag[1] = true;
turn = 0; /* 1 gives a change to 0 */
while (flag[0] && turn = = 0)
;
/* critical section */
/* 1 no longer wants in */
flag[1] = false;
/* remainder section */
}
Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.16 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

8
 Correctness of Peterson’s Solution
 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

1. Prove: Pi and Pj are same time if: flag[i] = flag[j] == true and turn == i. => cannot occur
2,3. Prove: Note that a process can be prevented from entering the CS only if it is stuck in the while
loop with the condition flag[i] = true and turn = j, this loop is the only one possible.
 If Pj is not ready to CS, then flag[j] == false, and Pi can enter its CS.
 If Pj has set flag[j] = true and is also executing in its while statement, then either turn == i or j.
• If turn == i,then Pi will enter the CS.
• If turn == j, then Pj will enter the CS. (Pi continue)
 However, once Pj exits its CS, it will reset flag[j] =false, allowing Pi to enter its CS.
 If Pj resets flag[j] to true, it must also set turn to i.
 Thus, since Pi does not change the value of the variable turn while executing the while statement,
Pi will enter the CS (progress) after at most one entry by Pj (bounded waiting)

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.17 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

Peterson’s Solution
 Solution works for 2 process.
 What about modifying it to handle 10 processes?
 Solution requires busy waiting
• Processes waste CPU cycles to ask if they can enter the critical section

 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 6.18 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

9
 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 (Thread1)? 100
 However, since the variables flag and x are independent of each
other, the instructions: (reorder the instructions for Thread 2)
flag = true;
x = 100;
 If this occurs, the output may be (Thread1): 0

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

Peterson’s Solution Revisited

 The effects of instruction reordering in Peterson’s Solution: reordered 2 lines
while (true){
flag[i] = true; /*Pi ready */
turn = j; /*preemptive Pj */
while (flag[j] && turn = = j)
;
/* critical section */
flag[i] = false;
/* remainder section */
}

 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 6.20 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

10
 Hardware Support for Synchronization

 Many systems provide hardware support for implementing the

critical section code.
 Uniprocessors – could disable interrupts
• Currently running code would execute without preemption
 Is this practical?
• Generally, too inefficient on multiprocessor systems
 Operating systems using this not broadly scalable
 We will look at three forms of hardware support:
• Memory Barriers
• Hardware instructions
• Atomic Variables

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

Memory Barrier Instructions

 A memory barrier instruction:

• is used to ensure that all loads and stores instructions are completed
before any subsequent load or store operations are performed.
 Therefore, even if instructions were reordered, the memory barrier
ensures that
• the store operations are completed in memory and visible to other
processors before future load or store operations are performed.
 Note that memory barriers are considered very low-level operations and
are typically only used by kernel developers when writing specialized
code that ensures mutual exclusion

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

11
 Memory Barrier Example
 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 6.23 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 6.24 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

12
 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 6.25 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);

 Based on busy waiting

 Does it solve the critical-section problem?
• Mutual exclusion
• bounded wait

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.26 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

13
 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 6.27 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 */
}

 Based on busy waiting

 Does it solve the critical-section problem?
• Mutual exclusion
• does not satisfy the bounded-waiting

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.28 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

14
 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 6.29 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

Atomic Variables
 Typically, instructions such as compare-and-swap are used as building
blocks for other synchronization tools (not used to provide mutual exclusion)
 One tool is an atomic variable that provides atomic (uninterruptible)
updates on basic data types such as integers and Booleans.
 For example:
• Let sequence be an atomic variable
• Let increment() be operation on the atomic variable sequence
• The Command: increment(&sequence);
ensures sequence is incremented without interruption:
void increment(atomic_int *v)
{
int temp;
do {
temp = *v;
}
while (temp !=
(compare_and_swap(v,temp,temp+1));
}
Operating System Concepts – 10 Edition
th 6.30 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

15
 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
 Two operations:
• acquire() a lock
• release() a lock
 The acquire() and release()are executed atomically
• 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 6.31 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 6.32 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

16
 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 6.33 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 using binary semaphores
 With semaphores we can solve various synchronization problems

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

17
 Semaphore Usage Example (Cont.)
 Solution to the CS Problem
• Create a semaphore “mutex” initialized to 1
• Code:
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
• Code: to synchronization
P1:
S1;
signal(synch);
P2:
wait(synch);
S2;

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.35 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
 Can be implemented using any of the critical sections solutions -
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 for “regular” applications, where the application may
spend lots of time in critical sections this is not a good solution

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

18
 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
 Waiting queue
typedef struct {
int value;
struct process *list;
} semaphore;

 OS provides 2 tasks:
• The wakeup(P) operation resumes the execution of process P
• The sleep() suspends the process that invoked it

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

Implementation of the wait/ signal operation

 The wait operation:  The signal operation:

wait(semaphore *S) { signal(semaphore *S) {
S->value--; S->value++;
if (S->value < 0) { if (S->value <= 0) {
add this P to S->list; remove a P from S->list;
sleep(); wakeup(P);
} }
} }
 The sleep() suspends the  The wakeup(P) operation
process that invoked it. resumes the execution of process P

 S.value< 0: The number of process in queue: |S.value|

 S.value >=0: The number of process execute wait(S), without blocked: S.value

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

19
 Problems with Semaphores
 Incorrect use of semaphore operations:

• Omitting of wait(mutex) and/or signal(mutex)

 These – and others – are examples of what can occur when

semaphores and other synchronization tools are used incorrectly.
 Solution: introduce high-level programming constructs

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

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 (…) { … }

}

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.40 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

20
 Schematic view of a Monitor

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.41 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

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

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.42 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

21
 Monitor with Condition Variables

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.43 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

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 parallel. 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

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.44 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

22
 Monitor Implementation Using Semaphores

 Variables

semaphore mutex; // (initially = 1)

semaphore next; // (initially = 0)
int next_count = 0; // number of processes waiting
inside the monitor

 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

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.45 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

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--;
 The operation x.signal() can be implemented as:
if (x_count > 0) {
next_count++;
signal(x_sem);
wait(next);
next_count--;
}
Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.46 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

23
 Resuming Processes within a Monitor

 If several processes are 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

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.47 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

Single Resource allocation Example

 Allocate a single resource among competing processes using priority
numbers that specify the maximum amount of time a process plans to
use the resource

R.acquire(t);
...
access the resurce;
...

R.release;

 Where R is an instance of type ResourceAllocator (shown in the

next slides)

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.48 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

24
 A Monitor to Allocate Single Resource

monitor ResourceAllocator
{
boolean busy;
condition x;  Usage:
void acquire(int time) {
acquire
if (busy)
...
x.wait(time);
busy = true; release
}  Incorrect use of monitor operations
void release() { • release() … acquire()
busy = FALSE; • acquire() … acquire())
x.signal();
• Omitting of acquire() and/or
}
release()
initialization code() {
busy = false;
}
}
Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.49 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 6.50 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

25
 Deadlock
 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 is blocked, it must wait until P1 executes signal(Q)
 However, P1 is waiting – wait(S) is blocked, until P0 execute signal(S).
 Since these signal() operations will never be executed, P0 and P1 are
deadlocked.

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.51 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

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 6.52 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

26
 Chapter 2: Process Synchronization

Synchronization Examples

GV: Nguyễn Thị Thanh Vân

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

Outline

 Explain the bounded-buffer synchronization problem

 Explain the readers-writers synchronization problem
 Explain and dining-philosophers synchronization problems

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.54 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

27
 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 6.55 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 6.56 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

28
 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 6.57 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 6.58 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

29
 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 6.59 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

Readers-Writers: 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 6.60 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

30
 The Structure of a Writer Process

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

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.61 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

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 6.62 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

31
 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 6.63 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

Dining-Philosophers Problem
 N philosophers’ sit at a round table with a bowel of rice in the middle.

 They spend their lives alternating between thinking and eating.

 They do not interact with their neighbors.
 Occasionally try to pick up 2 chopsticks (one at a time) to eat from bowl
• Need both chopsticks to eat, then release both when done
 In the case of 5 philosophers, the shared data
 Bowl of rice (data set)
 Semaphore chopstick [5] initialized to 1

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.64 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

32
 Semaphore Solution to Dining-Philosophers

 The structure of Philosopher i:

while (true){
wait (chopstick[i] );
wait (chopStick[ (i + 1) % 5] );

/* eat for awhile */

signal (chopstick[i] );
signal (chopstick[ (i + 1) % 5] );

/* think for awhile */

}
 What is the problem with this algorithm?

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.65 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

Monitor Solution to Dining Philosophers

monitor DiningPhilosophers
{
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);
}

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.66 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

33
 Solution to Dining Philosophers (Cont.)

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;
}
}

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.67 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

Solution to Dining Philosophers (Cont.)

 Each philosopher “i” invokes the operations pickup() and
putdown() in the following sequence:

DiningPhilosophers.pickup(i);

/** EAT **/

DiningPhilosophers.putdown(i);

 No deadlock, but starvation is possible

Operating System Concepts – 10th Edition 6.68 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2018

34
 End of Chapter 2
2.4

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

35