Process

Synchronization
Outline
 Cooperating Processes
 The Bounded Buffer Producer-Consumer
Problem
 The Critical Section Problem
 Synchronization Hardware
 Semaphores
 Classical Problems of Synchronization
 Critical Regions
 Monitors
Cooperating Processes
 Concurrent Processes can be
 Independent processes
 cannot affect or be affected by the execution of another
process.
 Cooperating processes
 can affect or be affected by the execution of another process.
 Advantages of process cooperation:
 Information sharing
 Computation speedup
 Modularity
 Convenience(e.g. editing, printing, compiling)
 Concurrent execution requires
 process communication and process synchronization
Producer-Consumer Problem

 Paradigm for cooperating processes;

 producer process produces information that is
consumed by a consumer process.
 We need buffer of items that can be filled by
producer and emptied by consumer.
 Unbounded-buffer places no practical limit on the size of
the buffer. Consumer may wait, producer never waits.
 Bounded-buffer assumes that there is a fixed buffer size.
Consumer waits for new item, producer waits if buffer is
full.
 Producer and Consumer must synchronize.
Producer-Consumer Problem
Bounded-buffer - Shared
Memory Solution
 Shared data
var n;
type item = ….;
var buffer: array[0..n-1] of item;
in, out: 0..n-1;
in :=0; out:= 0; /* shared buffer = circular array */
/* Buffer empty if in == out */
/* Buffer full if (in+1) mod n == out */
/* noop means ‘do nothing’ */
Bounded Buffer - Shared
Memory Solution
 Producer process - creates filled buffers
repeat
…
produce an item in nextp
…
while in+1 mod n = out do noop;
buffer[in] := nextp;
in := in+1 mod n;
until false;
Bounded Buffer - Shared
Memory Solution
 Consumer process - Empties filled buffers
repeat
while in = out do noop;
nextc := buffer[out] ;
out:= out+1 mod n;
…
consume the next item in nextc
…
until false
Background

 Concurrent access to shared data may result

in data inconsistency.
 Maintaining data consistency requires
mechanisms to ensure the orderly execution
of cooperating processes.
 Shared memory solution to the bounded-
buffer problem allows at most (n-1) items in
the buffer at the same time.
Bounded Buffer

 A solution that uses all N buffers is not that

simple.
 Modify producer-consumer code by adding a variable
counter, initialized to 0, incremented each time a new
item is added to the buffer
 Shared data
type item = ….;
var buffer: array[0..n-1] of item;
in, out: 0..n-1;
counter: 0..n;
in, out, counter := 0;
Bounded Buffer

 Producer process - creates filled buffers

repeat
…
produce an item in nextp
…
while counter = n do noop;
buffer[in] := nextp;
in := in+1 mod n;
counter := counter+1;
until false;
Bounded Buffer

 Consumer process - Empties filled buffers

repeat
while counter = 0 do noop;
nextc := buffer[out] ;
out:= out+1 mod n;
counter := counter - 1;
…
consume the next item in nextc
…
until false;
 The statements
counter := counter + 1;
counter := counter - 1;
must be executed atomically.
The Critical-Section Problem
 N processes all competing to use shared data.
 Structure of process Pi ---- Each process has a code segment,
called the critical section, in which the shared data is accessed.
repeat
entry section /* enter critical section */
critical section /* access shared
variables */
exit section /* leave critical section
*/
remainder section /* do other work
*/
until false
 Problem
 Ensure that when one process is executing in its critical section,
no other process is allowed to execute in its critical section.
Solution: Critical Section
Problem - Requirements
 Mutual Exclusion
 If process Pi is executing in its critical section, then no
other processes can be executing in their critical sections.
 Progress
 If no process is executing in its critical section and there
exists 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.
 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.
Solution: Critical Section
Problem - Requirements
 Assume that each process executes at a
nonzero speed.
 No assumption concerning relative speed of
the n processes.
Solution: Critical Section
Problem -- Initial Attempt
 Only 2 processes, P0 and P1
 General structure of process Pi (Pj)
repeat
entry section
critical section
exit section
remainder section
until false
 Processes may share some common
variables to synchronize their actions.
Algorithm 1
 Shared Variables:
 var turn: (0..1);
initially turn = 0;
 turn = i  Pi can enter its critical section
 Process Pi
repeat
while turn <> i do no-op;
critical section
turn := j;
remainder section
until false
Satisfies mutual exclusion, but not progress.
Algorithm 2
 Shared Variables
 var flag: array (0..1) of boolean;
initially flag[0] = flag[1] = false;
 flag[i] = true  Pi ready to enter its critical section
 Process Pi
repeat
flag[i] := true;
while flag[j] do no-op;
critical section
flag[i]:= false;
remainder section
until false
Can block indefinitely…. Progress requirement not met.
Algorithm 3
 Shared Variables
 var flag: array (0..1) of boolean;
initially flag[0] = flag[1] = false;
 flag[i] = true  Pi ready to enter its critical section
 Process Pi
repeat
while flag[j] do no-op;
flag[i] := true;
critical section
flag[i]:= false;
remainder section
until false
Does not satisfy mutual exclusion requirement ….
Algorithm 4
 Combined Shared Variables of algorithms 1 and 2
 Process Pi
repeat
flag[i] := true;
turn := j;
while (flag[j] and turn=j) do no-op;
critical section
flag[i]:= false;
remainder section
until false
YES!!! Meets all three requirements, solves the critical
section problem for 2 processes.
Bakery Algorithm

 Critical section for n processes

 Before entering its critical section, process receives a
number. Holder of the smallest number enters critical
section.
 If processes Pi and Pj receive the same number,
 if i <= j, then P is served first; else Pj is served first.
 The numbering scheme always generates numbers in
increasing order of enumeration; i.e. 1,2,3,3,3,3,4,4,5,5
Bakery Algorithm (cont.)

 Notation -
 Lexicographic order(ticket#, process id#)
 (a,b) < (c,d) if (a<c) or if ((a=c) and (b < d))
 max(a0,….an-1) is a number, k, such that k >=ai
for i = 0,…,n-1
 Shared Data
var choosing: array[0..n-1] of boolean;(initialized to false)
number: array[0..n-1] of integer; (initialized to 0)
Bakery Algorithm (cont.)
repeat
choosing[i] := true;
number[i] := max(number[0], number[1],…,number[n-1]) +1;
choosing[i] := false;
for j := 0 to n-1
do begin
while choosing[j] do no-op;
while number[j] <> 0
and (number[j] ,j) < (number[i],i) do no-op;
end;
critical section
number[i]:= 0;
remainder section
until false;
Hardware Solutions for
Synchronization
 Mutual exclusion solutions presented depend
on memory hardware having read/write cycle.

 If multiple reads/writes could occur to the same memory

location at the same time, this would not work.
 Processors with caches but no cache coherency cannot
use the solutions
 In general, it is impossible to build mutual
exclusion without a primitive that provides
some form of mutual exclusion.
 How can this be done in the hardware???
Synchronization Hardware

 Test and modify the content of a word

atomically - Test-and-set instruction
function Test-and-Set (var target: boolean): boolean;
begin
Test-and-Set := target;
target := true;
end;
 Similarly “SWAP” instruction
Mutual Exclusion with Test-
and-Set
 Shared data: var lock: boolean (initially false)
 Process Pi
repeat
while Test-and-Set (lock) do no-op;
critical section
lock := false;
remainder section
until false;
Bounded Waiting Mutual
Exclusion with Test-and-Set
var j : 0..n-1;
key : boolean;
repeat
waiting [i] := true; key := true;
while waiting[i] and key do key := Test-and-Set(lock);
waiting [i ] := false;
critical section
j := j + 1 mod n;
while (j <> i) and (not waiting[j]) do j := j + 1 mod n;
if j = i then lock := false;
else waiting[j] := false;
remainder section

until false;
Semaphore

 Semaphore S - integer variable

 used to represent number of abstract resources
 Can only be accessed via two indivisible
(atomic) operations
wait (S): while S <= 0 do no-op
S := S-1;
signal (S): S := S+1;
 P or wait used to acquire a resource, decrements count
 V or signal releases a resource and increments count
 If P is performed on a count <= 0, process must wait for V
or the release of a resource.
Example: Critical Section for
n Processes
 Shared variables
var mutex: semaphore
initially mutex = 1
 Process Pi
repeat
wait(mutex);
critical section
signal (mutex);
remainder section
until false
Semaphore as a General
Synchronization Tool
 Execute B in Pj only after A execute in Pi
 Use semaphore flag initialized to 0
 Code:
Pi Pj
. .
. .
. .
A wait(flag)
signal(flag) B
Problem...
 Busy Waiting, uses CPU that others could use. This
type of semaphore is called a spinlock.
 OK for short times since it prevents a context switch.

 For longer runtimes, need to modify P and V so that

processes can block and resume.
Semaphore Implementation

 Define a semaphore as a record

type semaphore = record
value: integer;
L: list of processes;
end;
 Assume two simple operations
 block suspends the process that invokes it.
 wakeup(P) resumes the execution of a blocked process
P.
Semaphore
Implementation(cont.)
 Semaphore operations are now defined as
wait (S): S.value := S.value -1;
if S.value < 0
then begin
add this process to S.L;
block;
end;

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

if S.value <= 0
then begin
remove a process P from S.L;
wakeup(P);
end;
Block/Resume Semaphore
Implementation
 If process is blocked, enqueue PCB of
process and call scheduler to run a different
process.
 Semaphores are executed atomically;
 no two processes execute wait and signal at the same
time.
 Mutex can be used to make sure that two processes do
not change count at the same time.
 If an interrupt occurs while mutex is held, it will result in a
long delay.
 Solution: Turn off interrupts during critical section.
Deadlock and Starvation
 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 semaphores initialized to 1
P0 P1
wait(S); wait(Q);
wait(Q); wait(S);
.. ..
. .
signal (S) ; signal (Q);
signal (Q); signal (S);
 Starvation- indefinite blocking. A process may
never be removed from the semaphore queue in
which it is suspended.
Two Types of Semaphores

 Counting Semaphore - integer value can

range over an unrestricted domain.
 Binary Semaphore - integer value can range
only between 0 and 1; simpler to implement.
 Can implement a counting semaphore S as a
binary semaphore.
Implementing S (counting
sem.) as a Binary Semaphore
 Data Structures
var S1 : binary-semaphore;
S2 : binary-semaphore;
S3 : binary-semaphore;
C: integer;
 Initialization
S1 = S3 =1;
S2 = 0;
C = initial value of semaphore S;
Implementing S
Wait operation
wait(S3);
wait(S1);
C := C-1;
if C < 0
then begin
signal (S1);
wait(S2);
end
else signal (S1);
signal (S3);
Signal operation
wait(S1);
C := C + 1;
if C <= 0 then signal (S2);
signal (S1);
Classical Problems of
Synchronization
 Bounded Buffer Problem
 Readers and Writers Problem
 Dining-Philosophers Problem
Bounded Buffer Problem

 Shared data
type item = ….;
var buffer: array[0..n-1] of item;
full, empty, mutex : semaphore;
nextp, nextc :item;
full := 0; empty := n; mutex := 1;
Bounded Buffer Problem
 Producer process - creates filled buffers
repeat
…
produce an item in nextp
…
wait (empty);
wait (mutex);
…
add nextp to buffer
…
signal (mutex);
signal (full);
until false;
Bounded Buffer Problem

 Consumer process - Empties filled buffers

repeat
wait (full );
wait (mutex);
…
remove an item from buffer to nextc
...
signal (mutex);
signal (empty);
…
consume the next item in nextc
…
until false;
Readers-Writers Problem

 Shared Data
var mutex, wrt: semaphore (=1);
readcount: integer (= 0);
 Writer Process
wait(wrt);
…
writing is performed
...
signal(wrt);
Readers-Writers Problem

 Reader process
wait(mutex);
readcount := readcount +1;
if readcount = 1 then wait(wrt);
signal(mutex);
...
reading is performed
...
wait(mutex);
readcount := readcount - 1;
if readcount = 0 then signal(wrt);
signal(mutex);
Dining-Philosophers Problem

Shared Data
var chopstick: array [0..4] of semaphore (=1 initially);
Dining Philosophers Problem
 Philosopher i :
repeat
wait (chopstick[i]);
wait (chopstick[i+1 mod 5]);
…
eat
...
signal (chopstick[i]);
signal (chopstick[i+1 mod 5]);
…
think
…
until false;
Higher Level
Synchronization
 Timing errors are still possible with semaphores
 Example 1
signal (mutex);
…
critical region
...
wait (mutex);
 Example 2
wait(mutex);
…
critical region
...
wait (mutex);
 Example 3
wait(mutex);
…
critical region
...
Forgot to signal
Conditional Critical Regions

 High-level synchronization construct

 A shared variable v of type T is declared as:
var v: shared T
 Variable v is accessed only inside statement
region v when B do S
where B is a boolean expression.
While statement S is being executed, no other
process can access variable v.
Critical Regions (cont.)

 Regions referring to the same shared

variable exclude each other in time.
 When a process tries to execute the region
statement, the Boolean expression B is
evaluated.
 If B is true, statement S is executed.
 If it is false, the process is delayed until B becomes true
and no other process is in the region associated with v.
Example - Bounded Buffer
 Shared variables
var buffer: shared record
pool:array[0..n-1] of item;
count,in,out: integer;
end;
 Producer Process inserts nextp into the shared
buffer
region buffer when count < n
do begin
pool[in] := nextp;
in := in+1 mod n;
count := count + 1;
end;
Bounded Buffer Example
 Consumer Process removes an item from the
shared buffer and puts it in nextc
region buffer when count > 0
do begin
nextc := pool[out];
out := out+1 mod n;
count := count -1;
end;
Implementing Regions

 Region x when B do S
var mutex, first-delay, second-delay: semaphore;
first-count, second-count: integer;
 Mutually exclusive access to the critical
section is provided by mutex.
If a process cannot enter the critical section because the
Boolean expression B is false,
it initially waits on the first-delay semaphore;
moved to the second-delay semaphore before it is allowed to
reevaluate B.
Implementation

 Keep track of the number of processes

waiting on first-delay and second-delay, with
first-count and second-count respectively.
 The algorithm assumes a FIFO ordering in
the queueing of processes for a semaphore.
 For an arbitrary queueing discipline, a more
complicated implementation is required.
Implementing Regions
wait(mutex);
while not B
do begin first-count := first-count +1;
if second-count > 0
then signal (second-delay);
else signal (mutex);
wait(first-delay);
first-count := first-count -1;
second-count := second-count + 1;
if first-count > 0 then signal (first-delay)
else signal (second-delay);
wait(second-delay);
second-count := second-count -1;
end;
S;
if first-count > 0 then signal (first-delay);
else if second-count > 0
then signal (second-delay);
else signal (mutex);
Monitors
High-level synchronization construct that allows the safe sharing of
an abstract data type among concurrent processes.
type monitor-name = monitor
variable declarations
procedure entry P1 (…);
begin … end;
procedure entry P2 (…);
begin … end;
.
.
.
procedure entry Pn(…);
begin … end;
begin
initialization code
end.
Monitors
 To allow a process to wait within the monitor, a
condition variable must be declared, as:
var x,y: condition
 Condition variable can only be used within the operations wait
and signal. Queue is associated with condition variable.
 The operation
x.wait;
means that the process invoking this operation is suspended until
another process invokes
x.signal;
 The x.signal operation resumes exactly one suspended process. If

no process is suspended, then the signal operation has no effect.

Dining Philosophers
type dining-philosophers= monitor
var state: array[0..4] of (thinking, hungry, eating);
var self: array[0..4] of condition;
// condition where philosopher I can delay himself when hungry but //
is unable to obtain chopstick(s)
procedure entry pickup (i :0..4);
begin
state[i] := hungry;
test(i); //test that your left and right neighbors are not eating
if state [i] <> eating then self [i].wait;
end;
procedure entry putdown (i:0..4);
begin
state[i] := thinking;
test (i + 4 mod 5 ); // signal left neighbor
test (i + 1 mod 5 ); // signal right neighbor
end;
Dining Philosophers (cont.)
procedure test (k :0..4);
begin
if state [k + 4 mod 5] <> eating
and state [k ] = hungry
and state [k + 1 mod 5] <> eating
then
begin
state[k] := eating;
self [k].signal;
end;
end;

begin
for i := 0 to 4
do state[i] := thinking;
end;