1. Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne  2002 7.1 Operating System Concepts Background Shared-memory solution to bounded-buffer problem allows at most n – 1 items in buffer at the same time. A solution, where all N buffers are used is not simple.  Suppose that we modify the producer-consumer code by adding a variable counter, initialized to 0 and incremented each time a new item is added to the buffer  Shared data #define BUFFER_SIZE 10 typedef struct {... } item; item buffer[BUFFER_SIZE]; int in = 0; int out = 0; int counter = 0;

2. Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne  2002 7.2 Operating System Concepts Bounded-Buffer Attempt Producer process while (1) { while (counter == BUFFER_SIZE) ; /* do nothing */ buffer[in] = nextProduced; in = (in + 1) % BUFFER_SIZE; counter++; } Consumer process while (1) { while (counter == 0) ; /* do nothing */ nextConsumed = buffer[out]; out = (out + 1) % BUFFER_SIZE; counter--; }

3. Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne  2002 7.3 Operating System Concepts Bounded Buffer The statement counter++ may be implemented in machine language as: register1 = counter register1 = register1 + 1 counter = register1 The statement counter-- may be implemented as: register2 = counter register2 = register2 – 1 counter = register2 If both the producer and consumer attempt to update the counter concurrently, the assembly language statements may get interleaved.

4. Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne  2002 7.4 Operating System Concepts Bounded Buffer Assume counter is initially 5. One interleaving of statements is: producer: register1 = counter (register1 = 5) producer: register1 = register1 + 1 (register1 = 6) consumer: register2 = counter (register2 = 5) consumer: register2 = register2 – 1 (register2 = 4) producer: counter = register1 (counter = 6) consumer: counter = register2 (counter = 4) The value of counter may be either 4 or 6, where the correct result should be 5. Interleaving depends upon how the producer and consumer processes are scheduled. The statements counter++; and counter--; must be performed atomically.  Atomic operation means an operation that completes in its entirety without interruption.

5. Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne  2002 7.5 Operating System Concepts Race Condition Concurrent access to shared data may result in data inconsistency. Race condition: The situation where several processes access – and manipulate shared data concurrently. The final value of the shared data depends upon which process finishes last. To prevent race conditions, concurrent processes must be synchronized. The concurrent processes have critical sections, in which they modify shared data A limited number of processes can be in their critical sections at the same time.

6. Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne  2002 7.6 Operating System Concepts The Critical-Section Problem N processes all competing to use some shared data Each process has a code segment, called critical section, in which the shared data is accessed. Problem – ensure that maximally R (often R = 1) processes executing in their critical section. General structure of process P i do { entry section critical section exit section remainder section } while (1);

7. Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne  2002 7.7 Operating System Concepts Solution to Critical Section Problem Requirements 1. Mutual Exclusion - Maximally R processes in their critical section 2. Progress - If less than R processes are in their critical sections, then a process that wishes to enter it critical section is not delayed indefinitely. 3. Bounded Waiting - Only a bounded amount of “overtaking” into critical sections is permitted. Assumptions Assume that each process executes at a non-zero speed No assumption concerning relative speed of the processes. Atomic execution of machine code instructions (think of the fetch- interrupt?-decode-execute cycle) Types of solutions Software - no hardware support but slow Hardware supported

8. Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne  2002 7.8 Operating System Concepts 2 Processes, 1 at-a-time, Algorithm 1 Processes P 0 and P 1 Shared variables:  int turn = 0;  turn = i  P i can enter its critical section Process P i do { while (turn != i) ; critical section turn = 1 - i; reminder section } while (1); Satisfies mutual exclusion, but not progress  A process can be stuck in its remainder  Problem is forced alternation

9. Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne  2002 7.9 Operating System Concepts 2 Processes, 1 at-a-time, Algorithm 2 Shared variables  boolean flag[2] = {false,false};  flag[i] = true  P i ready to enter its critical section Process P i do { flag[i] := true; while (flag[1-i]) ; critical section flag[i] = false; remainder section } while (1); Satisfies mutual exclusion, but not progress  Both can set flag[i] before proceeding  Switching the first two lines violates mutual exclusion

10. Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne  2002 7.10 Operating System Concepts 2 Processes, 1 at-a-time, Algorithm 3 (Peterson’s Algorithm) Combined shared variables of algorithms 1 and 2. Process P i do { flag[i]:= true; //----I’m ready turn = 1-i; //----It’s your turn (last RAM access) while (flag[1-i] and turn == 1-i) ; //----Wait if other is ready and it’s its turn critical section flag[i] = false; //----I’m not ready any more remainder section } while (1); Meets all three requirements; solves the critical-section problem for two processes.

11. Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne  2002 7.11 Operating System Concepts N Processes, 1 at-a-time, Bakery Algorithm Before entering its critical section, process receives a number. Holder of the smallest number enters the critical section. If processes P i and P j receive the same number, if i < j, then P i is served first; else P j is served first. Numbers are handed out in non-decreasing order, e.g., 1,2,3,3,3,3,4,5... Notation <  lexicographical order (ticket #, process id #)  (a,b) < (c,d) if a < c or if a = c and b < d

12. Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne  2002 7.12 Operating System Concepts Bakery Algorithm Shared data boolean choosing[n] = {false*}; int number[n] = {0*}; Algorithm for P i do { choosing[i] = true; number[i] = max(number[0],number[1],…,number[n–1])+1; choosing[i] = false; for (j=0; j<n; j++) { while (choosing[j]) ; //---Wait for a process that is getting a number while (number[j] != 0 && (number[j],j) < (number[i],i)) ; //---Wait for process with better numbers } critical section number[i] = 0; //---Release the number and interest remainder section } while (1);

13. Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne  2002 7.13 Operating System Concepts Hardware Supported Solutions Turn off interrupts  Affects multi-tasking - too dangerous  Affects clock  Affects critical OS activities Atomically swap two variables. void Swap(boolean &a, boolean &b) { boolean temp = a; a = b; b = temp; } Test and modify the content of a word atomically boolean TestAndSet(boolean &target) { boolean return_value = target; target = true; return(return_value); }

14. Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne  2002 7.14 Operating System Concepts N Processes, 1 at-a-time, Using swap Shared data boolean lock = false; //----Nobody using Local data boolean key; Process P i do { key = true; //---I want in while (key) //---Wait until free Swap(lock,key); critical section lock = false; //---Set it free remainder section } Does not satisfy bounded wait

15. Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne  2002 7.15 Operating System Concepts N Processes, 1 at-a-time, Using T&S Shared data: boolean lock = false; Process P i do { while (TestAndSet(lock)) ; critical section lock = false; remainder section } Does not satisfy bounded wait

16. Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne  2002 7.16 Operating System Concepts N Processes, 1 at-a-time, Using T&S Shared data boolean waiting[0..n-1] = {false*}; boolean lock = false; Algorithm for P i while (1) { waiting[i] = true; //---I want in key = true; //---Assume another is in C.S. while (waiting[i] && key) key = TestAndSet(lock); //---Busy wait waiting[i] = false critical section j = (i+1) % n; //---Look to see who’s waiting while (j != i && !waiting[j]) j = (j+1) % n; if (j == i) then lock = false; //----No one else waiting[j] = false; //---Someone remainder section } (see Geoff’s example)

17. Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne  2002 7.17 Operating System Concepts Semaphores Working towards a synchronization tool that does not require busy waiting. Semaphore S – integer variable Can only be accessed via two atomic operations wait(S): //---P(S) when S > 0 do S--; signal(S): //----V(S) S++;

18. Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne  2002 7.18 Operating System Concepts N Processes, R at-a-time, Using Semaphores Shared data: semaphore mutex = R; //----R processes in parallel Process P i : do { wait(mutex); critical section signal(mutex); remainder section } while (1);

19. Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne  2002 7.19 Operating System Concepts Semaphore as a General Synchronization Tool Execute B in P j only after A executed in P i Use semaphore flag initialized to 0 Code: P i P j   Await(flag) signal(flag)B

20. Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne  2002 7.20 Operating System Concepts Implementing Semaphores How to implement wait? wait(S): while (S <= 0) //---Busy wait ; S--; //---Not atomic? How to implement signal? signal(S): S++; //---Not atomic?

21. Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne  2002 7.21 Operating System Concepts Spinlock Binary Semaphore Implementation Spinlock binary semaphores implemented with T&S  B = FALSE means B = 1  B = TRUE means B = 0 wait(B): while (TestAndSet(B)) ; signal(B): B = false; Note the busy wait in wait(B)  Will be avoided in general semaphore implementation  When used for CS problem, bounded-wait is violated because while is not indivisible  However, useful in some situations

22. Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne  2002 7.22 Operating System Concepts Spinlock Semaphore Implementation Data structures: binary-semaphore B1=1, B2=0; int C = R; When C is less than 0 the semaphore value is 0. wait operation wait(B1); //---Mutex on C C--; if (C < 0) { //---Have to stop here signal(B1); wait(B2); //---Busy wait } signal(B1); signal operation wait(B1); C++; if (C <= 0) signal(B2); else signal(B1);

23. Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne  2002 7.23 Operating System Concepts Semaphore Implementation Assume two simple operations:  block(P) moves P to the waiting state, with the PCB linked into the semaphore list  wakeup(P) moves P to the ready state

24. Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne  2002 7.24 Operating System Concepts Semaphore Implementation wait(P,S): wait(B1) //---Short busy wait C-- if (C < 0) block(P); signal(B1) signal(P,S): wait(B1) //---Short busy wait C++ if (C <= 0) wakeup(Someone) //---“when” and S-- signal(B1) When C is less than 0 the semaphore value is 0.

25. Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne  2002 7.25 Operating System Concepts Semaphore Implementation Expanded wait(P,S): while (TestAndSet(B1)) ; C-- if (C < 0) block(P); B1 = FALSE signal(P,S): while (TestAndSet(B1)) ; C++ if (C <= 0) wakeup(Someone) B1 = FALSE

26. Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne  2002 7.26 Operating System Concepts Bounded-Buffer Problem Shared data semaphore full = 0, empty = R, mutex = 1; Producer Process do { produce an item in nextp wait(empty); wait(mutex); add nextp to buffer signal(mutex); signal(full); } while (1); Consumer Process do { wait(full) wait(mutex); remove an item from buffer to nextc signal(mutex); signal(empty); consume the item in nextc } while (1);

27. Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne  2002 7.27 Operating System Concepts Readers-Writers Problem 1 Shared data semaphore mutex = 1, wrt = 1; int readcount = 0; //---Number of readers in action Writer Process wait(wrt); writing is performed signal(wrt); Reader Process wait(mutex); //---Mutex on readcount readcount++; if (readcount == 1) //---First reader wait(wrt); //---Wait to lock out writers signal(mutex); reading is performed wait(mutex); readcount--; if (readcount == 0) //---Last reader signal(wrt); //---Allow writers signal(mutex):

28. Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne  2002 7.28 Operating System Concepts Dining-Philosophers Problem Shared data semaphore chopstick[N] = {1*}; Philosopher i: do { wait(chopstick[i]); wait(chopstick[(i+1) % N]); eat; signal(chopstick[i]); signal(chopstick[(i+1) % N]); think; } while (1); Leads to deadlock  Limit philosophers  Pickup both at once  Asymmetric pickup

29. Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne  2002 7.29 Operating System Concepts Critical Regions High-level synchronization construct A shared variable v of type T, is declared as: v: shared T Variable v accessed only inside statement region v when B do S ; where B is a boolean expression. Only one process can be in a region at a time. When a process executes the region statement, B is evaluated.  If B is true, statement S is executed.  If B is false, the process is queued until no process is in the region associated with v, and B is tested again

30. Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne  2002 7.30 Operating System Concepts Example – Bounded Buffer Shared data: buffer : shared struct { int pool[n]; int count, in, out; } Producer region buffer when (count < n) do { pool[in] = nextp; in:= (in+1) % n; count++; } Consumer region buffer when (count > 0) do { nextc = pool[out]; out = (out+1) % n; count--; }

31. Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne  2002 7.31 Operating System Concepts Monitors High-level synchronization construct that allows the safe sharing of an abstract data type among concurrent processes. monitor monitor-name { shared variable declarations procedure body P1 (…) {... //---Can access shared vars and params } procedure body P2 (…) {... } procedure body Pn (…) {... } { initialization code } Only one process can be executing in a monitor at a time

32. Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne  2002 7.32 Operating System Concepts Schematic View of a Monitor

33. Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne  2002 7.33 Operating System Concepts Monitors To allow a process to wait within the monitor, a condition variable must be declared, as condition x, y; Condition variable can only be used with the operations wait and signal.  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.  Hmmm, which runs, signaller or signalled? Compromise - signaller must exit the monitor

34. Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne  2002 7.34 Operating System Concepts Monitor With Condition Variables

35. Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne  2002 7.35 Operating System Concepts Dining Philosophers Example 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((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(); } void init() { for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) state[i] = thinking; }