1 / 36

Chapter 3 The Critical Section Problem

Chapter 3 The Critical Section Problem. Produce . Get from buffer. Put in buffer. Consume . Producer - Consumer Problem. Producer Process. Buffer is shared (ie., it is a shared variable). Consumer Process. BUFFER. p1. 1. p2. 2. p3. 3. p4. 4. Buffer. Consumer. 1. 2. c2. t.

yoshi-byers
Download Presentation

Chapter 3 The Critical Section Problem

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Chapter 3The Critical Section Problem

  2. Produce Get from buffer Put in buffer Consume Producer - Consumer Problem Producer Process • Buffer is shared (ie., it is a shared variable) Consumer Process BUFFER

  3. p1 1 p2 2 p3 3 p4 4 Buffer Consumer 1 2 c2 t Progress in time….. Producer • Both processes are started at the same time and consumer uses some old value initially 3 instead of 2! c1

  4. A Race Condition • Because of the timing and which process starts first • There is a chance that different executions may end up with different results • That is, because of interleaving, we can not predict what will happen next when processes are executing

  5. Why Processes Need to Communicate? • To synchronize their executions • To exchange data and information

  6. Critical Sections • Critical Section • A section of code in which a process accesses and modifies shared variables • Mutual Exclusion • A method of preventionto ensurethat one (or a specified number) of process(es)is/are in a critical section

  7. critical section critical section Mutual Exclusion Problem Program producerconsumer; Procedure producer; begin repeat produce; putinbuffer; until false; End; Procedure consumer; Begin repeat getfrombuffer; consume; until false; End; Begin (* main program *) cobegin producer; consumer coend End.

  8. Critical Section • A critical section in the procedure of a process is the section in which the process refers and changes common variables (which are shared by other processes) • There may be several critical sections operating on the same or different common variables in a process

  9. Rules to Form Critical Sections • No two processes may be simultaneously inside their CS -(Rule of Mutual Exclusion) • No assumptions are made about relative process speeds or number of CPUs - (Race Conditions) • No process can remain inside a CS indefiniely (CS must be small in code and it’s execution must take minimal time) - (Rule of Deadlock and Starvation) • A process outside a CS should not block other processes - (Rule of Deadlock and Starvation) • No process should wait forever before entering its CS (When a process leaves a CS, the process manager must activate a waiting process to enter its CS. Processes waiting to enter a CS usually wait in a queue maintained in a FIFO manner or by a priority rule) - (Rule of Starvation)

  10. Correctness Specification • Correctness specifications required for a solution are : • Mutual exclusion : Statements from the critical sections of two or more processes must not be interleaved • Freedom from Deadlock: If some processes are trying to enter their critical sections, then one of them must eventually succeed • Freedom from Starvation : If any process tries to enter its critical section, then that process must eventually succeed

  11. Synchronization • A synchronization mechanism (synchronization primatives) must be provided to handle the critical section problem • This synchronization mechanism consists of additional statements that are placed before and after a critical section (preprotocol and postprotocol)

  12. First Attempt(Critical Section Problem for two processes) Program mutualexclusion; Var turn : integer; Procedure P; begin repeat non-critical section; repeat (* do nothing *) until turn = 1; (* busy wait while P2 is in CS*) critical section; turn := 2; until false; End; Procedure Q; Begin repeat non-critical section; repeat (* do nothing *) until turn = 2; (* busy wait while P1 is in CS *) critical section; turn := 1; until false; End; Begin (* main program *) turn := 1; (* we start with P1 *) cobegin P; Q coend End.

  13. Comments • Do (* nothing *) is implemented by timeslicing (process loops in the while instruction ) • Solution satisfies mutual exclusion, since only one process can be in CS • Deadlock is not possible. Both processes can never be stuck at the while statement • Process starvation is possible, if a process spends a lot of time in its non-critical section. Here we assume that the other process is busy waiting to enter the critical section. If processes spend finite times in non-critical sections then there will be no starvation

  14. Drawback • The processes are not loosely connected. That is, the right to enter a CS is being explicitly passed from one process to another • Suppose process P is waiting to enter the CS. If something happens to process Q while inside the non-critical section, process P is hopelessly deadlocked after the next pass

  15. First Attempt Using Book’s Convention • Await is blocking wait not a busy wait loop

  16. Proving Correctness with State Diagrams • In the first attempt, states are triples of the form (pi,qj,turn) • Variables used in the non-critical and critical sections are assumed to be distinct from the variables used in the protocols so that they have no effect at the correctness of the solution. So, they are left out of the states • The mutual exclusion correctness property holds if the set of all accessible states does not contain a state of the form (p3,q3,turn) for some value of turn, because p3 and q3 are the labels of the critical sections

  17. State Diagrams • How many states can be in a state diagram? • Suppose the algorithm has N processes with nistatements in process i, and M variables where variable j has mj possible values. • The number of possible states is n1 x ... x nN x m1 x ... x mM • For the first attempt, the number of states is 4x4x2=32 since we have 4 statements per process and turn can be 1 or 2

  18. State Diagram of the First Attempt • The initial state is (p1,q1,1) • Lefthand side is P executing, righthand side is Q executing • The incremental construction terminates after 16 of the 32 possible states have been constructed • We do not have states (p3,q3,1) or (p3,q3,2) so mutual exclusion property for correctness holds for the first attempt

  19. Abbreviating the State Diagram • Statements executed in the non-critical and critical sections are irrelevant to the correctness of the synchronization algorithm. So, they are eliminated • In fact, you can think of p as • p1: non-critical section; await turn = 1 • p2: critical section; turn <- 2 • Now we have 4 states to consider

  20. Correctness of the First Attempt • Mutual exclusion property holds (see the state diagram) • Is the algorithm deadlock free? • Which means : If some processes are trying to enter their critical sections, then one of them must eventually succeed

  21. Is it Deadlock Free? • A process is trying to enter its CS if it is executing p1 or q1 • Consider the initial state. Turn is 1, which means p1 passes through and q1 loops on • Next state is the lower right. Here p2 executes CS and eventually sets turn to 2. While it is in the CS, Q is executing q1 • Next state is upper left in which Q enters its CS. • Turn value decides which process should enter the CS • Both processes eventually enter their CS in a mutually exclusive manner. Hence, the property of freedom from deadlock is satisfied

  22. Is it Starvation Free? • Consider a section of the original state diagram. NCS stands for a non-critical section • The state on the lower left is the one in which p2 is waiting to enter its CS and q1 is in the NCS • If process Q decides to stay in its NCS (or broken down), P can not enter its CS so starve • Hence, freedom from starvation property does not hold for this solution • Second attempt tries to solve it

  23. Second Attempt • Each process has its own flag which is true when process is in CS (p3, q3 and p5, q5) • The other process waits until this process leaves the CS (p2, q2) • If a process halts in its NCS then the other proceeds independently.

  24. Second Attempt (Abbreviated)

  25. State Diagram for Abbreviated Algorithm • The last state (p3,q3, true,true) means that both processes enter CS at the same time • Mutual exclusion property does not hold

  26. A Scenario Showing that Mutual Exclusion Does Not Hold

  27. loop on while p2 is in CS process is entering the CS process leaves the CS if p2 breaks down here, p1 can still execute since it has its own flag c1 Second Attempt (for jBACI) Program secondattempt; Var c1, c2 : integer; Procedure p; Begin repeat while c2 = 0 do; c1 := 0; CS; c1 := 1; NCS; until false; End; Procedure q; Begin repeat while c1 = 0 do; c2 := 0; CS; c2 := 1; NCS; until false; End; Begin (* main program *) c1:= 1; c2:= 1; (* Both processes are not in their CS *) cobegin p; q coend End.

  28. Comments & Correctness • Each process periodically checks the other’s common variable cx. If the other process is not in CS (ie., cx = 1); the other process enters its CS, sets its flag c to 0 to indicate that it will enter its CS • This program may not work correctly if events are as shown in the table • We have no mutual exclusion so deadlock!

  29. Third Attempt • This algorithm is a modification of the second attempt • Here, “await” statements become a part of the CS • Algorithm satisfies mutual exclusion (prove it yourself!)

  30. Scenario for a Deadlock • Both processes are locked at p3 and q3 • The situation is a deadlock case but we may call it a livelock since processes are actively executing statements but nothing useful is done

  31. loop on while p2 is in CS process is entering its CS process leaves the CS Third Attempt (In jBACI) Program thirdattempt; Var c1, c2 : integer; Procedure p1; Begin repeat c1 := 0; while c2 = 0 do; CS; c1 := 1; NCS; until false; End; Procedure p2; Begin repeat c2 := 0; while c1 = 0 do; CS; c2 := 1; NCS; until false; End; Begin (* main program *) c1:= 1; c2:= 1; (* Both processes are not in their CS *) cobegin p1; p2, coend End.

  32. Comments & Correctness • The third solution is a modification of the 2’nd attempt. Here, the variable cx (request to enter CS) is set before checking the other process whether it is in CS or not • The solution is not correct as shown in the events of the table

  33. Dekker’s Algorithm

  34. Dekker’s Algorithm (in jBACI) Program Dekker; Var turn : integer; wantp, wantq :boolean; Procedure p; Begin repeat wantp := true; while wantq do if turn = 2 then begin wantp:= false; repeat until turn = 1; wantp:=true end; CS; turn := 2; wantp:= false; NCS; until false; End; Procedure q; Begin repeat wantq2 := true; while wantp do if turn = 1 then begin wantq:= false; repeat until turn = 2; wantq:=false end; CS; turn := 1; wantq := false; NCS; until false; End; Begin (* main program *) turn:= 1; wantp:= false; wantq:= false; cobegin p; q coend End.

  35. Explanation of the Algorithm Procedure p; Begin repeat wantp := true;(* 1 *) while wantq do if turn = 2 then begin wantp:= false; repeat until turn = 1; wantp:=true end;(* 2 *) CS; turn := 2;(* 3 *) wantp := false;(* 4 *) NCS; until false; End; • Process makes a request to enter CS • If the other process had made a request to enter CS before and if it is its turn then • Take back the request to enter CS by setting the “want” variable to false” • Wait for the other process to exit CS and change the turn variable • Make a new request to enter CS and then enter CS • Flip the turn variable so that now the other process can enter CS • Set “want” variable to false to indicate that the process is now out of CS

  36. Comments • Explicit control of transfer by a turn variable. Hence; turn = 1 means P’s turn, turn = 2 Q’s turn • If a process is blocked, the other process can still go • Dekker’s algorithm is correct (prove it!) • It satisfies the mutual exclusion property • It is free from deadlock and starvation

More Related