DOCSLIB.ORG

An Efficient Semaphore Implementation Scheme for Small-Memory Embedded Systems*

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Efficient Semaphore Implementation Scheme for Small-Memory Embedded Systems* An Efficient Semaphore Implementation Scheme for Small-Memory Embedded Systems* Khawar M. Zuberi and Kang G. Shin Real-Time Computing Laboratory Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science The University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2122 { zuberi, kgshin} @eecs.umich. edu Abstract These embedded systems are mass-produced, mak- In object-oriented programming, updates to the ing low production costs one of the primary concerns state variables of objects (by the methods of the ob- in their design. Automotive applications alone ac- ject) have to be protected through semaphores to ensure count for millions of embedded systems produced an- mutual exclusion. Semaphore operations are invoked nually. At these volumes, extra costs of even a few each time an object is accessed, and this represents dollars per unit translate into a loss of millions of significant run-time overhead. This is of special con- dollars overall, so the microcontrollers used in these cern in cost-conscious, small-site embedded systems - cost-conscious applications are those which have been such as those used in automotive applications - where in production for several years and their prices have costs must be kept to an absolute minimum. Object- dropped to a few dollars per unit. These microcon- oriented programming can be feasible in such applica- trollers have relatively slow processing cores (typically tions only if the OS provides eficient, low-overhead running at 10-30 MHz), small, on-chip RAMS (about semaphores. We present a new semaphore imple- 32-64 kBytes, hence the name “small-memory” em- mentation scheme which saves one context switch per bedded systems), and all applications are in-memory semaphore lock operation in most circumstances and (there are no disks/file systems in our target applica- gives performance improvements of 18-25% over tra- tions). This necessitates that any real-time operating ditional semaphore implementation schemes. system (RTOS) [a] used in these applications must be both time-efficient and memory-efficient . 1 Introduction In this paper, we focus on OS support for object- Real-time computing [l]today is no longer limited oriented (00) programming in embedded systems. to large and expensive systems such as planetary ex- 00 design gives benefits such as reduced software ploration robots or the space shuttle. The sharp drop design time and software re-use [3]. But with these in microprocessor prices over the recent years and the benefits comes the extra cost of ensuring mutual ex- introduction of the microcontroller incorporating a mi- clusion when an object’s internal state is updated. croprocessor with peripherals like timers, memory, and Semaphores’ I4,5] are typically used to provide this 1/0 in a single package has led to digital control now mutual exclusion. Because semaphore system calls are being used in much smaller and simpler embedded sys- invoked every time an execution thread enters or exits tems such as in automotive control, cellular phones, an object, it becomes essential that the RTOS provide and home electronics (camcorders, TVs, and VCRs). efficient, low-overhead semaphores; otherwise, 00 de- ~ sign will not be feasible for embedded applications be- *The work reported in this paper was supported in part by cause of high costs. the Advanced Research Projects Agency, monitored by the US Airforce Rome Laboratory under Grant F30602-95-1-0044, by the NSF under Grant MIP-9203895, and by the ONR under ‘The optimization scheme presented in this paper applies Grant N00014-94-1-0229. Any opinions, findings, and conclu- equally well to both semaphores and mutexes. However, for sions or recommendations are those of the authors and do not simplicity, we concern ourselves only with semaphores in this necessarily reflect the views of the funding agencies. paper. 1080-1812/97 $10.00 @ 1997 IEEE 25 Most research in the area of reducing task syn- objects. Then, under the 00 paradigm, real-time soft- chronization overhead has focused on multiprocessors ware is just a collection of threads of execution, each [6,7]. But our target architectures are either unipro- invoking various methods of various objects [12]. cessor (as in home appliances) or very loosely-coupled Conceptually, this 00 paradigm is very appealing distributed systems (as in automotive applications). and gives benefits such as reduced software design Even with the latter, threads typically do not need to time and software re-use. But practically speaking, access remote objects, so our concern is only with im- these benefits come at a cost. The methods of an proving task synchronization performance for a single object must synchronize their access to the object’s processor. Previous work in this area has focused on data to ensure mutual exclusion. Because object in- either relaxing the semaphore semantics to get better vocations occur very frequently, it is essential that any performance [SI or coming up with new semantics and scheme used to achieve this synchronization must be new synchronization policies [9]. The problem with both memory-efficient as well as time-efficient; oth- this approach is that these newlmodified semantics erwise, 00 design will be infeasible for small-memory may be suitable for some particular applications but embedded systems due to high costs. usually they do not have wide applicability. We took the approach of providing full semaphore semantics (with priority inheritance [lo]), but opti- 2.1 Active and Passive Object Models mizing the implementation of these semaphores by ex- ploiting certain features of embedded applications. As There are two fundamentally different ways for ob- a result, our semaphore scheme has wide applicability jects and execution threads to interact with each other within the domain of embedded applications, while and this has some bearing on the type of synchroniza- significantly improving performance over standard im- tion scheme used to ensure mutual exclusion. plementation methods for semaphores. We have im- Under the active object model [13], one or more plemented this new semaphore scheme in the EMER- server threads are permanently bound to an object. ALDS (Extensible Microkernel for Embedded, ReAL- When a client thread invokes a method, a server time, Distributed Systems) RTOS [ll]which is being thread executes the method on behalf of the client. developed in the Real-Time Computing Laboratory With the passive object model [13], objects do not at the University of Michigan to satisfy the specific have threads of their own. To invoke a method, a memory and performance requirements of small-size thread will enter the object, execute the method, and embedded systems. then exit the object. In the next section, we give a brief overview of 00 From the point of view of synchronization, the ac- programming as it pertains to embedded real-time sys- tive object model has an advantage if only one thread tems, focusing on OS support needed for 00 program- is assigned per object. Since only one thread is in the ming. In Section 3, we describe our new implementa- object at any time, there is no need to worry about tion scheme. Section 4 discusses some limitations of mutual exclusion. But the active object model has the scheme and ways to overcome these limitations so several disadvantages. First of all, having a thread that our scheme can be used in almost all embedded per object means that there will be a large number applications. Section 5 evaluates the performance of of threads in the system (anywhere from several tens our new scheme, and we conclude with Section 6. to more than a hundred depending on the applica- tion). Each thread needs its own stack, thread control 2 Objects and Semaphores in Embed- block, etc., which makes the active object model very ded Real-Time Systems memory-inefficient. Moreover, each object invocation An object is a collection of private state informa- requires a context switch from the client thread to the tion (or data) and a set of methods which manipulate server thread, so this model is time-inefficient as well. the data. Objects are ideal for representing real-world With the passive object model, multiple threads entities: the object’s internal data represents the phys- can be inside the same object at one time, so they ical state of the entity (such as temperature, pressure, must synchronize their activities. Semaphores [4,5] position, RPM, etc.) and the methods allow the state are commonly used for this purpose (e.g., to provide to be read or modified. These notions of encapsula- the monitor construct [14]). Even though locking tion and modularity greatly help the software design based on semaphores incurs time overhead, it is de- process because various system components such as cidedly much more memory-efficient than the active sensors, actuators, and controllers can be modeled by object model. 26 2.2 00 Design Under EMERALDS E Tx For the above stated reasons, we advocate the pas- -\ sive object model for embedded software design. Be- cause a semaphore system call is made every time an object’s method is invoked, semaphore opera- \ tions (acquiresem(1 and releasesen0 calls under T2 L -time EMERALDS, used to lock and unlock semaphores, respectively) become some of the most heavily used -thread - - context L:Lock U: Unlock execution switch semaphore semaphore OS primitives when 00 design is used. This moti- vated us to investigate new and efficient schemes for Figure 1: A typical scenario showing thread T2 at- implementing semaphore locking in EMERALDS as tempting to lock a semaphore already held by thread described next. TI. Tz is an unrelated thread which was executing 3 An Efficient Semaphore Implemen- while T2 was blocked. Conceptually, T, can be TI. tation Scheme The first step in designing efficient semaphores is to semaphore, thus causing priority inversion.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Introduction to Linux IPC
    An introduction to Linux IPC Michael Kerrisk © 2013 linux.conf.au 2013 http://man7.org/ Canberra, Australia [email protected] 2013-01-30 http://lwn.net/ [email protected] man7 .org 1 Goal ● Limited time! ● Get a flavor of main IPC methods man7 .org 2 Me ● Programming on UNIX & Linux since 1987 ● Linux man-pages maintainer ● http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ ● Kernel + glibc API ● Author of: Further info: http://man7.org/tlpi/ man7 .org 3 You ● Can read a bit of C ● Have a passing familiarity with common syscalls ● fork(), open(), read(), write() man7 .org 4 There’s a lot of IPC ● Pipes ● Shared memory mappings ● FIFOs ● File vs Anonymous ● Cross-memory attach ● Pseudoterminals ● proc_vm_readv() / proc_vm_writev() ● Sockets ● Signals ● Stream vs Datagram (vs Seq. packet) ● Standard, Realtime ● UNIX vs Internet domain ● Eventfd ● POSIX message queues ● Futexes ● POSIX shared memory ● Record locks ● ● POSIX semaphores File locks ● ● Named, Unnamed Mutexes ● System V message queues ● Condition variables ● System V shared memory ● Barriers ● ● System V semaphores Read-write locks man7 .org 5 It helps to classify ● Pipes ● Shared memory mappings ● FIFOs ● File vs Anonymous ● Cross-memory attach ● Pseudoterminals ● proc_vm_readv() / proc_vm_writev() ● Sockets ● Signals ● Stream vs Datagram (vs Seq. packet) ● Standard, Realtime ● UNIX vs Internet domain ● Eventfd ● POSIX message queues ● Futexes ● POSIX shared memory ● Record locks ● ● POSIX semaphores File locks ● ● Named, Unnamed Mutexes ● System V message queues ● Condition variables ● System V shared memory ● Barriers ● ● System V semaphores Read-write locks man7 .org 6 It helps to classify ● Pipes ● Shared memory mappings ● FIFOs ● File vs Anonymous ● Cross-memoryn attach ● Pseudoterminals tio a ● proc_vm_readv() / proc_vm_writev() ● Sockets ic n ● Signals ● Stream vs Datagram (vs uSeq.
    [Show full text]
  • Multithreading Design Patterns and Thread-Safe Data Structures
    Lecture 12: Multithreading Design Patterns and Thread-Safe Data Structures Principles of Computer Systems Autumn 2019 Stanford University Computer Science Department Lecturer: Chris Gregg Philip Levis PDF of this presentation 1 Review from Last Week We now have three distinct ways to coordinate between threads: mutex: mutual exclusion (lock), used to enforce critical sections and atomicity condition_variable: way for threads to coordinate and signal when a variable has changed (integrates a lock for the variable) semaphore: a generalization of a lock, where there can be n threads operating in parallel (a lock is a semaphore with n=1) 2 Mutual Exclusion (mutex) A mutex is a simple lock that is shared between threads, used to protect critical regions of code or shared data structures. mutex m; mutex.lock() mutex.unlock() A mutex is often called a lock: the terms are mostly interchangeable When a thread attempts to lock a mutex: Currently unlocked: the thread takes the lock, and continues executing Currently locked: the thread blocks until the lock is released by the current lock- holder, at which point it attempts to take the lock again (and could compete with other waiting threads). Only the current lock-holder is allowed to unlock a mutex Deadlock can occur when threads form a circular wait on mutexes (e.g. dining philosophers) Places we've seen an operating system use mutexes for us: All file system operation (what if two programs try to write at the same time? create the same file?) Process table (what if two programs call fork() at the same time?) 3 lock_guard<mutex> The lock_guard<mutex> is very simple: it obtains the lock in its constructor, and releases the lock in its destructor.
    [Show full text]
  • Semaphores Semaphores (Basic) Semaphore General Vs. Binary
    Concurrent Programming (RIO) 20.1.2012 Lesson 6 Synchronization with HW support • Disable interrupts – Good for short time wait, not good for long time wait – Not good for multiprocessors Semaphores • Interrupts are disabled only in the processor used • Test-and-set instruction (etc) Ch 6 [BenA 06] – Good for short time wait, not good for long time wait – Nor so good in single processor system • May reserve CPU, which is needed by the process holding the lock – Waiting is usually “busy wait” in a loop Semaphores • Good for mutex, not so good for general synchronization – E.g., “wait until process P34 has reached point X” Producer-Consumer Problem – No support for long time wait (in suspended state) Semaphores in C--, Java, • Barrier wait in HW in some multicore architectures – Stop execution until all cores reached barrier_waitinstruction Linux, Minix – No busy wait, because execution pipeline just stops – Not to be confused with barrier_wait thread operation 20.1.2012 Copyright Teemu Kerola 2012 1 20.1.2012 Copyright Teemu Kerola 2012 2 Semaphores (Basic) Semaphore semaphore S public create initial value integer value semafori public P(S) S.value private S.V Edsger W. Dijkstra V(S) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THE_operating_system public private S.list S.L • Dijkstra, 1965, THE operating system queue of waiting processes • Protected variable, abstract data type (object) • P(S) WAIT(S), Down(S) – Allows for concurrency solutions if used properly – If value > 0, deduct 1 and proceed • Atomic operations – o/w, wait suspended in list (queue?) until released – Create (SemaName, InitValue) – P, down, wait, take, pend, • V(S) SIGNAL(S), Up(S) passeren, proberen, try, prolaad, try to decrease – If someone in queue, release one (first?) of them – V, up, signal, release, post, – o/w, increase value by one vrijgeven, verlagen, verhoog, increase 20.1.2012 Copyright Teemu Kerola 2012 3 20.1.2012 Copyright Teemu Kerola 2012 4 General vs.
    [Show full text]
  • CSC 553 Operating Systems Multiple Processes
    CSC 553 Operating Systems Lecture 4 - Concurrency: Mutual Exclusion and Synchronization Multiple Processes • Operating System design is concerned with the management of processes and threads: • Multiprogramming • Multiprocessing • Distributed Processing Concurrency Arises in Three Different Contexts: • Multiple Applications – invented to allow processing time to be shared among active applications • Structured Applications – extension of modular design and structured programming • Operating System Structure – OS themselves implemented as a set of processes or threads Key Terms Related to Concurrency Principles of Concurrency • Interleaving and overlapping • can be viewed as examples of concurrent processing • both present the same problems • Uniprocessor – the relative speed of execution of processes cannot be predicted • depends on activities of other processes • the way the OS handles interrupts • scheduling policies of the OS Difficulties of Concurrency • Sharing of global resources • Difficult for the OS to manage the allocation of resources optimally • Difficult to locate programming errors as results are not deterministic and reproducible Race Condition • Occurs when multiple processes or threads read and write data items • The final result depends on the order of execution – the “loser” of the race is the process that updates last and will determine the final value of the variable Operating System Concerns • Design and management issues raised by the existence of concurrency: • The OS must: – be able to keep track of various processes
    [Show full text]
  • Lesson-9: P and V SEMAPHORES
    Inter-Process Communication and Synchronization of Processes, Threads and Tasks: Lesson-9: P and V SEMAPHORES Chapter-9 L9: "Embedded Systems - Architecture, Programming and Design", 2015 Raj Kamal, Publs.: McGraw-Hill Education 1 1. P and V SEMAPHORES Chapter-9 L9: "Embedded Systems - Architecture, Programming and Design", 2015 Raj Kamal, Publs.: McGraw-Hill Education 2 P and V semaphores • An efficient synchronisation mechanism • POSIX 1003.1.b, an IEEE standard. • POSIX─ for portable OS interfaces in Unix. • P and V semaphore ─ represents an integer in place of binary or unsigned integers Chapter-9 L9: "Embedded Systems - Architecture, Programming and Design", 2015 Raj Kamal, Publs.: McGraw-Hill Education 3 P and V semaphore Variables • The semaphore, apart from initialization, is accessed only through two standard atomic operations─ P and V • P (for wait operation)─ derived from a Dutch word ‘Proberen’, which means 'to test'. • V (for signal passing operation)─ derived from the word 'Verhogen' which means 'to increment'. Chapter-9 L9: "Embedded Systems - Architecture, Programming and Design", 2015 Raj Kamal, Publs.: McGraw-Hill Education 4 P and V Functions for Semaphore P semaphore function signals that the task requires a resource and if not available waits for it. V semaphore function signals which the task passes to the OS that the resource is now free for the other users. Chapter-9 L9: "Embedded Systems - Architecture, Programming and Design", 2015 Raj Kamal, Publs.: McGraw-Hill Education 5 P Function─ P (&Sem1) 1. /* Decrease the semaphore variable*/ sem_1 = sem_1 1; 2. /* If sem_1 is less than 0, send a message to OS by calling a function waitCallToOS.
    [Show full text]
  • Shared Memory Programming: Threads, Semaphores, and Monitors
    Shared Memory Programming: Threads, Semaphores, and Monitors CPS343 Parallel and High Performance Computing Spring 2020 CPS343 (Parallel and HPC) Shared Memory Programming: Threads, Semaphores, and MonitorsSpring 2020 1 / 47 Outline 1 Processes The Notion and Importance of Processes Process Creation and Termination Inter-process Communication and Coordination 2 Threads Need for Light Weight Processes Differences between Threads and Processes Implementing Threads 3 Mutual Exclusion and Semaphores Critical Sections Monitors CPS343 (Parallel and HPC) Shared Memory Programming: Threads, Semaphores, and MonitorsSpring 2020 2 / 47 Outline 1 Processes The Notion and Importance of Processes Process Creation and Termination Inter-process Communication and Coordination 2 Threads Need for Light Weight Processes Differences between Threads and Processes Implementing Threads 3 Mutual Exclusion and Semaphores Critical Sections Monitors CPS343 (Parallel and HPC) Shared Memory Programming: Threads, Semaphores, and MonitorsSpring 2020 3 / 47 What is a process? A process is a program in execution. At any given time, the status of a process includes: The code that it is executing (e.g. its text). Its data: The values of its static variables. The contents of its stack { which contains its local variables and procedure call/return history. The contents of the various CPU registers { particularly the program counter, which indicates what instruction the process is to execute next. Its state { is it currently able to continue execution, or must further execution wait until some event occurs (e.g. the completion of an IO operation it has requested)? CPS343 (Parallel and HPC) Shared Memory Programming: Threads, Semaphores, and MonitorsSpring 2020 4 / 47 What is a process? The chief task of an operating system is to manage a set of processes.
    [Show full text]
  • Software Transactional Memory with Interactions 3
    Software Transactional Memory with Interactions⋆ Extended Version Marino Miculan1 and Marco Peressotti2 1 University of Udine [email protected] 2 University of Southern Denmark [email protected] Abstract Software Transactional memory (STM) is an emerging ab- straction for concurrent programming alternative to lock-based synchron- izations. Most STM models admit only isolated transactions, which are not adequate in multithreaded programming where transactions need to interact via shared data before committing. To overcome this limitation, in this paper we present Open Transactional Memory (OTM), a pro- gramming abstraction supporting safe, data-driven interactions between composable memory transactions. This is achieved by relaxing isolation between transactions, still ensuring atomicity. This model allows for loosely-coupled interactions since transaction merging is driven only by accesses to shared data, with no need to specify participants beforehand. 1 Introduction Modern multicore architectures have emphasized the importance of abstractions supporting correct and scalable multi-threaded programming. In this model, threads can collaborate by interacting on shared data structures, such as tables, message queues, buffers, etc., whose access must be regulated to avoid inconsist- encies. Traditional lock-based mechanisms (like semaphores and monitors) are notoriously difficult and error-prone, as they easily lead to deadlocks, race con- ditions and priority inversions; moreover, they are not composable and hinder parallelism, thus reducing efficiency and scalability. Transactional memory (TM) has emerged as a promising abstraction to replace locks [5, 20]. The basic idea is to mark blocks of code as atomic; then, execution of each block will appear either as if it was executed sequentially and instantaneously at some unique point in time, or, if aborted, as if it did not execute at all.
    [Show full text]
  • Semaphores Cosc 450: Programming Paradigms 06
    CoSc 450: Programming Paradigms 06 Semaphores CoSc 450: Programming Paradigms 06 Semaphore Purpose: To prevent inefficient spin lock of the await statement. Idea: Instead of spinning, the process calls a method that puts it in a special queue of PCBs, the “blocked on semaphore” queue. 71447_CH08_Chapter08.qxd 1/28/09 12:27 AM Page 422 422 Chapter 8 Process Management The PCB contains additional information to help the operating system schedule the CPU. An example is a unique process identification number assigned by the system, labeled Process ID in Figure 8.18, that serves to reference the process. Sup- pose a user wants to terminate a process before it completes execution normally, and he knows the ID number is 782. He could issue a KILL(782) command that would cause the operating system to search through the queue of PCBs, find the PCB with ID 782, remove it from the queue, and deallocate it. Another example of information stored in the PCB is a record of the total amount of CPU time used so far by the suspended process. If the CPU becomes available and the operating system must decide which of several suspended processes gets the CPU, it can use the recorded time to make a fairFigure decision. 8.19 As a job progresses through the system toward completion, it passes through several states, as Figure 8.19 shows. The figure is in the form of a state transition diagram and is another example of a finite state machine. Each transition is labeled with the event that causes the change of state.
    [Show full text]
  • Low Contention Semaphores and Ready Lists
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Purdue E-Pubs Purdue University Purdue e-Pubs Department of Computer Science Technical Reports Department of Computer Science 1980 Low Contention Semaphores and Ready Lists Peter J. Denning T. Don Dennis Jeffrey Brumfield Report Number: 80-332 Denning, Peter J.; Dennis, T. Don; and Brumfield, Jeffrey, "Low Contention Semaphores and Ready Lists" (1980). Department of Computer Science Technical Reports. Paper 261. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cstech/261 This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact [email protected] for additional information. LOW CONTENTION SEMAPHORES AND READY LISTS Peter J. Denning T. Don Dennis Jeffrey Brumfield Computer Sciences Department Purdue University W. Lafayette, IN 47907 CSD-TR-332 February 1980 Revised June 1980 Abstract. A method for reducing sema­ phore and ready list contention in mul­ tiprocessor operating systems is described. Its correctness is esta­ blished. Its performance is compared with conventional implementations. A method of implementing the ready list with a ring network is proposed and evaluated. This work was supported in part by NSF Grant MCS78­ 01729 at Purdue University. June 18, 1980 - 2 - THE PROBLEM Modern operating systems implement semaphores for synchron- izing multiple concurrent processes. Unless the primitive opera- tions for starting, stopping, and scheduling processes and for manipulating semaphores are well supported by the hardware, con- text switching and interprocess signaling can be major overheads [1]. To avoid these overheads, many operating systems use fast, but unreliable ad hoc methods for synchronizing processes.
    [Show full text]
  • Semaphores (Dijkstra 1965)
    Semaphores (Dijkstra 1965) n Semaphores have a non-negative integer value, and support two operations: n semaphore->P(): an atomic operation that waits for semaphore Semaphores & Monitors to become positive, then decrements it by 1 n semaphore->V(): an atomic operation that increments semaphore by 1, waking up a waiting P, if any. n Semaphores are like integers except: Arvind Krishnamurthy (1) non-negative values; Spring 2004 (2) only allow P&V --- can’t read/write value except to set it initially; (3) operations must be atomic: -- two P’s that occur together can’t decrement the value below zero. -- thread going to sleep in P won’t miss wakeup from V, even if they both happen at about the same time. Implementing semaphores Using interrupts P means “test” (proberen in Dutch) V means “increment” (verhogen in Dutch) class Semaphore { int value = 0; } n Binary semaphores: Semaphore::P() { n Like a lock; can only have value 0 or 1 (unlike the previous Disable interrupts; Semaphore::V() { “counting semaphore” which can be any non-negative integers) while (value == 0) { Disable interrupts; Enable interrupts; value++; Disable interrupts; Enable interrupts; } } n How to implement semaphores? Standard tricks: value = value - 1; Enable interrupts; n Can be built using interrupts disable/enable } n Or using test-and-set n Use a queue to prevent unnecessary busy-waiting n Question: Can we build semaphores using just locks? Using test&set How to use semaphores n Binary semaphores can be used for mutual exclusion: class Semaphore { int value = 0; initial value of 1; P() is called before the critical section; and V() is called after the int guard = 0; } critical section.
    [Show full text]
  • Synchronization
    Synchronization CS 4410 Operating Systems [R. Agarwal, L. Alvisi, A. Bracy, M. George, E. Sirer, R. Van Renesse] • Foundations • Semaphores • Monitors & Condition Variables 2 Semaphores • Definition • Binary Semaphores • Counting Semaphores • Classic Sync. Problems (w/Semaphores) - Producer-Consumer (w/ a bounded buffer) - Readers/Writers Problem • Classic Mistakes with Semaphores 3 What is a Semaphore? [Dijkstra 1962] Dijkstra introduced in the THE Operating System Stateful: • a value (incremented/decremented atomically) • a queue • a lock Interface: • Init(starting value) • P (procure): decrement, “consume” or “start using” • V (vacate): increment, “produce” or “stop using” No operation to read the value! Dutch 4410: P = Probeer (‘Try'), V = Verhoog ('Increment', 'Increase by one') 4 Semantics of P and V P(): P() { • wait until value >0 while(n <= 0) ; • when so, decrement n -= 1; value by 1 } V(): V() { • increment value by 1 n += 1; } These are the semantics, but how can we make this efficient? (doesn’t this look like a spinlock?!?) 5 Implementation of P and V P(): P() { • block (sit on Q) til n > 0 while(n <= 0) • when so, decrement value by 1 ; n -= 1; V(): } • increment value by 1 • resume a thread waiting on Q V() { (if any) n += 1; } Okay this looks efficient, but how is this safe? 6 Implementation of P and V P() { P(): acquire(&guard); • block (sit on Q) til n > 0 while(n <= 0) { waiting.enq(self); • when so, decrement value by 1 release(&guard); sleep(); acquire(&guard); V(): } • increment value by 1 n -= 1; release(&guard);
    [Show full text]
  • Parallel Programming Models III (Pdf)
    Shared Memory Programming Models III Stefan Lang Interdisciplinary Center for Scientific Computing (IWR) University of Heidelberg INF 368, Room 532 D-69120 Heidelberg phone: 06221/54-8264 email: [email protected] WS 15/16 Stefan Lang (IWR) Simulation on High-Performance Computers WS15/16 1/36 Shared Memory Programming Models III Communication by shared memory Semaphore rep. Reader-Writer problem PThreads Active Objects Stefan Lang (IWR) Simulation on High-Performance Computers WS15/16 2/36 Semaphore A semaphore is an abstraction of a synchronisation variable, that enables the elegant solution of multiple of synchronisation problems Up-to-now all programs have used active waiting. This is very inefficient under quasi-parallel processing of multiple processes on one processor (multitasking). The semaphore enables to switch processes into an idle state. We understand a semaphore as abstract data type: Data structure with operations, that fulfill particular properties: A semaphore S has a non-negative integer value value(S), that is assigned during creation of the Semaphore with the value init. For a semaphore S two operations P(S) and V(S) are defined with: P(S) decrements the value of S by one if value(S) > 0, otherwise the process blocks as long as another process executes a Voperation on S. V(S) frees another process from a Poperation if one is waiting (are several waiting one is selected), otherwise the value of S is incremented by one. Voperations never block! Stefan Lang (IWR) Simulation on High-Performance Computers WS15/16 3/36 Readers/Writers Problem ReadersLeser WritersSchreiber DatabaseDatenbank Two classes of processes, readers and writers, access a common database.
    [Show full text]