DOCSLIB.ORG

Reflective Facilities in Smalltalk

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Reflective Facilities in Smalltalk- Brian Foote Ralph E. Johnson Dept. of Computer Science University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 1304 W. Springfield Urbana, IL 61801 [email protected] (217) 333-3411 [email protected] (217) X4-0093 Abstract Monitors, atomic objects, and distributed objects present similar difficulties. These applications all require that an Computational reflection makes it easy to solve problems object be able to intercept any messagesent to it on a per- that are otherwise difficult to address in Smalltalk-80, such object rather than a per method-basis. In Smalltalk-80, the as the construction of monitors, distributed objects, and method dispatch mechanism is buried within the Virtual futures, and can allow experimentation with new Machine, beyond the programmer’s grasp. inheritance, delegation, and protection schemes. FulI reflection is expensive to implement. However, the ability Recent work on object-oriented computational reflection to override method lookup can bring much of the power of /$faes 1987h] has provided a general framework for reflection to languages like Smalltalk- at IXJ cost in addressing problems like those discussed above. Reflection efficiency. is intriguing because it seemsto allow programmers to make open-ended,localized extensions to the languagesand Introduction systems with which they are working. Reflective systems are f?equently constructed using One of the attractions of object-oriented languages is their metacircular interpreters, This approach provides the extensibility. Programmers gain confidence that facilities highest possible degree of flexibility at the expense of that are not already available in a given environment can performance, We believe that full reflection may not be easily be constructed. Current systems make it easy to necessary to addressmany of the kinds of problems that define data types like complex or arbitrary precision have attracted so much attention to it. For this reason, we numbers. New object types become as “first class” as those have focused on how a handful of reflective facilities can built into the language. A big part of the appeal of object- efficientlv bring much of the Rower of full reflection to oriented programming is that programmers believe that, if Smalltalk-80. In particular, this paper discussesredefining they really wanted to, they could redefine the world. the default method lookup mechanism, and looks at how lightweight classescan be used to implement metaobjects. However, there are a few kinds of objects that are difficult to implement in conventional object-oriented programming languages such as Smalltalk- [Goldberg 19831and C++ Reflection [Stroustrup 19861. For example, a future object [Halstead 19851 acts as a surrogate for a result that is in the process A reflective program is one that reasons about itself. A of being computed. Messagesto the future cause the sender fully reflective procedural architecture [Smith 19831is one to wait until the result is computed, at which time the in which a process can accessand manipulate a full, messageis relayed to the result. Object-oriented languages explicit, causally connected representation of its own state. make it easy to redefine simple methods, but futures must “Causally connected” means that any changes made to a intercept any messagesent them. process’sself-representation are immediately reflected in its actual state and behavior. Permission to copy without fee all or part of this material is granted provided waes 1987a] [Maes 1987b] describes an object-oriented that the copies are not made or distributed for direct commercial advantage, reflective language called 3XRS. 3-KRS partitions every the ACM copyright notice and the title of the publication and its date appear, object into a domain specific referent and a reflective and notice is given that copying is by permission of the Association for m&object. The referent contains information describing Computing Machinery. To copy otherwise, or to republish, requires a fee and/or specific permission. the real-world entity that the object represents. The 0 1989 ACM 089791-333-7/89/0010/0327 $1.50 metaobject contains information describing its referent as a October l-6, 1989 OOPSLA ‘89 Proceedings 327 computational entity in itself. Enforcing this separation Lisp Based Systems encouragesthe emergenceof standardprotocols for communicating between objects and metaobjects. The The Common Lisp Object System (CLOS) [Bobrow 19881 distribution of the system’s self-representation among the [Keene 19891is a marriage of Common Loops and New system’s metaobjects makes this self-representation easier Flavors that provides a very powerful generic function-based to think about and manipulate. method combination mechanism. The CLOS Metaobject Protocol provides a metacircular definition of the entire Manipulation of an object’s metaobject can affect the way CLOS system. The MOP is intended to permit open-ended in which computation for its referent object is carried out. experimentation with new object-oriented programming For instance, in 3-KRS, an object can have method lookup paradigms, and has been used to successfully implement a redefined by giving it a new metaobject that defined a number of distinctly un-CLOS-like object-oriented “deviating” interpreter. Such changes can be made on a per- programming systems. The MOP is designed to permit the object basis, since each object has its own metaobject. modification of basic language mechanisms such as method Specialized metaobjects can be introduced dynamically. The lookup from with CLOS itself. ability to introduce temporary, localized changes to an object’s semantics without changing the object itself The mechanisms provided in CLOS’s standard method accounts for a great deal of reflection’s power. combination scheme are quite powerful. CLOS generic functions can specialize on any of their arguments, not just Maes distinguishes between systems with reflective the first, and may specialize on instances as well as classes facilities and full-fledged reflective architectures. and types. The :before, :after, and :around method Reflective facilities allow a program to reflect upon certain types modify particular primary methods. Class-wide aspects of itself. For example, in Lisp, eval permits before, after and around methods for arbitrary messages reflecting upon programs given as data, and catch and cannot be defmed without making alterations at the meta- throw allow reflecting upon the runtime stack. level. Actor Languages Co&e’s ObjVLisp system [Cointe 19871 permits a Me&lass hierarchy distinct from the class hierarchy. This An Actor [Agha] is a process that explicitly decides whether allows arbitrarily deep meta-regress,where appropriate. and how to handle or delegate any messagesit receives. This system allows the lookup method used by the This ability is used to construct futures, monitors, etc. system’s send primitive to be changed by manipulating the Actor languages are designed for multiprocessors; the metaclass. Metaclass customization can also be used to requirement that each actor be a separateprocess makes control internal object representations, method caching, and actors inefficient on single processors. Further, using a accessto instance variables. parallel programming language for sequential programming causesa certain mental overhead. Reflecting on the Smalltalk Virtual Smalltalk- [Goldberg 19761 was similar in some respects Machine to the Actor languages. In Smalltalk-72, an object’s class was a process that repeatedly examined the object’s message Most of the existing object-oriented systems that permit stream and then dispatched on the message. As the meta-level system manipulation, such as 34X3, CLOS, language evolved, messagelookup was subsumed into the ObjVLisp, and ABCL/R Watanabe 19881have been Smalltalk Virtual Machine for efficiency’s sake and because constructed using Lisp-based metacimular interpreters. deviations from case-style method dispatching were rare and Reflection is then implemented by modifying the usualIy hard to understand. Smalltalk- permitted more language’s interpreter. Smalhalk-80, on the other hand, reflection than Smalltalk- because objects could uses a virtual machine. manipulate the messagestream. Although the Smalltalk-80 virtual machine is a byte code Replacing user-defmedmessage-handling with standardized interpreter that is usually implemented in machine language method lookup was a success. It led to efficient Smalltalk or C, the official definition of the virtual machine is written implementations and a large body of reusable software. in Smalltalk[Goldberg 831. Moreover, the SmaIltallc-80 However, the power of the Actor language is needed to deal debugger uses a byte-code interpreter written in Smalltalk. with parallelism and other aspects of modem applications. Indeed, debugging and tracing are frequently cited as We believe that object-oriented systems should provide applications that are well addressedusing reflection. In primitive facilities that allow actor-like objects to be general, though, secondary interpeters are probably too constructed out of more rudimentary components. Thus, inefficient to serve as a practical mechanism for the the full power of actors will only be used when appropriate. implementation of reflective features. Hence, we have focused instead on adding certain reflective facilities to the Smalltalk virtual machine. 328 OOPSLA‘89 Proceedings October 1-6, 1989 exploited Smalltalk-80’s doesNotUnderstand:
Recommended publications
  • An Introduction to Linux IPC

    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.
  • Multithreading Design Patterns and Thread-Safe Data Structures

    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.
  • Semaphores Semaphores (Basic) Semaphore General Vs. Binary

    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.
  • CSC 553 Operating Systems Multiple Processes

    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
  • Lesson-9: P and V SEMAPHORES

    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.
  • Shared Memory Programming: Threads, Semaphores, and Monitors

    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.
  • Software Transactional Memory with Interactions 3

    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.
  • Semaphores Cosc 450: Programming Paradigms 06

    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.
  • Low Contention Semaphores and Ready Lists

    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.
  • Semaphores (Dijkstra 1965)

    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.
  • Synchronization

    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);
  • Parallel Programming Models III (Pdf)

    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.