The word atomically means that the two actions performed by TAS(x) (testing, i.e., returning the old value of x and setting , i.e., assigning true to x) are inseparable. Specifically it is not possible for two concurrent TAS(x) operations to both return false (unless there is also another concurrent statement that sets x to false).
With TAS available implementing a critical section for any number of processes is trivial.
loop forever { while (TAS(s)) {} ENTRY CS s<--false EXIT NCS
Remark: Tanenbaum does both busy waiting (as above) and blocking (process switching) solutions. We will only do busy waiting, which is easier. Sleep and Wakeup are the simplest blocking primitives. Sleep voluntarily blocks the process and wakeup unblocks a sleeping process. We will not cover these.
Homework: Explain the difference between busy waiting and blocking process synchronization.
Remark: Tannenbaum use the term semaphore only for blocking solutions. I will use the term for our busy waiting solutions. Others call our solutions spin locks.
The entry code is often called P and the exit code V. Thus the critical section problem is to write P and V so that
loop forever P critical-section V non-critical-sectionsatisfies
Note that I use indenting carefully and hence do not need (and sometimes omit) the braces {} used in languages like C or java.
A binary semaphore abstracts the TAS solution we gave for the critical section problem.
while (S=closed) {} S<--closed <== This is NOT the body of the whilewhere finding S=open and setting S<--closed is atomic
The above code is not real, i.e., it is not an implementation of P. It is, instead, a definition of the effect P is to have.
To repeat: for any number of processes, the critical section problem can be solved by
loop forever P(S) CS V(S) NCS
The only specific solution we have seen for an arbitrary number of processes is the one just above with P(S) implemented via test and set.
Remark: Peterson's solution requires each process to know its processor number. The TAS soluton does not. Moreover the definition of P and V does not permit use of the processor number. Thus, strictly speaking Peterson did not provide an implementation of P and V. He did solve the critical section problem.
To solve other coordination problems we want to extend binary semaphores.
Both of the shortcomings can be overcome by not restricting ourselves to a binary variable, but instead define a generalized or counting semaphore.
while (S=0) {} S--where finding S>0 and decrementing S is atomic
These counting semaphores can solve what I call the semi-critical-section problem, where you premit up to k processes in the section. When k=1 we have the original critical-section problem.
initially S=k loop forever P(S) SCS <== semi-critical-section V(S) NCS
Initially e=k, f=0 (counting semaphore); b=open (binary semaphore) Producer Consumer loop forever loop forever produce-item P(f) P(e) P(b); take item from buf; V(b) P(b); add item to buf; V(b) V(e) V(f) consume-item
Busy wait | block/switch | |
---|---|---|
critical | (binary) semaphore | (binary) semaphore |
semi-critical | counting semaphore | counting semaphore |
Busy wait | block/switch | |
---|---|---|
critical | enter/leave region | mutex |
semi-critical | no name | semaphore |