Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

11 Chapter 2: Process/Thread Instructor: Hengming Zou, Ph.D. In Pursuit of Absolute Simplicity 求于至简,归于永恒.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "11 Chapter 2: Process/Thread Instructor: Hengming Zou, Ph.D. In Pursuit of Absolute Simplicity 求于至简,归于永恒."— Presentation transcript:

1 11 Chapter 2: Process/Thread Instructor: Hengming Zou, Ph.D. In Pursuit of Absolute Simplicity 求于至简,归于永恒

2 22 Content  Processes  Threads  Inter-process communication  Classical IPC problems  Scheduling

3 33 Definition of A Process  Informal –A program in execution –A running piece of code along with all the things the program can read/write  Formal –One or more threads in their own address space  Note that process != program

4 44 The Need for Process  What is the principle motivation for inventing process? –To support multiprogramming

5 55 The Process Model  Conceptual viewing of the processes  Concurrency –Multiple processes seem to run concurrently –But in reality only one active at any instant  Progress –Every process makes progress

6 66 Programs in memoryConceptual viewTime line view Multiprogramming of 4 programs

7 77 Process Creation Principal events that cause process creation 1. System initialization 2. Execution of a process creation system 3. User request to create a new process

8 88 Process Termination Conditions which terminate processes 1. Normal exit (voluntary) 2. Error exit (voluntary) 3. Fatal error (involuntary) 4. Killed by another process (involuntary)

9 99 Process Hierarchies  Parent creates a child process  Child processes can create its own process  Processes creation forms a hierarchy –UNIX calls this a "process group" –Windows has no concept of such hierarchy, i.e. all processes are created equal

10 10 Process States Running BlockedReady  Possible process states –running, blocked, ready Process blocks for input Scheduler picks another process Input becomes available Scheduler picks this process

11 11 Process Space  Also called Address Space  All the data the process uses as it runs  Passive (acted upon by the process)  Play analogy: –all the objects on the stage in a play

12 12 Process Space  Is the unit of state partitioning –Each process occupies a different state of the computer  Main topic: –How multiple processes spaces can share a single physical memory efficiently and safely

13 13 Manage Process & Space  Who manages process & space? –The operating systems  How does OS achieve it? –By maintain information about processes –i.e. use process tables

14 14 Fields of A Process Table  Registers, Program counter, Status word  Stack pointer, Priority, Process ID  Parent group, Process group, Signals  Time when process started  CPU time used, Children’s CPU time, etc.

15 15 Problems with Process  While supporting multiprogramming on shared hardware  Itself is single threaded! –i.e. a process can do only one thing at a time –blocking call renders entire process unrunnable

16 16 Threads  Invented to support multiprogramming on process level  Manage OS complexity –Multiple users, programs, I/O devices, etc.  Each thread dedicated to do one task

17 17 Thread  Sequence of executing instructions from a program –i.e. the running computation  Play analogy: one actor on stage in a play

18 18 Threads  Processes decompose mix of activities into several parallel tasks (columns)  Each job can work independently of others job1job2job3 Thread 1 Thread 2 Thread 3

19 19 The Thread Model 3 processes each with 1 thread 1 process with 3 threads Kernel Thread Proc 1Proc 2Proc 3 User space Kernel space Kernel Thread Process

20 20 The Thread Model  Some items shared by all threads in a process  Some items private to each thread

21 21 Shared and Private Items Per process itemsPer thread items Address spaceProgram counter Global variablesRegisters Open filesStack Child processesState Pending alarms Signals and signal handlers Accounting information

22 22 Shared and Private Items Each thread has its own stack

23 23 Input thread Backup thread Display thread A Word Processor w/3 Threads

24 24 Implementation of Thread  How many options to implement thread?  Implement in kernel space  Implement in user space  Hybrid implementation

25 25 Kernel-Level Implementation  Completely implemented in kernel space  OS acts as a scheduler  OS maintains information about threads –In additions to processes

26 26 Kernel-Level Implementation

27 27 Kernel-Level Implementation  Advantage: –Easier to programming –Blocking threads does not block process  Problems: –Costly: need to trap into OS to switch threads –OS space is limited (for maintaining info) –Need to modifying OS!

28 28 User-Level Implementation  Completely implemented in user space  A run-time system acts as a scheduler  Threads voluntarily cooperate –i.e. yield control to other threads  OS need not know existence of threads

29 29 User-Level Implementation

30 30 User-Level Implementation  Advantage: –Flexible, can be implemented on any OS –Faster: no need to trap into OS  Problems: –Programming is tricky –blocking threads block process!

31 31 User-Level Implementation  How do we solve the problem of blocking thread blocks the whole process?  Modifying system calls to be unblocking  Write a wrap around blocking calls –i.e. call only when it is safe to do so

32 32 Scheduler Activations  A technique that solves the problem of blocking calls in user-level threads  Method: use up-call  Goal – mimic functionality of kernel threads –gain performance of user space threads

33 33 Scheduler Activations  Kernel assigns virtual processors to process  Runtime sys. allocate threads to processors  Blocking threads are handled by OS upcall –i.e. OS notify runtime system about blocking calls

34 34 Scheduler Activations  Problem:  Reliance on kernel (lower layer) calling procedures in user space (higher layer)  Violates layered structure of OS design

35 35 Hybrid Implementation  Can we have the best of both worlds –i.e. kernel-level and user-level implementations  While avoiding the problems of either?  Hybrid implementation

36 36 Hybrid Implementation  User-level threads are managed by runtime systems  Kernel-level threads are managed by OS  Multiplexing user-level threads onto kernel- level threads

37 37 Hybrid Implementation

38 38 Multiple Threads  Can have several threads in a single address space –That is what thread is invented for  Play analogy: several actors on a single set –Sometimes interact (e.g. dance together) –Sometimes do independent tasks

39 39 Multiple Threads  Private state for a thread vs. global state shared between threads –What private state must a thread have? –Other state is shared between all threads in a process

40 40 Multiple Threads Per process itemsPer thread items Address spaceProgram counter Global variablesRegisters Open filesStack Child processesState Pending alarms Signals and signal handlers Accounting information

41 41 Multiple Threads  Many programs are written in single-threaded processes  Make them multithreaded is very tricky –Can cause unexpected problems

42 42 Multiple Threads Conflicts between threads over the use of a global variable

43 43 Multiple Threads  Many solutions:  Prohibit global variables  Assign each thread its private global variables

44 44 Multiple Threads Threads can have private global variables

45 45 Cooperating Threads  Often we create threads to cooperate  Each thread handles one request  Each thread can issue a blocking disk I/O, –wait for I/O to finish –then continue with next part of its request

46 46 Cooperating Threads  Even though thread blocks, other threads can make progress  and new threads can start to handle new requests

47 47 Cooperating Threads  Issues with cooperating threads?  Where is the state of each request stored? –In process space shared by all threads? –In private space of the thread?  How to communicate with each other?

48 48 Cooperating Threads  Ordering of events from different threads is non- deterministic –e.g. after 10 seconds, different threads may have gotten differing amounts of work done  thread A >  thread B >  thread C >

49 49 Cooperating Threads  Example –thread A: x=1 –thread B: x=2  Possible results?  Is 3 a possible output? –yes

50 50 Cooperating Threads  3 is possible because assignment is not atomic and threads can interleave  if assignment to x is atomic –then only possible results are 1 and 2

51 51  Atomic: indivisible –Either happens in its entirety without interruption or has yet to happen at all  No events from other threads can happen in between start & end of an atomic event Atomic Operations

52 52 Atomic Operations  On most machines, memory load & store are atomic  But many instructions are not atomic –double-precision floating on a 32-bit machine –two separate memory operations

53 53 Atomic Operations  If you don’t have any atomic operations –you can’t make one  Fortunately, the hardware folks give us atomic operations –and we can build up higher-level atomic primitives from there

54 54 Atomic Operations  Another example: –thread A thread B –i=0 i=0 –while (i -10) { – i++ i-- –} } –print “A finished” print “B finished”  Who will win?

55 55 Atomic Operations  Is it guaranteed that someone will win?  What if threads run at exactly the same speed and start close together?  Is it guaranteed that it goes on forever?

56 56 Atomic Operations  Arithmetic example –(initially y=10) –thread A: x = y + 1; –thread B: y = y * 2;  Possible results?

57 57 Thread Synchronization  Must control the inter-leavings between threads –Or the results can be non-deterministic  All possible inter-leavings must yield a correct answer

58 58 Thread Synchronization  Try to constrain the thread executions as little as possible  Controlling the execution and order of threads is called “synchronization”

59 59 Gold Fish Problem  Problem definition:  Tracy and Peter want to keep a gold fish alive –By feeding the fish properly  if either sees that the fish is not fed, –she/he goes to feed the fish  The fish must be fed once and only once each day

60 60 Correctness Properties  Someone will feed the fish if needed  But never more than one person feed the fish

61 61 Solution #0  No synchronization –Peter: Tracy: –if (noFeed) { if (noFeed) { – feed fish feed fish –} }

62 62 Problem with Solution #0 Peter Tracy 3:00 look at the fish (no feed) 3:05 look at the fish (no feed) 3:10 feed fish 3:25 feed fish Fish over eat!

63 63 Problem with Solution #0  Over eat occurred because: –They execute the same code at the same time –i.e. if (noFeed) feed fish  This is called race –Two or more threads try to access the same shared resource at the same time

64 64 Critical Section  The shared resource or code is called a critical section –the region where race condition occurs  Access to it must be coordinated –i.e. only once process can access it at a time

65 65 Critical Section  In solution #0, critical section is –“if (noFeed) feed fish”  Peter and Tracy must NOT be inside the critical section at the same time

66 66 1st Type of Synchronization  Ensure only one person in critical section –i.e. only 1 person goes shopping at a time  This is called mutual exclusion: –only 1 thread is doing a certain thing at one time –others are excluded

67 67 Mutual Exclusion  4 conditions for mutual exclusion  No 2 processes simultaneously in critical region  No assumptions about speeds or #s of CPUs  No process running outside its critical region may block another process  No process wait forever to enter critical region

68 68 Mutual Exclusion while(TRUE) { while(turn!=0) /*loop */while(turn!=1) /*loop*/critical_region(); turn=1;turn=0;noncritical_region();} Process 0Process 1

69 69 Peterson ’ s Solution #define FALSE 0 #define TRUE 1 #define N2/*# of processes*/ int turn;/*whose turn is it*/ int interested[N};/*all values initially 0 (FALSE)*/

70 70 Peterson ’ s Solution Void enter_region(int process)/*process is 0 or 1*/ { int other;/*# of the other process*/ other =1 –process;/*the opposite of process*/ interested[process]=TRUE; /*show you are interested*/ turn=process;/*Set flag*/ while(turn==process && interested[other]==TRUE) /*null statement*/ }

71 71 Peterson ’ s Solution void leave_region(int process) /*process who is leaving*/ { interested[process]=FALSE; /*indicate departure from critical region*/ }

72 72 Assembly Implementation Enter_region: TSL_REGISTER, LOCK |copy lock to register and set lock to 1 CMP REGISTER, #0| was lock zero? JNE enter_region|if nonzero, lock was set, so loop RET|return to caller; CR entered Leave_region: MOVE LOCK, #0|store a 0 in lock RET|return to caller

73 73 Gold Fish Solution #1  Idea: –leave note that you’re going to check on the fish status, so other person doesn’t also feed

74 74 Solution #1 Peter: Tracy: if (noNote) { leave note leave note if (noFeed) { if (noFeed) { feed fish feed fish } } remove note remove note }

75 75 Solution #1  Does this work?  If not, when could it fail?  Is solution #1 better than solution #0?

76 76 Solution #2  Idea: change the order of “leave note” and “check note”  This requires labeled notes –otherwise you’ll see your own note –and think it was the other person’s note

77 77 Solution #2 Peter: Tracy: leave notePeter leave noteTracy if (no noteTracy) { if (no notePeter) { if (noFeed) { if (noFeed) { feed fish feed fish } } } remove notePeter remove noteTracy

78 78 Solution #2  Does this work? –Yes it solves the over eat problem  If not, when could it fail? –But it introduces starvation problem

79 79 Solution #3  Idea: –have a way to decide who will feed fish when both leave notes at the same time.  Approach: –Have Peter hang around to make sure job is done

80 80 Solution #3 Peter: Tracy: leave notePeter leave noteTracy while (noteTracy) { do nothing } if (no notePeter) { if (noFeed) { feed fish feed fish } } remove notePeter remove noteTracy

81 81 Solution #3  Peter’s “while (noteTracy)” prevents him from running his critical section at same time as Tracy’s  It also prevents Peter from running off without make sure that someone feeds fish

82 82 Proof of Correctness  (Tracy) if no notePeter, then it’s safe to feed because Peter hasn’t started yet. –Peter will wait for Tracy to be done before checking fish status

83 83 Proof of Correctness  (Tracy) if notePeter, then Peter is in the body of the code and will eventually feed the fish (if needed) –Note: Peter may be waiting for Tracy to quit

84 84 Proof of Correctness  (Peter) if no noteTracy, it’s safe to feed –because Peter has already left notePeter, and Tracy will check notePeter in the future  (Peter) if noteTracy, Peter hangs around and waits to see if Tracy feeds fish. –If Tracy feeds, we’re done –If Tracy doesn’t feed, Peter will feed

85 85 Solution #3  Correct, but ugly –Complicated (non-intuitive) to prove correct  Asymmetric –peter and Tracy runs different code –This makes coding difficult

86 86 Solution #3  Wasteful –Peter consumes CPU time while waiting for Tracy to remove note  Constantly checking some status while waiting on something is called busy-waiting –Very very bad

87 87 Higher-Level Synchronization  What is the solution? –Raise the level of abstraction  Make life easier for programmers

88 88 Higher-Level synchronization Low-level atomic operations provide by hardware (i.e. load/store, interrupt enable/disable, test & set) High level synchronization operations provided by software (i.e. semaphore, lock, monitor) Concurrent programs

89 89 Lock (Mutex)  A Lock prevents another thread from entering a critical section –e.g. lock the fridge while you’re shopping so that both Peter and Tracy don’t go shopping

90 90 Lock (Mutex)  Two operations –lock(): wait until lock is free, then acquire it –do { – if (lock is free) { – acquire lock; break – } –} while (1)  unlock(): release lock

91 91 Lock (Mutex)  Why was the “note” in Gold Fishsolutions #1 and #2 not a good lock?  Does it meet the 4 conditions?

92 92 Four Elements of Locking  Lock is initialized to be free  Acquire lock before entering critical section  Release lock when exiting critical section  Wait to acquire lock if another thread already holds it

93 93 Solve “Too much fish” with lock Peter: Tracy: lock() if (noFeed) { feed fish } unlock()

94 94 Solve “Too much fish” with lock  But this prevents Tracy from doing stuff while Peter is shopping. –I.e. critical section includes the shopping time.  How to minimize the time the lock is held?

95 95 Producer-Consumer Problem  Problem: –producer puts things into a shared buffer –Consumer takes them out –Need synchronization for coordinating producer and consumer producerconsumer

96 96 Producer-Consumer Problem  Buffer between producer and consumer allows them to operate somewhat independently

97 97 Producer-Consumer Problem  Otherwise must operate in lockstep –producer puts 1 thing in buffer, then consumer takes it out –then producer adds another, then consumer takes it out, etc

98 98 Producer-Consumer Problem  Coke machine example –delivery person (producer) fills machine with cokes –students (consumer) feed cokes and drink them –coke machine has finite space (buffer)

99 99 Solution for PC Problem  What does producer do when buffer full?  What does consumer do when buffer empty?  The busy waiting solution in Solution 3 is unacceptable

100 100 Solution for PC Problem Use  Use Sleep and Wakeup primitives  Consumer sleeps if buffer is empty –Wake up sleeping producers otherwise  Producer sleeps if buffer is full –Wake up sleeping consumers otherwise

101 101 Sleep and Wakeup #define N 100/*# of slots in the buffer*/ Int count=0;/*# of items in the buffer*/ Void producer(void) {Int item; While(TRUE) { Item=produce_item(); If(count==N) sleep(); Insert_item(item); Count=count+1; If(count==1) wakeup(consumer); } }

102 102 Sleep and Wakeup Void consumer(void) {Int item; While(TRUE) { If(count==0) sleep(); Item=remove_item(); Count=count-1; If(count==N-1) wakeup(producer); Consume_item(item); } }

103 103 What are the problem?  Producer-consumer problem with fatal race condition –Access to “ count ” is unrestrainted –Wakeup call could get lost  Solution is to use semaphore

104 104 Semaphore  Semaphores are like a generalized lock  It has a non-negative integer value  Semaphore supports the following ops: –down, up

105 105 Down Operation  Wait for semaphore to become positive  Then decrement semaphore by 1 –Originally called “P” operation for the Dutch proberen

106 106 Up Operation  Increment semaphore by 1 –originally called “V”, for the Dutch verhogen  This wakes up a thread waiting in down –if there are any

107 107 Semaphores  Can also set the initial value of semaphore  The key parts in down() and up() are atomic  Two down() calls at the same time can’t decrement the value below 0

108 108 Binary Semaphores  Value is either 0 or 1  down() waits for value to become 1 –then sets it to 0  up() sets value to 1 –waking up waiting down (if any)

109 109  Initial value is 1 (or more generally, N) –down() – –up()  Like lock/unlock, but more general Mutual Exclusion w/ Semaphore

110 110 Semaphores for Ordering  Usually (not always) initial value is 0  Example: thread A wants to wait for thread B to finish before continuing –Semaphore initialized to 0 –A B –down() do task –continue execution up()

111 111 PC Problem with Semaphores  Let’s solve the producer-consumer problem in semaphores

112 112 Semaphore Assignments  mutex: –ensures mutual exclusion around code that manipulates buffer queue (initialized to 1)  full: –counts the # of full buffers (initialized to 0)

113 113 Semaphore Assignments  empty: –counts the number of empty buffers (initialized to N)  Why do we need different semaphores for full and empty buffers?

114 114 Solve PC with Semaphores #define N 100 /*# of slots in the buffer*/ typedef int semaphore;/*a special kind of int*/ semaphore mutex =1;/*controls access to critical */ semaphore empty =N;/*counts empty buffer slots*/ int full = 0;/*counts full buffer slots */

115 115 Solve PC with Semaphores void producer(void) {int item; while(TRUE) { item=produce_item(); down(&empty); down(&mutex); insert_item(item); up(&mutex) up(&full); } }

116 116 Solve PC with Semaphores void consumer(void) {int item; while(TRUE) { down(&full); down(&mutex); item=remove_item(); up(&mutex); up*(&empty); consume_item(item); } }

117 117 Semaphore Assignments  Does the order of the down() function calls matter in the consumer (or the producer)?  Does the order of the up() function calls matter in the consumer (or the producer)?

118 118 Solve PC with Semaphores  What (if anything) must change to allow multiple producers and/or multiple consumers?  What if there’s 1 full buffer, and multiple consumers call down(full) at the same time?

119 119 Problem with Semaphore  Is there any problem with semaphore?  The order of down and up ops are critical –Improper ordering could cause deadlock –i.e. programming in semaphore is tricky  How to make programming easier?

120 120 Monitor  A programming language construct  A collection of procedures, variables, data structures  Access to it is guaranteed to be exclusive –By the compiler (not programmer)

121 121 Monitor  Monitors use separate mechanisms for the two types of synchronization  use locks for mutual exclusion  use condition variables for ordering constraints

122 122 Monitor  A monitor = a lock + the condition variables associated with that lock

123 123 Condition Variables  Main idea: –make it possible for thread to sleep inside a critical section  Approach: –by atomically releasing lock, putting thread on wait queue and go to sleep

124 124 Condition Variables  Each variable has a queue of waiting threads –threads that are sleeping, waiting for a condition  Each variable is associated with one lock

125 125 Monitors Monitor example integer i; condition c; procedure producer(); … end; procedure consumer(); … end end monitor

126 126 Ops on Condition Variables  wait(): –atomically release lock –put thread on condition wait queue, go to sleep –i.e. start to wait for wakeup

127 127 Ops on Condition Variables  signal(): –wake up a thread waiting on this condition variable if any  broadcast(): –wake up all threads waiting on this condition variable if any

128 128 Ops on Condition Variables  Note that thread must be holding lock when it calls wait() or signal()  To avoid problems when both threads are inside monitor –the signal() must be the last statement

129 129 Ops on Condition Variables  What to do when a thread wakes up?  Two options:  Let the wakeup thread run –i.e. signaler release the lock  Let the caller and callee compete for lock

130 130 Mesa vs. Hoare Monitors  The first option is called Hoare Monitor –It gives special priority to the woken-up waiter –signaling thread gives up lock –woken-up waiter acquires lock –signaling thread re-acquires lock after waiter unlocks

131 131 Mesa vs. Hoare Monitors  The second option is Mesa Monitor –when waiter is woken, it must contend for the lock with other threads –hence must re-check condition –Whoever wins get to run

132 132 Mesa vs. Hoare Monitors  We’ll stick with Mesa monitors –as do most operating systems –Because it is more flexible

133 133 Programming with Monitors  List shared data needed to solve problem  Decide how many locks are needed  Decide which locks will protect which data

134 134 Programming with Monitors  More locks allows different data to be accessed simultaneously –i.e. protecting finer-grained data –but is more complicated  One lock usually enough in this class

135 135 Programming with Monitors  Do not show this slide  Put lock...unlock calls around the code that uses shared data  List before-after conditions –one condition variable per condition

136 136 Programming with Monitors  Do not show this slide  Condition variable’s lock should be the lock that protects the shared data that is used to evaluate the condition

137 137 Programming with Monitors  Call wait() when thread needs to wait for a condition to be true;  Use a while loop to re-check condition after wait returns  Call signal when a condition changes that another thread might be interested in

138 138 Producer-Consumer in Monitor  Variables:  numCokes (number of cokes in machine)  One lock to protect this shared data –cokeLock  fewer locks make the programming simpler –but allow less concurrency

139 139 Producer-Consumer in Monitor  Ordering constraints:  Consumer must wait for producer to fill buffer if all buffers are empty  Producer must wait for consumer to empty buffer if buffers is completely full

140 140 Producer-Consumer in Monitor monitor ProducerConsumer condition full, empty; integer count; procedure insert (item: integer); begin if count == N then wait(full); insert_item(item); count++; if count ==1 then signal(empty); end; function remove: integer; begin if count ==0 then wait(empty); remove = remove_item; count--; if count==N-1 then signal(full); end; count:=0; end monitor;

141 141 Producer-Consumer in Monitor procedure producer; begin while true do begin item = produce_item; ProducerConsumer.insert(item); end end; procedure consumer; begin while true do begin item=ProducerConsumer.remove; consume_item(item); end end;

142 142  Do not show this slide  Semaphores used for both mutual exclusion and ordering constraints –elegant (one mechanism for both purposes) –code can be hard to read and hard to get right Compare Monitors & Semaphores

143 143  Do not show this slide  Monitor lock is just like a binary semaphore that is initialized to 1 –lock() = down() –unlock() = up() Compare Monitors & Semaphores

144 144 Condition VariableSemaphores While (cond) {wailt()};Down() Conditional code in user program Conditional code in semaphore definition User writes customized condition Condition specified by semaphore definition (wait if value ==0) User provides shared variables, protect with lock Provides shared variable & thread-safe operations on that integer No memory of past signals“Remembers” past up() calls Condition Variable vs. Semaphore

145 145  Condition variables are more flexible than using semaphores for ordering constraints  Condition variables: –can use arbitrary condition to wait  Semaphores: –wait if semaphore value == 0 Condition Variable vs. Semaphore

146 146  Do not show this slide  Semaphores work best if –the shared integer and waiting condition (==0) maps naturally to the problem domain Condition Variable vs. Semaphore

147 147 Problems with Monitor  Many languages do not support  Don’t resolve problem when multiple CPUs or computer are involved –This applies to semaphore too  Solution? –Message passing

148 148 Message Passing  A high-level primitive for IPC  It uses two primitives: send and receive –Send(destination, &message) –Receive(source, &message)  They are system calls (not language constructs)  Can either block or return immediately

149 149 Message Passing #define N 100 /*# of slots in the buffer*/Void producer(void) {Int item; message m;/*message buffer*/ While(TRUE) { Item=produce_item(); receive(consumer, &m);/*wait for an empty */ Build_messasge(&m, item);/*construct a msg to*/ Send(consumer, &m); } }

150 150 Message Passing Void consumer(void) {Int item; message m; for(i=0;i

151 151 Problems with Message Passing  Have many challenging problems  Message loss –What happens when a message is lost  Authentication –How to determine the identity of the sender?  Performance

152 152 Barriers  Another synchronization primitive  Intended for a group of processes  All processes must reach the barrier for the applications to proceed to next phase

153 153 Barriers –processes approaching a barrier –all processes but one blocked at barrier –last process arrives, all are let through

154 154 Implementing Locks  So far we have used locks extensively  We assumed that lock operations are atomic  But how atomicity of lock is implemented?

155 155 Implementing Locks Low-level atomic operations provide by hardware (i.e. load/store, interrupt enable/disable, test & set) High level synchronization operations provided by software (i.e. semaphore, lock, monitor) Concurrent programs  Lock must be implemented on hardware ops

156 156 Use Interrupt Disable/Enable  On uniprocessor, operation is atomic as long as –context switch doesn’t occur in middle of operation  How does thread get context switched out? –interrupt  Prevent context switches at wrong time by preventing these events

157 157 Use Interrupt Disable/Enable  With interrupt disable/enable to ensure atomicity, –why do we need locks?  User program could call interrupt disable –before entering critical section –and call interrupt enable after leaving critical section –and make sure not to call yield in the critical section

158 158 Lock Implementation #1  Disable interrupts with busy waiting

159 159 Lock Implementation #1 lock() { disable interrupts while (value != FREE) { enable interrupts disable interrupts } value = BUSY enable interrupts } Why does lock() disable interrupts in the beginning of the function? Why is it ok to disable interrupts in lock()’s critical section it wasn’t ok to disable interrupts while user code was running?

160 160 Lock Implementation #1 unlock() { disable interrupts value = FREE enable interrupts } Do we need to disable interrupts in unlock()?

161 161 Problems with Interrupt Approach  Interrupt disable works on a uniprocessor –by preventing current thread from being switched out  But this doesn’t work on a multi-processor  Disabling interrupts on one processor doesn’t prevent other processors from running  Not acceptable (or provided) to modify interrupt disable to stop other processors from running

162 162 Read-modify-write Instructions  Another atomic primitive  Use atomic load / atomic store instructions –remember Gold Fishsolution #3

163 163 Read-modify-write Instructions  Modern processors provide an easier way –with atomic read modify-write instructions  Read-modify-write atomically –reads value from memory into a register –Then writes new value to that memory location

164 164 Read-modify-write Instructions  test_and_set –atomically writes 1 to a memory location (set) –and returns the value that used to be there (test) test_and_set(X) { tmp = X X = 1 return(tmp) }

165 165 Lock Implementation #2  Test & set with busy waiting (value is initially 0) lock() { while (test_and_set(value) == 1) {} } unlock() { value = 0 }

166 166 Lock Implementation #2  If lock is free (value = 0) –test_and_set sets value to 1 and returns 0, –so the while loop finishes  If lock is busy (value = 1) –test_and_set doesn’t change the value and returns 1, –so loop continues

167 167 Strategy for Reducing Busy-Waiting  In method 1 & 2, Waiting thread uses lots of CPU time just checking for lock to become free  Better for it to sleep and let other threads run

168 168 Lock Implementation #3  Interrupt disable, no busy-waiting  Waiting thread gives up processor so that other threads (e.g. thread with lock) can run more quickly  Someone wakes up thread when the lock is free

169 169 Lock Implementation #3 lock() { disable interrupts if (value == FREE) { value = BUSY } else { add thread to queue of threads waiting for this lock switch to next runnable thread } enable interrupts } When should lock() re-enable interrupts before calling switch?

170 170 Lock Implementation #3 unlock() { disable interrupts value = FREE if (any thread is waiting for this lock) { move waiting thread from waiting queue to ready queue value = BUSY } enable interrupts }

171 171 Assembly Implementation Mutex_lock: TSL_REGISTER, MUTEX |copy mutex to register and set mutex to 1 CMP REGISTER, #0| was mutex zero? JNE ok|if zero, mutex was unlocked, so return CALL thread_yield|mutex is busy, schedule another thread JMP mutex_lock|try again later Ok:RET|return to caller; CR entered Mutex_unlock: MOVE MUTEX, #0|store a 0 in mutex RET|return to caller

172 172 Interrupt Disable/Enable Pattern Enable interrupts before adding thread to wait queue? lock() { disable interrupts... if (lock is busy) { enable interrupts add thread to lock wait queue switch to next run-able thread } When could this fail?

173 173 Interrupt Disable/Enable Pattern  Enable interrupts after adding thread to wait queue, but before switching to next thread?

174 174 Interrupt Disable/Enable Pattern lock() { disable interrupts... if (lock is busy) { add thread to lock wait queue enable interrupts switch to next runnable thread }

175 175 Interrupt Disable/Enable Pattern  But this fails if interrupt happens after thread enable interrupts –lock() adds thread to wait queue –lock() enables interrupts –interrupt causes preemption, –i.e. switch to another thread.

176 176 Interrupt Disable/Enable Pattern  Preemption moves thread to ready queue –Now thread is on two queues (wait and ready)!  Also, switch is likely to be a critical section –Adding thread to wait queue and switching to next thread must be atomic

177 177 Solution  Waiting thread leaves interrupts disabled –when it calls switch  Next thread to run has the responsibility of –re-enabling interrupts before returning to user code  When waiting thread wakes up –it returns from switch with interrupts disabled from the last thread

178 178 Invariant  All threads promise to have interrupts disabled when they call switch  All threads promise to re-enable interrupts after they get returned to from switch

179 179 Thread A Thread B yield() { disable interrupts switch enable interrupts } lock() { disable interrupts... switch back from switch enable interrupts } unlock() (move thread A to ready queue) yield() { disable interrupts switch back from switch enable interrupts }

180 180 Lock Implementation #4  Test & set, minimal busy-waiting  Can’t implement locks using test & set without some amount of busy-waiting –but can minimize it  Idea: –use busy waiting only to atomically execute lock code –Give up CPU if busy

181 181 Lock Implementation #4 lock() { while(test&set(guard)) { } if (value == FREE) { value = BUSY } else { add thread to queue of threads waiting for this lock switch to next runnable thread } guard = 0 }

182 182 Lock Implementation #4 unlock() { while (test&set(guard)) { } value = FREE if (any thread is waiting for this lock) { move waiting thread from waiting queue to ready queue value = BUSY } guard = 0 }

183 183 CPU Scheduling  How should one choose next thread to run? What are the goals of the CPU scheduler?  Bursts of CPU usage alternate with periods of I/O wait

184 184 CPU Scheduling (a) CPU-bound process (b) I/O bound process

185 185 CPU Scheduling  Minimize average response time –average elapsed time to do each job  Maximize throughput of entire system –rate at which jobs complete in the system  Fairness –share CPU among threads in some “equitable” manner

186 186 Scheduling Algorithm Goals  All systems  Fairness: –giving each process a fair share of the CPU  Policy enforcement: –seeing that stated policy is carried out  Balance: –keeping all parts of the system busy

187 187 Scheduling Algorithm Goals  Batch systems  Throughput: –maximize jobs per hour  Turnaround time: –minimize time between submission and termination  CPU utilization: –keep the CPU busy all the time

188 188 Scheduling Algorithm Goals  Interactive systems –Response time – respond to requests quickly –Proportionality – meet users’ expectations  Real-time systems –Meeting deadlines – avoid losing data –Predictability – avoid quality degradation in multimedia systems

189 189 FCFS  First-Come, First-Served  FIFO ordering between jobs  No preemption (run until done) –thread runs until it calls yield() or blocks on I/O –no timer interrupts

190 190 FCFS  Pros and cons  + simple  - short jobs get stuck behind long jobs  - what about the user’s interactive experience?

191 191 FCFS  Example –job A takes 100 seconds –job B takes 1 second –time 0: job A arrives and starts –time 0+: job B arrives –time 100: job A ends (response time=100); job B starts –time 101: job B ends (response time = 101)  average response time = 100.5

192 192 Round Robin  Goal: –improve average response time for short jobs  Solution: –periodically preempt all jobs (viz. long-running ones)  Is FCFS or round robin more “fair”?

193 193 Round Robin  Example  job A takes 100 seconds  job B takes 1 second  time slice of 1 second –a job is preempted after running for 1 second

194 194 Round Robin –time 0: job A arrives and starts –time 0+: job B arrives –time 1: job A is preempted; job B starts –time 2: job B ends (response time = 2) –time 101: job A ends (response time = 101)  average response time = 51.5

195 195 Round Robin  Does round-robin always achieve lower response time than FCFS?

196 196 Round Robin  Pros and cons  + good for interactive computing  - round robin has more overhead due to context switches

197 197 Round Robin  How to choose time slice?  big time slice: –degrades to FCFS  small time slice: –each context switch wastes some time

198 198 Round Robin  typically a compromise –10 milliseconds (ms)  if context switch takes.1 ms –then round robin with 10 ms slice wastes 1% of CPU

199 199 STCF  Shortest Time to Completion First  STCF: run whatever job has the least amount of work to do before it finishes or blocks for an I/O

200 200 STCF  STCF-P: preemptive version of STCF  if a new job arrives that has less work than the current job has remaining –then preempt the current job in favor of the new one

201 201 STCF  Idea is to finish the short jobs first  Improves response time of shorter jobs by a lot –Doesn’t hurt response time of longer jobs by too much

202 202 STCF  STCF gives optimal response time among non- preemptive policies  STCF-P gives optimal response time among preemptive policies (and non-preemptive policies)

203 203 STCF  Is the following job a “short” or “long” job? –while(1) { – use CPU for 1 ms – use I/O for 10 ms –}–}

204 204 STCF  Pros and cons  + optimal average response time  - unfair. Short jobs can prevent long jobs from ever getting any CPU time (starvation)  - needs knowledge of future

205 205 STCF  STCF and STCF-P need knowledge of future –it’s often very handy to know the future :-) –how to find out the future time required by a job?

206 206 Example job A compute for 1000 seconds job B compute for 1000 seconds job C while(1) { use CPU for 1 ms use I/O for 10 ms }

207 207 Example  C can use 91% of the disk by itself  A or B can each use 100% of the CPU  What happens when we run them together?  Goal: keep both CPU and disk busy

208 208 FCFS  if A or B run before C,  they prevent C from issuing its disk I/O for –up to 2000 seconds

209 209 Round Robin  with 100 ms time slice –CA B CA B –|--| –C’s–C’s –I/O  Disk is idle most of the time that A & B are running –about 10 ms disk time every 200 ms

210 210 Round Robin  with 1 ms time slice –CABABABABABCABABABABABC... –| | | | –C’s C’s –I/O I/O  C runs more often, so it can issue its disk I/O almost as soon as its last disk I/O is done

211 211 Round Robin with 1ms  Disk is utilized almost 90% of the time  Little effect on A or B’s performance  General principle: –first start the things that can run in parallel  problem: –lots of context switches (and context switch overhead)

212 212 STCF-P  Runs C as soon as its disk I/O is done –because it has the shortest next CPU burst –CA CA CA –| | | | | | –C’s C’s C’s –I/O I/O I/O

213 213 Real-Time Scheduling  So far, we’ve focused on average-case analysis –average response time, throughput  Sometimes, the right goal is to get each job done before its deadline –irrelevant how much before deadline job completes

214 214 Real-Time Scheduling  Video or audio output. –E.g. NTSC outputs 1 TV frame every 33 ms  Control of physical systems –e.g. auto assembly, nuclear power plants

215 215 Real-Time Scheduling  This requires worst-case analysis  How do we do this in real life?

216 216 EDF  Earliest-deadline first  Always run the job that has the earliest deadline –i.e. the deadline coming up next  If a new job arrives with an earlier deadline than the currently running job –preempt the running job and start the new one

217 217 EDF  EDF is optimal –it will meet all deadlines if it’s possible to do so

218 218 EDF  Example  job A: takes 15 seconds, deadline is 20 seconds after entering system  job B: takes 10 seconds, deadline is 30 seconds after entering system  job C: takes 5 seconds, deadline is 10 seconds after entering system

219 219 EDF time---> A + B + C +

220 220 Not all set of tasks are schedulable in RT Systems  Given –m periodic events –event i occurs within period P i and requires C i seconds  Then the load can only be handled if Schedulability in Real-Time Systems

221 221 Scheduling in Batch Systems  First come first serve  Shortest job first  Shortest remaining time next  Three-level scheduling

222 222 Scheduling in Batch Systems An example of shortest job first scheduling

223 223 Scheduling in Batch Systems Three level scheduling

224 224 Scheduling in Interactive Systems  Round-robin scheduling  Priority scheduling –Run highest priority process until it blocks or exits –Alternative, decrease priority at each clock tick  Multiple queue –Dividing priority into classes –Dynamically adjust a process’s priority class

225 225 Scheduling in Interactive Systems  Shortest process next –Estimate the running time of processes  Guaranteed scheduling –Each process runs 1/n fraction of time  Lottery scheduling –Issue lottery tickets to process & schedule accordingly  Fair share scheduling per user

226 226 Scheduling in Interactive Systems  Round Robin Scheduling –list of runnable processes –list of runnable processes after B uses up its quantum

227 227 A scheduling algorithm with four priority classes Scheduling in Interactive Systems

228 228 Policy versus Mechanism  Separate what is allowed to be done –with how it is done  Important in thread scheduling –a process knows which of its children threads are important and need priority

229 229 Policy versus Mechanism  Scheduling algorithm parameterized –mechanism in the kernel  Parameters filled in by user processes –policy set by user process

230 230 Thread Scheduling Possible scheduling of user-level threads

231 231 Thread Scheduling Possible scheduling of kernel- level threads

232 Thoughts Change Life 意念改变生活


Download ppt "11 Chapter 2: Process/Thread Instructor: Hengming Zou, Ph.D. In Pursuit of Absolute Simplicity 求于至简,归于永恒."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google