Semaphore wait() and signal()

Question

I am going through process synchronization, and facing difficulty in understanding semaphore. So here is my doubt:

the source says that

" Semaphore S is an integer variable that is accessed through standard atomic operations i.e. wait() and signal().

It also provided basic definition of wait()

wait(Semaphore S)
{
   while S<=0
     ; //no operation
   S--;
}

Definition of signal()

signal(S)
{
   S++;
}

Let the initial value of a semaphore be 1, and say there are two concurrent processes P0 and P1 which are not supposed to perform operations of their critical section simultaneously.

Now say P0 is in its critical section, so the Semaphore S must have value 0, now say P1 wants to enter its critical section so it executes wait(), and in wait() it continuously loops, now to exit from the loop the semaphore value must be incremented, but it may not be possible because according the source, wait() is an atomic operation and can't be interrupted and thus the process P0 can't call signal() in a single processor system.

I want to know, is the understanding i have so far is correct or not. and if correct then how come process P0 call signal() when process P1 is strucked in while loop?

Solution 1

I think it's an inaccuracy in your source. Atomic for the wait() operation means each iteration of it is atomic, meaning S-- is performed without interruption, but the whole operation is interruptible after each completion of S-- inside the while loop.

Solution 2

I think the top-voted answer is inaccurate!

Operation wait() and signal() must be completely atomic; no two processes can execute wait() or signal() operation simultaneously because they are implemented in kernel and processes in kernel mode can not be preempted.

If several processes attempt a P(S) simultaneously, only one process will be allowed to proceed(non-preemptive kernel that is free of race condition).

for the above implementation to work preemption is necessary (preemptive kernel)

read about the atomicity of semaphore operations http://personal.kent.edu/~rmuhamma/OpSystems/Myos/semaphore.htm https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Operating_System_Design/Processes/Semaphores

Solution 3

I don't think, keeping an infinite while loop inside the wait() operation is wise. I would go for Stallings' example;

void semWait(semaphore s){
    s.count--;
    if(s.count<0)
        *place this process in s.queue and block this process
}

Solution 4

I think what the book means for the atomic operation is testing S<=0 to be true as well as S--. Just like testAndset() it mention before.

if both separate operations S<=0 and S-- are atomic but can be interrupt by other process, this method won't work.

imagine two process p0 and p1, if p0 want to enter the critical section and tested S<=0 to be true. and it was interrupted by p1 and tested S<=0 also be true. then both of the process will enter the critical section. And that's wrong.

the actual not atomic operation is inside the while loop, even if the while loop is empty, other process can still interrupt current one when S<=0 tested to be false, which enable other process can continue their work in critical section and release the lock.

however, I think the code from the book can not actually use in OS since I don't know how to make operations S<=0 to be true and S-- together atomic. more possible way to do that is put the S-- inside the while loop like SomeWittyUsername said.

View more solutions

Comments

[Akashdeep Saluja]

actually the source is a famous book for operating systems by galvin, so i doubt its inaccuracy, and i think you didn't see properly that the S-- statement is out of while loop, the while loop is a kind of null loop.

[SomeWittyUsername]

Are you sure the atomic refers to the entire wait in your implementation? I'm familiar with other implementations with s-- inside the while and the while itself isn't atomic. See for example: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semaphore_(programming)

[Akashdeep Saluja]

i think you are right, i was not aware of what atomicity actually mean, it simply means that if wait() is still executing and some other process needs to be gain access on processor the whole wait() will be rolled back. correct me if i am wrong.

[SomeWittyUsername]

Yep. But not rolled back, just aborted.

[John Hall]

The while is empty. S-- follows the loop. The code for wait with no extra formatting or comments is while(S<=0);S--; not while(S<=0){S--;} which would be obviously malignant. What stops the loop and continues the thread is another process calling signal that S++ and makes S>0.

[John Hall]

I think you are applying concepts about the kernel out of scope. No, OS calls are not "made kernel space". The kernel does not share S. S is in process space shared by multiple threads. The whole point is that many threads can wait by all executing wait(). Once one gets to go because another thread executes signal and S++ then it immediately S-- blocking the other waiting threads. Threads are implemented on single processor systems as tasks that are giving processing time similar to how a kernel and multiple processes run.