The mutual exclusion problem is to devise a pre-protocol (or entry protocol) and a post-protocol (or exist protocol) to keep two or more threads from being in their critical sections at the same time. Tanenbaum examine proposals for critical-section problem or mutual exclusion problem.
When one process is updating shared modifiable data in its critical section, no other process should allowed to enter in its critical section.
Each process disables all interrupts just after entering in its critical section and re-enable all interrupts just before leaving critical section. With interrupts turned off the CPU could not be switched to other process. Hence, no other process will enter its critical and mutual exclusion achieved.
Disabling interrupts is sometimes a useful interrupts is sometimes a useful technique within the kernel of an operating system, but it is not appropriate as a general mutual exclusion mechanism for users process. The reason is that it is unwise to give user process the power to turn off interrupts.
In this solution, we consider a single, shared, (lock) variable, initially 0. When a process wants to enter in its critical section, it first test the lock. If lock is 0, the process first sets it to 1 and then enters the critical section. If the lock is already 1, the process just waits until (lock) variable becomes 0. Thus, a 0 means that no process in its critical section, and 1 means hold your horses - some process is in its critical section.
The flaw in this proposal can be best explained by example. Suppose process A sees that the lock is 0. Before it can set the lock to 1 another process B is scheduled, runs, and sets the lock to 1. When the process A runs again, it will also set the lock to 1, and two processes will be in their critical section simultaneously.
In this proposed solution, the integer variable 'turn' keeps track of whose turn is to enter the critical section. Initially, process A inspect turn, finds it to be 0, and enters in its critical section. Process B also finds it to be 0 and sits in a loop continually testing 'turn' to see when it becomes 1.Continuously testing a variable waiting for some value to appear is called the Busy-Waiting.
Taking turns is not a good idea when one of the processes is much slower than the other. Suppose process 0 finishes its critical section quickly, so both processes are now in their noncritical section. This situation violates above mentioned condition 3.
Basically, what above mentioned solution do is this: when a processes wants to enter in its critical section , it checks to see if then entry is allowed. If it is not, the process goes into tight loop and waits (i.e., start busy waiting) until it is allowed to enter. This approach waste CPU-time.
Now look at some interprocess communication primitives is the pair of steep-wakeup.
The bounded buffer producers and consumers assumes that there is a fixed buffer size i.e., a finite numbers of slots are available.
To suspend the producers when the buffer is full, to suspend the consumers when the buffer is empty, and to make sure that only one process at a time manipulates a buffer so there are no race conditions or lost updates.
As an example how sleep-wakeup system calls are used, consider the producer-consumer problem also known as bounded buffer problem.
Two processes share a common, fixed-size (bounded) buffer. The producer puts information into the buffer and the consumer takes information out.
Trouble arises when
This approaches also leads to same race conditions we have seen in earlier approaches. Race condition can occur due to the fact that access to 'count' is unconstrained. The essence of the problem is that a wakeup call, sent to a process that is not sleeping, is lost.