Operating Systems 2017F Lecture 10: Difference between revisions
Blanked the page |
No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Video== | |||
Video from the lecture given on October 10, 2017 [http://homeostasis.scs.carleton.ca/~soma/os-2017f/lectures/comp3000-2017f-lec10-10Oct2017.mp4 is now available]. (The audio worked!) | |||
==Notes== | |||
===In-Class=== | |||
<pre> | |||
Lecture 10 | |||
---------- | |||
Concurrency | |||
- more than one thing happening at the same time | |||
challenge with concurrency is keeping shared state consistent | |||
* files that are written to by multiple processes | |||
* two or more processes communicating | |||
* multiple threads within a process | |||
concurrency leads to race conditions | |||
- order of interleaved actions affects output | |||
- ex. did process A or B modify the file first? | |||
We want deterministic behavior from concurrent computations | |||
To get consistent computation, we need to coordinate | |||
- but you can't interact via regular variables | |||
Regular variables are subject to the memory hierarchy | |||
- variables are stored in registers, L1 cache, L2 cache, L3 cache, main memory | |||
- can be deeper in some contexts | |||
- so what if coordination variable is in L1 cache for one thread and in main memory for another? | |||
- hardware maintains consistency...eventually | |||
mechanisms for coordinating concurrent computations must bypass the memory hierachy | |||
Instead use | |||
- filesystem locking primitives (kernel) | |||
- special machine language instructions | |||
Operating systems - kernels in particular - are highly concurrent | |||
- makes them painful to code | |||
- have to always worry about having exclusive (or safe) access to data, resources | |||
Abstractions for managing concurrency | |||
- atomic variables guarantee strict ordering of operations | |||
Example | |||
Variable X: ***** <- range of memory locations | |||
To modify X, you... | |||
- load X into a register | |||
- modify the register | |||
- save the register to X | |||
What if two cores try to modify X at the same time? | |||
- both could have X in a register at the same time | |||
X is 5 | |||
core A increments by 1 | |||
core B decrements by 1 | |||
What's X after both have run? | |||
If B changes X but doesn't see A's change...you get 4 | |||
If A changes X but doesn't see B's change...you get 6 | |||
For X to be atomic, ^^^ shouldn't be possible | |||
- has to make sure only one core accesses X at a time | |||
Atomic variables are typically used to build semaphores... | |||
But what we really want is mutual exclusion | |||
- only one thread/process/CPU can access the resource at a time | |||
Want mutual exclusion for larger resources, e.g. data structures, devices | |||
Higher-level languages directly support mutual exclusion, e.g. | |||
Java synchronized methods | |||
Semaphores are an analogy to a railroad control mechanism | |||
- only one train on the track! | |||
When a train enters the shared track | |||
- grab the semaphore (increment atomic variable) | |||
- if not available, wait (check first to see if it is 0) | |||
When a train leaves the shared track | |||
- release the semaphore (decrement atomic variable) | |||
Lesson: don't implement semaphores yourself, please! | |||
In the Linux kernel | |||
- locks using semaphores of various types are associated with all kinds | |||
of data structures | |||
e.g. inodes | |||
When you can't get the lock, what do you do? | |||
- sleep (tell the scheduler to wake you up when the lock is available) | |||
- deal with not getting the resource | |||
- spin (do a null loop) | |||
If the wait time is short, spinning is the fastest thing you can do | |||
Where possible, everything should be exclusive, minimize sharing | |||
But in userspace... | |||
- shared memory...NOOOOOOO | |||
- unless you use atomic variable, or something higher level | |||
like a semaphore | |||
- messages | |||
- series of messages can be used to synchronize state | |||
3-way handshakes, e.g. opening a TCP connection | |||
- SYN (synchronize) client->server | |||
- SYN-ACK (acknowledge SYN) server->client | |||
- ACK (acknowledge) client->server | |||
Can send messages between processes | |||
- signals! | |||
- other ways too | |||
concurrency pattern: producer/consumer | |||
* two processes P and C | |||
* P "makes" things, C "consumes" them | |||
* want to coordinate P and C | |||
- P shouldn't produce too much (C gets too far behind) | |||
- C shouldn't waste time waiting for P | |||
* shared circular buffer for storing output of P and input of C | |||
* when buffer is empty, C should sleep | |||
* when buffer is full, P should sleep | |||
</pre> |
Revision as of 19:40, 10 October 2017
Video
Video from the lecture given on October 10, 2017 is now available. (The audio worked!)
Notes
In-Class
Lecture 10 ---------- Concurrency - more than one thing happening at the same time challenge with concurrency is keeping shared state consistent * files that are written to by multiple processes * two or more processes communicating * multiple threads within a process concurrency leads to race conditions - order of interleaved actions affects output - ex. did process A or B modify the file first? We want deterministic behavior from concurrent computations To get consistent computation, we need to coordinate - but you can't interact via regular variables Regular variables are subject to the memory hierarchy - variables are stored in registers, L1 cache, L2 cache, L3 cache, main memory - can be deeper in some contexts - so what if coordination variable is in L1 cache for one thread and in main memory for another? - hardware maintains consistency...eventually mechanisms for coordinating concurrent computations must bypass the memory hierachy Instead use - filesystem locking primitives (kernel) - special machine language instructions Operating systems - kernels in particular - are highly concurrent - makes them painful to code - have to always worry about having exclusive (or safe) access to data, resources Abstractions for managing concurrency - atomic variables guarantee strict ordering of operations Example Variable X: ***** <- range of memory locations To modify X, you... - load X into a register - modify the register - save the register to X What if two cores try to modify X at the same time? - both could have X in a register at the same time X is 5 core A increments by 1 core B decrements by 1 What's X after both have run? If B changes X but doesn't see A's change...you get 4 If A changes X but doesn't see B's change...you get 6 For X to be atomic, ^^^ shouldn't be possible - has to make sure only one core accesses X at a time Atomic variables are typically used to build semaphores... But what we really want is mutual exclusion - only one thread/process/CPU can access the resource at a time Want mutual exclusion for larger resources, e.g. data structures, devices Higher-level languages directly support mutual exclusion, e.g. Java synchronized methods Semaphores are an analogy to a railroad control mechanism - only one train on the track! When a train enters the shared track - grab the semaphore (increment atomic variable) - if not available, wait (check first to see if it is 0) When a train leaves the shared track - release the semaphore (decrement atomic variable) Lesson: don't implement semaphores yourself, please! In the Linux kernel - locks using semaphores of various types are associated with all kinds of data structures e.g. inodes When you can't get the lock, what do you do? - sleep (tell the scheduler to wake you up when the lock is available) - deal with not getting the resource - spin (do a null loop) If the wait time is short, spinning is the fastest thing you can do Where possible, everything should be exclusive, minimize sharing But in userspace... - shared memory...NOOOOOOO - unless you use atomic variable, or something higher level like a semaphore - messages - series of messages can be used to synchronize state 3-way handshakes, e.g. opening a TCP connection - SYN (synchronize) client->server - SYN-ACK (acknowledge SYN) server->client - ACK (acknowledge) client->server Can send messages between processes - signals! - other ways too concurrency pattern: producer/consumer * two processes P and C * P "makes" things, C "consumes" them * want to coordinate P and C - P shouldn't produce too much (C gets too far behind) - C shouldn't waste time waiting for P * shared circular buffer for storing output of P and input of C * when buffer is empty, C should sleep * when buffer is full, P should sleep