程序代写代做代考 Java concurrency SWEN40004 Modelling Complex Software Systems – Synchronisation in FSP
SWEN40004 Modelling Complex Software Systems – Synchronisation in FSP
SWEN40004
Modelling Complex Software Systems
Synchronisation in FSP
Harald Søndergaard
Lecture 19
Semester 1, 2015
SWEN40004 (2015) Synchronisation in FSP 1 / 27
Interference and related problems
We have seen how to create threads in Java, and looked at some of
the problems that threads with shared data can create (compared
with sequential programs). We also looked at modelling concurrent
processes in FSP.
Now we look at how we can model problems in FSP and check for
properties such as deadlock and interference. Doing this allows us to
model concurrent systems at a level that will give us a greater chance
of identifying potential problems.
We can use LTSA to search for these problems automatically.
SWEN40004 (2015) Synchronisation in FSP 2 / 27
Deadlock
A process is in a deadlock if it is blocked waiting for a condition that
will never become true.
A process is in a livelock (a busy wait deadlock) if it is spinning while
waiting for a condition that will never become true. Either can
happen if concurrent processes or threads are mutually waiting for
each other.
SWEN40004 (2015) Synchronisation in FSP 3 / 27
The Coffman conditions
Coffman, Elphick, and Shoshani identify four necessary and sufficient
conditions (the Coffman conditions) that all must occur for deadlock
to happen:
1 Serially reusable resources: the processes involved must share
some reusable resources between themselves under mutual
exclusion.
2 Incremental acquisition: processes hold on to resources that have
been allocated to them while waiting for additional resources.
3 No preemption: once a process has acquired a resource, it can
only release it voluntarily—it cannot be forced to release it.
4 Wait-for cycle: a cycle exists in which each process holds a
resource which its successor in the cycle is waiting for.
SWEN40004 (2015) Synchronisation in FSP 4 / 27
Bounded buffers using monitors
Let us consider an scenario in which deadlock is a possibility. This
example uses monitors and is discussed in a workshop: the bounded
buffer.
The buffer consists of a number of fixed slots. Items can be put into
the buffer by a producer process, and taken from the buffer by a
consumer process in a first-in first-out (FIFO) manner.
An item can only be put into the buffer if there is a free slot;
otherwise the calling producer is blocked. An item can only be
removed from the buffer if there is such an item in the buffer;
otherwise the calling consumer is blocked.
SWEN40004 (2015) Synchronisation in FSP 5 / 27
The bounded buffer in FSP
BUFFER(N=5) = COUNT[0],
COUNT[i:0..N]
= ( when (i
| when (i>0) get -> COUNT[i-1]
).
PRODUCER = (put -> PRODUCER).
CONSUMER = (get -> CONSUMER).
|| BOUNDEDBUFFER = (PRODUCER || BUFFER (5) || CONSUMER).
There is no consideration of the items in the buffer at all. The model
only includes whatever is relevant to the interaction between
processes. Keeping track of the number of buffered items is sufficient
for this, and is preferred, as it abstracts away details that are
irrelevant from a concurrency point of view.
SWEN40004 (2015) Synchronisation in FSP 6 / 27
Animating the bounded buffer model in LTSA
The screen shots correspond to an
empty buffer (only put is
enabled), a half-full buffer (both
put and get are enabled), and a
full buffer (only get is enabled).
SWEN40004 (2015) Synchronisation in FSP 7 / 27
FSP vs Java
FSP monitors map well to Java monitors. In particular, the design
template for waiting in Java monitors can be mapped directly from
FSP guarded processes, such as below.
when cond act -> NEWSTAT
becomes
public synchronized void act()
throws InterruptedException
{
while (!cond) wait();
//modify monitor data
notifyAll();
}
SWEN40004 (2015) Synchronisation in FSP 8 / 27
FSP vs Java
The difference in the level of abstraction between FSP and Java
means that cond will not always be exactly the same. For example,
consider the bounded buffer example from Workshop Question 3
(Week 8). In the implementation of get(), the condition is
while (buffer.size() == 0)
wait();
The size of the buffer is equivalent to i in the FSP model.
SWEN40004 (2015) Synchronisation in FSP 9 / 27
Modelling semaphores in FSP
Instead of monitors, let us try to use semaphores to synchronise use
of the bounded buffer (as in Lecture 16).
Let us use the shorter “up” and “down” for “signal” and “wait”.
We use “empty” for the semaphore that blocks when the buffer is
empty, and “full” for the one that blocks when the buffer is full.
SWEN40004 (2015) Synchronisation in FSP 10 / 27
The bounded buffer using semaphores in FSP
Each will block when its value is 0, so the empty semaphore is
initialised to N (we can “put” something in the buffer N times, unless
somebody performs an intervening “get”); similarly the full
semaphore is initialised to 0. (So the full semaphore will block calls
to get initially.)
Given a put, the empty semaphore is decremented, and the full
semaphore is incremented. Given a get, full is decremented and
empty is incremented.
A model for this is shown on the following slide.
SWEN40004 (2015) Synchronisation in FSP 11 / 27
The bounded buffer using semaphores in FSP
const N = 5
range Int = 0..N
SEMAPHORE(I=0) = SEMA[I],
SEMA[v:Int] = ( when (v
| when (v>0) down -> SEMA[v-1]
).
BUFFER = ( put -> empty.down -> full.up -> BUFFER
| get -> full.down -> empty.up -> BUFFER
).
PRODUCER = (put -> PRODUCER).
CONSUMER = (get -> CONSUMER).
|| BOUNDEDBUFFER = ( PRODUCER || BUFFER || CONSUMER
|| empty:SEMAPHORE(N)
|| full:SEMAPHORE(0)
).
SWEN40004 (2015) Synchronisation in FSP 12 / 27
The bounded buffer using semaphores in FSP
But is the model correct? To investigate, use the LTSA animator.
The trace shows that we can put and get items into the buffer. We
can animate many more traces to obtain more confidence that our
model is correct.
SWEN40004 (2015) Synchronisation in FSP 13 / 27
Deadlock with the bounded buffer
But this trace shows that the bounded buffer can deadlock:
The get transition is enabled when the buffer is empty. If we do get,
it will wait until the full semaphore can be decremented, which is
impossible, as it is 0. And the put action is now disabled, since get
has been executed, locking the buffer monitor.
SWEN40004 (2015) Synchronisation in FSP 14 / 27
Deadlock with the bounded buffer
Now the process is in a deadlocked state in which the consumer is
waiting for something to be put into the buffer, but the producer
cannot put anything in.
The deadlock can be identified by seeing that the STOP process has
occurred (and STOP is not even present in our model), and by also
noting that no actions are enabled.
In this case, we got lucky and managed to run a trace to deadlock.
However, it is easy to see that for real models, we may not get so
lucky.
Like software testing, this is downside of animation: it can only show
the presence of faults, never their absence.
SWEN40004 (2015) Synchronisation in FSP 15 / 27
Checking the semaphore example
However, we can check for deadlock automatically using LTSA.
In LTSA, model checking performs a complete breadth-first search on
the corresponding LTS, terminating when either:
1 it finds a state with no outgoing transitions (a deadlock has
occurred); or
2 it has searched all states (no deadlock).
When a deadlock is found, the breadth-first approach guarantees that
we have found a shortest possible trace to deadlock.
SWEN40004 (2015) Synchronisation in FSP 16 / 27
Checking the semaphore example
To find deadlocks in LTSA, the check that we will use is a safety
check.
The default safety check is a check for deadlock. To check for
deadlock, select Check → Safety from the menu.
If we do this for the bounded buffer example, we get the following:
Trace to DEADLOCK:
get
Analysed in: 0ms
SWEN40004 (2015) Synchronisation in FSP 17 / 27
Checking the semaphore example
This is consistent with our animation that shows executing the get
action when the buffer is empty results in a deadlock.
This is far better than using the animator, because we know that if a
deadlock exists in the model, we will always find a trace to the
deadlock—the model checking part of LTSA will search all possible
states.
Even better, we will have the shortest possible trace to it.
SWEN40004 (2015) Synchronisation in FSP 18 / 27
The problem with the semaphore solution
The situation described in the bounded-buffer-with-semaphore
example is known as the nested monitor problem. It occurs because
the four Coffman conditions all occur.
The reason why it occurs with the semaphore-guarded buffer and not
with the original buffer is that the semaphore solution introduces
incremental acquisition—the 2nd Coffman condition. By executing
get, the process obtains the lock for the buffer, and then tries to
claim the empty semaphore as well.
SWEN40004 (2015) Synchronisation in FSP 19 / 27
Correcting the bounded buffer behaviour
To fix the problem, we re-design the buffer so that the buffer lock is
not acquired until after the semaphores have been acquired:
BUFFER = ( empty.down -> put -> full.up -> BUFFER
| full.down -> get -> empty.up -> BUFFER
).
This removes the deadlock. However, given a half-full buffer, if either
semaphore is acquired, the other process will be blocked from the
other semaphore. A more efficient design is to leave the semaphore
access to the producer and consumer:
BUFFER = (put -> BUFFER | get -> BUFFER ).
PRODUCER = (empty.down -> put -> full.up -> PRODUCER).
CONSUMER = (full.down -> get -> empty.up -> CONSUMER).
SWEN40004 (2015) Synchronisation in FSP 20 / 27
The dining philosophers problem
Five philosophers share a circular
table. Each spends his/her life
alternately thinking and eating. In
the centre of the table is a large
plate of spaghetti. A philosopher
needs two forks to eat a helping of
spaghetti. Unfortunately, as
philosophy is not as well paid as
computing, the philosophers can
only afford five forks. One fork is
placed between each pair, and
they agree that each will only use
the forks to their immediate right
and left.
SWEN40004 (2015) Synchronisation in FSP 21 / 27
Dining philosophers in FSP
Each fork is a shared resource. A fork can be picked up then put
down, which we model as:
FORK = (get -> put -> FORK).
A philosopher picks up each fork one at a time. They sit down, get
both forks, eat, put the forks down, and finally they stand, ready to
start thinking again:
PHIL = (sitdown -> right.get -> left.get -> eat
-> left.put -> right.put -> arise -> PHIL).
SWEN40004 (2015) Synchronisation in FSP 22 / 27
Dining philosophers in FSP
FORK = (get -> put -> FORK).
PHIL = (sitdown -> right.get -> left.get -> eat
-> left.put -> right.put -> arise -> PHIL).
Finally, to put the five philosophers together with the fork resources,
we use the following composite process:
||DINERS(N=5) =
forall [i:0..N-1]
( phil[i]:PHIL
|| {phil[i].left ,phil[((i-1)+N)%N].right }::FORK
).
Note that ((i-1)+N)%N is just decrement modulo N.
SWEN40004 (2015) Synchronisation in FSP 23 / 27
Deadlocking philosophers
Using the LTSA safety check, the following deadlock is found:
The deadlock is caused by all
philosophers sitting down together, and
each getting the fork to their right.
Clearly, the fourth Coffman condition
occurs: a wait-for cycle.
To obtain a deadlock-free system, we
must alter one of the four conditions.
We will remove the wait-for cycle.
Trace to DEADLOCK:
phil.0.sitdown
phil.0.right.get
phil.1.sitdown
phil.1.right.get
phil.2.sitdown
phil.2.right.get
phil.3.sitdown
phil.3.right.get
phil.4.sitdown
phil.4.right.get
SWEN40004 (2015) Synchronisation in FSP 24 / 27
Deadlock-free philosophers
In the previous version of the dining philosophers, each philosopher
could pick up their right fork at the same time, ending in deadlock
due to the wait-for cycle. There are no general methods for removing
wait-for cycles. We just have to think carefully about our designs to
ensure they do not exist.
Having FSP and the LTSA tool set helps, as we can assess different
designs and prove them free of deadlock before implementation.
One way to get around the problem of all philosophers behaving the
same way at the same time is to have them behave differently. In the
previous version, the philosophers all had the same definition.
SWEN40004 (2015) Synchronisation in FSP 25 / 27
Deadlock-free philosophers
To remove the deadlock, let odd-numbered philosophers pick up their
right fork first, and even-numbered ones pick their left fork first:
PHIL(I=0)
= ( when (I%2 == 0)
sitdown -> left.get -> right.get
-> eat -> left.put -> right.put
-> arise -> PHIL
| when (I%2 == 1)
sitdown -> right.get -> left.get
-> eat -> left.put -> right.put
-> arise -> PHIL
).
The LTSA safety check confirms this solution is deadlock free.
SWEN40004 (2015) Synchronisation in FSP 26 / 27
References / Recommended reading
J. Magee and J. Kramer, Concurrency: State Models and Java
Programs, 2nd edition, John Wiley and Sons, 2006. Available at
http://flylib.com/books/en/2.752.1.1/1/
E. Coffman, M. Elphick, and A. Shoshani: System deadlocks,
ACM Computing Surveys 3(2): 67–78, 1971.
SWEN40004 (2015) Synchronisation in FSP 27 / 27
http://flylib.com/books/en/2.752.1.1/1/
